What is good for D&D as a game vs. what is good for the company that makes it

[ExploderWizard]

The 1e era didn't have one well playtested, copyedited, and produced book a year. The game of that time was poorly playtested, haphazardly designed, and had uneven editing and production values*. But still it was your "Golden Age"?

Regardless of your opinion on the quality of the 1E game, the production values on those books was awesome.

I'm willing to bet that bindings on rpg books that haven't even been produced yet will give out before my early printing PHB will.

 

[GreyLord]

The 1e era didn't have one well playtested, copyedited, and produced book a year. The game of that time was poorly playtested, haphazardly designed, and had uneven editing and production values*. But still it was your "Golden Age"?

*Let it be noted, however, that I still like the game - I think that good ideas and style usually trumps solid playtesting and design.

This goes FAR FAR beyond and before the edition wars. Prior to everything there were the War Gamers, and we were glorious. If anything was balanced, the Wargamers would find it. They had an innate feel for what was balanced and what was not.

Afterall, when recreating Waterloo, would we want to have it so it always ended with Napoleon's defeat...what's the fun with that. A truly balanced battle would give the player that chance to upset history.

Wargamers had a different mindset than those who were new with RPGs. Many Roleplayers who were also wargamers would NOT admit to their wargaming buddies they played RPGs (I still don't most times these days).

There was bad blood between Wargamers and Roleplayers (but not as bad as that between the old Roleplayers and 3.X players)

Why do I mention this?

Because Gygax was a wargamer. Going back, he was that Wargamer who had that sense of balance. His take on the RPGs probably was more akin to what occurred in some Wargames in which you'd have players, and then you'd have the referee of the game. The DM in an RPG was the referee meant to handle disputes.

I find the original AD&D to be actually MORE balanced in relation to the old Wargamer mindset than anything that has come afterwards. Most of what came afterwards was catering to players and their wants rather than the actual game itself.

Which leads us to your comment.

Someone stated above that during the Golden age TSR was publishing one book a year. I'd say that's not even close. TSR printed a hardback occasionally, maybe once a year...if that...BUT they printed OOODLES of softbacks in the form of adventures and other items.

In many ways it was more balanced with that old wargamer mindset that Gygax had than the new Roleplayer aspect that came later.

It's hard to put into words the exact difference of these types of balance except there's a specific type of feel to it. UA had worn that sheen off (but was more for fun then balance anyways), 2e definately had the sheen wearing thin...and by the time 3e came around, there was no sheen of that type of balance at all.

There was a new type of balance (3e was in no way balanced in relation to that old type of balance...it catered to a different type of balance). At least how the creators of 3e saw balance, which I think is a very different type of balance than an old grognard may have seen it (no telling if the new grognards would see it that way though).

I would imagine your reference is to UA, and other books of that time period rather than the original book per year release of AD&D.

Maybe you are right in regards to some types of balance, but if you go that route you'd have to apply that same idea to the later books of any edition.

In 3e the books got more and more unbalanced as well in many ways, even in regards to the "new" balance. I think the rest of your post would also apply to 3e in it's later stages just as much as it does to the later TSR books for 1e.

2e started pretty early with the unbalancing act though, I'd say within the first release after core almost, or less than a few months.

4e, it's creeping relatively slower in that regards as far as I can see thus far...then again they say hindsight is 20/20. After 4e passes perhaps I'll be able to see the unbalancing act there as well.

 

[Hussar]

How about "tried and true"? It's all a question of spin. Call of Cthulhu has changed over the years, but remains quite recognizable from its first edition to its sixth. The same is true of Champions. I don't think I'd say either is stagnant or mired in concepts of yore.



That sounds like 20 years of a largely stable platform, to me./snip

Really?

Pick up an AD&D 1e PHB and compare it to a 2e PHB. Every class is different. Combat mechanics are different. Organization is completely rewritten. Caster classes are HUGELY expanded. Races are different. Initiative rules are different.

Never minding the mechanical differences, which are pretty hefty, there is also the design difference as well. 2e is a different game from 1e. The focus is very different, play presumptions are completely different. The list is long on the difference between 1e and 2e.

