Thoughts on the edition treadmill

[Holy Bovine]

I'd like to propose an additional dimension to the discussion.

Consider Call of Cthulhu. An RPG, it has been through what, six editions now? I bet that there has been negligible change in the mechanics during that time. Most of the changes are probably in layout, art and perhaps different or expanded guidance?

Do you think D&D would work with the CoC model of editions?

Cheers

If D&D ever had a system as simply elegant as the BRP one then yes it could have done it.

And your right about CoC - I have editions 3 through 6 and the characters and their generation is virtually identical. Heck even the monster stats for most creatures are the same! The editions do provide new artwork, a clarifying of older rules and extra bits like reprinting Lovecraft's Call of Cthulhu short story in its entirely for 5th edition or the size comparison chart in the back of 4th edition (that thing is my personal favourite - I looked at for a full 20 minutes the first time I got it before I even noticed the tiny human figures meant to give it its scale!)

 

[jedijon]

With WotC trying to emulate the success of MTG with all their other games, it a shocker that they haven't even tried to figure out how tomake this work with D&D.

"Core set" every two years or so, new cover art - feats, spell list - whatever, but COMPATIBLE content; both in type and qty as the previous book. Planned obsolescence.

"Expansions" - could be 1 to 3 campaign settings; possibly even at different 'cycles'. I'd make one a 4 year cycle, and the other a 2 year. Cameos, or straight resurrection for the popular. NO MORE Players hanbook 2+++++. Instead, you'd get your classes, powers, whatnot mediated by your setting. Why? Planned obsolescence.

"Modular content" just what it sounds like. Magic puts out a ton of modules every year. D&D should have mini to super adventures for its active settings and some settingless consumable content. Again, planned obsolescence, churn, and consumption.

Subscriptions don't need to figure into any of this. D&D, if anything would need a micro transaction model - and it's no facebook! When are people going to stop self-marginalizing. If anything, this thread is a good sober consideration of what NEEDS to happen before sixth edition. 5th can probably still coast if need be, but if WotC (who holds the sales numbers) doesn't see our hobby expanding; profit is irrelevant--that just measures their prudent fiscal choices-but in NUMBERS of copies sold; then they better figure out how to keep who they've got...

 

[El Mahdi]

Most of us recognize that words get used multiple ways. But, if the pedantry of definition means that much to you, fine. Have it your way.

Yes, most of us do recognize that words get used in multiple ways. However, you are the one that has pointed out in numerous postings how proper word choice and terminology matters to you. You have even described yourself in postings on this site as being picky about such things.

I was simply responding to a post of yours, quite politely I might add, based on the words you chose (rather than reading into it, assuming alternate definitions, or using a looser interpretation), and then stating my beliefs about the subject - something that I thought was the purpose of this site and this thread.

When you responded to my post in a rather condescending manner, as if I should have known the difference between what you said and what you meant, I responded back both in kind and as politely as possible. You could have simply said you were using a looser interpretation of the word, and I would have completely understood. Instead you decided to take a lecturing approach, complete with a metaphorical object lesson.

Quite honestly, I enjoy, appreciate, and highly respect your opinions on this site. You seem to be extremely educated and knowledgable concerning the things you post about. I also greatly appreciate your purposeful accuracy in the choice of words and language you use. I find it a breath of fresh air compared to the looser use of language that's the norm on this site and in this day's common usage. And quite frankly, based on your humor I find you rather Cool (to use an overused adjective).

So to be honest, I find having you call me pedantic to be a bit hypocritical, and more than a bit dissapointing...

 

[jmucchiello]

Sorry, I was including things like Gen Con in the "industry". It's a major marketing effort in order to bring visiblity to gaming. Why wouldn't it be included in "the industry"? People are getting paid to do it. It's not an amateur effort.

Yes, but it's part of the GAMING industry, not the RPG industry. So why would it go away? CCG companies go to Gen Con. Board Game companies go to Gen Con. Wargames go to Gen Con. If RPGs disappeared, only the size of the con would change.

I'm not familiar enough with Dragonsfoot, but En World stays in business through subscriptions that require new material for subscribers. They also make some money selling gaming goodies as well. Why would En World not be considered part of the industry?

What happens to websites that are not part of the industry? Ask PlanetAD&D.

Dragon'sfoot is a 1e/OD&D website. The forums there are for discussing the good old days people are having today with 1e/OD&D. There's no industry there - just hobbyists enjoying their hobby.

ENWorld started as a fan news website. Russ use to keep the EN Publishing side separate from EN World. So as a long time poster here I forget how commercial this site has become (Firefox's adblock plugin helps a lot with maintaining the beer goggles). But again, if the industry disappears, the hobbyists would start a new ENWorld or actually a new Dragonsfoot aimed instead at new editions.

 

[Hussar]

On Gen Con - considering Gen Con's financial woes, losing the income from the companies would have a pretty serious impact. But, in any case, Gen Con without RPG companies becomes just another fantasy convention and we already have a bunch of those.

The problem with something like En World becoming a fan based site is that it shrinks considerably. How big is En World compared to Dragonsfoot? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't Dragonsfoot supplement its opporating costs by selling pdf's? No more industry means no more pdf's as well.

