D&D 3.x Will 4e last longer than 3e?

[Fifth Element]

I look at as a game that standardized its rules AS SOON AS it went into mass production, and has since become an extremely popular board game. You see "rules changes every 7 years"; I see "NO official rules changes since it went big 70 years ago." I think that consistency has been a huge factor in its success.

Are you suggesting we bookmark this thread and check back in 70 years? I think you're missing two points:

1. D&D has only been around for 33 years. When Monopoly was that age, the rules were not solidly established yet.

2. The D&D ruleset is immensely more complicated than Monopoly's. There are far more rules to tinker with, so if there is some "perfect" set of D&D rules to be achieved, it will take far longer to do so than the development of Monopoly's rules.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Are you suggesting we bookmark this thread and check back in 70 years? I think you're missing two points:

1. D&D has only been around for 33 years. When Monopoly was that age, the rules were not solidly established yet.

2. The D&D ruleset is immensely more complicated than Monopoly's. There are far more rules to tinker with, so if there is some "perfect" set of D&D rules to be achieved, it will take far longer to do so than the development of Monopoly's rules.

I'm not saying that the rules of Monopoly became standardized because it was "perfect." Nor am I saying that it gained widespread popularity because it was "perfect." I am saying that the game became standardized because it gained widespread popularity. Once it got big, it became standardized. The two go hand in hand. There is nothing about "better" here; I have no idea if the predecessors to Monopoly were "better" games or not, nor do I care. I think D&D would be a stronger hobby if its rules had been standardized more or less around the time it "went big" -- 1978-79.

TSR tried to do this. Gary Gygax emphasized that people playing variant rules were NOT playing "true" D&D. As I understand, this wasn't so much telling people "Don't use house rules," but rather telling them "There is a standard version, which is the rules in these books; know that any variation you play is a variation." The idea was that the game would become standardized enough that players could come from all over the country to cons and know what the rules were. (Monopoly has tournaments with standard rules, as does Scrabble.) Players could go from LA to NY and pop into a local game, knowing what the rules were. That was the vision -- a single standardized game. The rules would stay the same, and the company would make its money on modules, settings, minis, and so on. Had this been the case, I imagine that the *hobby* would be stronger but the *business* would be weaker.

What happened? Well, the variant rules got more and more popular, especially those that boosted PC power. Splatbook-type material in Dragon magazine made its way to Unearthed Arcana, loading down the system with extra rules and power creep, and TSR saw how well that sold. Downhill from there.

I think the idea of "perfecting" D&D is nonsensical; I just want a game that I can be happy enough to play forever under a relatively consistent set of rules, much like all the other games that I love. As to complexity, I think D&D could stand to be much simplified. We'll see how much 4E goes in this direction.

 

[Gunpowder]

Let's say D&D were some hugely popular game with very broad appeal. People from anywhere could drop into a game, already knowing the rules, and have a great time. People who hadn't played in years could break out the dice and get right back into a local game. The copyright owners could try to continually tinker with the rules, but this would increase the barriers to entry, fragment the fanbase, and eventually kill the hobby. So, they'd content themselves with making new settings, new modules, and new physical accessories, without changing the rules.

Sure there's a monopoly board in almost every household in America, but how many households have played that game in years? Or had fun during the game? Cause this pretty much portrays my opinion on Monopoly's end game: (warning, F-bombs are dropped)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oECMvENFEjY (Its the Dane Cook joke involving Monopoly)

I really can't see any meaningful parallels drawn between Monopoly and D&D. One is a ubiquitous board game that is gathering dust in the closet with underneath hungry hungry hippos and operation and the other has a smaller but more active consumer base that care about it enough to argue with each over an edition that won't be coming out in another 6 months. Is there anything D&D can gain from Monopoly?

 

[Scribble]

Is there anything D&D can gain from Monopoly?

A set of unused d6 for your dice bag.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I really can't see any meaningful parallels drawn between Monopoly and D&D.

Well, I was responding to the idea that games must continually "improve" or die.
That isn't true for board games; there are several long-lasting ones that are popular because their rules are standardized and stable. The non-commercial games (chess, checkers, backgammon) most clearly so, but the commercial ones as well (such as Scrabble and Monopoly).
Sports tinker with "official" rules in a minor way, but any group of people can put together a pickup game of basketball, soccer, softball, or football, and know basically what the rules are going to be. There are no major revamps that make your old knowledge and equipment obselete.
Card games remain popular because they are standardized. I can call "5-card draw" and everybody around the table will know what the rules are. There won't be some schism where the "Poker 2.0" enthusiasts declare that a straight should beat a flush.

