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

[Thurbane]

For instance, if one is an RPG grognard and thinks from the get-go that D&D is "videogamey" or "immature", then that's what the game is going to look like when s/he tries to run it, no question about it.

Yet both Kormydigar and myself can see "videogamey" aspects to 3.5, and run games that don't feel "videogamey", ergo you are wrong.

Seriously, I concur with both Ranes and Renfields posts above. And as I have stated many times now, I don't HATE 3.X. It's what my group currently uses it, and we all enjoy it.

However, the main points of contention for me are -

1.) Just because 3.X is good, doesn't mean that earlier eds were bad. I think every edition of D&D has aspects that (to my own preference) it does better than others (hence why my own game is a bit of a 3.5/2E/1E hybrid). I'm not so much trying to trash 3.X, but rather defend 1E/2E which some people here are saying were basically unplayable and unenjoyable.

2.) There is NO right or wrong version of D&D, just what an individual or group prefers.

3.) 3.X is not flawless. NO RPG is, and in all likelihood, no RPG system ever will be.

 

[Thurbane]

And to pick up on Thurbane's most recent and colourful analogy, I too like to see a band in a small venue but I still appreciate it when they know how to mix their sound.

Me too, yet I have seen some great and memorable gigs where the sound mix has been subpar - to me, the energy of the band and crowd enjoyment level are of much more importance than technical aspects like sound mixing.

 

[Odhanan]

Yet both Kormydigar and myself can see "videogamey" aspects to 3.5, and run games that don't feel "videogamey", ergo you are wrong.

Can't judge, haven't played at your table! Yet, I can say that I've known a truckload of GMs who thought ill of a game (not necessarily D&D, but often) and actually brought what they hated to the game table when they ran it, regarless of the qualities or flaws of the game itself.

 

[MerricB]

1.) Just because 3.X is good, doesn't mean that earlier eds were bad. I think every edition of D&D has aspects that (to my own preference) it does better than others (hence why my own game is a bit of a 3.5/2E/1E hybrid). I'm not so much trying to trash 3.X, but rather defend 1E/2E which some people here are saying were basically unplayable and unenjoyable.

Agree.

2.) There is NO right or wrong version of D&D, just what an individual or group prefers.

Agree.

3.) 3.X is not flawless. NO RPG is, and in all likelihood, no RPG system ever will be.

You're mad.

Agree.

Cheers!

 

[Thurbane]

Can't judge, haven't played at your table! Yet, I can say that I've known a truckload of GMs who thought ill of a game (not necessarily D&D, but often) and actually brought what they hated to the game table when they ran it, regarless of the qualities or flaws of the game itself.

Defintely agree with that - someone who is determined to dislike a system will not likely do a good job of running it.

 

[RFisher]

Yes. DM dependence is exactly why I prefer classic D&D & other lighter games these days. Any person can make rulings on mundane matters at least as good as any rule simple enough to be playable. YMMV.

The point was raised that because 3e has a fairly comprehensive ruleset with a high degree of functionality, it is easier for poor and average DM's to run a decent game. It might not be a great game, but, at least playable. I was then told that rules make no difference whatsoever in the quality of the game, only the DM's abilities do.

I've seen more people who've found 3e too complex for the amount of time they're willing to dedicate to mastering it resulting in it not making them better DMs. It maybe even made them worse. The DMs I know who can master the 3e rules were already perfectly good DMs.

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.

I have found that the earlier editions didn't explain themselves well. After 20 years of gaming, it took significant effort for me to discover a preference for earlier editions as I came to better understand them. If there is any truth to more people having genuinely considered all the options & choosing 3e, this is a significant disadvantage for the earlier editions.

Though you can hardly say that 3e & the earlier editions have competed fairly, head-to-head in the market.

(But then, I guess I'm often not a fan of market leaders. I am typing this on a Mac with a Dvorak keyboard. So, perhaps my opinion is not worth consideration.)

Wider audience? I don't know. IME, today's D&D gamers are a much more homogeneous lot than in the 1980s.

 

[Hussar]

1.) Just because 3.X is good, doesn't mean that earlier eds were bad. I think every edition of D&D has aspects that (to my own preference) it does better than others (hence why my own game is a bit of a 3.5/2E/1E hybrid). I'm not so much trying to trash 3.X, but rather defend 1E/2E which some people here are saying were basically unplayable and unenjoyable.

2.) There is NO right or wrong version of D&D, just what an individual or group prefers.

3.) 3.X is not flawless. NO RPG is, and in all likelihood, no RPG system ever will be.

Now THOSE I agree with 100%.

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.

There is a slight problem with that. At some point, if a product is consistently selling better than all other products, it might just be a better product. A Toyota Corolla was the number one selling car in North America for 10 years (and possibly a little more). That does point to a confluence of factors which makes it a better car. Or at least a car which appeals to the most number of people.

I detest elitist attitudes which state that any sort of streamlining of the rules equates with "dumbing down" or pandering to the lowest common denominator. Sure, streamlining the rules makes them easier to understand, which means that more people can understand them, but, why is that remotely a bad thing?

 

[Renfield]

On the topic of the present edition of D&D selling better I definitely must say there is something of an unfair advantage. When Wizards bought out D&D they had made bank on Magic sales and that damnable card games (sorry, bitter memories) high sales and they pumped out a rather nice advertising campaign. I've even seen D&D adds return to comics and magazines other than Dungeon and Dragon. Wizards had the money, they created a system and in my opinion explained it rather well, new players who might get confused with those big old scary rule books had the option of buying those lovely little starter kits (and if you can't learn at least the basics from one of those... well, I'm sorry) which helped bring in new players. So you have a powerful advertising campaign, easy to understand rules, a book with a decent layout (Those tables certainly made things a bit easier for me) and lets not forget the flashy Dungeon Punk art (I mean where in the older editions would you find a elven rogue with the piercings befitting a Goth-punk masochist?) and you have a recipe that will appeal to the newer players (I'm not sure of the exact demographic, young males likely lower classmen in highschool? Correct me if I'm wrong) and increase sales.

The name Wizards carried more than a little weight and probably brought in more than a few Magic: The Gathering players as well.

Now, Toyota Corolla analogy aside, this does not necessarily make this a better system, perhaps a better product in it's own way with the ease of understanding and the layout or whatnot, though not necessarily as far as the rules go. Just like an older edition of D&D, while not explaining things as well as they probably could didn't mean the system itself was bad.

I wanted to put my own analogy in here but realized it was simply me bashing the New York times best seller list which would be decidedly off topic.

 

[FireLance]

1.) Just because 3.X is good, doesn't mean that earlier eds were bad. I think every edition of D&D has aspects that (to my own preference) it does better than others (hence why my own game is a bit of a 3.5/2E/1E hybrid). I'm not so much trying to trash 3.X, but rather defend 1E/2E which some people here are saying were basically unplayable and unenjoyable.

To me, earlier editions weren't bad, but since I find 3.Xe to be an improvement over earlier editions, it does mean that earlier editions are not as good as 3.Xe. Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[wedgeski]

The name Wizards carried more than a little weight and probably brought in more than a few Magic: The Gathering players as well.

I agree with this and, in fact, anecdotally I have at least one friend who did exactly that. But I am also interested in Wizards getting credit where credit is due. For one they hired designers who, it seems to me, were more than up to the task of creating a new edition of the game. They pumped real money into a design and playtesting process that created a rock-solid 3rd Edition with only a few wrinkles. They (bravely/selfishly in equal measure I guess) created a framework for the d20/D&D brand to explode with the SRD. IMO Wizards did everything they could to ensure the brand was rejuvenated.