Edition Fatigue

[Korgoth]

This thread is for those who, regardless of their aesthetic preferences vis a vis the current edition of D&D, are simply tired of having a new edition come out every ten minutes. Though it is an anti-5E thread, it is not intended to be an edition war thread or to bag on anybody's favorite edition thus far released. Instead, I'd like to talk at least a little bit about business and possible alternatives to the "edition treadmill" model.

So let's step back for a minute and consider a "gamer's game" that is actually making headway in the popular market: The Settles of Catan. Now, though I've played it a number of times it's not a game I'm particularly excited about, and among my fairly impressive board game collection Settlers is conspicuously absent: there's always something else, probably more obscure, that I'd rather be buying (though I do own its comrade-in-arms, Carcassonne plus an expansion). Anyway, here's the thing about Settlers: it came out in 1995.

That's right... Settlers came out over 15 years ago. It has changed very little in this time. It came out, won the Spiel des Jahres prize, and has rested upon its ever-increasing laurels since then. People during the Christmas season of 2010 (again, 15 years after its release) walk into game shops and ask for "There's this game... Settlers of something..." or "There's this game... you build these little houses on an island..."; which is to say, after over 15 years the common man (and woman) is still discovering Settlers anew.

Settlers of Catan is not taking the world by storm. But it is taking it.

Settlers has had a number of expansions. These are not necessary to play. So once you buy into Settlers, there's more to buy (but nothing required). However, Settlers has remained... Settlers. It has expansions, it has spinoffs, it has sibling games, but the game has, actually, remained "ze same".

If, on the other hand, Settlers was, over the last 15 years, already up to "Jerry Bruckheimer Presents: Settlers of Freakin' Catan 5th Edition!!!!1!" then it would still be a niche game, eking out a meagre revenue stream from the same. dang. fans. over and over again. It would not be growing.

Returning to D&D, the subject of this thread (though it probably doesn't seem like it so far): how can the public ever get any traction in the world of D&D? It changes every ten minutes! They cannot. It doesn't stay the same long enough for it to begin to gain a foothold outside the diehard niche.

The current business model seems to be: produce edition. Produce a billion supplements. Wait until the fanbase is saturated, then repeat the process. It's a continual treadmill of driving the same fans to a state of product saturation over and over again.

That might make a little bit of money, but it will never grow. It will never begin to spread among the general public and gain traction. It needs time to do this... time to be disseminated and spread. Time for people to become comfortable with it and start having non-gamers over to play. Time for its terminology to become part of the language. Virtually everyone has heard of Boardwalk and Park Place, and passing Go, and Community Chest. People are just starting to become familiar with Settlers (and will get "I've got wood for sheep" jokes). Most people have not heard of a Healing Surge.

So what if WOTC decided to just stick with 4E Essentials, regardless of whether or not it's the Platonic Form of role playing game systems? What if they just decided to go with it for a while (like, a decade) and see if it could gain traction? Is there a possible business model that could support that in this industry, or do we have to face the fact that, at heart, Dungeons and Dragons is so weak of a product that the only way it can last is by making the same few thousand people buy it over and over again every couple years?

 

[ferratus]

I think, by and large, that WotC produces an edition, creates new rules and options for that edition, then produces another edition... because people buy them.

To put it bluntly, D&D makes more money as an ongoing concern with supplements galore rather than as an evergreen product contained in a single boxed set. You certainly can make a comprehensive D&D rules set that can be contained in a single box, so there must be a reason why it isn't simply sold as a basic game like Monopoly, Risk or Scrabble right?

D&D is marketed towards a small fanbase who are willing to spend a lot on their hobby, rather than many casual gamers that want to take it down for an afternoon's adventure.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

I think, by and large, that WotC produces an edition, creates new rules and options for that edition, then produces another edition... because people buy them.

To put it bluntly, D&D makes more money as an ongoing concern with supplements galore rather than as an evergreen product contained in a single boxed set. You certainly can make a comprehensive D&D rules set that can be contained in a single box, so there must be a reason why it isn't simply sold as a basic game like Monopoly, Risk or Scrabble right?

D&D is marketed towards a small fanbase who are willing to spend a lot on their hobby, rather than many casual gamers that want to take it down for an afternoon's adventure.

You've essentially summarized the OP without answering the question raised in the OP.

Let me give it a shot. My thoughts are as follows:

1. Some people are going to claim in this thread that RPGs are so complicated that the rules HAVE to keep changing. They have to "evolve", you see. But the idea that "RPGs are so complex they must *evolve* over time" is bollocks. It's nothing more than a marketing strategy designed to entice gamers to buy edition 7.25832 of a game every x number of years. RPGs do not EVOLVE. They CHANGE. Perhaps for the better, or perhaps for the worse. But I call on anyone who tries to claim something like, "Well, Settlers is a board game, they are simple; D&D is an RPG, and they are so complex, they must evolve." Nonsense.

