D&D is now in (exceedingly awesome) commercial form

[billd91]

It seems to me it was a freaking lot, but people forget all this because they have played 3e for so long and many have set it to their new baseline.
Monsters and players use the exact same rule and get the same stat blocks?
THAC0 to "always roll high"?
d20 for every resolution mechanic now, no more d% for special skilsl.
Skills for everyone?
4d6 drop lowest and 25 point buy added to the game?
Unified XP tables for everyone?
Base Attack Bonus (and standardized at that?)
3 Saves.
9th level spells for Clerics?
Max HD at 1st level?
Damage vs large opponents?
... (to be continued by someone that doesn't just get the sacred cows from third parties)

How many of these really count as killing sacred cows? Did putting PCs and monsters into a very similar structure really kill a sacred cow? Really?

Of your list, I'd probably only consider a few to be anything close to sacred cows:
THAC0
5 saves to 3
Different XP tables to unified table
Damage vs large
Rolling % for certain skills vs d20

Max HP for first level, for example, was a very common house rule already. All PCs already had expanded skills with the non-weapon proficiency system and add-on house rules for determining if anybody could climb a wall or move in a stealthy manner. Clerics already had some 9th level spells - they were just listed as 7th level spells on the cleric table while they were 9th level on the wizard table. Base attack bonus is part of the same change with THAC0 so you've listed it twice.

3e preserved far more sacred cows than it slaughtered. I'm just not seeing "all sorts of sacred cows" ending up as hamburger. I'm seeing a select few. Some of them may have had wide reaching implications, sure. But the amount of sacred hamburger, not so much.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Speaking of talking with no proof. Why would you claim this? Three printings of the core books in under two years? Selling out your print run, not once, but twice equals a "sucked" roll out?

What criteria are you using for sucking?

My opinion, of course.

Hence the "IMHO" and the use of a subjective criteria, rather than attempting to make a claim of objective fact.

The only "proof" you will ever be able to get of a subjective opinion is (1) the person stating the opinion, and/or (2) the person's behaviour either aligning with, or seemingly in contrast to, the opinion they state.

Now, as far as older versions bringing back gamers, well, you are absolutely right, I have no proof. But, I can point to the fact that after six years of OSRIC and various other OSR products, we haven't seen this massive upswing in people returning to the hobby.

I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along.

See, apart from the uses of the words "we", "massive", and "bleeding" (which have subjective values), here you are making a claim about an objective phenomenon without any evidence to back it up.

We can look at TSR's sales figures, and we can determine whether or not there was a loss of sales. Yet, we are told that TSR sunk a lot of money in non-D&D products, and did massive print overruns, so we have no firm evidence that TSR's financial troubles were due to flagging sales of core products. The initial reports from WotC about TSR's finances were countered by at least one TSR insider at the time, and the individual responsible for WotC's report has since lost some credibility (IMHO).

Yes, WotC says that their recent survey shows that there are many lapsed gamers. No, WotC's survey does not define lapsed gamers as people who are no longer playing older products, but rather people who are not buying WotC products now. According to the WotC survey, I am a lapsed player. I can assure you that I still play rpgs.

The WotC survey could be an indicator that 20 million people have simply dropped the hobby, or could be an indicator that 20 million people chose to play other games. Including older versions of D&D. WotC doesn't tell us. Anything we infer from the data....perhaps other than that WotC is "bleeding players" and is doing damage control.....is speculation at best. And I am not even willing to credit that "perhaps" as being necessarily accurate.

Thankfully, I don't need to know that there are 20 million players of older games out there, or where they are, to know that you don't know that there are not. Nor does saying that you do not know there are not imply that I know that there are. Neither one of us knows anything related to the question.

I am simply aware that I know nothing related to the question, and am pointing out that, despite your protestation, you are in the same boat. You may feel that you are right.....you may even be right.....but you have no means to know if that feeling is correct, even if it is.

We simply lack the necessary data.


RC

 

[Mallus]

This, coincidentally, is exactly the kind of customer the Starter Set can lose you forever. The people on a limited budget who save their pennies, buy the product you tell them to buy.

