• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Edition Fatigue

Yes, I think there is a way to do it: keep it accessible & familiar. I mean, established gamers will buy into new editions as long as they are relatively easy to get into & keep many concepts that players already know (& love).

Here is my own experience. D&D peaked for me with 3.0. I played all the prior editions from 1980 to 2000, to greater & lesser extents. I played a lot of 2e and really liked it. In fact, I started my 1st 3e game with a new group to "save" my 2e game for an established (but infrequent) group. Ironically, after running 3e, I converted the 2e game to 3e. d20 isn't what I would now call simple, but it was accessible and familiar enough to me to be easy to understand; and it kept much of what I already knew about the game. I even branched into a couple of other d20 games and really liked that experience, too.

3.5 (like its predecessor SWSE) was the beginning of edition fatigue for me. It changed just enough to be different but not enough to really be worth the change. I bought it--the core books. I've played it, but it wouldn't seek it again. I've run it, but I won't again. I have and would go back to 3e.

In fact, the D&D game I ran last year was a D&D minis skirmish campaign. Basically a simpler d20 game. What it lacked in depth, it more than made up for in being easy and fun. I would have preferred something more robust with roleplay, but who has the time for all the rules and options that brings--not me at this point in my life. I really only need the bad guy to do a few things that should be able to be summarized on a card that I can scan at the table. I need the PCs to be able to do a lot more, especially with skills; but I can't have the game bogged down with all the NPCs and foes having the same complexity. Plus, the minis and maps are so much fun on the tabletop when combat encounters are due.

When 4e was announced, I figured it was my chance to get off the edition roller coaster. A good friend and fellow gamer predicted that I would not do so. In fact, he foresaw me embracing 4e even more than 3e. He's usually right. Not this time.

I read the 4e previews and freebies that showed basically how it worked. We even played a few sessions that one of our group ran. Turned out it wasn't for me (or anyone else I game with). 4e just makes everything bigger without making it better. The only thing I have purchased with the 4e brand is Hammerfast because I thought it was intriguing (turned out to be a great product, too). Otherwise, 4e just doesn't appeal to me.

Now, here's the curious part. I love the new Gamma World, which is based on 4e. But, it's simpler (accessible) and uses many foes that I remember from several editions of GW (familiar). Even the rules hearken back to d20 in many ways (familiar). I love the fire & forget nature of everything I need being in the box, including counters and maps (accessible). I've even bought the first expansion and a couple of booster decks of cards. I plan to buy more as I continue to run it. If WOTC would market 4e (or 5e) the way GW is managed, I could become a good D&D customer again. I won't buy it all, but I will buy some.

So, that is my take on edition fatigue and how to cure it. Keep new editions accessible & familiar.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The game is a pastiche of Europe and other cultures, Medieval and other times, fantasy, horror, sci-fi myth religions and comics.

But not of equal measure. There is more from medieval Europe than all others combined (and by several multiples.)


That DnD is based on Medieval Europe is clearly specified in the 2E DMG. No interpretation needed.

(Seriously, I find this discussion quite silly. Having a scimitar in the game doesn't in any way change the medieval european foundation. It just means that the game isn't entirely, or strictly based on medieval Europe.)
 
Last edited:

I do think WotC is silly not selling an evergreen "Dungeons & Dragons" in a box in toy stores that contains everything you need, with a presentation and complexity similar to the 1983 Mentzer Basic set (but more levels - say 10 levels). Something the public could relate to and which would reliably bring in a continuous stream of new players.

You'd think WOTC would remember how successful BECMI was. That was supposed to be an evergreen approach, something easily stocked in stores.

And it was probably more successful than TSR imagined it would be, since it became the longest running version of DnD, 1978-1992 (depending on whether you combine the Mentzer and Moldvay books), and eventually became an entire game system of its own not just an intro version.
 

If you check Google Books, he graduated from both Yale and Harvard, was a pyromaniac in New York, was a union man injured in a crash, was a big business man, and a host of other escapades prior to 1980. Harry Potter is not exactly a rare name.

You should see what Jerry Cornelius has been up to...
 

If you check Google Books, he graduated from both Yale and Harvard, was a pyromaniac in New York, was a union man injured in a crash, was a big business man, and a host of other escapades prior to 1980. Harry Potter is not exactly a rare name.


Rare name? Nope, not at all.


However, Harry Potter from Troll was a young boy who couldn't quite seem to fit in with his family. Through the events of the movie, he discovers that he has the potential to be a wizard and is given a wand by his mentor with which to battle against the BBEG.
 

However, Harry Potter from Troll was a young boy who couldn't quite seem to fit in with his family. Through the events of the movie, he discovers that he has the potential to be a wizard and is given a wand by his mentor with which to battle against the BBEG.

