# Edition Fatigue



## Korgoth (Jan 8, 2011)

This thread is for those who, regardless of their aesthetic preferences vis a vis the current edition of D&D, are simply tired of having a new edition come out every ten minutes. Though it is an anti-5E thread, it is not intended to be an edition war thread or to bag on anybody's favorite edition thus far released. Instead, I'd like to talk at least a little bit about _business_ and possible alternatives to the "edition treadmill" model.

So let's step back for a minute and consider a "gamer's game" that is actually making headway in the popular market: The Settles of Catan. Now, though I've played it a number of times it's not a game I'm particularly excited about, and among my fairly impressive board game collection Settlers is conspicuously absent: there's always something else, probably more obscure, that I'd rather be buying (though I do own its comrade-in-arms, Carcassonne plus an expansion). Anyway, here's the thing about Settlers: it came out in 1995.

That's right... Settlers came out over 15 years ago. It has changed very little in this time. It came out, won the _Spiel des Jahres_ prize, and has rested upon its ever-increasing laurels since then. People during the Christmas season of 2010 (again, 15 years after its release) walk into game shops and ask for "There's this game... Settlers of something..." or "There's this game... you build these little houses on an island..."; which is to say, after over 15 years the common man (and woman) is still discovering Settlers anew.

Settlers of Catan is not taking the world by storm. But it _is_ taking it.

Settlers has had a number of expansions. These are not necessary to play. So once you buy into Settlers, there's more to buy (but nothing required). However, Settlers has remained... Settlers. It has expansions, it has spinoffs, it has sibling games, but the game has, actually, remained "ze same".

If, on the other hand, Settlers was, over the last 15 years, already up to "Jerry Bruckheimer Presents: Settlers of Freakin' Catan 5th Edition!!!!1!" then it would still be a niche game, eking out a meagre revenue stream from the same. dang. fans. over and over again. It would not be growing.

Returning to D&D, the subject of this thread (though it probably doesn't seem like it so far): how can the public ever get any traction in the world of D&D? It changes every ten minutes! They cannot. It doesn't stay the same long enough for it to begin to gain a foothold outside the diehard niche.

The current business model seems to be: produce edition. Produce a billion supplements. Wait until the fanbase is saturated, then repeat the process. It's a continual treadmill of driving the same fans to a state of product saturation over and over again.

That might make a little bit of money, but it will never grow. It will never begin to spread among the general public and gain traction. It needs time to do this... time to be disseminated and spread. Time for people to become comfortable with it and start having non-gamers over to play. Time for its terminology to become part of the language. Virtually everyone has heard of Boardwalk and Park Place, and passing Go, and Community Chest. People are just starting to become familiar with Settlers (and will get "I've got wood for sheep" jokes). Most people have _not_ heard of a Healing Surge.

So what if WOTC decided to just stick with 4E Essentials, regardless of whether or not it's the Platonic Form of role playing game systems? What if they just decided to go with it for a while (like, a decade) and see if it could gain traction? Is there a possible business model that could support that in this industry, or do we have to face the fact that, at heart, Dungeons and Dragons is so _weak_ of a product that the only way it can last is by making the same few thousand people buy it over and over again every couple years?


----------



## ferratus (Jan 8, 2011)

I think, by and large, that WotC produces an edition, creates new rules and options for that edition, then produces another edition... because people buy them.

To put it bluntly, D&D makes more money as an ongoing concern with supplements galore rather than as an evergreen product contained in a single boxed set.   You certainly can make a comprehensive D&D rules set that can be contained in a single box, so there must be a reason why it isn't simply sold as a basic game like Monopoly, Risk or Scrabble right?

