Every Edition is a Failure

[Greg K]

2e wasn't making enough money (something of an understatement there).

I don't know if you are trying to imply that poor 2e sales is why TSR went under. if so, do we know that for sure or is it an assumption based upon TSR going bankrupt?

From the TSR wiki and its quoted sources, we know that in 1996 TSR had $40 million dollars in total sales (I'll let someone else adjust for inflation to determine how much that would be today). However, according to the Wiki, 1) TSR had a bad year in novel sales after expanding their line of hardback novels from 2 to 12 per year; 2) At the same time, Dragon Dice, their entry into collectible gaming, failed in the book trade market where TSR marketed it aggressively following initial promising sales in game stores (sales, eventually plummeted in game store as well). As a result of poor sales of novels and Dragon Dice in the book trade market, Random House, unexpectedly, returned unsold novels and packages of Dragon Dice for a fee costing TSR several millions of dollars and depleting cash reserves which led to TSR being sold to WOTC in 1997.

How much of the $40 million in sales was from AD&D 2e, I have no idea. Were there issues in production of 2e? Probably. According to other sources TSR did not track sales (or tracked them poorly) and were producing individual products in numbers for a market size that no longer existed (which some people have taken too mean they had produced too many lines) and leading to overstocked warehouses. However, the return of novels and dragon dice seems to have been a huge factor in the demise of TSR.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If "being divisive" is used as a major component of the criticism of why something should be excluded, then we'll get even more divisive statements. People will yell, because if enough of them yell long enough, they can point to something "being divisive" as a reason for it to not exist. This is how "trolls" win internet discussions--stir it up so much that the mods need to shut it down, so that the conversation doesn't take place.

Instead, it would be better to treat something "being divisive" as a symptom of some other root--namely, that some people don't like X, or X in a particular way. Find out why, and determine if they can be reasonably accommodated while still supporting the people who like X.

If they can't be reasonably accommodated, then sorry, they will be divided from everyone else, one way or the other. They'll not get their way, and be divided. Or they will get their way, and can bask in the glory of playing alone with their new shiny that no one else likes.

 

[Piratecat]

So, instead of derailing every other thread, we're cutting right to the chase now? Nice.

This thread has turned out to be quite interesting. As a reminder, though, if you're only swinging by to make snide comments or derail it? Please don't. The reason it's interesting is because people are discussing the premise instead of making cheap shots, and we definitely prefer it that way. Stay far away from edition warring.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

What's the point of this thread again?

*blink* You mean, threads need a POINT?

 

[seregil]

If "being divisive" is used as a major component of the criticism of why something should be excluded, then we'll get even more divisive statements. People will yell, because if enough of them yell long enough, they can point to something "being divisive" as a reason for it to not exist. This is how "trolls" win internet discussions--stir it up so much that the mods need to shut it down, so that the conversation doesn't take place.

Instead, it would be better to treat something "being divisive" as a symptom of some other root--namely, that some people don't like X, or X in a particular way. Find out why, and determine if they can be reasonably accommodated while still supporting the people who like X.

If they can't be reasonably accommodated, then sorry, they will be divided from everyone else, one way or the other. They'll not get their way, and be divided. Or they will get their way, and can bask in the glory of playing alone with their new shiny that no one else likes.

That's not really what I meant.

Let's take mechanic A.

It has been proven to be a sound mechanic in the sense that it does not break the game system.

I don't like it for reasons X.

You do for reasons Y.

The mechanic has polarized the fan base, similar to healing surges or powers. The polarization is of 'Against/not against' format. I.E. People aren't DEMANDING it be present but a lot are demanding it not be. Again, mush like healing surges. My perception is some people are ok with them and like them, others hates them to death. Not many are saying healing surges are an absolute 'must'.

WOTC has to make a decision to include this mechanic or not. If they do, they will have to build the game around it. It cannot be replaced/modded out/Modularized/whatever.

If they don't, they don't get the grief from the people who were against it.

Either way, the other various alternatives work just as well.

