I would hope that most people are "grognards" because they've found an old edition they like, not out of spite for the new material.

In that case, no matter what WotC did, they may not capture those people because many of them aren't interested in buying new content, even if they're actively playing RPGs.

However, IMO, a lot of the people who don't like 4e are also young people who are still potential customers.  They're mainly 3.5 players, and make up a significant number of people that may be worth trying to cater to.  But it's a matter of convincing people that have already bought a ton of material that the new stuff is worth their time and money.  Not only is that hard to do, it's easy to provoke subculture wars due to the buy-in someone has for their favorite edition.

Even if (if) you could somehow demonstrate that 4e is a substantial improvement to warrant buying into, you're essentially telling someone hundreds of dollars of material they've bought and used is somehow subpar, and that never goes over well, whether you're talking about tabletop games or something else.

Quote from: Peregrin;385469I would hope that most people are "grognards" because they've found an old edition they like, not out of spite for the new material.

In that case, no matter what WotC did, they may not capture those people because many of them aren't interested in buying new content, even if they're actively playing RPGs.

That's not entirely accurate, IMO, because this assumes that somehow people would be exclusive about which edition of the game they like and play. I like OD&D, AD&D and 3rd ed, for instance. I would even play 2nd ed and 4e, if given the right impetus (read: people I'd really want to play with).

So. It's not because you are a grognard and found one (or several) edition(s) you particularly like that you can't be interested in a different take on the D&D concept now.

Quote from: Peregrin;385469Even if (if) you could somehow demonstrate that 4e is a substantial improvement to warrant buying into, you're essentially telling someone hundreds of dollars of material they've bought and used is somehow subpar, and that never goes over well, whether you're talking about tabletop games or something else.

Thing is, you don't have to market your new version of the game that way. There's a difference between, "different" and "better". One can use the former as an argument to build a differing game play experience, which enriches the overall D&D tradition. WotC chose to go with the latter, calling what preceeded its game awkward, broken, silly etc, unfortunately.

Quote from: Peregrin;385469However, IMO, a lot of the people who don't like 4e are also young people who are still potential customers.  They're mainly 3.5 players, and make up a significant number of people that may be worth trying to cater to.  But it's a matter of convincing people that have already bought a ton of material that the new stuff is worth their time and money.  Not only is that hard to do, it's easy to provoke subculture wars due to the buy-in someone has for their favorite edition.

Even if (if) you could somehow demonstrate that 4e is a substantial improvement to warrant buying into, you're essentially telling someone hundreds of dollars of material they've bought and used is somehow subpar, and that never goes over well, whether you're talking about tabletop games or something else.

This can be one big barrier, especially if it ignites too much anger amongst the hardcore buyer crowd.

In my case, my previous buy-in was fairly small.  During 3.5E, I didn't buy many books at the time.  I only had the 3E D&D core books, and used the 3.5E SRD for updated/corrected stuff.  (I found the core books at second handed bookstores).  The only other splatbooks I picked up new at full price during that time period, was the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, the 3.5E Eberron Campaign Setting, and the Castlemourn setting.  Other stuff I bought for a pittance (or was given to me) from friends who were getting rid of their old 3E/3.5E stuff from WotC and 3PPs.  Occasionally I picked up stuff from the bargain bins, such as modules.

When it comes to 4E, my buy-in was quite a lot more.  I picked up many of the 4E modules and DM specific splatbooks, up to Plane Below and Underdark.  (I DM'd two different 4E games for almost a year and a half since 4E was released).  At this point, I'm not particularly upset over having a lot of 4E books which I will probably never use again.

Quote from: Benoist;385477That's not entirely accurate, IMO, because this assumes that somehow people would be exclusive about which edition of the game they like and play. I like OD&D, AD&D and 3rd ed, for instance. I would even play 2nd ed and 4e, if given the right impetus (read: people I'd really want to play with).

So. It's not because you are a grognard and found one (or several) edition(s) you particularly like that you can't be interested in a different take on the D&D concept now.

I was using the term in the more narrow way -- folks who aren't interested in non-TSR editions of the games (lots of OSR folks).

I wouldn't consider someone who happens to play OD&D but also plays tons of other games a grognard, so much.  Old Geezer, Akrasia, etc., I would consider grognards, because they play quite a bit, but they're focused specifically on old editions and aren't interested in what the "kids" are playing.

