Is D&D evolutionary?

[MerricB]

Does Shakespeare need to evolve to keep up with the competition?

Hmm. Although Shakespeare doesn't evolve, consider that playwriting *has*. (And Shakespeare's own playwriting would have changed over the years he wrote).

Bach is great music, but you don't find composers writing primarily in that style today.

There are indeed classics of art we return to, but new creations work in the style of today, not yesterday. Although Shakespeare remains as a cultural icon, do you go to many works by Marlowe?

There is evolution, and there are classics we can return to.

Cheers!

 

[FireLance]

Does Monopoly need change to keep up with World of Warcraft?

Well, I'm of the view that Monopoly desperately needs change because frankly, the gameplay is terrible.

A few months ago, I was playing quite a bit of Monopoly with my nephew, and I noticed that once a single player gets all the properties of a single colour and starts building houses and hotels, he's more or less guaranteed to win. If two happen to do it at about the same time (both traded properties to each other, for example), there might be some fight between them for a while, but the rest of the players might as well just pack up and go home since they have practically zero chance of winning at that stage - they can't do much to threaten the big players since their rents are negligible, and their losses once they land on an improved property are substantial. I really wondered why we bothered to drag it out. Either give the rest of the players more of a fighting chance, or just end the game when one player gets that far ahead.

I tolerate Monopoly because I don't play it often. I certainly don't look forward to playing it, and if I had to play it weekly, I'd be tinkering with the rules so much that the final game would probably bear no resemblance to the rules that came in the original box.

I think there are a few reasons why Monopoly doesn't change. First, while it might face some competition from the other board games, there really isn't another game similar enough to threaten its niche. Second, its business model is built entirely around the once-off sale of a single box of the game. It has no supplements that it wants you to continue buying (unlike most RPGs). It derives no income from your continued playing of the game (unlike most MMORPGs). Even if you buy the game, find that you don't enjoy it, and never touch it again, the company has made its money off you. There is thus no incentive for it to change the Monopoly rules, or to put money and effort into improving the gameplay experience for you.

 

[Phlebas]

Are we confusing the fact that D&D can evolve, or the fact that WoTC has to evolve?

Business and Game competitive pressures produce different imperatives and from WOTC perspective they have to balance these off to survive.

 

[Phlebas]

Well, I'm of the view that Monopoly desperately needs change because frankly, the gameplay is terrible.

We house-rule you can't sell houses, that makes people with properties just as vulnerable to unlucky rolls as those with. We actually finished a game in under two hours the other day!

House rules - Evolution in progress......

 

[rossik]

The funny thing is, the examples you gave of games that haven't changed -- chess, Monopoly, Life -- actually HAVE changed.

also, you have simpsons monopoly, star wars monopoly, songe bob monopoly (ok, the last one i dont know...but we have a sponge bob "jogo da vida" here in brazil).

i thinl that the game have to change, as the "target" people changes too...a 14 years old from the 80's is very very different from a 14 in the 90's


all the "manga lookalike" art is a reflection of this, IMO

 

[Midknightsun]

I'm not seeing the comparisons to Monopoly or chess that seem to be made a lot here, and for many reasons that were listed above . . . its not an apt comparison.

And after Firelance's Monopoly comment, I'd like to say that Risk suffers from the same kind of "If I get this, I win" syndrome. Besides which, simpler rule sets will more likely be subject to minor changes that great ones. . . which often go unnoticed.


3.5 is a good rule set, but frankly, so was the B/X set (just read over it again recently out of nostalgia). Both for different reasons. 3.5 allows for a lot of player creative control mechanically at the cost of play speed, b/x allows for smooth and quick gameplay and the cost of options. 4e looks like its going to try to increase play speed but still retain enough fiddly bits to keep players happy. If it can indeed get rid of the old kludges 3.5 had (which makes DMing for me akin to going for a Masters Degree), but retain the d20 feel and offer the easier gameplay that I (and many others) have been asking for, then I think it is evolutionary in that it is attmpting to combine some aspects of old school gaming with the better revolutions that came from d20, and then top it off with some new twists. The customers will decide with their wallets whether or not WotC was right.

Frankly, I stopped buying suppliments about a year ago because I could see they were running out of things to make "complete" books out of for 3.5. The line has peaked, and any further products would have likely served a very minor subset of the already small gaming community, resulting in negative profit for WotC. And resales just aren't going to keep them afloat. They need to try to evolve, or die as a product. Will they fail? I don't know, but much of what I've seen so far makes me think they will not, and that 4e will indeed be an evolution.

