Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 4890347" data-attributes="member: 15999">I tend to agree.&nbsp; I feel that edition churn might be good for the business but it's bad for the hobby.&nbsp; The increasing profusion of editions just splinters a fan base that grows slowly, if at all.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; They make money with new sets distinguished by physical features.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Monopoly is for the most part an unchanging game.&nbsp; They make money with new &quot;settings.&quot;&nbsp; Softball is not exactly the same game every time -- there are a few easily-grasped &quot;house rules&quot; in whatever league you play -- but companies make money by selling equipment.&nbsp; If Rawlings tried to sell differently shaped bats for their all-new &quot;Softball 2.0,&quot; do you think they'd get away with it?&nbsp; Poker adds new variants periodically but manages their introduction well by keeping the older ones around (most games I play are rotating &quot;dealer calls&quot;). I didn't play AD&amp;D, but saw 2E as a shift due to political forces.&nbsp; I saw 3E as the inevitable consequence of a new owner attempting to put their stamp on the brand.&nbsp; I saw 3.5 as a necessary fix to a system that had been rushed out the door.&nbsp; But 3.5 to 4E was the first time I perceived &quot;planned obselescence&quot; as part of the actual business plan.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Constant reinvention and revision is not conducive to this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 4890347, member: 15999"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification