Stifling Innovation

[Ariosto]

Being "innovative" enough to come up with a new name for your game might be helpful!

Some people are still going to be disappointed, and there's no reason they should continue to be patrons when you offer nothing they want. However, pulling a bait and switch -- which is what this practice basically comes down to -- can really breed resentment.

You've got your reasons for not wanting others to take your trademark and slap it on their own things. Why is it somehow illegitimate for your patrons to expect that the trademark actually stands for something even when you use it?

 

[Obryn]

Being "innovative" enough to come up with a new name for your game might be helpful!

Some people are still going to be disappointed, and there's no reason they should continue to be patrons when you offer nothing they want. However, pulling a bait and switch -- which is what this practice basically comes down to -- can really breed resentment.

You've got your reasons for not wanting others to take your trademark and slap it on their own things. Why is it somehow illegitimate for your patrons to expect that the trademark actually stands for something even when you use it?

I don't really see how it's a bait and switch - it does have a new name, and that's WFRP Third Edition.

I also don't see any intent to deceive here - nor do I see FFG insisting you'll buy a game you don't want to play. They're reimagining Warhammer under a completely new rule set, and it may be more faithful to Warhammer Fantasy Battles than WFRP1/2e.

-O

 

[Ariosto]

Why, sensibly, should anyone choose Brand X? It's a matter of reputation.

If you don't live up to that reputation, then what is the value of the brand among those who know of it?

Among those who know nothing of what they are supposed to mean, there is no reason to choose Brand X over Brand Y.

When Brand X in fact cannot be counted upon to stand reliably for anything substantive, it has nothing but "recognition value" -- which could be thoroughly negative even if the latest offering would in fact be very positively received by those who might have given it a chance ... if not for their negative associations with a previous offering!

WotC's use of "edition" in the case of D&D is extremely eccentric. This WHFRP move emulates that practice, which I think has wisely not been widely adopted.

 

[Mallus]

However, pulling a bait and switch -- which is what this practice basically comes down to -- can really breed resentment.

Out of curiosity, how does this qualify as 'bait and switch' when the big changes made are clearly visible in the ad copy?

 

[Ariosto]

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 ...

Why? Because it's "milking the same old cow". To the extent that there's continuity to warrant calling it a continuing product line, it's selling the same old thing all over again. What's pointed out here is the dependence on selling the same stuff all over to the same people.

That's "innovation"?

No, it's a poverty of creativity. It's an inability to sell really new creations -- such as material actually adding to the richness of the "Warhammer world" -- to the same old customers. It's an inability to attract new customers.

It's not innovation; it's a retread.

 

[Ariosto]

Unless you're Chaosium, every new edition is a new game.

It's just the opposite with Call of Cthulhu! Take your pick of any of the six (or whatever) editions, and you're good to go. There's only one really big change to my mind, between the very first and the Revised edition, and it takes but a moment to "convert". Whichever rule-book you happened to pick up, you now have access to an ever-expanding line of excellent supplementary materials.

The game has a reputation established over more than a quarter of a century, one that continues to attract new players so that there's no need to sell the latest printing to the same folks who bought the last one. Old hands keep buying new scenarios, and new fans catch up on classics.

 

[coyote6]

No, it's a poverty of creativity. It's an inability to sell really new creations -- such as material actually adding to the richness of the "Warhammer world" -- to the same old customers. It's an inability to attract new customers.

It's not innovation; it's a retread.

(a) What they've announced seems to be a whole new type of at least organization for RPGs, if not new mechanics, style, approach, and/or other things. It certainly seems like they're attempting innovation to me. It is not clear to me whether said innovation is ultimately a good thing, a bad thing, a meh thing, or what -- which leads to point the second.

(b) It's not out yet. We cannot know whether it's good, bad, indifferent, same old thing, a pointless retread, an awesome retread, a startlingly new thing, the best thing evar, or an unholy abomination (War-Care Bears! War-My Little Pony!) deserving of the uttermost scorn. Your comments seem prematurely dismissive.

Edit: Note that it doesn't sound terrifically interesting to me, from what I've read & the WH author said in his blog awhile back. I am interested in seeing what it's actually like, though.

 

[Obryn]

It's not innovation; it's a retread.

You say retread, I say reimagining. It's taking known elements and using them in innovative ways. If they simply released a cleaned-up version of WFRP2e or 1e, that's a re-tread.

More to the point, I don't think the original release of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay means that every future RPG which wishes to use the Empire as a setting must be faithful to or compatible with the originally released WFRPG rules. Just because the Star Wars RPG was originally released as a d6 West End game doesn't mean Star Wars Saga Edition is either a retread or unoriginal.

A good setting is a good setting. Sometimes it's awesome to get a fresh perspective on an old favorite, and sometimes new mechanics are a great way to do that.

-O

 

[Shazman]

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.

Well, alot of people, myself included, saw 4E as a blatant cash grab. The fact that they have put 4E versions of many 3.5 splatbooks lends credence to this view. Radical change to increase the "bottom line", whether real or perceived is going to make loyal fans of the game angry. It's ineveitable. Let's face it. No one likes to feel like they are being fleeced.

 

[drothgery]

Well, alot of people, myself included, saw 4E as a blatant cash grab. The fact that they have put 4E versions of many 3.5 splatbooks lends credence to this view.

... that were in turn versions of 3.0 splatbooks, which were largely versions of 2e splatbooks.

I mean, 2e had the single-class Complete Handbooks (for every PHB class, and some that introduced new classes). 3e had the X&Y books (Sword & Fist, Tome & Blood) that covered 2-3 classes each. 3.5 did the Complete series, which in 4e-speak was options by role (and introduced new classes). 4e's spin on the same thing (the X Power series) is organized by power source. But TSR and WotC have done them for every edition since 2e because they sell well. And they sell well because people want more options for their characters.