And that's just comparing core to core. Let's compare 2e with Skills and Powers to base 1e PHB. Different enough yet?

20 years of a stable platform is not true. Heck, let's not forget, 2e was the game that originally fractured the hobby because it was too different.

/edit to add

I'd also point out an addition thing. In that 20 years of "stable" platform, we have the producer of D&D going from its highest point to going out of business at the tail end of that 20 years. Possibly not the best business model to follow.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In the 1e era, a new hardcover book was released about once per year, and that was the Golden Age of D&D.

Really? I'd say early to mid 3.5-era was the Golden Age of D&D. To each his own.

Setting that aside, the entertainment industry always has conflicts between creative and business interests. Authors of regular novels fight with their publishers, TV shows fight with their studios and their networks, musicians fight with everyone...

D&D is unique in that while there are books released which are entertainment products, the primary source of creativity is the game's players. It's a lousy business environment because people may or may not buy products (regardless of the quality of said products) depending on their own predilections. In most games, more "advanced", "devoted" or "fanatical" players spend more money on the game. In D&D, they might well spend less, or even nothing.

Thus, is an edition treadmill a great model? No. Once an individual gamer has found something they like, there's no reason for them to buy anything new. Then again, I've yet to see a better business model anywhere. Subscription definitely isn't it.

Am I proposing some kind of solution somehow? No, not really. I can't think of a practical one. In a perfect world, like if I won the Powerball, I would buy the rights to D&D from WotC and set up a non-profit organization to administer it as an open-source game, but that's not exactly likely to ever happen. Right now I would just like to open up the discussion of how the needs of a company to produce a profitable product differ from what makes for the best possible game and fosters a strong and vibrant gaming community.

It's a good thought. Maybe someone will have some useful ideas. I've never conceived of a better business model for rpgs. It's a tough industry.

 

[Hussar]

Thus, is an edition treadmill a great model? No. Once an individual gamer has found something they like, there's no reason for them to buy anything new. Then again, I've yet to see a better business model anywhere. Subscription definitely isn't it. (Bold mine)

Why not? What's wrong with a subscription model for rpg material? Honestly, I'd think it's a very good model. You get a constantly updating system at a relatively low cost and the producer gets a healthy and stable income stream.

I'd think subscription based production is a better model than the boom/bust model of edition churn.

 

[billd91]

Really?

Pick up an AD&D 1e PHB and compare it to a 2e PHB. Every class is different. Combat mechanics are different. Organization is completely rewritten. Caster classes are HUGELY expanded. Races are different. Initiative rules are different.

Never minding the mechanical differences, which are pretty hefty, there is also the design difference as well. 2e is a different game from 1e. The focus is very different, play presumptions are completely different. The list is long on the difference between 1e and 2e.

And that's just comparing core to core. Let's compare 2e with Skills and Powers to base 1e PHB. Different enough yet?

20 years of a stable platform is not true. Heck, let's not forget, 2e was the game that originally fractured the hobby because it was too different.

Almost every class in 2e is a little different. Combat mechanics are a little different. Initiative rules and surprise rules are a little different. Monster rules are a little different. Modules were usable between editions with minimal changes. Yes, I'd say about 20 years of stability. An evolutionary path, transition between editions - very easy.

As far as fracturing the hobby, I didn't see a lot of it, in part, because people used their 1e resources right with their 2e ones. It didn't matter much if people were still using the 1e ranger or their 1e PH alongside someone using the 2e one. It certainly didn't matter adventure to adventure. The editions were so close, many resources could be used with either or both at the same time. If someone didn't get the 2e PH, they may still have been using the 2e adventures and campaign settings. That doesn't make for a particularly dramatic schism.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Almost every class in 2e is a little different. Combat mechanics are a little different. Initiative rules and surprise rules are a little different. Monster rules are a little different. Modules were usable between editions with minimal changes. Yes, I'd say about 20 years of stability. An evolutionary path, transition between editions - very easy.

