The Myth of Games that Suck

[jdrakeh]

True, every new edition has caused some folks to get all cranky. But it seems now that we live in the future, with this new-fangled internet, the wailing and gnashing is louder and more widespread.

I don't think it's louder and more widespread, just more visible.

Perhaps that's just perception, as the cranky folks now have a venue to vent their spleen upon.

Yep, that's it exactly, I think.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That's laughable. I spent a crapload of money on Arcana Unearthed. Ended up giving it away. Turned out I didn't like it one fricking bit. IMO, it sucked, but it wasn't because of the price. I bring home $1100 a month, but I find a way to buy rpgs, because it's something I enjoy, and it's cheaper than anti-depressants. I think 4e is a load of crap, but it ain't because of the price either. In fact, the five of us in my group spent over a thousand dollars buying WHFRP 2e products shortly after 4e was announced because we knew we weren't going to like it. Good and bad games are subjective terms, but price has nothing to do with it. Price has a lot to do with wether or not one buys a game, but not wether or not they like it. I find the idea that someone would bash a game simply on the price tag ludicrous. I think porterhouse steak is way over priced, but I'm not about to say it sucks. $50,000 bucks for a new vehicle? I paid 6 grand for my truck and it runs just as good, but I wouldn't say a new Chevy hybrid sucks just because it costs 10 times as much.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It ain't a myth. Believe me.

I'm one of those grognards, but I'm not afraid to try something new. I played 3e for about 4 years. It was okay at first, but as we got to high levels, it broke down. Tried 3.5, didn't like it. Figured I'd hate 4e, tried it, found out I was right, it sucked. Tried Torg, tried C&C, tried Harp, HAcmaster and Hackmaster basic. While they didn't all suck, they just weren't the game for me and my group. We play WFRP2 now and enjoy it, but AD&D1e is our game of choice. Believe me, I would LOVE to like all those games. I'd give WOTC half my fricking paycheck each week if they'd let me. The rest of my group feels pretty much the same.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm one of those grognards, but I'm not afraid to try something new.

Well, then you're only a grognard, not one of those grognards*.

*a grognard unwilling to try anything new.

 

[ggroy]

I don't think it's louder and more widespread, just more visible.

Back in 1989, I remember the crankiness over the release of 2E AD&D was quite loud and vitriolic amongst friends who were hardcore 1E AD&D types. I didn't go to any gaming conventions that year, but I wouldn't be surprised if the crankiness was just as loud as what one would see online these days. (My friends who did go to some gaming conventions that year, mentioned the anti-2E sentiment was quite loud and pervasive).

 

[Pbartender]

I've been thinking about the recent backlash against WFRP3E. This is the second fantasy RPG that has faced a backlash over a new edition. Both WFRP3E ($100) and D&D 4E ($105) are very expensive games. One unarguable difference between Pathfinder and D&D is that the Pathfinder Core Rules cost $50 (or $10 for the PDF), while the PHB + DMG cost $70. Anadoctally, there is some evidence that the $10 PDF is selling the "luxery" of the printed rules.

I'm wondering if the difference between suck and brilliant isn't more a matter of price then quality. Fans of a game feel that they should keep up with the new product. When a new edition is priced out of affordability its fan base reacts by claiming that the edition is of poor quality, even if unaffordablility is the core reason. Had D&D 4th edition come out as three, $10 explorer edition sized books, might it have been hailed as new an innovative? Savage worlds has very few detractors.

I'm not saying that there aren't bad games out there (i'm sure most folks here have a couple on there shelf). On the other hand nWOD raised prices to cover the cost increase for hardcover volumes, and suffered a backlash citing quality. Exalted held prices relatively steady (even still printing material in softcover). Exalted may have lost players as the line has aged, but it hasn't suffered the fanbase issues that nWOD, 4E or WHFRP3E have.

Gaming has created the myth of the Grognard, the older gamer unwilling to try anything new. Somehow this doesn't seem to fit gamers who measure their collection by boxes and bookshelves.

Oh and before somebody brings up inflation, a book that retailed for $15 in 1990 should retail for $24.50 inflation adjusted today.

I look at it this way...

Our group games about 4 hours a week (5-9pm on Sunday evenings). That's roughly 200 hours a year. Or nearly one thousand hours of gaming, accounting for weeks we skip, over the typical 5 year lifetime we might expect out of this edition.

That's a lot of entertainment for $100. (Granted, I'm ignoring other incidental costs, but still, you get the idea.)

Especially considering it could cost my family of four nearly $50 to go see a two hour movie in the theater if we buy full price tickets and stop by the concession stand.