RPGs and miniatures games are different; they insist on constant and significant rules churn and an edition treadmill. Computer games also insist on constant "improvement," though I admit to being a grognard here as well (I'm current re-playing Might and Magic 4 & 5, and I would love playing Civ 2 just as much as I love playing Civ 4).

Edition churn and splatbook sales didn't have to be the business model for D&D. I think that it fell into that pattern, and away from the goal of a standardized game, rather by accident. I could be wrong.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Are you calling Charles Ryan a liar?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm calling no one anything. I'm simply suggesting that he made a comment without having all the facts. In his opinion, D&D is selling better than it ever had. That's great, but unless his data goes back to the mid 70s, it's incomplete. Or Mr. Ryan may have been misinterpreted by whomever posted the above paraphrase and attributed it to him. I'm suggesting the statement that 3e sales were better than any other edition was made in error, nothing more.

 

[WayneLigon]

I think the idea of "perfecting" D&D is nonsensical; I just want a game that I can be happy enough to play forever under a relatively consistent set of rules, much like all the other games that I love.

I don't think that's ever going to happen with an RPG. There is always room for expansion.

As to complexity, I think D&D could stand to be much simplified. We'll see how much 4E goes in this direction.

It could, but a simpler set of rules would actually make more room for expansion in some areas. There would be more ways to complicate things.

 

[The Little Raven]

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Note that the symbol on the end of that sentence is a '?' which usually defines the sentence as a question. Doubting a direct quote from someone in the know leads one to believe you think he isn't being honest, which begs the question in order to clarify.

I'm simply suggesting that he made a comment without having all the facts. In his opinion, D&D is selling better than it ever had. That's great, but unless his data goes back to the mid 70s, it's incomplete.

Maybe you missed the part where WotC got every single record TSR had when they bought the company. They have ALL of the data, including the very first log entry penned by Gary hastily back in the 70s.

Or Mr. Ryan may have been misinterpreted by whomever posted the above paraphrase and attributed it to him.

It's not a paraphrase. It's a direct quote from an interview. I even provided a link.

I'm suggesting the statement that 3e sales were better than any other edition was made in error, nothing more.

And I'm suggesting you're wrong, because people with the data have stated that you're wrong. So, when it comes down to a Brand Manager with access to sales records for the past three decades, or a forum-poster with rose-colored classes, I choose the guy with facts as the one to believe. Also, your numbers come from a guy who lost control of the company in 1985, so his ability to compare the sales numbers between 1e and any other edition is severely limited.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Note that the symbol on the end of that sentence is a '?' which usually defines the sentence as a question. Doubting a direct quote from someone in the know leads one to believe you think he isn't being honest, which begs the question in order to clarify.



Maybe you missed the part where WotC got every single record TSR had when they bought the company. They have ALL of the data, including the very first log entry penned by Gary hastily back in the 70s.



It's not a paraphrase. It's a direct quote from an interview. I even provided a link.



And I'm suggesting you're wrong, because people with the data have stated that you're wrong. So, when it comes down to a Brand Manager with access to sales records for the past three decades, or a forum-poster with rose-colored classes, I choose the guy with facts as the one to believe. Also, your numbers come from a guy who lost control of the company in 1985, so his ability to compare the sales numbers between 1e and any other edition is severely limited.

So now you're calling Gary a liar, right?

I have the record from every car, chainsaw, lawn mower, dvd player, power tool, or electronic gizmo I've ever bought, but I can't tell you how much any but the last one cost.

All either of us can do is speculate without hard data, so this is nothing more than a pissing contest. In terms of profit, sure 3e probably made more money, due to the inflated price tag, but in terms of sales, I'd bet AD&D 1e had it over 3e's best in spades.

 

[Mistwell]

So now you're calling Gary a liar, right?

"I'm simply suggesting that he made a comment without having all the facts. In his opinion, D&D [was] selling better...That's great, but unless his data goes [forward] to [now], it's incomplete."

Given two people, one with the complete data, the other without the complete data, I am going to trust the one with complete data. And in this case, Gary is the one without the complete data.

Right now, you are arguing based off your instincts and a guy with woefully incomplete data's instincts vs. the guy with all the data. It's an argument that simply isn't persuasive. If you had no dog in this race, I am guessing you would doubt you as well