Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chrono22" data-source="post: 5040255" data-attributes="member: 86638"><a href="http://www.managesmarter.com/msg/content_display/marketing/e3i22a6a5c76f599869844316fa72173706" target="_blank">Marketing Loyalty: How Tactics Kill Strategy</a>^This article explains in good detail some of the mistakes that were made as part of the marketing of 4e.Brand loyalty is a powerful asset, but only so long as you maintain it. Changing the mechanics was understandable- see the transition from 2e to 3e, most people embraced the changes- but only so long as the fundamental assumptions about play are not compromised.When I play Call of Cthulu, I do so for a sense of inevitable dread and an atmosphere of insane horror. If a revision of the game were to be released wherein the main characters defeat Cthulu and save the world from gods beyond the stars... that wouldn't be the same game, even if it had the same mechanics. Or let's say a new edition of Paranoia was released, wherein the atmosphere is one of a grim dystopia, with the players working together to overthrow the vile machinations of the Computer... once again, same subject matter, different game.The assumptions that players and the GM bring to the table, the expectations they have about the game- that defines what the game means. Changing that means removing what makes a PnP RPG unique.What is the objective of play? Is it the same as combat? No? Then they are not the same.Just off the top of my head, Dogs in the Vineyard could work.Burning wheel also, apparently. I'm working on my own RPG, that has great potential to provide mechanical/roleplay support for such scenario.And I disagree, no, combat can't represent all physical challenges or conflicts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chrono22, post: 5040255, member: 86638"] [URL="http://www.managesmarter.com/msg/content_display/marketing/e3i22a6a5c76f599869844316fa72173706"]Marketing Loyalty: How Tactics Kill Strategy[/URL] ^This article explains in good detail some of the mistakes that were made as part of the marketing of 4e. Brand loyalty is a powerful asset, but only so long as you maintain it. Changing the mechanics was understandable- see the transition from 2e to 3e, most people embraced the changes- but only so long as the fundamental assumptions about play are not compromised. When I play Call of Cthulu, I do so for a sense of inevitable dread and an atmosphere of insane horror. If a revision of the game were to be released wherein the main characters defeat Cthulu and save the world from gods beyond the stars... that wouldn't be the same game, even if it had the same mechanics. Or let's say a new edition of Paranoia was released, wherein the atmosphere is one of a grim dystopia, with the players working together to overthrow the vile machinations of the Computer... once again, same subject matter, different game. The assumptions that players and the GM bring to the table, the expectations they have about the game- that defines what the game means. Changing that means removing what makes a PnP RPG unique. What is the objective of play? Is it the same as combat? No? Then they are not the same. Just off the top of my head, Dogs in the Vineyard could work. Burning wheel also, apparently. I'm working on my own RPG, that has great potential to provide mechanical/roleplay support for such scenario. And I disagree, no, combat can't represent all physical challenges or conflicts. [/QUOTE]

Verification