 

[jmucchiello]

On Gen Con - considering Gen Con's financial woes, losing the income from the companies would have a pretty serious impact. But, in any case, Gen Con without RPG companies becomes just another fantasy convention and we already have a bunch of those.

No, it becomes a wargaming convention, a board game convention and a CCG convention. Or does "RPG industry" include all board gaming companies too?

The problem with something like En World becoming a fan based site is that it shrinks considerably. How big is En World compared to Dragonsfoot? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't Dragonsfoot supplement its opporating costs by selling pdf's? No more industry means no more pdf's as well.

Again this an issue of scale. Does one guy selling an RPG product on Lulu.com could as there being an RPG Industry? I don't think so. Dragonsfoot sells basically fanmade homebrewed adventures with little or no glitz. Are you saying that a collapse of the industry would be so complete that no one could possibly sell an RPG PDF ever?

If so we need to disagree on what an industry collapse means. To me, it means no non-vanity print products, no amazon.com presence, no non-vanity retail availability of product. There will always be someone who will put out of pocket to make 100 copies of something or put a PDF on Lulu for POD. That is not an industry.

Quite frankly I can't see this being an issue ever. If wizards stops all RPG production does that stop sjgames from selling GURPS products? Does that stop the indierpg people from making their products? Does drivethrurpg/rpgnow suddenly disappear? Yes, the lose of D&D makes the RPG Industry a much bleaker landscape but I doubt it would end to the point that POD services like Lulu would turn the product away.

 

[WizarDru]

If you really want to read it all, that goes into an indepth explanation of why there is an edition treadmill, why it doesn't have to exist...why it does exist...and what would happen if RPG's...and hence D&D was treated like a boardgame.

Have a nice read.

It was a little hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of it. I think what I got from it was the following (and correct if I've misunderstood):

1. D&D was once a fad and fads are good, due to the burst of revenue.
2. Fads fade, sometimes very quickly. The only way to continue a fad is to reinvent it.
3. Most books publish, have a big 'fad' start then sales fade over time
4. Boardgames have a fad publishing schedule, where each game 'reboots' the fad
5. D&D should switch to a publishing model similar to a boardgame, using box sets and the like to make packages with fad burstiness

Well, Gamma World will certainly show if that's a successful model or not, since that's exactly the approach they're taking with it. I personally don't think that will work for large sales, but might make sustainable lower tier numbers. But I don't know if it will bring in new gamers or not and I have no idea of hardcore gamers will give it a chance. Most of the reviews I've read for it say that people bought it AFTER playing it; arguably the best way to expand the hobby.

A large problem with discussions like these is that we have no real hard data or access to sales numbers. Everyone knows WotC is the 800 lb. gorilla, due to a number of data points (presence in stores, advertising/sponsorship budgets, market penetration, large-scale anecdotal evidence from both gamers and small retailers, etc.). But as was evidenced in other threads, we really don't know how the overall industry functions.

I also think you're wrong about boardgames; as a niche market, most Euro-game producers are very, very small and work with small margins. A company like Mayfair, FFG or makes money, but they're not in WotC's class. I'm not sure that attempting to emulate them too closely is a winning strategy. For last year, board games (all of them, including Monopoly type games) sold around some $700 million in sales. As recently as 2007, Hasbro controlled 51%+ of the board game market. It's unclear if those numbers include D&D and Magic. It's been put forth that only about $50-100 million of that figure is attributable to hobby games (again, it's unclear where D&D and Magic fall in this).

I would hazard that the most popular FFG release is dwarfed, sales-wise, by the basic Apples-to-Apples set or a good chunk of GameWright's output, which can be found at Borders, Barnes & Nobles and Target, usually in highly visible locations.

 

[rogueattorney]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't Dragonsfoot supplement its opporating costs by selling pdf's?

No. Dragonsfoot does not sell anything. Everything in their fairly extensive inventory of D&D resources is free.

There are metric tons of free rpg materials floating around the Internet, and much of it is really very good.

 

[Votan]

Couldn't the fact that our culture seems to expect near-constant change in software and the like also affect the idea that tabletop RPGs should "evolve" over time? Editions are given numbers, but they aren't "sequels" like a video game or a movie: they are like version numbers for software. This even seeped into our lexicon with "3.5" even though versions "3.1" through "3.4" never existed. I've encountered the philosophy that games have gotten "better" with time (that modern games are superior to older ones), despite there is no objective way to measure "better" in this sense. If customers and developers and marketers all think (even subconsciously) that this is so, then editions are inevitable.

I have long hypothesized that "rules bloat" is a tricky process. Each individual new option is, in and of itself, better. But there is a cost to keeping track of all of these options. This means, as the editions grows, that the marginal new rules need to be really good indeed. In real ruleset they will start not meeting this threshold and be a net drag on the system.

There are several ways to handle this. Core-only works well. So does a limited number of books. WotC had a great trick with the 4E character builder (which kept track of the most complex features of 4E making higher levels of total rule volume manageable.

But that means that a new edition, by definition, is sleek and interesting compared to the last one.

 

[xechnao]

D&D has so many gamist elements that taken apart make no sense (levels, magic, monsters) and because of that its public is prone and willing to accept more takes on the rules.

OTOH, call of cthulhu is less nonsensical so there is a broader consensus among its public on what it holds for the game and what not.

In other words, what matters in (a game of) call of cthulhu is pretty much standard. Not so much in D&D.