 

[wingsandsword]

True, every new edition has caused some folks to get all cranky. But it seems now that we live in the future, with this new-fangled internet, the wailing and gnashing is louder and more widespread. Perhaps that's just perception, as the cranky folks now have a venue to vent their spleen upon.

Well, while the internet makes it easier for people to gripe, I'd not say that this griping is new. I've heard lots of stories about grognards during the AD&D 1e/2e transition being just as bad, for example. At least with 2e there was a lot of backwards compatibility (thus 1e players could buy new 2e adventures and even some supplements and use them with often little adaptation), unlike 4e which seems to be specifically designed to have no backwards compatibility (which forces the issue of the schism).

Personally, I think that the 3.5/4e split is particularly loud because of several reasons.
1. There was not a broad consensus in the fanbase that 3.5 needed overhaul or replacement (I believe that the reason that 3e was so broadly accepted and there are few 2e grognards is that there was such a general consensus). Some people wanted something new (be it OD&D, C&C, 4e, or who knows, but 3.5 wasn't satisfying them), some people would buy anything that WotC made, but there were a lot of people who were quite happy with 3.5 and didn't see a need for a new edition.

2. The game changed so radically in presumed style, terminology, mechanics, and "flavor" elements such as setting presumptions like cosmology that it resembles D&D in-name-only to some fans.

3. WotC bungled the marketing so badly that it should be used as a textbook way not to sell things: their idea of spreading what used to be core throughout more books in what was seen as a blatant attempt to pressure gamers to buy more books, and the initial "3e is wrongbadfun" marketing didn't help either as it turned lots of potential buyers who were happy with the current product away. Seriously, what marketing guru would tell you to market your new product by openly insulting your old product that you are still selling and has been a smash hit? Do they advertise a new video game sequel by saying that the previous one wasn't any fun and was boring and if you played it you weren't having fun, so buy this new one instead so you'll have fun because it's totally unlike its predecessor?

I haven't seen quite as much rancor over the WoD/nWoD split, but I've seen it somewhat. At least with nWoD there were some very needed and innovative design ideas in the main "splats" (Vampires not being inherently tied to generation, for example) and improvements in marketing (a single core book for the entire line, for creating humans). I've seen actually several GMs run games using the nWoD rules (somewhat adapted) for games set in the original WoD setting (they prefer the new rules, but most of the old setting). I've seen more people adhering to oWoD Larping than tabletop, but that's just my experience.

 

[Imaro]

I look at it this way...

Our group games about 4 hours a week (5-9pm on Sunday evenings). That's roughly 200 hours a year. Or nearly one thousand hours of gaming, accounting for weeks we skip, over the typical 5 year lifetime we might expect out of this edition.

That's a lot of entertainment for $100. (Granted, I'm ignoring other incidental costs, but still, you get the idea.)

Especially considering it could cost my family of four nearly $50 to go see a two hour movie in the theater if we buy full price tickets and stop by the concession stand.

I really wish people would stop using this inaccurate and misleading argument. It doesn't in any way account for the fact that rpg's take up time that is not in and of itself part of the actual playing of the game... not to mention the cost of such things as graph paper, snacks, minis or tokens, etc. (I mean if you're including a trip to the concession stand shouldn't these factors be included with an rpg?)

Unlike a movie, a RPG does require me to put forth effort and work in order to get it going... considerably more than any boardgame or videogame requires on a regular basis. How does that factor into the price comparisons? If you spend 4 to 5 hrs a week in preperation should that be equal to the amount one would get paid as an hourly wage at their job? If so rpg's aren't as inexpensive as some try to make them out to be.

Now I'm not claiming they aren't a good value, but let's keep everything in perspective when comparing one form of enetertainment to another.

As far as WFRP 3e goes, the only thing, as of yet, I find a total deal breaker is the "limited players" with core factor. I'm used to dealing with this in a boardgame but not so much in an rpg.

 

[pawsplay]

I have often wondered why RPGs are so cheap. I still to this day scratch my head that Silver Age Sentinels (deluxe) was sold at a discount instead of a premium... I would have paid $55 for it, easily.

 

[jaerdaph]

If you spend 4 to 5 hrs a week in preperation should that be equal to the amount one would get paid as an hourly wage at their job? If so rpg's aren't as inexpensive as some try to make them out to be.

Dude, roleplaying is a *hobby*, not a job! Something you do for *entertainment* when you're NOT working so you can forget about The Real World for a while. The prep time is supposed to be part of the fun!