Editions in RPGs - and why we should embrace change

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree that an experienced DM can run just about any adventure for any system while using a different set of rules.

Nevertheless, note that my description of the "adventure test" specified "…without completely ignoring the stats." That's because the adventure test is supposed to be evaluating system compatibility. Throwing out the crunch misses the point.

 

[jasper]

oh goody goody gum drops this is excellence idea let apply to more popular games
1. FOOTBALL next year the quarter back/team captain can carry a can of mace on to the field.
2. Baseball next year instead a bat the batter has to use a hockey stick
3. Nascar nex year drivers can mount a oil slick sprayer to back of their cars.
4. Monopoly next year Monopoly goes where no game has gone before. OFF BOARD. That right you play on your floor. Losers will be hit with a leather belt for every $100 lower they are from the winner.
See change just to change and put change in the owners pocket is a good thing.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>
The idea that different versions of the game could be a good thing, that we could grow the hobby by bringing in people who like different things in, has been lost.

<snip>

The reality is that the fanbase has been splintered for decades, and that we should accept that and try to grow the overall market. <snip>

Overall a good post, and I agree with most of it. One thing I think that is important to recognize, that wasn't covered here is WHY the fanbases are so split (and why they're so emotional).

There are a number of reasons for this, including the psychology of "in" versus "out" groups, the levels of compatability of the game editions, the existence of the internet and messageboards, and the nature of the game where people tend to houserule and design on their own, so are naturally more critical of the design elements they see (like how a mechanic might be critical of how my car is built, but I wouldn't have the foggiest idea).

I think, though, that most of the elements I mentioned above cannot be changed. There is one (an important one) that can (and could have been prevented to a degree in the first place). WotC's outreach and customer relations.

To my eye, it appears that WotC wants or wanted to kill earlier editions of the game. Some of this was merely bringing material back in house (the licenses of Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Dungeon and Dragon Magazine, etc). Some of this was for reasons of piracy (stopping the sale of pdfs of earlier editions). Some of this was discussion/marketing of how their newest edtion was going to be better. Some of it was simply not stepping up and emotionally supporting earlier editions when they were accused of wanting to kill them. Some of it was incompetence by an individual or two (representatives of their company) on their own messageboards.

I think they're doing a better job now, in part because they're not launching a new edition, in part with Mike Mearls' columns, and in part because I think they've recognized that it might be worth their while to attempt to unite the community.



I've said this before, but if the holders of D&D somehow supported all editions simultaneously, I think the community would benefit as a whole, and more people might see different editions as different options rather than an "either or" proposition. I usually get answers of "why would they do that?" or "it would be too hard", but the more I think about it (and observe that Open Design frequently DOES it), the more I think it could be good for both WotC and the community.

 

[delericho]

You may be right - it is a vicious cycle that they've found themselves in: new edition, core rules, main supplements, fringe supplements, bloat, new edition, etc.

I did some thinking on this topic over on another thread.

Basically, I think WotC need to get away from the mindset that every product has to be 'evergreen', and instead start producing some "seasonal products". The problem with evergreen books is that there's a limit to how many people will buy - sure, the player of the fighter will probably buy a splatbook for his character, but will he really buy two?

To that end, I think they could benefit from trying to rebuild their reputation for adventures, and seek to emulate the Paizo Adventure Path model.

I think perhaps they might also benefit from moving to a much smaller set of 'core' monsters and magic items (orcs, dragons, +1 swords...), and a much larger pool of unique monsters and items (the tarrasque, the minotaur, the vorpal sword). This should (hopefully) reduce the saturation of such elements in the marketplace. (It would also have the side-effect of giving magic items in particular a bit more character, which seems a bit lacking in 4e.)

 

[Mercurius]

I agree that an experienced DM can run just about any adventure for any system while using a different set of rules.

Nevertheless, note that my description of the "adventure test" specified "…without completely ignoring the stats." That's because the adventure test is supposed to be evaluating system compatibility. Throwing out the crunch misses the point.

OK, but if, as you say, an experienced DM can run any adventure with their rules set of choice, why does "system compatibility" matter other than merely as an intellectual exercise? In other words, if it isn't an obstacle why does it matter and why should the "adventure test" be focused on system compatibility and not convertibility? Otherwise it is sort of like saying "I love this book but won't read it because it isn't proper literature." Why does the latter ("proper literature") over-ride the former (enjoyment)?

