[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[MerricB]

3e obviously fits this definition, where "Y" is "All earlier editions." 3e sells better than earlier editions, it supports a stronger market, and it appeals to a wider audience.

Err - although I'm with you with "3e sells better than 2e", I'm not so sure about "3e sells better than 1e". Charles Ryan (how I miss him!) indicated that 3e was doing really, really well ("best ever"!), but we don't really have the figures to corroborate that.

So I ask: What is there worth saving in the old editions? What experience can they provide that 3e cannot? What ancient wisdom has 3e discarded in it's hunger for money and high schoolers?

That's an excellent question. Though I'm tempted to say "Gygaxian prose", I can't really say that it universally improved the 1e rulebooks. It was great at giving the grand picture of the game, but when it came to explaining the actual rules, it could get pretty lousy. (See initiative).

When I look back to my early years in D&D, the rulebook that I really admired was the Moldvay Basic D&D book. It did everything a basic rulebook should do. It provided an excellent game. And, most importantly, the rules were clear. AD&D, in comparison, was pretty lousy. What AD&D had going for it over Basic D&D was choices. You could play gnomes! You could play illusionists! You could play elves that weren't fighter/magic-users!

Where AD&D really defined itself to me was in the adventures. They are spectacular. (There's a certain goofiness about Basic D&D adventures that doesn't really appeal).

Choices, they are an essential part of D&D for me, to keep the game entertaining; the variety in approach and challenge. What 3e does better than previous editions is provide the base from which these options can be built without causing more and more rules conflicts. (See monk and surprise).

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

So easier and more played equals better. Therefore, checkers is a better game than chess. OooooK.

No, easier and more played equals more people playing and more appeal. Choosing to remain with rules that appeal to smaller and smaller groups of people is the way to lose a business and get sold off to a small company that makes CCG's.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

3e obviously fits this definition, where "Y" is "All earlier editions." 3e sells better than earlier editions, it supports a stronger market, and it appeals to a wider audience.

3.x has modules that sold 250,000 copies? I strongly doubt it. Who pays themselves six figure royalty cheques from 3.x?

If 2e and 1e and OD&D, et al were perfectly fine games that any competent person could have loads of fun with on a Sunday evening, this would not have happened.

Do you understand the history of D&D at all? Sales figures peaked in 1980-82.

Zeb Cook wrote 2e because he thought it would improve the game. The business heads behind 2e approved it because it meant they could stop paying royalties to Gary Gygax and line their own pockets.

They halved the D&D audience figures at a stroke when they released 2e, and sales plummetted steadily ever since. There was admittedly a small upturn when 3.x came out but it was very small potatoes by comparison.

 

[Thurbane]

No, easier and more played equals more people playing and more appeal. Choosing to remain with rules that appeal to smaller and smaller groups of people is the way to lose a business and get sold off to a small company that makes CCG's.

I wouldn't equate TSRs business woes to a fundmental fault with the ruleset of the day, but more to internal strife and extremely poor business management.

Anyhow, that is entirely beside the point - simpler and more popular does not automatically equate to better, in D&D or in just about anything else, AFAIC. More people listen to Justin Timberlake and buy his albums than they do Henry Rollins, but I'll be in the cold, cold ground before you ever heard me say that Justin Timberlake is a BETTER artist than Hank.

 

[MerricB]

They halved the D&D audience figures at a stroke when they released 2e, and sales plummetted steadily ever since. There was admittedly a small upturn when 3.x came out but it was very small potatoes by comparison.

Sales of the Player's Handbook were double what they were for the release of 2e... back to the levels of 1e.

Cheers!

 

[BroccoliRage]

I wouldn't equate TSRs business woes to a fundmental fault with the ruleset of the day, but more to internal strife and extremely poor business management.

Anyhow, that is entirely beside the point - simpler and more popular does not automatically equate to better, in D&D or in just about anything else, AFAIC. More people listen to Justin Timberlake and buy his albums than they do Henry Rollins, but I'll be in the cold, cold ground before you ever heard me say that Justin Timberlake is a BETTER artist than Hank.

to further illustrate:

"TV PARTY TONIGHT! WE GOT NOTHIN' BETTER TO DO THAN WATCH TV AND HAVE A COUPLE OF BREWS!" -Black Flag

vs.

"Cry me a river. Oh. Cry me a river. Oh. Cry me a river. Oh." -Justin Timberlake

You be the judge.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Sales of the Player's Handbook were double what they were for the release of 2e... back to the levels of 1e.

Which levels of 1e?

Back to 1987 levels, perhaps.

 

[Maggan]

Which levels of 1e?

Back to 1987 levels, perhaps.

And to complete my picture of the levels ... what were the levels of sales for AD&D 1st?

What did the rules sell?

What did a module sell?

/M

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, finally, KM, while you seemed to understand the point that marketing forces and sales do not offer a fair indication of the relative value of a product, you ignored the other half of the equation: Market forces tend to pull toward the lowest common denominator. There is a reason why romance novels sell, why studios tend to produce more "safe" movies than great movies, etc., etc., etc.

Because a thing sells well does not mean that it is inherently bad. However, sales alone should never be taken as a fair indication of relative value.

(Unless, of course, our only concern is market shares.)


RC


EDIT: I guess I just expect more from a game than a sales pitch that appeals to X number of players. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the commercials or sales figures when I'm sitting down to play.

 

[Kormydigar]

Yes, a DM needs to do a lot more than deal with the rules. But, if the rules are an issue, then the DM needs to deal with them. Thus the DM's abilities become more important. When the rules are less of an issue, then the DM doesn't need to deal with them and his abilities become less important.

Thats the basic problem with the 3.X rules. As soon as the DM does anything outside the programmer's parameters the players cry foul and want to reboot him or move to another server. If DM skill or lack of it is the driving force behind a heavy handed rule set then perhaps players and DM's should communicate more meaningfully outside of game time to resolve issues. What has happened to good old fashioned face to face communication?