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

[GregoryOatmeal]

I don't know the social mores in your area, but everywhere I've ever lived, the entry point to playing the game if you have some friends who are into it is zero dollars.

Sure, folks are always welcome to borrow a book. Unless you're more resourceful than most of the general populous that number doesn't hold true for running a game. And ideally all players should buy a PHB and read some of the rules.

But anyway, the point was people like to play games they're good at and they know. If someone doesn't have experience playing a game they will probably be less likely to play it. I don't really blame them, I'm the same way.

 

[Hussar]

Impressive? You're quite deep in the rabbit hole.
I don't recall any strong divisions from 1998 until the 3.5/PF/4E split besides the very occaisonal 1E/2E holdout and Vampire game. Maybe that was just the people I knew.

Bingo! There's your answer right there.

As I said, try starting a 3e thread on Dragonsfoot. Or, better yet, Google Dragonsfoot and see the reaction to 3e threads started there.

Just because you didn't happen to see the division in the player base back then doesn't mean it wasn't there. Heck, 2e was the red headed stepchild around these parts until 4e came along and suddenly it got cool again.

Although, I'm noticing a bit of discrepancy here. On one hand, you're complaining about players having to re-buy core books for new editions, but, on the other hand, you've "never had the luxury of playing with a group in which every player owned a PHB for the game they were playing."

Which is it? Are players angry because they keep having to buy new books, or do they never buy the books at all? Because, I'm thinking that if they play but never buy the books, they don't get a vote on which edition is being played at the table, nor do they get a say in when or if we go to a new edition.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Bingo! There's your answer right there.

As I said, try starting a 3e thread on Dragonsfoot. Or, better yet, Google Dragonsfoot and see the reaction to 3e threads started there.

Well those are small internet communities based around a common interest in a particular edition. So obviously they're collections of outliers.

What was the competition for 2E/3E in their heyday between 1990 and 2007? I vividly recall those editions dominated the market for D&D-style roleplaying in their time.

Although, I'm noticing a bit of discrepancy here. On one hand, you're complaining about players having to re-buy core books for new editions, but, on the other hand, you've "never had the luxury of playing with a group in which every player owned a PHB for the game they were playing."

Which is it?

Most players I see tend not to buy the books, leading to games being played poorly with limited resources or off of laptops with SRDs (not my cup of tea). Ideally everyone would own a book and everyone would be on the same page and have the books they need to play said game. In my group we have 2 4E PHBs, 1 3.0, 1 3.5, 1 C&C, and 1 PF between five players. The other DM in my group (who is quite good) owns no PHBs for any system. My other PF DM doesn't own the core PF book. Such is life.

Are players angry because they keep having to buy new books, or do they never buy the books at all? Because, I'm thinking that if they play but never buy the books, they don't get a vote on which edition is being played at the table, nor do they get a say in when or if we go to a new edition.

I can't say I blame them for not wanting to fork over $50 for the Pathfinder book. I just run the game that causes the least divisions and people have the most resources for, which oftentimes I don't even own books for. That's a good rule though

 

[pemerton]

Editions are like operating systems.

<snip>

For such a small hobby we have a lot of operating systems. Very rarely are their programs compatible with other operating systems.

<snip>

All the editions of D&D get you to the same place.

All this is pretty contentious. I'm a big believer that system does matter. I play 4e because it goes to a different place from other editions of 4e. If I wasn't GMing 4e, I'd probably be GMing either ICE's HARP or perhaps Burning Wheel (maybe a little gritty for my group's taste).

Now I think there is some evidence that, of all the people likely under current conditions to try playing an RPG, there is a high degree of preference for more-or-less simulationist mechanics. And so WotC may have made a commercial mistake in releasing a more indie-style game in 4e.

But that's all about what is good for the company. It doesn't show that simulationist mechanics - "mechanics as operating system" - is good for the game.

 

[billd91]

Because, I'm thinking that if they play but never buy the books, they don't get a vote on which edition is being played at the table,

Wow. I can't agree with that at all. There are plenty of us who don't own game books for all of the games we play. I don't own Deleria, Torg, WoD anything, but the GMs for those games still find my input on what we play valuable. And if they didn't I wouldn't be playing with them.

