Edition Fatigue

[Dannyalcatraz]

First off it is possible to play D&D (and any other rpg) with little or no actual roleplaying.

And

I admit I have not read ALL the replies in this thread, but this is essentially the 'problem' Why can Monopoly or Settlers make decent money? There is no continuous cost of development and massive staff. It is designed once, and pretty much all future sales are pure profit (minus production costs etc.).

So, this model could very well work from a Hasbro p.o.v., just treat it like any board game. Kill the WotC staff entire. Have a marketeer/product manager run the show on his/her own. When additional product is needed, source it out on a case-by-case basis. The core game never needs to change.

1) there have been actual Fantasy-based boardgames (Dungeon, Dark Tower, etc.) with various levels of success. None were world beaters.

2) as mentioned before, there are many RPGs out there that have changed their rules very litttle over their decades of existence and who have legions of happy fans, but by sheer force of business realities, are extremely unlikely to ever be The 800lb Gorilla of the RPG market.

A "Static Core" could work, and to me, one of the best things about a business model like that is it's much easier to support multiple game designs that way (in theory, at least).

If you do go with a "Static Core" design theory, you have to find something else to sell to keep your company afloat because you're not going to sell enough of one single game to make it. So, you might be able to sell D&D1, D&D2, D&D3, etc., each based on a revised & cleaned up version of a particular version of D&D...just like Habro sells more than just Monopoly.

But even that won't keep an RPG company afloat. Look at some of the "Static Core" games out there, like HERO or GURPS: despite needing only the core rulebooks to play, despite the stability of their rulesets, both games have a few editions and dozens of supplements.

So even though the rules are stable, you still get edition treadmills (though really, they're more like revisions) and you have to produce adventures and/or supplements that are well-written and provide utility to the end users.

Because if you don't, static core becomes stagnation which becomes going out of business...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

And



1) there have been actual Fantasy-based boardgames (Dungeon, Dark Tower, etc.) with various levels of success. None were world beaters.

2) as mentioned before, there are many RPGs out there that have changed their rules very litttle over their decades of existence and who have legions of happy fans, but by sheer force of business realities, are extremely unlikely to ever be The 800lb Gorilla of the RPG market.

A "Static Core" could work, and to me, one of the best things about a business model like that is it's much easier to support multiple game designs that way (in theory, at least).

If you do go with a "Static Core" design theory, you have to find something else to sell to keep your company afloat because you're not going to sell enough of one single game to make it. So, you might be able to sell D&D1, D&D2, D&D3, etc., each based on a revised & cleaned up version of a particular version of D&D...just like Habro sells more than just Monopoly.

But even that won't keep an RPG company afloat. Look at some of the "Static Core" games out there, like HERO or GURPS: despite needing only the core rulebooks to play, despite the stability of their rulesets, both games have a few editions and dozens of supplements.

So even though the rules are stable, you still get edition treadmills (though really, they're more like revisions) and you have to produce adventures and/or supplements that are well-written and provide utility to the end users.

Because if you don't, static core becomes stagnation which becomes going out of business...

I think that static core could work for Paizo since their business model was already in place with subscription based sales of adventure paths.
At least as long as they can sustain interest in the adventure path subscriptions.

I don't think it is an option for Wizards unless the pen and paper D&D game becomes a loss leader for some other money cow. I guess that DDI could generate enough revenue to slow down the edition churn but I do not see it stopping it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Given that static core games like HERO and GURPS are on their 6th and 4th editions respectively, I don't see the edition treadmill ending for ANY RPG...just slowing, perhaps.

On top of that, static core has it's own traps.

Adventures are only going to be purchased by 1/7th of the market, tops. AND they have to be well written or they won't sell THAT well, and that requires a good creative writing team...and creative writing skill is a bit rarer than we'd all like to believe.

If you keep publishing supplements- equipment, settings, whatever- you're almost guaranteed to introduce new rules that are going to interact with the core with varying levels of compatibility. They may even shed painful illumination on sections of the core, showing that they could have been done better. Perhaps it could even spawn an errata document...or a revision.

Or a new edition.

 

[Nagol]

Given that static core games like HERO and GURPS are on their 6th and 4th editions respectively, I don't see the edition treadmill ending for ANY RPG...just slowing, perhaps.

On top of that, static core has it's own traps.

Adventures are only going to be purchased by 1/7th of the market, tops. AND they have to be well written or they won't sell THAT well, and that requires a good creative writing team...and creative writing skill is a bit rarer than we'd all like to believe.

If you keep publishing supplements- equipment, settings, whatever- you're almost guaranteed to introduce new rules that are going to interact with the core with varying levels of compatibility. They may even shed painful illumination on sections of the core, showing that they could have been done better. Perhaps it could even spawn an errata document...or a revision.

Or a new edition.

Hero’s case, the editions were partially driven by new ownership.