The bespecticaled misfit who over time becomes a modern master of magic is not that uncommon either- see Tim Hunter for yet another example (he also had an owl). Note that Hunter's creator said that he "wasn't the first writer to create a young magician with potential, nor was Rowling the first to send one to school."

Or what Dylan Horrocks said of Hunter and Potter:
the superficial similarities are striking - but no more so than any number of other stories in the genre. As Gaiman has repeatedly said, he and Rowling were merely drinking from the same well. In fact, there was even a story in '2000AD' (called the Journals of Luke Kirby) which came out a few years before the 'Books of Magic,' which was extremely similar to both the 'BoM' and 'Harry Potter.' This is a genre - and Gaiman and Rowling are both playing with the conventions of the genre, to different ends.

Just add Harry Potter from Troll to the pile of similar characters.

(Besides, if it really were plagiarism, don't you think there would have been a lawsuit to drain a little bit of that billion dollars J.K. Rowling got from her HP?)
 
Last edited:

Just add Harry Potter from Troll to the pile of similar characters.

(Besides, if it really were plagiarism, don't you think there would have been a lawsuit to drain a little bit of that billion dollars J.K. Rowling got from her HP?)

Except for the exact same name "Harry Potter" being used, and it wouldn't be plagiarism so much as IP theft.

Speaking of names, again in regards to edition fatigue, putting so much presure on the name of the game to sell the product could be creating the fatigue, due to expectations people have, be they new with 4th what they expect of 5th, form 3rd what was expected form 4th and got drastic changes, etc.

Expectations of a name and the failing to provide those expectations can damage the player in regards to that name.

Technically editions don't have any fatigue to the players, because there are those that have been playing OD&D since it came out. The fatigue really is only a business perspective, unless the players just get tired of playing the same game over and over and switch games which has nothing to do with one particular game; because sales fatigue is actually waht is being discussed. The longevity of the edition to generate revenue is the only fatigue that really matters when a new edition is created.

Also these really aren't "editions" of D&D, but rather different versions as in many ways they are different games. Sure you could call AD&D the "Monopoloy Deluxe Edition", but even that you can play the original game with, or ad the deluxe parts and mechanics (if memory serves me), but with D&D AD&D you couldn't really play OD&D with.

So it is version fatigue, based on ability to sell more product for the version attempting to be sold under that name. And as with the "Harry Potter" dispute, the name is the key thing trying to be sold, or the thing that sells the version of the game as opposed to selling a new unrecognized game/brand.
 

Except for the exact same name "Harry Potter" being used, and it wouldn't be plagiarism so much as IP theft.

Speaking as an Entertainment attorney, I'll just say that (barring something like parody or fair use) plagiarism = IP theft. They would have sued if they thought they had a case.
 

Speaking as an Entertainment attorney, I'll just say that (barring something like parody or fair use) plagiarism = IP theft. They would have sued if they thought they had a case.

Maybe this should be split to another thread, if this forum has that added feature, so as to not further derail this one, as there may be things about this that could be discussed about RPGs using the "Harry Potter" example, in to what all other things could revolve around this?

As the resident expert (I guess), I will let you get that thread started and then continue there. Maybe it will return to and related back to this thread as well link to the "reason for changes thread", which could all easily be rooted form the same concept where fatigue and change come from such things as what is mentioned here (Tolkien v TSR, etc.)
 

Speaking as an Entertainment attorney, I'll just say that (barring something like parody or fair use) plagiarism = IP theft. They would have sued if they thought they had a case.


I wasn't quite suggesting I viewed it as plagiarism. Though, with Troll being an old movie, it would appears possible that Rowling had watched the movie at some point in her life. ...possibly had some inspiration from it in addition to other works she may have been familiar with before becoming a writer. It's not unheard of for writers and/or creators of entertainment to use ideas they themselves were entertained by; D&D at one point having Vancian casting would be an example.

My point and what this has to do with the topic?

The wizard olympics idea had been mentioned. The issue of plagiarism was also mentioned. It's possible to be inspired by something and use it in your work without entirely ripping it off. If I were to write a fantasy novel, I imagine my fondness of R. Howard's work would come through in some way. It's even likely that there would be a barbarian character, but I'd avoid naming said barbarian 'Conan' or 'Kull.' Also, I'd make an effort to put my own creative energies into the work and tweak a few things to make it my own; inspired, but my own.


edit: I'll also add that one of my reasons for pointing this out was to show that a lot of ideas we think are 'new' aren't always quite as original as we always believe. I would see the idea of wizard olympics being used no less noble than the odd coincidence of two boy wizards named Harry Potter. Now, that being said, with Harry Potter being more fresh in the collective minds of people as well as more popular than Troll, you'd probably get more negative attention from re-using the idea so soon.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top