Stifling Innovation

[Roman]

I know nothing about WHFRPG, so I will refrain from commenting on that, but I think fans are far less opposed to mechanical innovation than what you seem to imply. It is just that different groups of fans would like the game to change in different directions.

For example, I am not at all fond of 4E and have not switched to it from 3.5E D&D. However, I would be able to stomach changes to the game of the magnitude that 4E wrought, had they been in a direction I would find appealing. Hence, I might have welcomed huge changes if instead of homogenization of classes, they had been made more heterogenous in terms of their abilities, or if a greater emphasis had been placed on out of combat abilities and so on and so on.

There are many directions changes to a game can take. For me, it is not really the scale of the changes that matters (at least not up to a point), but rather where the vector of the changes points towards.

 

[rkwoodard]

Would You?

Except it did. Not only will the term WFRP be associated with the 3rd Edition of it, but players of 2E are denied continuing support for the game, which impacts directly on the number of players they can find.

Now, if companies want to innovate, they can. Just with new games. If the third version of WFRP had been called Warhammer Quest or something similar, that'd have been fine.

Isn't it true you would only be fine, if they still supported the 2nd edition. I mean, let's say that they call this new game Warhammer Quest, but they then still pour all of the resources that were going to 2nd edition into this new game. You are still out of luck.

New Game vs. New Edition from a resourse allocation, not much difference to the company, or the poor fans of the "old" game.

RK

 

[mmadsen]

I saw the movie earlier this week, and enjoyed it for what it was: big dumb fun.

I guess that's to be expected, if you call yourself Fifth Element, right?

 

[mmadsen]

For example, I am not at all fond of 4E and have not switched to it from 3.5E D&D. However, I would be able to stomach changes to the game of the magnitude that 4E wrought, had they been in a direction I would find appealing.

Well said. An edition-change is a rare opportunity to make sweeping changes, and different people have different ideas about what the right sweeping changes might be.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

I tend to agree. I feel that edition churn might be good for the business but it's bad for the hobby. The increasing profusion of editions just splinters a fan base that grows slowly, if at all. It's a business model that RPGs have chosen to embrace but it isn't the only way that games can be sold.

Scrabble is for the most part an unchanging game. They make money with new sets distinguished by physical features. It is a *very* popular game and part of its appeal is that you can come back to it after 20 years, sit down and play a game. Monopoly is for the most part an unchanging game. They make money with new "settings." Softball is not exactly the same game every time -- there are a few easily-grasped "house rules" in whatever league you play -- but companies make money by selling equipment. If Rawlings tried to sell differently shaped bats for their all-new "Softball 2.0," do you think they'd get away with it? Poker adds new variants periodically but manages their introduction well by keeping the older ones around (most games I play are rotating "dealer calls").

I didn't play AD&D, but saw 2E as a shift due to political forces. I saw 3E as the inevitable consequence of a new owner attempting to put their stamp on the brand. I saw 3.5 as a necessary fix to a system that had been rushed out the door. But 3.5 to 4E was the first time I perceived "planned obselescence" as part of the actual business plan. It's not that I'm opposed to innovation -- it's that I'd rather have seen the innovation focused on modules and settings.

Games in general, from card games to sports and playground games to board games, draw some of their appeal from their popularity and the existence of a base of potential players. Constant reinvention and revision is not conducive to this.

 

[relmskye]

Support is a really big issue, once a game stops getting new books it becomes harder to get new people into it, and it becomes much harder to replace things as they degrade or get damaged. Even PDFs may need replacement if their storage is damaged.

I'm sorry, but there is a limit to how long a game can remain supported, and still be viable as a product. Eventually, its market will become saturated; Most of its prospective audience will have purchased the books by then, and sales will slow to a trickle. Furthermore, there's only so many sourcebooks a company can produce and still expect a meaningful amount of sales; sourcebooks sell less well than core material, and less well than preceding sourcebooks.

A company has a choice of either letting a beloved brand die, or to revitalize it with a new edition, which will have a different (but overlapping) target audience. They could make a new game - different game with different name - but the old game would still have to lose its support. To support a dead product would put a company at risk; Company goes bust, they definitely won't be supporting anything anymore.

Also: WFRP is popular enough that you will still be able to reliably find replacements for your damaged books long after it has ceased to be supported.

 

[Agamon]

It really is sementics...as WFRP, I'm all "huh"? If they had called it Warhammer Quest, I'd be very intrigued, indeed.

Rebranding isn't always a bad thing, but it does have a tendancy to upset your current customers. Creating a new brand makes it tough to get off the ground. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?

I disagree with the premise, and hence, also with the thread's title. No amount of discussion on the arpatubes, friendly or otherwise, is possibly going to stop companies doing what they choose to do (for better or worse, as the case may be each time). 'We' (or 'they') aren't stifling innovation, because - even if we/they wanted to - we/they simply can't!

4e still went ahead. No doubt, WFRP 3rd edition will too. So, what does it matter?

People sometimes *really* like the looks of a new thing, and sometimes they *really* don't. Or they don't much care, or just like or dislike it a bit. Either way, that's all there is to it. Nothing to worry about. If the RPG industry collapsed in x years, say, it wouldn't be anything to do with internet chatter, guaranteed. And, just for the record, I believe that RPGs are here to stay.

Well, that's my take on it. If you disagree, then of course thousands of innocent dolphins will be mutilated. But hey, that's a given.

 

[kitsune9]

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?

Interesting question.

I think one reason of our reaction is our level of investment (time, passion, and economics).

For example, if I play X the RPG as my one-shot, pick-up game and if they announce 2nd edition which totally changes the mechanics and feel of the game, I'm probably either to go "meh" or say "cool." But if I bought $$ books, play on a weekly game, and really, really love the current system, and they announce 2nd edition, then I'm likely to be .

Of course, this is just my take on it. I'm sure that really people react differently because of all sorts of other factors.

For WFRP, I would not like to see a lot of radical changes, but I'm still very curious about simply because I really enjoy the setting and if the new mechanics can deliver that "feel" to me, then that's all good for me!

Happy Gaming!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Except it did. Not only will the term WFRP be associated with the 3rd Edition of it, but players of 2E are denied continuing support for the game, which impacts directly on the number of players they can find.

Now, if companies want to innovate, they can. Just with new games. If the third version of WFRP had been called Warhammer Quest or something similar, that'd have been fine.

If they would have created a Warhammer Quest RPG, that still would have meant an end to 2E support. Just because they have 2 games doesn't mean they can support it.

(But if they can support two games, they can also support 2 editions.)