Stifling Innovation

[Reigan]

I’ve been reading the initial responses to the recently announced WHFRP 3, many of the them negative as it seems the game mechanics have been radically overhauled (I’m unsure myself about it). Of course we don’t really know that much about the game yet, let alone read the rules or played it. This is very reminiscent to the response to D&D 4e where again there were major changes to the rules. It seems us gamers can be a pretty conservative bunch when it comes to our favourite games.
The questions I have is will these strong negative reactions to innovation by major game companies stifle creativity and innovation in the long run, or should the trying of new ideas be limited to indy games/companies or to brand new games with no pre-existing baggage and expectations, to avoid upsetting people?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I suppose some of the "backlash" is because the game looks very different from what it used to be.

I still think that's no excuse to wish the company a failure and losing the license and so on. At least give the game a chance!

And yes, I think this is, overall, stifling creativity and innovation, at least if publishers did decide that it becomes to risky. The only few that might take that risk are Indie publishers and smaller companies. But that means it will only be seen by a few people, while most remain ignorant. And they remain ignorant not because the "new" sucks, but just they don't overcome their skepticism or don't hear from the new games at all.

I think that is really sad. I am disappointed in this negative attitude. Not every change and not every innovation is good, but at least applaud and respect publishers that try something new instead of just rehashing the old in a new edition or put out some splat books.

 

[Victim]

I much prefer radical changes in new editions than paying for an errata document - if it's not going to change a lot, then it's really worth making a new edition IMO. However, that's just one philosophy. Other people like for a new edition to be very close to the old one, especially people who prefer constant support lest the game be 'dead.'

 

[Darrin Drader]

My personal opinion is that changes can be good if they serve to speed play or make play more enjoyable, but the more important thing that should be preserved is the original flavor of the game. Sweeping overhauls tend to slaughter too many sacred cows and that makes me a sad panda (yes, when I mix metaphors, I do so boldly and unapologetically!).

 

[resistor]

I think the issue is that, like many kinds of cultural works, fans feel a sense of ownership of their games.

Think about the response to the recent GI Joe movie, which is, honestly, pretty bad. Lots of people watched the cartoon as children, grew up with the action figures, etc. Because of this, it's not just a bad movie, but a bad movie that treads upon a piece of culture that a lot of people hold dear.

This is not to say that sequels, homages, and revisions can't work well. The first Transformers movie was a good example of that. Despite being, by most of objective standards, a mediocre movie, it captured a lot of the feel that people clung to from the source material.

Producers have to walk a fine line: fans want to see new material for the properties they know and love, but they're quick to reject things that don't mesh with their cultural impressions of the original. And, because of the sense of ownership associated with cultural artifacts, they're much more likely to have strong negative reactions to a poor quality follow-on than to a poor quality original product.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My personal opinion is that changes can be good if they serve to speed play or make play more enjoyable, but the more important thing that should be preserved is the original flavor of the game. Sweeping overhauls tend to slaughter too many sacred cows and that makes me a sad panda (yes, when I mix metaphors, I do so boldly and unapologetically!).

Flavor is a subjective thing, not everyone plays games the same way - new rules can recreate the same flavor for some, but change it for others. That even apply if you speed play or make it more enjoyable, since "more enjoyable" is not a universally applied thing, and speed play will cost you in some other area.

Star Wars has now at least 4 rule systems I am aware of - the WEG d6 version, and three d20 Versions. Star Wars is all flavor, and yet somehow 4 different games managed to capture it - at least for the fans of each version.

I think rules should _never_ be a sacred cow. Always look at what it achieves in your game, which includes concerns of mere playability, as well as concerns of flavor. If you find a different way to evoke the same flavor but it seems more playable, that rule can go. There is nothing sacred about this cow.

 

[wedgeski]

While I like the look of the new edition, I'm biased because I've never really played much WFRP and am therefore not invested in its history. The blurb also goes to great pains to describe this as a roleplaying game first, card/board game second. Time will tell.

I enjoy sweeping changes to game systems I love, as long as the spirit of their predecessors is protected (epitomised, for me, by 4e D&D, which IMO is a great success in this regard).

Dragonlance AD&D -> SAGA was radical, and although I wasn't playing Dragonlance at the time, the OOP products I've since collected over the years show me that the SAGA designers loved the setting, and were genuinely interested in making it work with this new idea. As it happens, some of my favourite Dragonlance supplements are products of that era.

Table-top RPG's are going to have to adapt to survive. Some will fall by the wayside, others will carve a niche, and some might even change the established direction of TTRPG's completely. We should be embracing these changes, *none* of which will destroy our ability to play older editions of the game, and *all* of which might just keep the reaper from turning out the lights on our hobby forever.

 

[relmskye]

I think there are several things one should keep in mind during this debate.

Firstly, the strong negative response to edition changes comes only from a very vocal minority, and new editions of any game never include these conservatives as their target audience. There are many more people out there in favor of change, and even more people who will approach it with pragmatism, most of whom will have little reason to voice their baseless opinions.

Secondly, game design is as much a labor of love as anything else; RPG writers love the games they write. When a new edition is released, it will be different because the designers wanted it to be different, because they thought it would be better that way. There is no amount of forum-based nerd rage that will change this.

Ultimately, change and innovation are a good thing, even regardless of the quality of the final product. For games companies to avoid altering their games for fear of negative reactions, would lead to little more than stagnation of the market as well as the hobby. Few people are interested in purchasing the same material simply reconstituted onto new paper and wrapped in a new cover.

Change is an opportunity to bring new blood, new money, and new perspectives to the hobby; there is no amount of gnashing-of-teeth and foaming-at-the-mouth the internet masses can do to stop its advent.

With regards to WFRP, specifically:
The 2nd edition was fairly mature as systems go; I don't think enough tweaks could have been made to justify a new edition and the purchase thereof. In order for the product line to continue, change was inevitable, and this particular change intrigues me. I may like it, or I may not, but I don't see that it matters much. If I don't, I can just go back to playing the old edition, which will always remain the same. For now, though, I do not have the necessary information to form an opinion one way or another, and I look forward to getting my hands on this game so that I can.

 

[mhensley]

It's simple. If you want to innovate, then do a new game entirely. Games have fans for a reason- they like them... the way they are.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't have much history with WHFRP, having played only 1 game but some of the negative energy directed at the new release may have less to do with content than a perceived blatant cash grab. If that is the perception then the game's merits might not hold much meaning until it sees some playtest in the wild.