QuoteThing is, you don't have to market your new version of the game that way. There's a difference between, "different" and "better". One can use the former as an argument to build a differing game play experience, which enriches the overall D&D tradition. WotC chose to go with the latter, calling what preceeding awkward, broken, silly etc, unfortunately.

Too different and you risk alienating portions of your fanbase.  Not different enough, and the new edition isn't worthwhile for a portion of your fanbase.

It doesn't matter what you do.  It's the game developer's paradox -- whether it's a computer game or a tabletop one.  You will always piss some portion of your fanbase off.  Always.  No exceptions.  If it wasn't people here bitching about 4e, it would be another group of people on another forum, probably not any smaller in number than the people criticizing right now.

Quote from: Peregrin;385480I wouldn't consider someone who happens to play OD&D but also plays tons of other games a grognard, so much.  Old Geezer, Akrasia, etc., I would consider grognards, because they play quite a bit, but they're focused specifically on old editions and aren't interested in what the "kids" are playing.

That's very narrow, and I think your take on "grognard" actually talks about a very small amount of people. Old Geezer played quite his share of different games before finally going back to OD&D. Akrasia raves about RuneQuest II, OpenQuest and such lately.

I would go as far as to say that your definition of "grognard" is purely theoretical.

Quote from: Peregrin;385480I wouldn't consider someone who happens to play OD&D but also plays tons of other games a grognard, so much.  Old Geezer, Akrasia, etc., I would consider grognards, because they play quite a bit, but they're focused specifically on old editions and aren't interested in what the "kids" are playing.

I tend to play games I own and enjoy. I'm more likely to try a new game if it isn't trying to replace an old favorite, especially if it is doing so by trying to take an old favorite in directions I do not enjoy. D&D started going in directions I did not enjoy as much with 2e. After a few years, I even stopped buying 2e stuff.

3e looked great at first, then I discovered how long combat was and how character build planning-oriented it was quickly becoming -- two things I loathe in RPGs. I dropped it quickly. I tried 4e but immediately discovered that it was even more into long detailed combats and that the rules actions did not map to reality very well -- and the damn build-orientation was still there, although toned down.

New ceased being better in the D&D world for me about 1992/1993 because the designers moved the newer versions game further and further away from the type of play I enjoyed into types of play I did not find fun at all.  But I have all this OD&D, AD&D1e, B/X, BECMI/RC D&D (and even some AD&D2e) stuff that still plays well and caters to the style I enjoy, so I play it. I don't waste a lot of time and money on all sorts of different D&D-like games in the hope that one of them will be better for me than what I already have and really enjoy.

Note that I'm like this with everything. I drive a 1998 minivan and 1982 car. They both work well and do their job, so why waste money on a new ones just because they exist and many people think they are much better (for what they value as "better") than what I have? I guess I lack the "newer must be better" gene or something. I know friends in marketing and advertising have told me many times that they are glad most people aren't like me.

That said, I do pick up new games every once in a while. They are usually games for subjects I think I might enjoy but do not already have a "go to" game for. I buy based on what interests me, not on the need of some game company to put out a new version or whatever. I seldom buy sight unseen any more. If I can't sit down and look through the game rules for an hour or so before purchasing it, chances are pretty good that I'll just decide to save my money rather than chance wasting it on yet another game that sounded good but turned out to be something I would probably never play more than once or twice.

Right, but it depends whether we're talking about conservative game design or not.  A lot of trad games are very similar in that they're just alternate takes on task resolution systems with minor differences in play, and when a company just tries to restate the same (or similar) task resolution system again and again (in the case of nWoD, 3.5, or 2e D&D) it becomes problematic because you're generally just milking fans.

Good game design doesn't focus on recreating the same schtick again and again, or creating the same product again and again like cars or other hardware.  Good game design focuses on creating new and different experiences that are worthwhile in and of themselves so that being "better" is irrelevant.  Republishing settings can't do that, and restating previous designs with "improvements" can't do that.

This of course doesn't apply to companies like Palladium and BRP, who understand that trying to reinvent the wheel isn't always productive.  They've been able to maintain their fanbases because they understand what their fans like and that keeping the systems consistent over "editions" works for them.

Monopoly doesn't need to be redone, but if someone is selling me Parcheesi and I don't own anything like it, I might consider picking it up if I think I'll like it.  For me, 4e D&D is a "modern" take on D&D that I enjoy, while I also enjoy Basic D&D for the more traditional form of D&D.  To me, they're distinct enough that I can have both on my shelf and get enjoyment out of each.

