Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 5374746" data-attributes="member: 151">First, a nitpick:  Monopoly has multiple editions, it's true.  But it bears keeping in mind that many 'editions' of Monopoly are UNLICENSED.  Monopoly was developed in the Public Domain and while there was some controversy, there was a IP court case that eventually determined that while Parker Brothers had the rights to the specific version they were publishing, that much of the material was not copyrightable.  Hence, you can published your own '-opoly' game, as long as you don't use the exact elements or name of Monopoly.  Which isn't to say that alternate versions of Monopoly haven't been tried.Now to the OP's argument that these games don't change and D&D doesn't need to change, I guess that depends on what you mean by 'need'.  Game companies need to publish or perish.  You aren't going to see many RPG companies thriving by NOT releasing new editions.  Quick: name the number of RPG companies that have been in operation for thirty-five years or more.  Okay that leaves us with....ummm, Flying Buffalo.  Heck, can someone tally a list of RPG companies with only one edition of game that's lasted 10 years?  TSR had multiple editions, some parallel.  WotC has had multiple editions.  Whilte Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Chaosium, I.C.E., GDW?  Same.  How about Paizo, you might ask?  Same.  The big softbound copy I own of the Pathfinder RPG that I bought at Gencon is labeled BETA.  The final hardbound edition clarified and changed rules.  This is not meant as any sort of accusation: it's just a point that printing multiple editions is one of the chief ways a publisher stays in business.And often, when a publisher isn't releasing a new edition, it's because the publisher is printing ANOTHER game.  TSR didn't just release D&D: they released Top Secret, Marvel Superheroes, Indiana Jones the RPG, Star Frontiers, Alternity, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Metamorphosis Alpha, Buck Rogers and others.  White Wolf has multiple interlocking games.  ICE had MERP, Rolemaster, Spacemaster, Cyberspace and HARP.  And so on.Printing supplements has rarely proven to be a winning strategy for any RPG company on the market.Now, to the argument that new editions are unnecessary, which I think may have been what w&s was generally eluding to: well, YMMV.  I can only think of a couple of RPGS that remained in publishing rotation that also managed to NOT release multiple editions for a prolonged period of time and still sold well: GURPS 3rd Edition and Palladium's RIFTS (though I'm not sure that counts, given that many Rifts books were essentially stand-alone games like Robotech, iirc).  Neither of these sold (or sells) exceptionally well;  both of them are supported in large part by continual supplemental releases of settings and expansions.    However, their relative sales isn't the point, the point is that these worldbooks tended to add new rules and settings, effectively being a limited edition of the game.  GURPS Japan might introduce the concept of On (honor) as a tracked stat, GURPS Voodoo adds an alternate magic system and so on.  Does that mean that a new set of core rules are required?  Not necessarily.  But market forces make that decision much more readily than the customer base, who often fails to vote with their dollars...in part because they usually BUY a new edition (even if they decide they don't want it) and also because they often recognize the fragility of the publisher.  On top of which, gamers like NEW.  They buy NEW.  Sometimes all it takes is a fresh coat of paint to sell a new edition.Most systems have perceived flaws on the part of their player base...the question becomes whether or not another system will address those flaws and if the player base universally agrees on the flaws.  For years, GURPS resisted any notion of an update, eventually releasing Compendium I and II as sort of a 3.5 patch onto GURPS.  There was widespread belief that the system had numerous flaws and loopholes that could do with shoring up, but a 4th edition took a long time to arrive.  Both took nearly 15 years to release new editions.This begs the question, I suppose, of when a new edition is needed (if ever)?  Certainly I'd argue that most systems need at least a second edition to shore up holes that simply don't appear until rigorous large scale play takes place.  Many problems don't appear until someone hacks the system and finds loopholes or errors.  RPGs aren't like board games...they are too broad to be extensively tested against the imaginations of hundreds of thousands of role-players.I have no idea how often is too often for a new edition.  I do think that there can be a 'too soon' point and certainly there can be 'release fatigue'.  But I've not idea where the line actually lies.</blockquote>

Verification