You mean the people who are ultimately irrelevant to your bottom line because they don't have enough disposable income to regularly purchase your (niche) entertainment products? Those people?

re: the commercial... I loved it. While the individual images might hold a special appeal to people who recognize their source (note: I <heart> the grell), overall the ad reads really contemporary to me, and "retro" in a positive way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which video games have changed? Do you mean that I can pick up a video game now that has exactly the same title as one from 25 years ago, and it will be significantly different? I thought that they prominently changed the names (i.e., "Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time") in order to signify that it was a new game. I was also under the impression that the graphics were prominently changed in order to demonstrate the same thing. For example, I have never seen a game called "Pong" using images from earlier "Pong" being used to sell a radically new "Pong". Perhaps, though, I'm out of the loop on developments in Pong and Centipede.

If you want an example of a game that's changed over time although slowly, try Monopoly. For a long period they took the auction rules out of the game if you didn't want to buy a property (which made the game even worse). These days they also have a "Speed Dice" which speeds things up massively (a huge boon to the game).

But I absolutely would expect different editions to play differently. Especially of a game that had evolving design at the time - as Dungeons and Dragons always has.

I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box.

You seem to be in a tiny minority here.

 

[Scribble]

You seem to be in a tiny minority here.

I remember when they first announced it, and showed it with the original "new" art people said they wished it had the Elmore art... I think that actually prompted WoTC to put the old Elmore art on there as a gift kind of...

So it just goes to show... no matter what you try to do as a nice thing for your fans someone will tell you how it's ruining your hobby.

This new art is terrible retro art is better- you should use the retro art!

Ok here is the retro art...

BLARG! How could you ever think to use the retro art- that will just confuse everyone and destroy D&D! Where did you ever get such a dumb idea!!!


Again proving what we learned from super advanced 80s style AI in War Games remains true about the RPG industry...

The only way to not piss off gamers is to not make gaming products.

Time to go play chess.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you want an example of a game that's changed over time although slowly, try Monopoly.

Really? I didn't know that. What is a "Speed Dice"?

You seem to be in a tiny minority here.

Well, that wouldn't be the first time, nor would it be the last time. There is no "right" or "wrong" with subjective criteria, of course.

I remember when they first announced it, and showed it with the original "new" art people said they wished it had the Elmore art... I think that actually prompted WoTC to put the old Elmore art on there as a gift kind of...

So it just goes to show... no matter what you try to do as a nice thing for your fans someone will tell you how it's ruining your hobby.

However did you jump from "I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box." to "BLARG! How could you ever think to use the retro art- that will just confuse everyone and destroy D&D! Where did you ever get such a dumb idea!!!"?!?

Why the ad hominem? After all, didn't I also say that I thought it was a good value on average, and a step in the right direction?

But that said, I wouldn't mind if they produced something using all retro art -- interior and exterior.....especially if it was a Black Box set instead of a Red Box. If retro is cool enough to use as advertising, retro is cool enough to use throughout the project!

(I realize that the audience that such a thing would appeal to is limited, and that the print run would therefore be too limited to probably be of value to WotC. But a gamer can dream.

It would be interesting, to me at least, to see exactly how much the art direction has actually influenced my feelings about the ruleset.)


RC

 

[Nifft]

So it just goes to show... no matter what you try to do as a nice thing for your fans someone will tell you how it's ruining your hobby.

"Fans ruin hobbies."

The perfectly unimpeachable hobby is therefore one with no fans!

The only way to not piss off gamers is to not make gaming products.

... or perhaps one with no products?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Imperialus]

Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. I can't help but think this thing shrieks "uncool". The old art or whatever it is comes off as dorky to me, though that might be because I'm so used to being in an un-nerdy community that it has me very deep in the so-called "RPG closet". And while I've only seen the commercial with the sound off, I'm pretty sure kids today are not into metal at all.

So I'm a teacher. Today I have seen 2 Iron Maiden T-shirts, and a Twisted Sister T-Shirt. Grade 10-12, upper middle class public school.

 

[Scribble]

However did you jump from "I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box." to "BLARG! How could you ever think to use the retro art- that will just confuse everyone and destroy D&D! Where did you ever get such a dumb idea!!!"?!?

I didn't.

It was intended mostly as a joke- just to highlight the damned if you do, damned if you don't nature of our hobby. My apologies if it came across wrong.

Why the ad hominem? After all, didn't I also say that I thought it was a good value on average, and a step in the right direction?

Notice I didn't say "Raven Says..." Wasn't really intended to be anything against you, more a comment on gamers at large, so again I apologize if it came across wrong.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Cool then, Scribble. I should have taken my own advice and given your post the best possible reading.

Sorry I didn't.


RC