Is D&D evolutionary?

[Valiant]

I don't mean this as a matter of refinement "the latest version is the best" I don't believe this. I think 4E is probably going to be less satisfying as a game then any of the earlier versions. What I mean is, are the changes that are being made required for the "organism" D&D to survive (what would happen if 3E didn't evolve to the changing enviroment).
And is the animal were left with anything similar to the one that started out.

Would, for instance, 1E have survived (as a profitable product) if it had been "left as is" or did the product need to adapt more quickly to its changing environment or face extinction (competition from other RPGs, cultural changes, advent of home computers etc.). Same with 2E going to 3E and now 3E going to 4E. Are we seeing "Darwinian like" evolution? If yes, why? Some games don't need to evolve to stay vital. Like sharks, Chess, Checkers, Backgamon, many card games, and even board games like Monopoly and Life seem to withstand the changes in the enviroment. Whats so different about D&D, a comparitive fruit fly of genetic variation?

 

[Umbran]

I think so yes. At least, evolution to meet market desires should be a major motivator for WotC. The latest version should be the best, not for any individual gamer, but for the market in which the game is sold.

There are several major differences between rpgs and boardgames, in this regard - timescale and development are the major ones. Monopoly takes one evening, and it is done, and it'll be much the same the next time. RPGs take far longer, and there's development of character and storyline/history and such along with it.

So, unlike monopoly, RPGs must change to meet changing desires for development.

 

[GreatLemur]

What I mean is, are the changes that are being made required for the "organism" D&D to survive (what would happen if 3E didn't evolve to the changing enviroment).

Take a look at Palladium for your answer.

 

[Kragar00]

I don't think that D&D is evolutionary.... I don't think that the game itself needs to change for it to remain profitable... It just needs support with supplements and the like...
RPGs are a very personal thing.... different people like different things....
In the example of board games, Monopoly doesn't need to change because people like it the way it is.... If you don't like it, you can play Risk or Chutes and Ladders.....
With D&D, I don't think it needs to change, because people like it the way it is... If you don't like it, you can play something else.....
Some people may have preferences to versions, but you'll find supporters for any version over another.... The rules will just cater to different people....

 

[Southern Oracle]

The funny thing is, the examples you gave of games that haven't changed -- chess, Monopoly, Life -- actually HAVE changed. There's an article in the August issue of Dragon that very, very briefly touches on the history of chess, giving its origins as India, evolving in the Middle East, and having a divergent split in China (where a very similar but different game is played to this day). Monopoly may still look the same as it did in the 1930's when it was invented, but the rules have evolved, and house rules like paying money to the middle of the board and winning it when you land on free parking have become commonplace enough that you can find people across the country who regularly follow such conventions. I'm 37 years old and I have 4 daughters; when my wife and I recently bought Life for our kids, we were surprised at how much it had changed both in looks and in rules from when we played it as kids. It's still a good game, but it's not the same game as when we played it in the 1970's.
So yes, I think game evolution is a necessary and inherent part of the survival of entertainment, and without embracing conventions that become ingrained in society, a game cannot survive. While people still play Bridge, it is not the most popular card game in the world any more...and Poker wouldn't be either if it weren't for Texas Hold'em and the internet.
Game on!

 

[TerraDave]

The game has allways evolved since those first three books...

"needed" changes:

1) First OD&D suplements (mainly Greyhawk)
2) OD&D to AD&D and B/E
3) "more options" in 2nd ed (but these early mutations almost killed the organism)
4) 2nd to 3rd ed.

In each case, if the change wasn't made, the game would have looked/felt/been very dated and the market probably would have said good- bye. The hardest evidence is for 4) (2nd to 3rd), when TSR did go bankrupt and D&D had lost customers (not nec. players, but people willing to buy stuff for it).

And don't be so sure about your examples. There were many, many familly board games in the late 19th and early 20th century, very few survived. Chess did change greatly over the centuries, and has remained popular in large part thanks to computer and online play. I am sure backgamon also "evolved" for many years before reaching its current state.

Evolve or die.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think that D&D is evolutionary.... I don't think that the game itself needs to change for it to remain profitable... It just needs support with supplements and the like...

I don't think an eternity of supplements will generate a stead revenue stream, much less a growing one. Once I've got a whole mess of supplementary material for a given rule-set, I become less likely to buy more. Eventually, an individual (and the market in general) is saturated with supplements for those rules, and sales drop.

Thus, the game has to change to remain viable, economically.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think an eternity of supplements will generate a stead revenue stream, much less a growing one. Once I've got a whole mess of supplementary material for a given rule-set, I become less likely to buy more. Eventually, an individual (and the market in general) is saturated with supplements for those rules, and sales drop.

Thus, the game has to change to remain viable, economically.

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

I tend to start buying products that are the "end of the line" products.. stuff that adds wildly different rules to the game, but are optional.. stuff like UA, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic and Blades... Psionics... to a degree Book of Vile Darkness...

All the splat books like more feats and prcs... just bore me, and I tend not to buy them...

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.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Take a look at Palladium for your answer.

Like with life forms, some games find a niche in which they can survive for a very long time, mostly unchanged...

 

[Melan]

Some "evolution", but a lot more "business cycle". A/D&D was always a game people wanted to get changed to their tastes, if at least to be part of a larger player base, but it flourished despite - and, in my opinion, often because of its supposed flaws. I remember how it used to be hip in the 90s to bash the concept of levels, classes, hit points and memorisation; a whole lot of "AD&D sucks" threads on USENET and mailing lists. Yet AD&D continued to be the top dog, and the only thing that eventually brought it down was a severely incompetent management. They had to fight very hard to kill their company, that's how badly AD&D was doing!

I don't believe in the evolution of RPGs too much. I believe in the evolution of RPG mechanics, but a system is much more than its mechanics. It is a whole set of implications, instructions, procedures and aesthetic choices, a little bit of which makes it analogous to technology, but a lot more where it has to do more with works of art. Does Shakespeare need to evolve to keep up with the competition? I'm seeing some variants, and we aren't reading his plays from hand-pressed pamphlets anymore, but not a whole lot of change. Does Monopoly or chess change all that much? They changed some a lot of years ago, and there are always variants, but the recipe is more or less the same. Does Monopoly need change to keep up with World of Warcraft?