D&D is marketed towards a small fanbase who are willing to spend a lot on their hobby, rather than many casual gamers that want to take it down for an afternoon's adventure.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 8, 2011)

ferratus said:


> I think, by and large, that WotC produces an edition, creates new rules and options for that edition, then produces another edition... because people buy them.
> 
> To put it bluntly, D&D makes more money as an ongoing concern with supplements galore rather than as an evergreen product contained in a single boxed set.   You certainly can make a comprehensive D&D rules set that can be contained in a single box, so there must be a reason why it isn't simply sold as a basic game like Monopoly, Risk or Scrabble right?
> 
> D&D is marketed towards a small fanbase who are willing to spend a lot on their hobby, rather than many casual gamers that want to take it down for an afternoon's adventure.





You've essentially summarized the OP without answering the question raised in the OP.

Let me give it a shot.  My thoughts are as follows:

1. Some people are going to claim in this thread that RPGs are so complicated that the rules HAVE to keep changing.  They have to "evolve", you see.  But the idea that "RPGs are so complex they must *evolve* over time" is bollocks.  It's nothing more than a marketing strategy designed to entice gamers to buy edition 7.25832 of a game every x number of years.  RPGs do not EVOLVE.  They CHANGE.  Perhaps for the better, or perhaps for the worse.  But I call  on anyone who tries to claim something like, "Well, Settlers is a board game, they are simple; D&D is an RPG, and they are so complex, they must evolve."  Nonsense.  

2. In spite of whatever edition fatigue the OP (and me, for that matter) is feeling, the truth is that there really ISN'T a long history here of brand new editions every x years.  Rather, you had AD&D from 1977-1999**.  I would argue that the differences between AD&D 1e and 2e are so small they are negligable.  If anyone wants to debate that, though, it should probably be a new thread.  At any rate, when 3.0 came it out truly was a smashing success, which led WotC to think, "Ah, THAT'S the secret! New editions!"  

But to be fair to WotC (I can't believe those words just came out of my keyboard), it isn't like they've been constantly producing new editions for the past thirty years or something.  Lightning struck once in 2000 (and the fans who gobbled up 3.0 were so awestruck by it that they gladly forked over $$$ for 3.5 a mere three years later--hell, most 3.x fans would have dropped their pants and grabbed their ankles if they had been told to).  WotC figured that lightning could strike twice with 4.0.  

Can't really blame 'em for trying.

3. RPGs may indeed thrive as simple rules sets with ever-changing expansions (rather than ever-changing rules).  I would love to see this approach.  But who knows what direction they're going to take the game in?

Frankly, I don't think even WotC know at this point.


** I didn't bother  mentioning OD&D and B/X D&D simply because WoTC's D&D was a directly descendent of AD&D, not the earlier games.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 8, 2011)

ferratus said:


> I think, by and large, that WotC produces an edition, creates new rules and options for that edition, then produces another edition... because people buy them.
> 
> To put it bluntly, D&D makes more money as an ongoing concern with supplements galore rather than as an evergreen product contained in a single boxed set.   You certainly can make a comprehensive D&D rules set that can be contained in a single box, so there must be a reason why it isn't simply sold as a basic game like Monopoly, Risk or Scrabble right?
> 
> D&D is marketed towards a small fanbase who are willing to spend a lot on their hobby, rather than many casual gamers that want to take it down for an afternoon's adventure.




Wouldn't it be great if D&D _was_ a complete game that came in a box, that everybody who wanted to play casually could buy?

Then, for the hardcore fanbase, you could put books out for a more complex version of the game, one with depth and scope and all that crunch that dedicated gamers love so much.  Call it something like... oh, "Advanced" D&D.

Wait a minute...


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 8, 2011)

My opinion is simply that a new edition over decade or so isn't a bad idea. It's changing the system every edition thats the problem. There really is no need for it. As Chainsaw Mage has said, there is really little real difference between 1st and 2nd edition. 3rd edition was a vast improvement and probably nessecary from WotC's point of view to differentiate between their D&D and TSR's. Was there a need to wipe the slate clean and create yet another rules system for 4th? No.

