Sequels to Successes

[Hussar]

GameSpy article on D&D history from a few years back, with quotes from Charles Ryan.

My Googlefu is not strong enough. Anyone else able to find the linkie to this article? I've read it, but, I can't find it.

 

[Jack99]

*puts on his resist fire 30 plate-mail*

Godfather part II, The Empire Strikes Back, Dawn of the Dead, Aliens, Mad Max 2, Evil Dead 2 etc.

Plenty of examples where the sequel is better than the original. Of course YMMV on each and everyone of these films, but the fact is that many people think so.

When that is said, I agree with your basic premise, that it is hard if you follow up on a success. That said, I think it is especially hard if you merely rehash the same thing (as Paizo's Pathfinder Rules) instead of reinventing the concept (as 4th Edition).

Cheers

 

[SaffroN]

I remember watching a video on marketing, and how a company produced 2 different types of mouthwash (at least I'm quite sure it was mouthwash... For the purpose of this example it is). The older mouthwash tasted like fowl, like medicine. The newer mouthwash had a much nicer taste. Both products did the same job. However a portion of customers still bought the fowl tasting mouthwash.

Why?

Well it turns out that the consumers who bought the fowl tasting mouthwash did so because they didn't feel like the mouthwash was working unless it tasted bad. I.E They expect the mouthwash to taste bad, or else it isn't working.

Do I think something similar is happening here? I don't know... maybe.

If you enjoyed playing 3.x there is a chance that 4th edition might not appeal to you. The core D&D experience for you may include factors that are no longer in 4e, such as the gnome race, or the Vancian magic system. Its just a sad fact.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Right, but are grapple rules $300/year ridiculous?

"So, we overhauled the game system. Oh, and we made the grapple rules faster to adjudicate and easier to use. "
"What? I am supposed to throw all of 3.x away just for better grapple rules. Rules I never had a problem with in my personal game? I will so stop buying anything from WotC ever again! And certainly not read what else they might have done!"

Even when combined with the other fiddly bits that 4e is improving, do the rules add up to that much of an improvement?

That's the big question. I looked at what Wizard showed me so far, and I say yes, it might actually be that much of an improvement and totally be worth spending money on it*.
Others may look at it "Oh, come on, this stuff wasn't that bad, I handled it in my own way. I Don't need it. I just need more campaign or adventure material to use all the stuff I already own!".That's a valid viewpoint, too.

*) By the way: How much does it really matter whether I spend 300 $ on 3E or on 4E? Because I will certainly not stop buying game products as long as I play! It's not a "reinvestment" from my point of view. It's money I'll devote to my hobby anyway. The only thing that matters to me is if I get something of use for the money. A new game system that I actually might get to play seems like a better investment then yet another rules supplement or campaign setting I might never be able to use, or an adventure that I would prefer to reserve for one of the other DMs in my group that can't or won't build his own adventures.
Buying a new game system that I can dig into and learn is not a "diminishing return" for me. It's awesome.

 

[Malacoda]

Right, but are grapple rules $300/year ridiculous? Even when combined with the other fiddly bits that 4e is improving, do the rules add up to that much of an improvement?

As a 3e player, a big fan who has invested a lot in the edition, there are decidedly less points of possibility looming in 4e. I could be a...dragonborn warlord? I've never really wanted to do that. And now I can't be a gnome fighter without some sort of special arrangement? And my priest of the God of Fire...I don't know how he's going to stack up against other clerics. As a DM, there's a few more interesting possibilities: more skill-based encounters, longer adventuring days, "boss" monsters, but those aren't totally new and exciting, more refinements of what I was doing already. Which I'm not entirely sure I need, y'know? And I'm not totally sold on the bigger, more mobile combats thing, but even if I was, that's still nothin' NEW.

While I am not really refuting your central point, aspects of this post seem...disingenuous.

While a lot of the little things about 4e get debated, praised and vilified, i don't thing the central selling point is any of these things, nor do I think for most people it is any one refinement. You have left out the major overhauls, the things that are really making people stand up and take notice (for good or for ill).

4e is worth the purchase of six core books for us (my girlfriend and I both need copies) because it is overhauling the core math of the game, because it is specifically looking to make it easier to prep and work with NPCs, because it is almost completely replacing the magic system with something I like better, and because it is giving all classes more worthwhile options, modelled similar to Bo9S.

Not because I can be a dragonborn anything.

Also, while 3e is a decent game in its own right, anymore, I don't really think of it as being a "great" game. Not really. I no longer run 3e without running a premade adventure (Shackled City at the moment), and I look at levels beyond 10th with dread. I am not saying that others can't think it is great, no. I am just saying that not all current 3e players look at with the love and respect that is so often cited here. Right now, for the style of fantasy gaming I generally run, 3e is as good as it gets, but over the years, I am finding that it is not as good as I once thought.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

4e is worth the purchase of six core books for us (my girlfriend and I both need copies) because it is overhauling the core math of the game, because it is specifically looking to make it easier to prep and work with NPCs, because it is almost completely replacing the magic system with something I like better, and because it is giving all classes more worthwhile options, modelled similar to Bo9S.

Just curious - six core books? Do you two not live together? Because my girlfriend and I are getting just four core books (two PHBs, the DMG and MM).

 

[Simon Atavax]

*puts on his resist fire 30 plate-mail*

Godfather part II, The Empire Strikes Back, Dawn of the Dead, Aliens, Mad Max 2, Evil Dead 2 etc.

The Empire Strikes Back and Dawn of the Dead are not "sequels", by definition. They were planned chapters in triologies.

