"Kill the Sacred Cow!"

[Wik]

So, I realized this after 4E was announced, but I don't think the topic truly applies to 4E at all. Really, it's a phenomenon that crops up whenever a game releases a new edition.

Basically, a new edition is released when a system needs some rules changes or modifications (at least, usually). Sometimes, it's a case of expanding on rules as the game grew (when 1e was released after OD&D). Other times, it's a compilation of rules into a single product, for ease of use (consider 2e to 1e). And sometimes, the rules are changed to simplify or modify existing rules sets (3e).

Now, rules changes make perfect sense when a new edition is released; rules snafus are going to crop up, no matter what, and the designer's job is to fix them and make play easier in the new edition.

The "problem" is, when making a new edition, designers sometimes feel the need to change non-rules ("Meta" aspects, or "sacred cows") aspects of the game. Their goal is probably to enhance the nature of the game itself by cleaning up muddy spots; the result is it often forces the player base to make changes to ongoing games to accomodate the new perspective on the game.

Sometimes, this is easy. When 3e Shadowrun switched to 4e, the fact that deckers had to start moving with the group instead of "jacking in" (effectively "going wireless") was addressed in the game world itself. Fair enough.

Other times, it's not nearly as easy. When we switched to 3e D&D, there were suddenly sorcerers where sorcerers hadn't existed before. Races changed, class abilities changed, and so on. the changes were drastic, and I think we all had to really re-do our campaign worlds (and more than a few collapsed altogether).

The thing about all this is, the designers decide to kill a "sacred cow" to fix game play. And in the process, they are making changes to a system that they say they enjoy. When you fix the rules, that's fine. But when you change some of what, say, make D&D D&D, trying to change the gameplay into something new, that's another thing entirely.

Ultimately, is it still D&D when Turn Undead no longer exists? When Halflings are "nerfed" and changed into something new? How many changes have gnomes gone through over the years?

And it's not just D&D - other systems have "evolved" in such a way.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this - the core conceits of Basic D&D do not hold true to modern 3e. That designers change meta aspects of a game in search of making it better; and that I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing.

I dunno. Just musing, here.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, fluff sacred cows are the easiest to turn into hamburger. Just because a new class is plunked into the core rules doesn't have to have any effect on your campaign. Don't use them if it would suddenly make a difference.

Also, and this is just my gut feeling, many gamers don't have these detailed, structured, set in stone campaigns that cannot roll with the changes. For many gamers, the campaign world is just whatever is needed right now to make the adventure of the day work. Thus, suddenly nerfing halflings, or adding sorcerers or whatever doesn't make a huge change in their games.

Look at the incredible popularity of the Core Belief's articles from Dragon magazine. These have been a very popular series of articles. If people had campaigns that already included this level of detail, then the articles wouldn't be so well received.

 

[Wik]

True enough. But I can think of numerous posters here who look back on the "Glory days", and I don't think everything they remember fondly has anything to do with rules, but with meta issues.

Or, to put it in a different way...

1. We make new editions of an existing game because the game is a success. (poor games don't usually get too many new editions)
2. The reason we make these new editions is to correct some of the rules problems that have cropped up, or to condense rules, or whatever else.
3. We make changes to the game itself, outside of the rules.

My question is... if the game beyond the rules is a success, why change it?

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Well, they killed a few sacred cows (and did some necromancy on others from 1E) when 3E came out. They can do it again.

I do want 4E to look like 3.5 superficially, with the same D&D feel that has persisted down since the little blue book. But they can rework it, and I think they need to, especially the magic system.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Interesting topic.

I guess we can look at saving throws as an example. When we went from 2e to 3e, the classic saves were replaced by new ones. Were the old saves the sacred cow, or was it the fact that we had saving throws to begin with? If Star Wars Saga Edition is any indication, we may not have saves and AC as we currently know them, replaced instead by a Fort, Ref, and Will class (or something like that). So then are the sacred cows gone, or is that just the evolutionary process?

The other question is, would someone who is (example) a 1e player recognize a 4e sourcebook as still being D&D, even if there are changes? Or would it be so different that it's not recognizable. This can be said for any system really, as evidenced by the Shadowrun example above.

I know a lot of people are in favor of killing "legacy items." Personally, I think the rules can evolve but should still have some of the sacred cows in order to maintain a sense of consistency. At the same time, I realize that gaming companies are marketing towards a younger audience and they want to put out a product that will jive with them.

So I don't know what the answer, if there is one, should be. I can see it from both ways. In the end, I guess the answer might be that if you don't like the changes, there are always the older editions. If certain items are sacred, then stick with what you love. Whatever the case, play the game system that you love.

 

[Hussar]

My question is... if the game beyond the rules is a success, why change it?

Well, I would think that anything beyond the rules isn't actually part of the game itself, and thus, any change to the rules shouldn't terribly affect what happens beyond the rules. To be honest, this has been my experience with the editions as well. I've done and played in campaigns ranging from almost pure RP to pure Hack and Slash in every edition and, really, it hasn't been all that different.

For example, I ran the World's Largest Dungeon for an 18 month campaign. Took the PC's from 1st to 15th or 16th level. Way, way back in my youth, I played in a GDQ campaign along with a number of other modules. It went about 18 months and we went from 1st to about 16th level.

To be brutally honest, I don't see an awful lot of difference between the campaigns, when you take out the rules difference. We killed stuff and took its loot. We went to strange places, met strange critters, then killed them and took their loot.

When you move beyond mechanics, D&D campaigns don't have to be very different in any edition.

 

[Delta]

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this - the core conceits of Basic D&D do not hold true to modern 3e. That designers change meta aspects of a game in search of making it better; and that I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing.

I agree with you.

One thing that I find funny is something like this: The World of Greyhawk backstory extends something like 3,000 years into the past, with a lot of imperial hostory, racial migrations, etc., evolving into the current campaign world. But, blammo!, apparently every decade for the last 4 there's been a mammoth sea-change in the very fabric of reality that apparently wipes out whole races and classes in the world (half-orcs, monks, assassins), then recreates them, then destroys them again, etc. I guess it's not entirely dissimilar to DC comics doing continuity wipes on a regular basis, but it's still too bad IMO.

 

[D.Shaffer]

If keeping a sacred cow would make the game worse, is it really worth it to keep it just because it is a sacred cow? Nostalgia is one thing, but keeping something just to say you kept it? That's bad game design.

 

[warlord]

We could just solve the whole problem by giving complete creative control back to Gary Gygax.

 

[TerraDave]

I think much of the fluff and sacred cows are actually what make a game what it is, and people get too hung up on the mechanics and related details.

But what is truly a sacred cow? Gnomes, probably not (saddly), Elves, definately. Things like d8s, AC, and magic missiles fall in between.

[thread plug]Check out this poll to see what others think need to be in the game.[/thread plug]