I'm with Korgoth on this. If the game is going to attract new blood in this day and age it needs consistancy not change. it also needs better advertising but thats a different discussion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 8, 2011)

The fact is, there are RPGs out there that have rulesets that have changed very little over time.  Someone comparing the 1st and latest editions of, say...Palladium/RIFTS, CoC, HERO or GURPS would note the changes...and very nearly be able to mix & match supplements and characters over time with little difficulty.

In many ways, the new editions are unchanged enough you could call them revisions.

On top of that, many of those RPGs have fairly compact rulesets.  Despite several or even voluminous numbers of supplements, you may only need to use one or two key books to play.

But of course, new "Editions" sell, so even those games periodically release a new one.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

Some times the new rules/ideas simply reach a point where they don't all "fit" within the current game structure. Then a new edition comes about. Sure, they could just rename it, but with something with name recognition like D&D that would be rather....stupid. Especially when there's a glut of material already and purchasing of material for that version has greatly slowed.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 8, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> That's right... Settlers came out over 15 years ago. It has changed very little in this time. It came out, won the _Spiel des Jahres_ prize, and has rested upon its ever-increasing laurels since then. People during the Christmas season of 2010 (again, 15 years after its release) walk into game shops and ask for "There's this game... Settlers of something..." or "There's this game... you build these little houses on an island..."; which is to say, after over 15 years the common man (and woman) is still discovering Settlers anew.




I think in that last sentence, you've effectively said something perhaps without realizing its import:  Settler's has not saturated its market.  Since Settler's is a board game, just a small step beyond Monopoly, there's always someone else to sell the game to.

The Edition Treadmill is a result of RPGs being in a niche that quickly saturates.  Unless/until you get D&D out of the niche, it will saturate its market, and require something to revive sales to continue the revenue stream that makes it good business to produce it.




> Is there a possible business model that could support that in this industry, or do we have to face the fact that, at heart, Dungeons and Dragons is so _weak_ of a product that the only way it can last is by making the same few thousand people buy it over and over again every couple years?




There are relatively few people who wear size 16 shoes.  The market for them is not large, and sales of them will always be small.  Does that make such shoes a "weak" product?

It seems to me that most folks just don't want to play RPGs.  It isn't so much a matter of being weak or strong, as it is appealing to a particular kind of person who isn't particularly common.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 9, 2011)

Traditionally with rpgs you can sell 3 things, rules, settings and adventures.

Rules will sell to the entire playerbase. Now traditionally in D&D rules have been sold as new classes, way to change enxiting classes and spells and in later editions feats and spells/powers.

In order to encourage buy in often these rule additions have built in power creep. Eventually the market saturates either the players have more rules than they can ever play an/or DM's are banning stuff left and right because of powercreep.

Settings: a given setting will only appeal to a subset of the playerbase. Futhermore setting stuff saturates out even faster than rule crunch.

Adventures are only sellable to DM's and DM's are only about 1/6 or even less of the playerbase and many DM's roll their own.

Now a boardgame has some advantages over an rpg, s boardgame is finite, so may hours and your done. You get sales from new players and old players replacing their existing copy bacause they have lost too many bits.
Now rpgs are books and pretty much never wear out also typically the players buy more material than they are ever likely to use in their lives. So how do you keep selling them new stuff. This is where edition changes come in. To change that dynamic then you need to sell to the players something other than rules, setting and adventures.

To get off the edition treadmill then you need to sell something else to the players. Something that will produce a steady revenue that is independant of the rules, setting and adventures. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you DDI!
Play online on our server using characters generated on our tools with people you get to know on our forums.

Paizo is extremely fortunate that they build their business as creators of adventures. Now with Pathfinder, they may find themselves with the problem (if it get successful enough) of do we expand Pathfinder by selling splatbooks. If we do then splatbooks become our primary revenue engine but we become a larger company but in 10 years or so we will face all the problems WoTC has now with fractured playerbase and all that comes with it or do we stick to our thing have keep the adventure paths as our primary revenue generator and just support Pathfinder enough to maintain the playerbase.

