Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 5619274" data-attributes="member: 66434">I would say that some of the innovation behind the 4E design was motivated by legal concerns involving leaving the OGL behind. After all you can't enforce a trademark on &quot;goblin&quot; but &quot; goblin nosepicker&quot; is ripe to lock down as a proprietary creature. Making a design incompatible with previous incarnations just for the sake of doing so isn't really innovation IMHO. Companies do this all the time as forced obsolesence drives sales. RPGs are not technology though so this strategy doesn't really work. &nbsp;To some, the radical design change was a breath of fresh air. To others the new playstyle just didn't feel like D&amp;D anymore. I believe what Lanefan was trying to convey was that just being different and new is not always enough to grow a customer base all by itself. &nbsp;Starter sets aside, D&amp;D is very much a game that is taught to new players by more established players. If enough of the older players are not happy with a new edition then the teaching base for new players is greatly diminished. Those who prefer older editions will instead teach new interested players those games. Creating a game that holds the interests of your current audience while appealing to new players is vital to a game like D&amp;D. &nbsp;I would say that prior editions are not so weak if they maintain a good sized player base despite being out of print for years. If there are players who are willing to scour used bookstores and the internet for old playing materials how inferior can these products really be? It takes a bit more effort to obtain this stuff than just strolling into a game or bookstore and picking up the latest incarnation off the shelf. &nbsp;If what you are offering is so objectively superior and easier to come by then the number of folks still buying the older design stuff would be next to nil wouldn't it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 5619274, member: 66434"] I would say that some of the innovation behind the 4E design was motivated by legal concerns involving leaving the OGL behind. After all you can't enforce a trademark on "goblin" but " goblin nosepicker" is ripe to lock down as a proprietary creature. Making a design incompatible with previous incarnations just for the sake of doing so isn't really innovation IMHO. Companies do this all the time as forced obsolesence drives sales. RPGs are not technology though so this strategy doesn't really work. To some, the radical design change was a breath of fresh air. To others the new playstyle just didn't feel like D&D anymore. I believe what Lanefan was trying to convey was that just being different and new is not always enough to grow a customer base all by itself. Starter sets aside, D&D is very much a game that is taught to new players by more established players. If enough of the older players are not happy with a new edition then the teaching base for new players is greatly diminished. Those who prefer older editions will instead teach new interested players those games. Creating a game that holds the interests of your current audience while appealing to new players is vital to a game like D&D. I would say that prior editions are not so weak if they maintain a good sized player base despite being out of print for years. If there are players who are willing to scour used bookstores and the internet for old playing materials how inferior can these products really be? It takes a bit more effort to obtain this stuff than just strolling into a game or bookstore and picking up the latest incarnation off the shelf. If what you are offering is so objectively superior and easier to come by then the number of folks still buying the older design stuff would be next to nil wouldn't it? [/QUOTE]

Verification