The Myth of Games that Suck

[kitsune9]

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.

Offhand, I'd say I think it comes down to mechanics and taste on any new edition that comes out. Economics tends to play a role in terms of someone's willingness to invest in the new product. Anecdoctally speaking, I knew some people who back in the days of 2e were liking what they were hearing about 3e, but weren't going to switch to 3e simply because they couldn't afford to.

I have a friend currently, who won't switch to Pathfinder (final) because the Beta was free.

Though your theory could have stronger evidence if we surveyed gamers on their favorite editions and tried to determine if price contributed to a factor of their distaste for the new edition of X the RPG. I'm not a biostatistician, so I wouldn't know how to develop a survey without bias or "corrupt" questions. Maybe there might be some gamers on the board who in real life, that's part of their job, so they maybe help you with that kind of scientific study.

Well, good luck! Happy Gaming!

 

[jdrakeh]

When someone issues the statement that someone else holds their opinion on the basis of 'closed-mindedness', it proves nothing about the internal thought processes of another person. But, ironically, it does reveal something very important about the internal thought processes of the person issueing the statement. What it reveals is that person denouncing other people as 'closed-minded' has never seriously entertained someone else's opinion, does not consider their position to be something reasonable people could hold, is unwilling to admit that anyone could disagree with them on a rational basis, and is willing to dismiss other people's opinions on the basis of an ad hominem attack.

Well, for starters, I didn't address my remark to an individual, nor was it about an individual. I used it to describe a behavior. Specifically, I used it to describe the decision to make talking about or discussing new and different things punishable offenses. That is close-minded. I'm sorry you felt the need to take it so personally.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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). <snip>

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.

I agree with each point made there. To expand...

1) To me, there were certain things that needed cleaning up, but not replacement. In addition, there were mechanics introduced in later products that I would have liked to have seen expanded, like the Reserve feats (one of the best set of feats for spellcasters out there).

2) As I've stated here and elsewhere, 4Ed was the first version of D&D where I couldn't simply update my campaign and continue playing. That was, in many ways and on many levels, a deal-breaker...both for me and for others.

3) This one in particular disturbed me. WotC's campaign was a shock to me as a guy with a degree in marketing- denigrating your own successful product is not the way to make your established base happy.

Coupled with #1 above, this rollout made me think of the New Coke fiasco. Time will be the judge.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, for starters, I didn't address my remark to an individual, nor was it about an individual. I used it to describe a behavior. Specifically, I used it to describe the decision to make talking about or discussing new and different things punishable offenses. That is close-minded. I'm sorry you felt the need to take it so personally.

I take the entire culture of calling people 'close-minded' to be an affront. I've noticed that it has become the thing to do when other people have differing opinions. Perhaps there is a culture out there that considers talking about new and different things punishable offenses, but that hasn't been my personal experience. Rather, my personal experience is that alot of people go around calling other people 'close-minded' and unfairly characterizing them as having this 'puritanical' mindset whenever they just don't happen to see things that way.

In any event, this abstract group 'out there' of supposed puritanical close-minded gaming zealots, I would trust it is not EnWorld we are talking about. And, if it is not EnWorld we are talking about, then let us not talk about 'those others' (whoever they are) at all behind their backs (as it were) where they are given no oppurtunity to defend themselves from the charges or state their own views in their own words. It seems to me that the only relevance of 'those others, you know, the bad ones - the ones not like us', is to serve as straw men to be torched. It seems to me to be rather bad form.

 

[Celebrim]

And you making assumptions about whether someone who uses the phrase "close-minded" is incapable of considering another person's position says what about you? Your response is no less ad hominem than the statement you are belittling.

I'm quite aware of that. That's part of what is interesting about the observation.

What I'm saying is that calling someone close minded is just about the most useless thing I think one can say in a conversation, and I'd rather we just all got away from that mindset and stopped being so quick to pull out the charge. I'd rather we begin with the notion that most people have reasons for believing as they do and that rational intelligent people not that disimilar from ourselves hold those opinions. I think whenever we look at the world as being full of closeminded people, all we are really revealing is how close minded we ourselves are.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think whenever we look at the world as being full of closeminded people, all we are really revealing is how close minded we ourselves are.

Right, so I'm closed-minded because I pointed out that forbidding the mere mention of newer games (regardless of reason) isn't open-minded behavior. Look, I don't mean to be condescending, but that's a text book example of closed-mindedness. You can't seriously be arguing that forbidding the discussion of new games (or new editions of old games) under threat of punishment is open-minded.

 

[jdrakeh]

I take the entire culture of calling people 'close-minded' to be an affront.

Well, that's you're right. I have no idea how you deal with the world if your skin is really so thin, though.

In any event, this abstract group 'out there' of supposed puritanical close-minded gaming zealots, I would trust it is not EnWorld we are talking about. And, if it is not EnWorld we are talking about, then let us not talk about 'those others' (whoever they are) at all behind their backs (as it were) where they are given no oppurtunity to defend themselves from the charges or state their own views in their own words. It seems to me that the only relevance of 'those others, you know, the bad ones - the ones not like us', is to serve as straw men to be torched. It seems to me to be rather bad form.

I don't troll other message boards. That's bad form. I'm free to offer my opinions here if I like, which I did. Also, again, I didn't level my remarks at any particular individual (or community). If you've made some connection in your mind, that's entirely your doing. I'm sorry that my opinions don't adhere to your perception that you get to dictate what I say. My advice? Get used to it.

 

[Celebrim]

Right, so I'm closed-minded because I pointed out that forbidding the mere mention of newer games (regardless of reason) isn't open-minded behavior. Look, I don't mean to be condescending, but that's a text book example of closed-mindedness. You can't seriously be arguing that forbidding the discussion of new games (or new editions of old games) under threat of punishment is open-minded.

I'm arguing that the terms have no real meaning applied to anyone other than oneself. Only we have access to our own minds. We don't have access to anyone elses. We can only speak for one person in this world.

While we are at it, it's my experience that no one ever says anything like, "I don't mean to be condescending...", except when they are about to say something really condescending and know it. The surest sign that a person knows that they are about to be rude is, "I don't mean to be rude...", and the surest sign that someone is about to put themselves forward is that they say, "I don't mean to put myself forward..." Etc. If you don't mean to do something and yet you are also conscious that you are about to do it anyway, it seems to me that either you shouldn't do it or at least you shouldn't try to decieve yourself.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm arguing that the terms have no real meaning applied to anyone other than oneself.

Well, you'd be wrong. We have these things called languages that disprove this argument. I'd give you a primer on adjectives, nouns, and other basic staples of the English language, but I'm a bit pressed for time.

 

[Umbran]

Wow. So many people who should know better, behaving so shamefully.

Thread closed.