 

[Mallus]

Well that's the most polite comparison I've ever seen of an idea to soviet communism . It's still utterly ridiculous.

It was meant to be funny. But it contains kernel of truth...

Editions are like operating systems.

I like analogies, and I develop business software systems for a living, but this analogy doesn't really work. Put simply:

Gaming is easy (not really resource intensive) and done for recreation.

Software development is hard (very resource intensive), and (usually) done to turn a profit.

Therefore, the gaming community can support more editions/systems than the wider world can supports operating systems. The differences in resource costs makes this analogy silly -- at least in the way you seem to be using it.

For such a small hobby we have a lot of operating systems.

Yes.

Very rarely are their programs compatible with other operating systems.

Converting gaming materials is a tad easier than converting/developing multiplatform code.

We're talking about the potential size of the community rather than the current community.

If you're interested in growing the community, you might want to pay closer attention to what the current player base enjoys now.

Learning a game, any game, takes commitment.

Playing in a campaign on a regular basis take a significant time commitment. Learning a game? No.

The thing this insulated forum seems to fail to grasp is that the barrier in terms of time and money to playing in and especially running role playing games is remarkably high.

Money is a non-issue. RPGs are cheap (purchasing most core rules costs as much as a single video game or dinner at a nice restaurant w/wine). Wait, let me amend that... RPGs are expensive if you're a completist (so don't be if you're concerned about costs). Also, 3e and Pathfinder are essentially free. Time is a serious barrier to entry... but it's not like a new, evergreen edition of D&D is going to change that.

The point of entry product, a 300-page rulebook, becomes obsolete every five years or so.

My AD&D books aren't obsolete after 26 years. I'm using them to run a campaign as we speak (err, type).

A 40 year old who played AD&D would rightfully be terrified to pick up where they left off and start DMing with a 30 year old friend and a 20 year old nephew based on their different points of entry into the hobby and available resources.

A 40 year old who's terrified of that needs a Xanax and good therapist.

You couldn't rewrite an operating system like Windows and discontinue support for all existing Windows products and not expect an uproar.

Is Windows 95 still supported? Will a iPhone 3 run iOS 5? Wait, this is still a bad analogy...

I'm not sure how you invented that.

Admittedly, I was speculating.

 

[Hussar]

Wow. I can't agree with that at all. There are plenty of us who don't own game books for all of the games we play. I don't own Deleria, Torg, WoD anything, but the GMs for those games still find my input on what we play valuable. And if they didn't I wouldn't be playing with them.

So, if the GM says, "Hey, I want to run Vampire", you get to say, "Well, only if we play New WoD" even if he doesn't own the books and you refuse to buy any books?

 

[billd91]

So, if the GM says, "Hey, I want to run Vampire", you get to say, "Well, only if we play New WoD" even if he doesn't own the books and you refuse to buy any books?

No, the GM always has the primary input on system. Period. If he's not willing to run it, that's final.

That said, if the GM is willing to run either and I have neither, but I'm familiar enough with one to prefer it over the other, then I expect my input to be weighed with the rest of the other players.

 

[Ariosto]

I think that "fracturing the player base" comes about because the 'editions' are effectively separate games. It surprised me -- considering how D&D was before -- that it should be so even 3.0 vs. 3.5, but that is apparently how the market tends these days.

It's basically a non-issue for the old game, as the "retro clone" phenomenon is well established.

 

[Hussar]

No, the GM always has the primary input on system. Period. If he's not willing to run it, that's final.

That said, if the GM is willing to run either and I have neither, but I'm familiar enough with one to prefer it over the other, then I expect my input to be weighed with the rest of the other players.

Whereas for me, if I have both editions, three of my players have the books for OWoD (forex) and you have no books at all, we're going to play OWoD in all likelihood.

Your vote would certainly be heard, but it certainly wouldn't get the same weight as the guys who have invested in a given edition.