Will trying to maintain legacy and the "feel" of D&D hurt innovation?

[Sunseeker]

We're not talking about the same audience. WotC wants the old school gamers, yes, but they're rally chasing the Pathfinder share of the market. The ones who do buy books, just not THEIR books.

I can see why you would think 5E (so far) looks like a repackaged 1E. But I think it'll be quite different when the full package is available.

Wizards can get the Pathfinder audience with 2 simple steps:
1: Fuller products
2: lower prices.

Sure are there system differences? Of course. But when I go to the bookstore you know the major difference I see between Paizo and WOTC? The size and the price. You get more for less with Paizo than pretty much any edition of D&D ever.

 

[JohnSnow]

Wanting back the old-school gamers is about one thing, that D&D shares with only certain types of products.

Network effects.

Because it's a game that you play with other people, like a fax machine, or an operating system, D&D is more valuable when more people play it. That was the whole idea behind creating the d20 System (and the OGL).

If many roleplaying games used the same system, the barriers to entry are lower. And the network effects are greater. You have more people to play with and so the game becomes more useful to you.

Fragmenting the player base into multiple editions has the OPPOSITE effect. Re-uniting those disparate groups behind a single game is a brilliant, long-term strategy. Even if you can't fully pull it off, it's smart business to try.

Because the more people that play it, the more valuable a particular edition of D&D becomes. Remember, most gamers learn to play D&D from other gamers. The number of people who pick it up "blind" is rare.

If the game could cater to all those different playstyles, it would unite the player base and mean that all new gamers would end up playing the same game, even if they were playing it with different option settings.

 

[El Mahdi]

Money talks, as they say. We're talking about a small audience who hasn't bought anything in 20 years, after more than 2 editions, it's a lot more of "I like what I've got" than "Wizards hasn't made me happy" yet.

Why do people insist on saying such things that are so obviously wrong and not backed up by real data.

Firstly, sales of RPG's and poll after poll (and not only polls here) have clearly shown that the number of players not buying the current edition is at least as large as the group that does, and likely larger.

That is not a "small" audience.

Secondly, it's amazing that of all the reasons for why people have stopped buying current products (and there are many), you're able to distill them all down to this one. And then make a claim that this one reason is the "majority" reason for why people don't buy anymore.

I'd challenge you to show the data that supports your claim. Where are the polls that show the number one reason why people don't buy books anymore is because they have all the books they'll ever need? And where is the data that shows because of this that it's futile to not seek feedback from and market to former customers?

Making such claims in the absence of such data does not make sense.

But, a point that does make sense is that if at least half of your potential customer base is not buying your products (and maybe more than half), then the only reasonable thing to do from a business perspective is to find out why, and then change accordingly. To do otherwise is foolish.

But I'm fairly sure you know that. Which makes me wonder that if you know better from a business perspective, yet you still insist it is your perspective of the business, and I assume that you're a rational person, then that leaves the only conclusion as you have another motive for feeling the way that you do.

I wonder what that motivation truly is...

 

[Gundark]

Why should it be innovative? By catering to those that simply just don't like D&D, they alienate those that actually do like D&D. And that's exactly what has happened.

If you don't like D&D, why not simply play another game? There are 100s, maybe 1000s of them. Let D&D be D&D.

Beyond that, if you want to bring people in, it's best with a simple and easy game that can be learned in a few minutes, not one that requires 100s of pages of rules, battle maps, miniatures, and an online subscription.

My arguement was about letting D&D evolve as a game rather than making it become another game . People and game tastes evolve, game mehanics should as well. I understand that game mechanics are not like cars or computers as there are better versions (excepting lemons which do happen)a game mechanic doesnt necessarily show it's age. The question is why not explore new options or avenues? There MAY be better ways to do it.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why do people insist on saying such things that are so obviously wrong and not backed up by real data.

Firstly, sales of RPG's and poll after poll (and not only polls here) have clearly shown that the number of players not buying the current edition is at least as large as the group that does, and likely larger.

That is not a "small" audience.

Secondly, it's amazing that of all the reasons for why people have stopped buying current products (and there are many), you're able to distill them all down to this one. And then make a claim that this one reason is the "majority" reason for why people don't buy anymore.

I'd challenge you to show the data that supports your claim. Where are the polls that show the number one reason why people don't buy books anymore is because they have all the books they'll ever need? And where is the data that shows because of this that it's futile to not seek feedback from and market to former customers?

Making such claims in the absence of such data does not make sense.

But, a point that does make sense is that if at least half of your potential customer base is not buying your products (and maybe more than half), then the only reasonable thing to do from a business perspective is to find out why, and then change accordingly. To do otherwise is foolish.

But I'm fairly sure you know that. Which makes me wonder that if you know better from a business perspective, yet you still insist it is your perspective of the business, and I assume that you're a rational person, then that leaves the only conclusion as you have another motive for feeling the way that you do.

I wonder what that motivation truly is...

Some your work first. And really do you think there's anything other than some poor internet polls on this subject? Maybe Wizards has some real studies on the issue but I doubt they're going to tell us.

 

[Lord Zack]

Yes, and that's exactly I want. Innovation with regards to games is subjective anyway.

 

[tlantl]

People just didn't have other systems to compare and Internet to quickly share their ideas.

Been there, played AD&D, lots of house rules, friends complaining some rules didn't make sense... if the game go back to that it would fail, as TSR failed.

I've played 3e and have a working knowledge of 4e and I am certain they're as broken in their way as the prior editions may have been, more so if you consider the different complaints about so many different areas of those games.

There were plenty of other role playing games, and any number of ways to communicate the issues with those games. The only reason 3e and beyond were designed in such a radical manner is the new owner needed to make the game their own. They hired "professional" games designers to make the ultimate rpg and fell flat. They did it again and can't sell enough copied to stay afloat.

It's too late for classic D&D too many people associate the new versions with the name. The brand was irreparably compromised and is going to suffer from it for the rest of it's days.

It only took TSR 25 years to fall apart, Wizards is doing it in half the time.

 

[Gundark]

You know, I didn't think the OP's question had to be about anything other than whether striving for a classic feel limited the game designers.

It seems that several posters have decided this should be an edition war thread.

Yes. But then again asking what you had for breakfast this morning seems to spark edition warring these days.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes. But then again asking what you had for breakfast this morning seems to spark edition warring these days.

True. But that is because we are all drinking from the same glass but want different flavored beverages. Though I am optimistic 5E will achieve many of its stated goals, aomething tells me the edition wars are only just getting started.

 

[steeldragons]

And the people that want to make the money, need us to believe that if we're not playing the new shiny, then we are somehow doing it wrong or the old no-longer-shiny game is somehow sub-standard...because it's not/we're not being "innovative."

It just occurs to me that...yeeeeears ago...years before I was around, to be sure...they used to call "InnovationL by a different name. "Progress" they called it...and looked down upon it...and it was good...and the light shone with their countenance.

And you don't want to stand in the way of "Progress"...do yooouuuu?

"Progress" is good. "Progress" is what puts food on the table. "Progress" is the thing you, me, EVERYone wants!

Being against "progress" is "un-American" or "unpatriotic" or "going to make you obsolete and land you out of a job."

You want the Progress. You need the Progress. Everyone liiikes the Proooooggggresssss.

<cue the Hypno-toad!>