Wizards D&D does not have this option, they had build their business on selling splatbooks and the only way off that treadmill is to become a facilator to play or sell some service to the playerbase. Now can it generate enough revenue to replace the edition treadmill, I really do not know but I see very little other options for them.

I do agree with the OP that constant editions where the rules are essentially a new game does fracture the playerbase and runs the risk of diminsihing the number of player playing the latest version.

Question ( I am curious and I think it is relevant): What old rpg companies are still in the business and still making their primary revenue off their original rpg ip?


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I think in that last sentence, you've effectively said something perhaps without realizing its import:  Settler's has not saturated its market.  Since Settler's is a board game, just a small step beyond Monopoly, there's always someone else to sell the game to.
> 
> The Edition Treadmill is a result of RPGs being in a niche that quickly saturates.  Unless/until you get D&D out of the niche, it will saturate its market, and require something to revive sales to continue the revenue stream that makes it good business to produce it.
> 
> ...




All markets can theoretically be seen as marching towards saturation, inasmuch as theoretically once 6.5 billion people all have all of your product that they need, you can't sell anymore until people start having to replace it or new people get born.

But this isn't anything like the size 16 shoe market, and that's because people's feet don't actually grow. They stay the same size.

When Settlers of Catan came out, it was just another weird little game in that niche market of weird little games that aren't Monopoly, Sorry or Clue. That's the whole point: it broke out. It possessed that _strength_ to transcend the niche and start becoming a household name (it's not there yet, but it's getting there). My argument is that if they had kept issuing new editions and changed up the rules each time, that strength would not be present and it would have remained in its tight little niche.



ardoughter said:


> I do agree with the OP that constant editions where the rules are essentially a new game does fracture the playerbase and runs the risk of diminsihing the number of player playing the latest version.
> 
> Question ( I am curious and I think it is relevant): What old rpg companies are still in the business and still making their primary revenue off their original rpg ip?




Yeah, D&D has gotten to the point of seriously competing against itself. Not a good place to be!

I can think of a couple old RPG companies. There's Chaosium, which is still selling Call of Cthulhu in just about its original form. I think they're barely hanging on, but I don't think that they ever recovered from their ill-conceived foray into the CCG market and I get the impression that there have been serious management issues. But I don't think CoC was ever destined to light the world on fire, given that its audience is actually much, much more limited than D&D (_lots_ of people like fantasy; not that many people, relatively speaking, like Lovecraftian/Derlethian cosmic horror). The other is Steve Jackson Games with GURPS; it has had more significant changes over time but again, I don't think that a highly complicated generic system could ever have the appeal of D&D, which alone among all the role playing games I can think of seems to possess the strange alchemy of commercial potential.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 9, 2011)

Palladium.

About the only one I can think of.

Although it almost went under when somebody embezzeled a bunch of money from the company.


----------



## caudor (Jan 9, 2011)

When the 2e came out, I got excited and stopped playing 1e.  

Then 3e came out, I got excited and stopped playing 2e.

When 3.5e came out, I didn't get excited but bought all the 3.5 books anyway.

When 4.0 came out, I was leary because of 3.5, but then got excited and embraced it.

When Essentials was released, I was simply confused.  I like essentials, but I'm still not clear on the direction D&D is heading overall.  My comfortable buying pattern has been broken.

I wish WotC would communicate more.  They are a game company...not the Department of Defense.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 9, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Palladium.
> 
> About the only one I can think of.
> 
> Although it almost went under when somebody embezzeled a bunch of money from the company.




Despite its 6 editions, Call of Cthulu is pretty much the same game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 9, 2011)

> Question ( I am curious and I think it is relevant): What old rpg companies are still in the business and still making their primary revenue off their original rpg ip?




