What will happen to 4th edition?

[Aura]

New Coke was a better cola then Coca-Cola Classic. Objectively--the Coca Cola corporation spent millions of dollars doing taste tests establishing that.

I would caution against using the testing to assert objective superiority in this way. The testing Coca-Cola did for the New Coke product (how much they spent doing it is irrelevant) did not establish anything more than preference for a few ounces of the drinks in question. It was known, although apparently not well enough, that this method (sip testing) does not properly assess more extended (and, BTW, typical) use: a full can/bottle, or even long term drinking. Results can, and will, be different. Further, the tests did detect a rather visceral negative reaction to New Coke by some of the drinkers. So much, that these test subjects would apply peer pressure to other members of the test group.

The testing overplayed the positive reaction to New Coke by portraying a sip test as a general preference, and ignored strong dislike for the product in a social situation. When the drink went live in the US, it had initial positive response by large segments of the population (even if they didn't hold up over time), and a strong negative reaction in the minority when further undercut the new product--a eerie reflection of the findings of the test. The live product performed according to the test, but the test never assessed what the Cola Cola company thought it did.

The takeaway from this is objective superiority in taste issues is difficult to assess. This isn't to say your contention about the power of branding is irrelevant--I agree with you on that. I think the New Coke story easily bolsters that argument by illustrating the power of peer pressure. I'd even venture that peer pressure is of even greater significance in a RPG, which must be agreed upon by a group, than soft drinks, which can be individually chosen by members of the group.

As an aside, I'm going to hazard a guess 4e will persist for some quite time because it was so different than either its predecessor or successor. And unlike a soft drink, once you've played a game, you still have the books to play again. You don't run out.

 

[Balesir]

If we're asking what makes a game succeed, it is not the exception that proves the rule. The fact that the vast majority of games with any set of properties have just disappeared says nothing one way or the other about the properties of those which succeed.

I don't really have time for these silly games of NIGGYSOB, but [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] was arguing was that chess demonstrates that games that do not constantly innovate do not "fade away". The fact that most of them do is absolutely to the point that chess, as the exception to the general case, does not prove that such games do not generally fade away. Such games do, in fact, generally fade away. Chess simply proves that this is not universal, but if you were betting on games not fading away in the past, you would have won a lot more betting on "fade away" than you would on "stick around".

 

[billd91]

I don't really have time for these silly games of NIGGYSOB, but [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] was arguing was that chess demonstrates that games that do not constantly innovate do not "fade away". The fact that most of them do is absolutely to the point that chess, as the exception to the general case, does not prove that such games do not generally fade away. Such games do, in fact, generally fade away. Chess simply proves that this is not universal, but if you were betting on games not fading away in the past, you would have won a lot more betting on "fade away" than you would on "stick around".

You may notice that, based on the comments I was responding to with my chess post, all I had to do was show via a counter example that games do not necessarily fade away, intellectually die, or become culturally irrelevant. The comment I was responding to was pretty much implying the much stronger statement that all games that don't innovate and change are intellectually dead and will fade away.

I'd venture that a game's ultimate longevity probably has more to do with forming a culture around it or to attaching to a culture that can sustain interest in it. Chess certainly has one, so does baseball, and Monopoly, numerous card games, and checkers are at least attached to cultures of recreation and are easily accessible even when many of these examples have little ongoing innovation associated with them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really have time for these silly games of NIGGYSOB, but @billd91 was arguing was that chess demonstrates that games that do not constantly innovate do not "fade away". The fact that most of them do is absolutely to the point that chess, as the exception to the general case, does not prove that such games do not generally fade away. Such games do, in fact, generally fade away. Chess simply proves that this is not universal, but if you were betting on games not fading away in the past, you would have won a lot more betting on "fade away" than you would on "stick around".

Good point. NIGYSOB, lol, I had to look that one up.

 

[TheSwartz]

I wish they would use all the 4e material to make the most bad-ass turn based online massively multiplayer fantasy based RPG tactical game with strategy elements ever imagined. i.e. Final Fantasy tactics meets Fire Emblem meets WAKFU meets Baldur's Gate on uber steroids.

And hire someone to create this who actually knows how to make a high quality video game (unlike every single outfit WOTC has used ever since Bioware).

And then maybe port that to those slick multi-touch gaming tables like we've been tempted with in the past.

I think I would play the heck out of that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You may notice that, based on the comments I was responding to with my chess post, all I had to do was show via a counter example that games do not necessarily fade away, intellectually die, or become culturally irrelevant. The comment I was responding to was pretty much implying the much stronger statement that all games that don't innovate and change are intellectually dead and will fade away.

I'd venture that a game's ultimate longevity probably has more to do with forming a culture around it or to attaching to a culture that can sustain interest in it. Chess certainly has one, so does baseball, and Monopoly, numerous card games, and checkers are at least attached to cultures of recreation and are easily accessible even when many of these examples have little ongoing innovation associated with them.

But in any case where a game is moribund, where it has ceased to change in any meaningful way it is subject to becoming obscure and unplayed, that was my point. I don't have the all-seeing eye that can tell you with absolute certainty what will happen to any one game. That doesn't make my point irrelevant. Clearly my point is that if D&D doesn't innovate in some fashion in its manner of play then it is surely at a high risk of being discarded in favor of other activities. In fact we see this happening and clearly this was a major concern for WotC which drove them to constructing 4e!