1st edition was a small release (<1000 copies I think).
2nd edition was revised to correct serious power issues and received wider game store release.
3rd edition was a incremental improvement of 2nd edition. It adjusted additional power issues, added more skills, and character options. It also added colour to the rulebook! This is the edition that seemed to get the largest market penetration.
4th edition happened about the time ICE got ownership/partnership.
5th edition happened when one of the co-creators of 4th regained control.
6th edition happened about the time of the sale to Cryptic Studios.

 

[Wiseblood]

I for one am tired of incompatibility. It's too late to fix it. I do not want to buy any more of the same stuff for a new edition. New is not better only better is better.

 

[nedjer]

I for one am tired of incompatibility. It's too late to fix it. I do not want to buy any more of the same stuff for a new edition. New is not better only better is better.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwTGGHaCHAE"]YouTube - Classic Movie Line #30[/ame]

 

[Wiseblood]

YouTube - Classic Movie Line #30

Sorry about that. It was afternoon here.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think there's anything about D&D that requires it to be a hobby for the whole gaming group. I mean, there is if each player has to read a 200 page hardback manual just to play. But if the rules are simple enough (like in Old School play), the player doesn't even have to read anything, or at most something like 5 pages or less.

To go in the "Dungeons and Dragons Family Game" direction, gamers would have to give up their "player character as CAD engineering feat" fetish. Personally I think that the whole milieu of CharOp is the deadest of all dead ends in the world commerce and marketing. But I suppose that's another thread.

Anyway, D&D has to be a bit of a hobby for the DM, since he has to at least read the module, but not for anybody else. I'm playing in a Classic Traveller campaign right now (Yay! I get to play for once!) and there's virtually no reason that any of the players would have to read a single word of rules text. You have your character and you chuck 2d6 when the Ref tells you to. The end.

I very much agree. When I started D&D (with OD&D as it happens), only the DM needed to know anything - and it was a fantastic (literally) environment for players to engage with.

The idea that playing D&D requires lots of rules knowledge and 'expertise' is a relatively recent concept IMO. Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice.

Cheers

 

[Hussar]

I very much agree. When I started D&D (with OD&D as it happens), only the DM needed to know anything - and it was a fantastic (literally) environment for players to engage with.

The idea that playing D&D requires lots of rules knowledge and 'expertise' is a relatively recent concept IMO. Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice.

Cheers

I would add one more thing here Plane Sailing: "Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice" AND a good DM. A mediocre or (shudder) bad DM with older versions of D&D result in horrible games that have probably done more to drive people away from gaming than any rules set ever could.

I think people tend to ignore how bloody awful so many games were back in the day. Mindless hack fests with the DM being outright encouraged to screw over the players at every single opportunity.

Not that every game was like this. Of course not. But, many were. At least in later era D&D, DM's are encouraged to facilitate the players, not screw them over.

-----------

How much more mainstream do people really expect D&D or RPG's to become? I mean there are literally thousands of RPG's out there and none of them have come even close to the mainstream recognition that D&D has.

I mean, D&D branded novels are regularly featured on NYT best seller lists. Frequently hit into the top ten sellers in fantasy on Amazon and have actually made it onto TV and movies a couple of times. WOTC reported something like a 90% brand recognition in their market research.

You just can't get more mainstream than that. This is as good as it gets until such time as we can figure out a new way to present the game. And, by present the game, I mean a new paradigm for how the game is played - be it online with some sort of VTT or some other form that I have no idea what it might look like.

But, until such time as we can make playing D&D or RPG's less of a lifestyle hobby and more of a game, what we have right now is as good as it gets.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'm getting fatigued with new editions. Set aside the expense; I'm just getting tired of having to "buy in" and re-learn the game every few years now. I realize they need to make money to stay in business. I'm more than happy to buy adventures or accessories, maybe a splatbook here and there, or even to subscribe to the online stuff. It's just the matter of having to learn a new version of the same game.

I have tons of other, non-D&D, RPGs, and I don't mind buying and playing a new one if it's significantly different from others that I have. For that matter, I even enjoyed buying d20 games/sourcebooks that covered genres I had an interest in but weren't directly related to D&D's default setting - Mutants & Masterminds, Medieval Players Handbook, The Black Company, stuff like that. They added to or modified the game I already knew in ways that interested me.

Buying what is essentially a new game system every few years that should cover the same ground doesn't appeal to me as much anymore. I mean, I like Monopoly, and I think all the various versions of it are cool, but at its core it's the same game. If they retooled Monopoly (or Panzer Leader, or chess) at its core every 3-5 years, I think I'd get fatigued of it, too. None of this is a knock on 4e, which I like. It's just...well, like I said, I'm a bit tired of learning a new D&D every few years, especially when it's so hard to get what few players I can round up to play, only to have them still wanting to play older editions.