As far as fracturing the hobby, I didn't see a lot of it, in part, because people used their 1e resources right with their 2e ones. It didn't matter much if people were still using the 1e ranger or their 1e PH alongside someone using the 2e one. It certainly didn't matter adventure to adventure. The editions were so close, many resources could be used with either or both at the same time. If someone didn't get the 2e PH, they may still have been using the 2e adventures and campaign settings. That doesn't make for a particularly dramatic schism.

Not... quite.

Adventure modules were indeed very easy to convert, mostly.

PCs, not so much - but it was easy to recreate your character, even if you couldn't just use your 1e Ranger as-is.

Certainly there was a guide for conversions, as there was from 2e to 3e and 3e to 3.5 - unlike 4e where WotC just told people not to bother....

Having the company that wrote the games - a company that previously had created guides for converting characters - tell you not to bother converting them does not argue that the differences between 1e and 2e were of the same scale as that between 4e and any previous edition.

The Auld Grump, yes, I am mostly agreeing with you... but my mind has wandered off in search of rust monsters....

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Regardless of your opinion on the quality of the 1E game, the production values on those books was awesome.

I'm willing to bet that bindings on rpg books that haven't even been produced yet will give out before my early printing PHB will.

I think that he is commenting on layout, page setting, and error checking, not the physical properties of the AD&D books, which were sturdy enough to withstand pretty much anything.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Post 6000! First time on these boards that I noticed such a milestone before blindly passing it by....

 

[Hussar]

Almost every class in 2e is a little different. Combat mechanics are a little different. Initiative rules and surprise rules are a little different. Monster rules are a little different. Modules were usable between editions with minimal changes. Yes, I'd say about 20 years of stability. An evolutionary path, transition between editions - very easy.

As far as fracturing the hobby, I didn't see a lot of it, in part, because people used their 1e resources right with their 2e ones. It didn't matter much if people were still using the 1e ranger or their 1e PH alongside someone using the 2e one. It certainly didn't matter adventure to adventure. The editions were so close, many resources could be used with either or both at the same time. If someone didn't get the 2e PH, they may still have been using the 2e adventures and campaign settings. That doesn't make for a particularly dramatic schism.

That certainly wasn't my experience. I found that, while yes, I could use 1e modules in 2e, by and large, they were about three levels lighter than they should have been - IOW, a 5-7th level 1e module was doable with a 3rd or 4th level 2e party. The characters were considerably more powerful in 2e than in 1e.

And, while yes there were conversion documents for going from 2e to 3e, they were not exactly spectacular successes were they? I think WOTC simply learned from the 3e experience and left it at that.

See, Bill91, where you see minor evolutionary changes going from 1e to 2e, I see huge shifts in focus and playstyle. I again see huge shifts going from 2e to 3e. And, again, huge shifts going from 3e to 4e.

About the only difference is that going from 3e to 4e, they were upfront about it.

 

[GreyLord]

Almost every class in 2e is a little different. Combat mechanics are a little different. Initiative rules and surprise rules are a little different. Monster rules are a little different. Modules were usable between editions with minimal changes. Yes, I'd say about 20 years of stability. An evolutionary path, transition between editions - very easy.

As far as fracturing the hobby, I didn't see a lot of it, in part, because people used their 1e resources right with their 2e ones. It didn't matter much if people were still using the 1e ranger or their 1e PH alongside someone using the 2e one. It certainly didn't matter adventure to adventure. The editions were so close, many resources could be used with either or both at the same time. If someone didn't get the 2e PH, they may still have been using the 2e adventures and campaign settings. That doesn't make for a particularly dramatic schism.

WOW. I just wrote about something similar (if briefly) in my blog. We used 1e and 2e stuff somewhat interchangeably. Since stats and other things were basically the same in many ways (small tweaks) it was easy and simple. No real conversion needed like to 3e and later.

What is the real kicker is that you could also use BECMI or B/X D&D stuff with minimal conversion (or even the late OD&D stuff, though I toss in GreyHawk, and other supplements in there for the win) to play with AD&D modules and box sets.

Not so much compatibility backwards and forwards with 3e stuff and definately not with 4e stuff, though Castles and Crusades has made 3e stuff a little easier...but still not compatible like everything 2e previous to it was.

They even had the grandfather clause for 2e to 1e when 2e came out, something they haven't done for editions later on.