Now, if Wizards released a new edition of D&D and it did essentially the same thing as 4e, I probably wouldn't shell out money for it.

Quote from: Peregrin;385495Right, but it depends whether we're talking about conservative game design or not.  A lot of trad games are very similar in that they're just alternate takes on task resolution systems with minor differences in play...

But they work. The systems in OD&D, AD&D, CoC, Stormbringer, Classic Traveller, RQ II, etc. work great for what I want. I don't need new and improved. I certainly don't need "new and improved" if that changes the game into something I don't like.

Quote...and when a company just tries to restate the same (or similar) task resolution system again and again (in the case of nWoD, 3.5, or 2e D&D) it becomes problematic because you're generally just milking fans.

CoC is basically the same game it was in 1981, despite being on its 6th(?) edition. While many companies may not know how to keep afloat without completely revamping their flagship game with a different system every few years, that doesn't make it needed from a game design POV.

QuoteGood game design focuses on creating new and different experiences that are worthwhile in and of themselves so that being "better" is irrelevant.

I'm not sure I agree, but I give you the point for this discussion, that doesn't excuse killing off old games to replace them with something new and very different but with the same name. Create a NEW game with a new name and sell it as that. Don't try to force everyone who likes game X to switch to a new game (also called game X) but taking the original completely off the market -- especially if the original is popular.

QuoteThey've been able to maintain their fanbases because they understand what their fans like and that keeping the systems consistent over "editions" works for them.

D&D used to be that way as well -- up until WOTC took it over, just about anything for any version could be used with any other version -- converting on the fly as you played. I still play those games because the new and improved versions were major downgrades from my POV.  Why the hell should I play (let alone shell out money for) a new version that is worse for what I want to do than any of the older versions I already own?  They still play just fine.

Quote from: RandallS;385503CoC is basically the same game it was in 1981, despite being on its 6th(?) edition. While many companies may not know how to keep afloat without completely revamping their flagship game with a different system every few years, that doesn't make it needed from a game design POV.

Wonder how much the changes in a classic game's design, is driven mainly by ego considerations of the designers.

With regime change being common at a few big gaming companies, a new set of egotistical designers shuffle through the musical chairs.  They want to "leave their mark" on the game, more than anything else to gratify their own egos.

Peregrin, you are making a differenciation between a game like say, Call of Cthulhu and say, Dungeons & Dragons, that I simply do not see. So, in one case, not changing the game system in any dramatic way is smart and perfectly cool, but in the other, you have to change the design with every edition otherwise it's not cool, somehow bland, and "bad game design"? What the fuck are you saying, man?

People who want to create something genuinely new and different do just that: Create something genuinely new, with a different name, a different identity, through and through.

Using the D&D brand name on something "different" has nothing, whatsoever, to do with "good game design". It has EVERYTHING to do with marketing, and making a buck on a brand name with some amount of recognition. That's *it*.

I'm not making a distinction.  I'm saying in this instance I've adopted 4e because it is so different despite the name, not that it would've been best for them to have dropped AD&D or the old systems.  In a perfect world, 4e would be its own distinct, separate game alongside D&D, because TSR D&D and WotC D&D really are separate game designs that focus on different aspects of play.

I agree with Randall, that you should strive to create something new rather than kill off a distinct game in order to gain sales.  When I mention creating something different, I'm talking about creating a new game with its own identity, not creating a new game and using an old identity for marketing purposes.  That's what I mean by good design.  Striving to create something new rather than striving to create a replacement for something that already exists.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Dead horse is still dead.

Quote from: Aos;385510Dead horse is still dead.

Heh. You're back I see.

Everything alright I hope.

Quote from: Peregrin;385509I'm not making a distinction.  I'm saying in this instance I've adopted 4e because it is so different despite the name, not that it would've been best for them to have dropped AD&D or the old systems.  In a perfect world, 4e would be its own distinct game alongside D&D.

I agree with Randall, that you should strive to create something new rather than kill off a distinct game in order to gain sales.  When I mention creating something different, I'm talking about creating a new game with its own identity, not creating a new game and using an old identity for marketing purposes.  That's what I mean by good design.  Striving to create something new rather than striving to create a replacement for something that already exists.

I hope that clarifies my position.

It does indeed. And the part about the perfect world? I'm right there with you.