2. In spite of whatever edition fatigue the OP (and me, for that matter) is feeling, the truth is that there really ISN'T a long history here of brand new editions every x years. Rather, you had AD&D from 1977-1999**. I would argue that the differences between AD&D 1e and 2e are so small they are negligable. If anyone wants to debate that, though, it should probably be a new thread. At any rate, when 3.0 came it out truly was a smashing success, which led WotC to think, "Ah, THAT'S the secret! New editions!"

But to be fair to WotC (I can't believe those words just came out of my keyboard), it isn't like they've been constantly producing new editions for the past thirty years or something. Lightning struck once in 2000 (and the fans who gobbled up 3.0 were so awestruck by it that they gladly forked over $$$ for 3.5 a mere three years later--hell, most 3.x fans would have dropped their pants and grabbed their ankles if they had been told to). WotC figured that lightning could strike twice with 4.0.

Can't really blame 'em for trying.

3. RPGs may indeed thrive as simple rules sets with ever-changing expansions (rather than ever-changing rules). I would love to see this approach. But who knows what direction they're going to take the game in?

Frankly, I don't think even WotC know at this point.


** I didn't bother mentioning OD&D and B/X D&D simply because WoTC's D&D was a directly descendent of AD&D, not the earlier games.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think, by and large, that WotC produces an edition, creates new rules and options for that edition, then produces another edition... because people buy them.

To put it bluntly, D&D makes more money as an ongoing concern with supplements galore rather than as an evergreen product contained in a single boxed set. You certainly can make a comprehensive D&D rules set that can be contained in a single box, so there must be a reason why it isn't simply sold as a basic game like Monopoly, Risk or Scrabble right?

D&D is marketed towards a small fanbase who are willing to spend a lot on their hobby, rather than many casual gamers that want to take it down for an afternoon's adventure.

Wouldn't it be great if D&D was a complete game that came in a box, that everybody who wanted to play casually could buy?

Then, for the hardcore fanbase, you could put books out for a more complex version of the game, one with depth and scope and all that crunch that dedicated gamers love so much. Call it something like... oh, "Advanced" D&D.

Wait a minute...

 

[DragonLancer]

My opinion is simply that a new edition over decade or so isn't a bad idea. It's changing the system every edition thats the problem. There really is no need for it. As Chainsaw Mage has said, there is really little real difference between 1st and 2nd edition. 3rd edition was a vast improvement and probably nessecary from WotC's point of view to differentiate between their D&D and TSR's. Was there a need to wipe the slate clean and create yet another rules system for 4th? No.

I'm with Korgoth on this. If the game is going to attract new blood in this day and age it needs consistancy not change. it also needs better advertising but thats a different discussion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fact is, there are RPGs out there that have rulesets that have changed very little over time. Someone comparing the 1st and latest editions of, say...Palladium/RIFTS, CoC, HERO or GURPS would note the changes...and very nearly be able to mix & match supplements and characters over time with little difficulty.

In many ways, the new editions are unchanged enough you could call them revisions.

On top of that, many of those RPGs have fairly compact rulesets. Despite several or even voluminous numbers of supplements, you may only need to use one or two key books to play.

But of course, new "Editions" sell, so even those games periodically release a new one.

 

[Herschel]

Some times the new rules/ideas simply reach a point where they don't all "fit" within the current game structure. Then a new edition comes about. Sure, they could just rename it, but with something with name recognition like D&D that would be rather....stupid. Especially when there's a glut of material already and purchasing of material for that version has greatly slowed.

 

[Umbran]

That's right... Settlers came out over 15 years ago. It has changed very little in this time. It came out, won the Spiel des Jahres prize, and has rested upon its ever-increasing laurels since then. People during the Christmas season of 2010 (again, 15 years after its release) walk into game shops and ask for "There's this game... Settlers of something..." or "There's this game... you build these little houses on an island..."; which is to say, after over 15 years the common man (and woman) is still discovering Settlers anew.

I think in that last sentence, you've effectively said something perhaps without realizing its import: Settler's has not saturated its market. Since Settler's is a board game, just a small step beyond Monopoly, there's always someone else to sell the game to.

The Edition Treadmill is a result of RPGs being in a niche that quickly saturates. Unless/until you get D&D out of the niche, it will saturate its market, and require something to revive sales to continue the revenue stream that makes it good business to produce it.

Is there a possible business model that could support that in this industry, or do we have to face the fact that, at heart, Dungeons and Dragons is so weak of a product that the only way it can last is by making the same few thousand people buy it over and over again every couple years?

There are relatively few people who wear size 16 shoes. The market for them is not large, and sales of them will always be small. Does that make such shoes a "weak" product?