Therefore, in essence, the 'straw that broke the camel's back' is the divisiveness of the mechanic. Its presence will cause grief while its absence will cause much less. 4E has a few of those.

On the other hand, the reverse situation also exists. HP, for example. Their ABSENCE will cause much grief and their presence will cause less. There are many ways of filling the role of HPs, but the consensus is that DND = HP and, right or wrong, WOTC will probably use HP simply because the reverse is simply not worth it.

 

[P1NBACK]

Mod Edit: EN World rules are pretty specific on this point - if you want to discuss moderation, do it in e-mail or Private Message with the moderator(s). Please don't do so in-thread. Thanks.

~Umbran

 

[Bedrockgames]

There's no problem using negative reaction to any edition's rules as one facet in discussing how new rules will work... but you also need to give MORE than that. Not liking something is NOT ENOUGH evidence to say something doesn't work. Give some mechanical evidence to BACK UP why you think it doesn't work... and then we can have discussion.

But just defaulting to "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" as your sole reasoning for not using certain rules doesn't do any good because we can't USE that to create new rules which might be an effective compromise to everyone involved.

Why isn't it enough to simply say you dont like something? I mean we are just giving our reactions to mechanica and saying what we would like to see and what we dont want to see in 5e. Why matters and desginers should consider that. But it is still helpful to get a general impression about what mechanics people like and dont. I mean if 90% of gamers say they don't like thac0 but cant articulate why for some reason (and I am perfectly aware most can articulate why, but lets say they couldn't) do you ignore that because no one has supplied a solid reason for the dislike?

Also we are not creating 5e, Mearls and co are. They can very much use blmaket statements of dislike or "this doesn't feel like D&D" and use it effectively.

But lets be honest here people are saying why. They are sayinf i dont like this mechanic because it doesn't feel realistic, or this doesn't feel like D&D because they changed the vancian spell system and added powers to all the classes the problem is some people haven't been able to accept the reasons people give and attack them with a line of socratic questioning until everything is muddled. This has been a pretty consistent pattern here. Either you accept the reasons people offer or you don't. But i think these debates about the "real" reasons behind peoples' dislike of 4e mechanics stopped being an honest effort to find truth a long time ago. Now its just pure edition warring.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh, they were certainly unpopular (among a certain subset of gamers, anyway), but not all aspects of them are universally disliked.

As mentioned, some people might not like martial healing, but they might like the idea of healing being proportional to the recepient's hit points.

Others might not like healing surges as a daily limit on easy healing, but might like the idea of healers being able to restore hit points with a minor action.

Some might like martial encounter powers, but not martial daily powers.

Others might like at-will attack spells for wizards, but not wizard encounter attack spells.

Yet others might like the idea of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers, but don't like classes to share the same power structure.

"Healing surges and powers are often criticized" fails to convey these nuances.

Sure those are fair points and i have said i like some elements of 4e. Having healing tied to hp total is great. No problem for me there (i would just like to see them make it intuitive since I dont want to calculate percentages if possible during play). Less with you on martial encounter powers (and I think a majority of non 4e gamers agree with me that the problem is encounters and dailies together). You may have less resistance to at will powers, but then there are also lots of us who simply dislike the who class prgression structure pf 4e. I really want a return to casters getting spells from the standard list and fighters simply swinging their sword.

 

[Stormonu]

What's the point of this thread again?

An excuse for people to complain about their favorite thing - why they don't like edition XYZ. Or argue whether an edition "failed" - take your pick.

I agree with Hussar though - shooting anything down about any edition merely because that edition "failed" is most likely petty anger directed at that edition. I'd rather folks gave consideration about why a mechanic didn't work for them rather than write off the whole edition on the misnomer it was "a failure".

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree with Hussar though - shooting anything down about any edition merely because that edition "failed" is most likely petty anger directed at that edition. I'd rather folks gave consideration about why a mechanic didn't work for them rather than write off the whole edition on the misnomer it was "a failure".

it is a bit like when people shoot down mechanics for being old.