Failed Game?

[Storm Raven]

This is the proper reply to any idiot that would badger Gary with failed arguments. Those who vainly seek to promote failed versions of the game that he created should not be surprised when he tires of their jibber jabber.

I saw this somewhat interesting quote, and rather than derail the thread in which the statement was made, I moved it here. Here's my question: which version of D&D do you think "failed"? And what definition of "failed" and what metric do you use to make that assessment?

 

[Deekin]

A game has only failed when it has no fans. There are plenty of fans for each edition of D&D. Therefore, no edition has failed. You can dislike an edition, but that does not mean that it is bad, or that it has failed.

I personally prefer 3.5, but I would never say that any other edition failed. They are all different games that each have their own ups and downs. The trick is to find the one with the most ups and the least downs, in your opinion.

 

[Sammael]

1st edition failed, because it gave people an excuse to associate D&D with satanism and murder.

Unearthed Arcana failed, because it introduced the concept of munchkinism to D&D.

2nd edition failed, because it caused TSR to go bankrupt.

Skills and Powers failed, because it was too extensive and too late.

3rd edition failed, because it ended up with a revision only three years after its inception.

3.5th edition failed, because it alienated a lot of fans and d20 publishers.

But they were all fun.

 

[Mark Hope]

Ask not which version failed, grasshopper. Instead consider if it is even possible for a game to fail.

Or, put otherwise: what is the sound of a dice that falls but does not strike the table?

(Apart from "whoosh", that is...)

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't think any version failed by any metric. Even if (and I really, really don't want any discussion on this) 3e sold fewer copies than a previous ediiton, it certainly resurrected a franchise that had been on the decline.

There was one edition (whose nomenclature escapes me) that I thought no one played till I came here and discovered large numbers of people who got their start with it.

And regardless of sales the early editions pretty much established an entirely new hobby, so they couldn't be considered failures either.

 

[Fifth Element]

I saw this somewhat interesting quote, and rather than derail the thread in which the statement was made, I moved it here. Here's my question: which version of D&D do you think "failed"? And what definition of "failed" and what metric do you use to make that assessment?

Just recall that the person you are quoting has played D&D an average of 3 hours per day, every day, for 35 years. So you'd best listen to him.

 

[Kestrel]

I have fond memories of the fun I had from all editions of DnD. So, i would say none of them failed. Now, my tastes may have changed over the years, but while I was playing them, I enjoyed all versions of dnd.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Just recall that the person you are quoting has played D&D an average of 3 hours per day, every day, for 35 years. So you'd best listen to him.

 

[Storm Raven]

Just recall that the person you are quoting has played D&D an average of 3 hours per day, every day, for 35 years. So you'd best listen to him.

Well, that's certainly a non-sequitur.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I don't think and versions of D&D ahve failed, each had their strong core of people, and even though many moved on to new editions (as will someday probably happen with 3.5) a significant group of fans also stayed with the older version.

The fact that all versions of D&D are currently being played (except maybe skills and powers, have not seen a game ad for a long time for that rule subset) that shows the games have not failed.

Now if we move to 3rd party, I would argue there have been failures, massive ones. Many promising campaign worlds and rulesets never got off the ground, and finding someone to play with is just plain impossible. That is a failure. Not being able to find someone to play the ruleset with.