It seems to me that most folks just don't want to play RPGs. It isn't so much a matter of being weak or strong, as it is appealing to a particular kind of person who isn't particularly common.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Traditionally with rpgs you can sell 3 things, rules, settings and adventures.

Rules will sell to the entire playerbase. Now traditionally in D&D rules have been sold as new classes, way to change enxiting classes and spells and in later editions feats and spells/powers.

In order to encourage buy in often these rule additions have built in power creep. Eventually the market saturates either the players have more rules than they can ever play an/or DM's are banning stuff left and right because of powercreep.

Settings: a given setting will only appeal to a subset of the playerbase. Futhermore setting stuff saturates out even faster than rule crunch.

Adventures are only sellable to DM's and DM's are only about 1/6 or even less of the playerbase and many DM's roll their own.

Now a boardgame has some advantages over an rpg, s boardgame is finite, so may hours and your done. You get sales from new players and old players replacing their existing copy bacause they have lost too many bits.
Now rpgs are books and pretty much never wear out also typically the players buy more material than they are ever likely to use in their lives. So how do you keep selling them new stuff. This is where edition changes come in. To change that dynamic then you need to sell to the players something other than rules, setting and adventures.

To get off the edition treadmill then you need to sell something else to the players. Something that will produce a steady revenue that is independant of the rules, setting and adventures. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you DDI!
Play online on our server using characters generated on our tools with people you get to know on our forums.

Paizo is extremely fortunate that they build their business as creators of adventures. Now with Pathfinder, they may find themselves with the problem (if it get successful enough) of do we expand Pathfinder by selling splatbooks. If we do then splatbooks become our primary revenue engine but we become a larger company but in 10 years or so we will face all the problems WoTC has now with fractured playerbase and all that comes with it or do we stick to our thing have keep the adventure paths as our primary revenue generator and just support Pathfinder enough to maintain the playerbase.

Wizards D&D does not have this option, they had build their business on selling splatbooks and the only way off that treadmill is to become a facilator to play or sell some service to the playerbase. Now can it generate enough revenue to replace the edition treadmill, I really do not know but I see very little other options for them.

I do agree with the OP that constant editions where the rules are essentially a new game does fracture the playerbase and runs the risk of diminsihing the number of player playing the latest version.

Question ( I am curious and I think it is relevant): What old rpg companies are still in the business and still making their primary revenue off their original rpg ip?

 

[Korgoth]

I think in that last sentence, you've effectively said something perhaps without realizing its import: Settler's has not saturated its market. Since Settler's is a board game, just a small step beyond Monopoly, there's always someone else to sell the game to.

The Edition Treadmill is a result of RPGs being in a niche that quickly saturates. Unless/until you get D&D out of the niche, it will saturate its market, and require something to revive sales to continue the revenue stream that makes it good business to produce it.

There are relatively few people who wear size 16 shoes. The market for them is not large, and sales of them will always be small. Does that make such shoes a "weak" product?

It seems to me that most folks just don't want to play RPGs. It isn't so much a matter of being weak or strong, as it is appealing to a particular kind of person who isn't particularly common.

All markets can theoretically be seen as marching towards saturation, inasmuch as theoretically once 6.5 billion people all have all of your product that they need, you can't sell anymore until people start having to replace it or new people get born.

But this isn't anything like the size 16 shoe market, and that's because people's feet don't actually grow. They stay the same size.

When Settlers of Catan came out, it was just another weird little game in that niche market of weird little games that aren't Monopoly, Sorry or Clue. That's the whole point: it broke out. It possessed that strength to transcend the niche and start becoming a household name (it's not there yet, but it's getting there). My argument is that if they had kept issuing new editions and changed up the rules each time, that strength would not be present and it would have remained in its tight little niche.

I do agree with the OP that constant editions where the rules are essentially a new game does fracture the playerbase and runs the risk of diminsihing the number of player playing the latest version.

Question ( I am curious and I think it is relevant): What old rpg companies are still in the business and still making their primary revenue off their original rpg ip?

Yeah, D&D has gotten to the point of seriously competing against itself. Not a good place to be!

I can think of a couple old RPG companies. There's Chaosium, which is still selling Call of Cthulhu in just about its original form. I think they're barely hanging on, but I don't think that they ever recovered from their ill-conceived foray into the CCG market and I get the impression that there have been serious management issues. But I don't think CoC was ever destined to light the world on fire, given that its audience is actually much, much more limited than D&D (lots of people like fantasy; not that many people, relatively speaking, like Lovecraftian/Derlethian cosmic horror). The other is Steve Jackson Games with GURPS; it has had more significant changes over time but again, I don't think that a highly complicated generic system could ever have the appeal of D&D, which alone among all the role playing games I can think of seems to possess the strange alchemy of commercial potential.