(slinks off before derailing thread with petty observations )

 

[Malacoda]

Just curious - six core books? Do you two not live together? Because my girlfriend and I are getting just four core books (two PHBs, the DMG and MM).

With 3e we really did need one each. If I am running a game and she is summoning stuff and need stats, we both need an MM. Same with magic items and the DMG.

With 4e it seems like it will be less of an issue (magic items in the PHB, but little summoning), but still, via Amazon they are not that expensive, so we might as well have one each.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

The Empire Strikes Back and Dawn of the Dead are not "sequels", by definition. They were planned chapters in triologies.

(slinks off before derailing thread with petty observations )

The Empire Strikes Back was actually only sort of planned. It was planned in the sense that Lucas had a plan to do more movies in the Star Wars universe - his originally planned sequel was Splinter of the Mind's Eye - a wretched little thing that we are all happy he didn't actually make. Instead, because Star Wars was such a phenomenal success, he got to make a much more expansive sequel, and that sequel was Empire.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's the big question. I looked at what Wizard showed me so far, and I say yes, it might actually be that much of an improvement and totally be worth spending money on it*.
Others may look at it "Oh, come on, this stuff wasn't that bad, I handled it in my own way. I Don't need it. I just need more campaign or adventure material to use all the stuff I already own!".That's a valid viewpoint, too.

Right. With a message that focuses less on "We fixed problems!" and more on "You can do this new hotness!", you can get those second people on board. With a message that focuses on "We fixed problems!", a lot of the people who don't really have problems (meaning, those who like 3e "good enough.") can be put off.

When that is said, I agree with your basic premise, that it is hard if you follow up on a success. That said, I think it is especially hard if you merely rehash the same thing (as Paizo's Pathfinder Rules) instead of reinventing the concept (as 4th Edition).

I think that making the case that 4e is actually a reinvention of anything is pretty difficult. Likewise, the idea that Pathfinder is "just a rehash" isn't an easy case to make, either. Thirdly, the idea that a "complete reinvention" is what people want in a sequel is probably misguided -- I'd be kind of irked if The Dark Knight featured campy wisecracks played for Adam West effect. Meanwhile, Vista changes a lot of the basic Windows system, but introduces a lot of effects that people aren't fans of. And New Coke was completely different from Coke Classic.

I think that really ignores some of what Pathfinder is, some of what 4e is, and a lot of the complexity that makes sequels successful, so it's not a very accurate or useful statement.

And, yes, there have been successful sequels, and that is what 4e would hope to be. But Empire didn't tell you A New Hope sucked. It didn't change Luke into a three-armed creature from the fourth moon of Splodistan because "We thought the third arm gave him some more interesting combat scenes." It didn't remove Chewbacca citing how few lines he had anyway ("He's just redundant with Han!"). It didn't make the thing take place on Earth, Year 3040, because they thought it would be better for the audience to relate to it.

They didn't reinvent what Star Wars was. They took the same characters you loved, and the same big space combat and special effects that wowed you, and took them on NEW adventures with NEW planets and NEW starships.

Successful sequels to successful products rarely tell you how much they've "improved," and when they do, it can go horribly awry.

I mean, Pathfinder is the one, after all, still brewing up Coke Classic: same classes, same races, same rules, now with HFC instead of sugar and a new can. WotC is brewing up New Coke.

Where this tale will turn different, I think, is in the amount of people who are tied to the name Dungeons and Dragons is vastly more significant in this little hobby than the amount of people tied to the specific name "Coca Cola" are in the world at large. But 4e's greatest spoiler is *still* 3e (just in a new can with HFC).

Heck, if Paizo was able to somehow wheedle their trademark magic and somehow call the game "Dragons and Dungeons," or "D and D Classic" or something, I think the competition would be that much more bloody (not that they'd really bother doing that, of course).

While a lot of the little things about 4e get debated, praised and vilified, i don't thing the central selling point is any of these things, nor do I think for most people it is any one refinement. You have left out the major overhauls, the things that are really making people stand up and take notice (for good or for ill).

The overhauls aren't going to interest people who don't think anything really needed an overhaul. In fact, those people are likely to vilify the overhaul as unnecessary. The better the first product is, the harder it will be to convince people that things need to be overhauled. Hence, with 3e's success, it's hard to convince a significant (or at least significantly vocal) portion of people that all that 4e is overhauling is necessary or even desirable to overhaul.

What it *will* attract are those who had problems with the thing before. The issue with that is that most people didn't have those problems (if they did, it wouldn't have been very successful).

4e is worth the purchase of six core books for us (my girlfriend and I both need copies) because it is overhauling the core math of the game, because it is specifically looking to make it easier to prep and work with NPCs, because it is almost completely replacing the magic system with something I like better, and because it is giving all classes more worthwhile options, modelled similar to Bo9S.

Not because I can be a dragonborn anything.

Also, while 3e is a decent game in its own right, anymore, I don't really think of it as being a "great" game. Not really. I no longer run 3e without running a premade adventure (Shackled City at the moment), and I look at levels beyond 10th with dread. I am not saying that others can't think it is great, no. I am just saying that not all current 3e players look at with the love and respect that is so often cited here. Right now, for the style of fantasy gaming I generally run, 3e is as good as it gets, but over the years, I am finding that it is not as good as I once thought.

Sure, but what you're missing is that the people who are perfectly happy with 3e being "good enough" don't have your problem. In fact, given 3e's success, those with problems may very well be in a distinct minority (assuming those people who had problems but "didn't know it until 4e told them about it" isn't a very big slice of the pie).

So they don't need a fix.

They need something new.

That change will be the most constructive conversation for 4e recruiting fans of 3e.