You use the examples of things like Checkers, but who really plays checkers anymore? Its not a totally obscure game, YET, but I'll venture a guess that it will be played no more within a fairly short time period. If you ask the average kid these days if they have played it and know how to play it they don't. Its mostly a game remembered by adults, played by old men, and forgotten by everyone else. D&D hasn't quite reached that point yet, but the fact that both WotC and Paizo have expended a great deal of resources trying to get and retain players, to at best very modest success, while the game seems to bleed active players, says volumes to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wish they would use all the 4e material to make the most bad-ass online massively multiplayer fantasy based RPG tactical strategy game ever imagined. i.e. Final Fantasy tactics meets WAKFU on uber steroids.

And hire someone to create this who actually knows how to make a high quality video game (unlike every single outfit WOTC has used ever since Bioware).

And then maybe port that to those slick multi-touch gaming tables like we've been tempted with in the past.

I think I would play the heck out of that.

The sticking point in my mind is the turn-based nature of D&D. From what I understand everyone's market research and experience says that real-time games are vastly more popular. So you are stuck with a dilemma. Make a turn-based game that is faithful to 4e as it is written, or transform it into a real-time game, which may or may not actually pan out as a good game and will most certainly have to diverge markedly from any version of D&D.

I'd go for a very faithful and extremely sophisticated VTT that handled the entirety of the system in all aspects and let you play either together on a single large Microsoft Surface-like table or remotely (ideally it would include telepresence capabilities). I think such a widget is well beyond the means of the D&D group and maybe beyond the means of Hasbro itself.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

You use the examples of things like Checkers, but who really plays checkers anymore? Its not a totally obscure game, YET, but I'll venture a guess that it will be played no more within a fairly short time period. If you ask the average kid these days if they have played it and know how to play it they don't. Its mostly a game remembered by adults, played by old men, and forgotten by everyone else. D&D hasn't quite reached that point yet, but the fact that both WotC and Paizo have expended a great deal of resources trying to get and retain players, to at best very modest success, while the game seems to bleed active players, says volumes to me.

Yes, this.

Also, even if one accepts the premise that games like chess are eternal phenomenons, it's not as if they sprang into existence as they are today. According to wikipedia, chess evolved from an Indian game called chaturanga. Rather than knights, rooks, bishops, and pawns, chaturanga had infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants, along with a notably different set of rules. It didn't become the chess we know today until at least 925 years later, around 1475. Now how long has D&D existed, again?

One could argue that the change of forms and the rules changes are incidental, but I think that assigning all or even most of a game's success to cultural inertia requires a lot of assumptions and faith.

 

[TheSwartz]

The sticking point in my mind is the turn-based nature of D&D. From what I understand everyone's market research and experience says that real-time games are vastly more popular. So you are stuck with a dilemma. Make a turn-based game that is faithful to 4e as it is written, or transform it into a real-time game, which may or may not actually pan out as a good game and will most certainly have to diverge markedly from any version of D&D.

I edited my post; I meant to put "turn based" in my wish. AND I intend to stress "tactic" rather than "strategy".

Yes, RTS's are huge right now (all the DOTA clones...). Sorry, I'm not interested in that. Yes, they are popular, but popular in the sense that FPSs (First Person Shooters) are popular. Just because Call of Duty has made a gazillion dollars has not kept the Elder Scrolls franchise from being immensely popular. [which if you think about it I could go on for an hour on all the key elements that are very similar or the same at heart, but implemented totally differently] There are different gamers (with money to spend) who want different things.

I, personally want a Turn based Tactical game, which is different than a Real Time Strategy game, but of course I'd want it done very well, so your point is well taken that there may be a real risk that it wouldn't be done well (like a lot of D&D games since the Bioware days as I mentioned). A case in point is the Facebook 4e tactic game that was done... lots of potential but it failed to deliver in my opinion (besides being ruined by the F2P model).

However, IF done very well, I would like to think that they could create an Iconic game in the vein of Final Fantasy Tactics that had real money making potential.

 

[prosfilaes]

NIGGYSOB

I don't believe abbreviations are an acceptable way to avoid the grandmother rule about language acceptable on these boards.

@billd91 was arguing was that chess demonstrates that games that do not constantly innovate do not "fade away".

That would be a stupid claim; that's why it's not reasonable to assume he was making it.

if you were betting on games not fading away in the past, you would have won a lot more betting on "fade away" than you would on "stick around".

I don't think anyone was contesting that. The question is, what properties of games make them stick around and what properties of games make them fade away.

But in any case where a game is moribund, where it has ceased to change in any meaningful way it is subject to becoming obscure and unplayed, that was my point. I don't have the all-seeing eye that can tell you with absolute certainty what will happen to any one game.

When a game is moribund, it is not being played. That's what moribund means. It doesn't mean that it as ceased to change. That when a game has ceased to change (in any meaningful way, whatever that means) it is becoming obscure and unplayed is what you're arguing for, so simply repeating it doesn't make your case. A claim that doesn't let you predict forward what will happen doesn't mean much; anyone can in retrospect fit their theory around what has already happened.

You use the examples of things like Checkers, but who really plays checkers anymore? Its not a totally obscure game, YET, but I'll venture a guess that it will be played no more within a fairly short time period. If you ask the average kid these days if they have played it and know how to play it they don't. Its mostly a game remembered by adults, played by old men, and forgotten by everyone else. D&D hasn't quite reached that point yet,

Checkers is still sold in every major general store. There have been brief breakthroughs in D&D, like the 4E Basic Box that went into some stores, but D&D is still below that point. Checkers is 500 to 1000 years old, depending on what you're counting, so you have to explain why it's so old. If we accept that it is dying, I have to look at the 12 national varieties (including international and American) that Wikipedia mentions and wonder why a game with such continual change is dying.