Personally, I'm excited about what they can and will do with it. Having gone through most of the incarnations of D&D myself, I see no problem with the change. I'll still have a spot for 3.5 regardless, but frankly, prep and combat take too long for a game that can already take up quite a bit of time. Fighters suck (thank you CharOp boards for ruining my fun), monster stat blocks look like statistical analysis spreadsheets, multiclassing is kludgy, prestige classes force players to know far ahead of time what they want to be, CR and ECL suck as measuring sticks, required wealth and goodies just to keep pace with the monsters (really, have you thought about the amount of bling your character has to wear?. . . it puts gypsy pimps to shame). the list goes on. So there is lots of room for evolution. We'll just have to wait and see if WotC delivers.

Of course, evolution does not imply improvement and much as it does adaptation to the current environment (our gaming culture). That may mean some good things disappear and other kludges arise, who knows? May also (inevitably) mean they lose some gamers who preferred 3.5.

But I think D&D has indeed evolved, and IMHO, for the better in each case. Some things were better in older editions, sure. But D&D has evolved and become a better game for it.

 

[Quasqueton]

a 14 years old from the 80's is very very different from a 14 in the 90's

This is the prime concept, right here. I'll expand this idea:

A 14 year old in the 70s is very different from a 14 year old in the 80s is very different from a 14 year old in the 90s is very different from a 14 year old of the 00s, is very different than a 14 year old of the 10s will be.

Plus:
A 14 year old of the 80s is very different than a 34 year old of the 00s, and a 34 year old of the 70s is very different than a 14 year old of the 90s.

D&D of the 70s and 80s could not thrive in the environment of the 00s. There's much more competition, not just from other table-top RPGs, but also from the many other gaming options -- computer games especially. D&D of the 70s and 80s did not have to compete with 100 channels of TV, multi-player online computer games, and movies on demand. The world is evolving, so D&D (any hobby) has to evolve with the world or it will get left behind by the new generations; left to be played only by the old guard.

Plus, game mechanics evolve as well. Designers learn that players want to play a race and class instead of just a race as class. Classes can have different hit dice, weapons can do different damage, etc. They learn that no one really uses certain rules, and they make up new rules; the bad rules can be dropped, the new rules added to match how people want to and actually play.

D&D must evolve to keep up with who the players are, how they play the game, and how the game mechanics can be written to allow them to play as they want to play the game.

Quasqueton

 

[TerraDave]

This is the prime concept, right here. I'll expand this idea:

A 14 year old in the 70s is very different from a 14 year old in the 80s is very different from a 14 year old in the 90s is very different from a 14 year old of the 00s, is very different than a 14 year old of the 10s will be.

I would have loved, loved, to have had the 3.0 core rules when I was 14. That would have just kicked...(reactions to other releases of that era, I cannot guess).

 

[Umbran]

Maybe I'm the reverse of "most" gamers or soemthing...

Reverse? I dunno. Different from? Certainly.

As we look at WotC's practices, it is important to remember that no individual matches the overall market very well. Given the implied selection method for being here on EN World, even the thousands of us in aggregate don't reflect the overall market's desires.

I think I;d be happy if they stuck to 3.5 but brought in optional material and rules that you could put in or not... your choice.

Yes, but how many options will you collect before you realize that you have enough to play fun games for the rest of your life?

As a very broad generalization, a particular player or gaming group only needs so many supplements for a particular edition. There comes a point where you have more material for the set of rules than you would ever possibly use, and a major incentive to buying more evaporates. You may still buy a book that has very specific content you want, but on the whole, unelss you are a collector, you don't need to buy, so you don't.

Change the edition, though, and you suddenly have greater need for supplements. The, "I have to re-buy all my books!" phenomenon is what keeps WotC in business. Whether or not you want to do it, they cannot do without it. The gaming market is not very large, and they cannot sit back on the trickle that comes from a saturated market and expect to survive.

 

[howandwhy99]

I would argue that D&D was revolutionary to begin with, but has become more evolutionary with each alteration. Designers tend to be very focused on creating games to satisfy the most common preferences of players. In this way, D&D has developed more and more due to its environment (players, designers, business) than towards a teleological end. Each iteration satisfies enough of the community to survive. If it doesn't, it dies or changes again. That's evolution.