My point being, people get too hung up on minutia. If it works, it works. Converting adventures is, by and large, rather easy and not that time consuming, whether or not there is strong "system compatibility." Obviously different degrees matter, and it would be easier to run an AD&D adventure than a Savage Worlds adventure using 4E rules, but that just supports the idea that no matter how different the editions of D&D are, they're all part of the same family.

 

[dagger]

Some of this was for reasons of piracy (stopping the sale of pdfs of earlier editions).

This was a weak excuse to stop selling PDF's btw, and it has not stopped piracy. Only difference is it pissed off gamers and prevented WoTC from making any money on old stuff.

 

[Mercurius]

I did some thinking on this topic over on another thread.

Basically, I think WotC need to get away from the mindset that every product has to be 'evergreen', and instead start producing some "seasonal products". The problem with evergreen books is that there's a limit to how many people will buy - sure, the player of the fighter will probably buy a splatbook for his character, but will he really buy two?

To that end, I think they could benefit from trying to rebuild their reputation for adventures, and seek to emulate the Paizo Adventure Path model.

I think perhaps they might also benefit from moving to a much smaller set of 'core' monsters and magic items (orcs, dragons, +1 swords...), and a much larger pool of unique monsters and items (the tarrasque, the minotaur, the vorpal sword). This should (hopefully) reduce the saturation of such elements in the marketplace. (It would also have the side-effect of giving magic items in particular a bit more character, which seems a bit lacking in 4e.)

I agree on all accounts. Bring the special back into special, the magic back into magic (items).

The interesting thing about the Mearls stuff is that this is all possible within the confines of any edition of the game. What I'd like to see 5E do is, to some extent at least, "institutionalize" it - that is, the re-orientation and organization of a simple, core rule set and everything else as optional.

As for adventures, I very much agree. I'd also love to see WotC do an "adventure path competition" sort of like the setting competition of a few years ago.

 

[amerigoV]

Overall a good post, and I agree with most of it. One thing I think that is important to recognize, that wasn't covered here is WHY the fanbases are so split (and why they're so emotional).

There are a number of reasons for this, including the psychology of "in" versus "out" groups, the levels of compatability of the game editions, the existence of the internet and messageboards, and the nature of the game where people tend to houserule and design on their own, so are naturally more critical of the design elements they see (like how a mechanic might be critical of how my car is built, but I wouldn't have the foggiest idea).

You forgot the driving force - $.

Wizards could come out with an edition every week and it would not bother me if it was "free". Heck, they could come out with one every year and if the system was nicely contained in a single book and I would probably buy it.

But when you create PHB 1, 2, 3, the Complete Series (or Martial Power...), MM1-6, then put a 130 pages of crunch in your setting books (Dark Sun, I'm lookin' at you!), that creates the "edition cling" when they decide to move on to a new edition. I'm not cheap when it comes to gaming, but D&D has become an investment just for the system. So yes, I am very critical on how the system plays vs. whatever I am playing now because if I decide to play 5e it will become a rather large chunk of change.

I now "invest" in Savage Worlds. Their settings do not need a ton of specialized crunch. If I decide to play something else, I can still use almost all my Savage Worlds books. Heck, SW just updated their system and I do not have the "crap, my bookshelf is useless" like and D&D edition change causes.

D&D will not get the $ until they provide something of value and not just 20 books of crunch. Right now, about the only thing I want from Wizards are the D&D board games - fast, fun, easy to run.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

OK, but if, as you say, an experienced DM can run any adventure with their rules set of choice, why does "system compatibility" matter other than merely as an intellectual exercise?

Convenience, mainly. If I'm given a choice between purchasing and using system compatible adventures vs. non-system compatible adventures, I'm much more likely to go with the system compatible adventures. It's just easier.

(As a side point, there's more to adventure compatibility than just the crunch. Sometimes the design approach of the adventures is different for various systems.)

My original post said I'm more likely to accept new editions that retain broad system compatibility with what has gone before (i.e., they're the "same game" in that sense). The "adventure test" is a way of evaluating that.

 

[prosfilaes]

OK, but if, as you say, an experienced DM can run any adventure with their rules set of choice, why does "system compatibility" matter other than merely as an intellectual exercise?

Because not everyone is an experienced DM. And because it's not always trivial. The first Dragonlance modules worked fine for 1e, but when they were professionally converted to 2e and published, they failed; it will kill the characters. Dragons got a significant boost between levels, and keeping the final opponent the same raised its power significantly.