HERO RPG is still that company's primary source of revenue, AFAIK.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 9, 2011)

caudor said:


> When the 2e came out, I got excited and stopped playing 1e.
> 
> Then 3e came out, I got excited and stopped playing 2e.
> 
> ...




This is me except I did not go essentials. I do not mind new editions at all, even though I have lots of old editions in storage. This is still a super cheap hobby.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 9, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> HERO RPG is still that company's primary source of revenue, AFAIK.




   Different company, though. The original Hero Games is long defunct, after joining up with Iron Crown Enterprises, splitting off from them, partnering with R. Talsorian Games, and then being bought by Cybergames. The new company is actually "Defenders of Justice d/b/a (doing business as) Hero Games." However, they've managed to take a system considered pretty much dead and bring it back with steady support for nine years as of this year. In terms of edition count, they launched with a Fifth Edition in 2002 (although the manuscript's actually a couple of years older than that date would suggest), did a Revised Edition a few years later (mostly an expansion and errata collection), and launched a Sixth Edition in 2009. However, the changes are less dramatic than the 2E-3E or 3E-4E changes in D&D--the changes between HERO's 5th and 6th Editions are probably closest to 1E-2E. 

  Steve Jackson Games and Palladium are still around, but almost all SJG's revenue these days comes from Munchkin, and Palladium appears to be treading water.


----------



## Votan (Jan 9, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> So what if WOTC decided to just stick with 4E Essentials, regardless of whether or not it's the Platonic Form of role playing game systems? What if they just decided to go with it for a while (like, a decade) and see if it could gain traction? Is there a possible business model that could support that in this industry, or do we have to face the fact that, at heart, Dungeons and Dragons is so _weak_ of a product that the only way it can last is by making the same few thousand people buy it over and over again every couple years?




One thing to keep in mind is that the complexity of Settles of Catan is much lower than any edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  For example, it does not require a referee in order to play.  Nor is the rulebook (for settlers of Catan)on the order of hundreds of pages (as far as I know) whereas all editions of D&D have tended to require a lot of reading and rules mastery.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> It seems to me that most folks just don't want to play RPGs.  It isn't so much a matter of being weak or strong, as it is appealing to a particular kind of person who isn't particularly common.



So what you're saying is, we should use mass media to brainwash the masses into attending and playing D&D sessions with religious devotion. Then WotC won't need any new editions to make money. But we will need to appoint legally recognized clergy...er, I mean DMs. And we'll need to elect a DMP (Dungeon Master Pope) to organize our crusades against those heretical souls who resist the Word of Gygax and Arneson...

Sounds fun to me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 9, 2011)

We're getting to a point where the belief seems to be that every year a customer must replace their old gaming materials.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 9, 2011)

"Must spread XPs..." 

This thread is spot on. Well done, Korgoth.



Korgoth said:


> So what if WOTC decided to just stick with 4E Essentials, regardless of whether or not it's the Platonic Form of role playing game systems? What if they just decided to go with it for a while (like, a decade) and see if it could gain traction?



I'm going to surprise some people, but, although I would like for another iteration of the game to become a true long-lasting game classic, I would accept this compromise, and I think this is what actually should happen to the game at some point. Essentials being itself seen as something of a compromise by some people between the changes of 4e and traditional D&D, maybe it is indeed the version of the game that should become the classic D&D game.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 9, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> We're getting to a point where the belief seems to be that every year a customer must replace their old gaming materials.



And that might actually kill interest in the game altogether.


----------



## DandD (Jan 9, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> We're getting to a point where the belief seems to be that every year a customer must replace their old gaming materials.



Well, if they didn't, Wizards of the Coast would send ninja-assassins that would murder us all in our sleep and then burn off our old D&D-collections anyway.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 9, 2011)

Trained goats will hunt us out and butt us until we change to the new edition.

Butt us right over the edge.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 9, 2011)

Out of all the RPGs I know, D&D is one that is probably slowest to roll out a new edition.  A lot of newer RPGs - many having just existed since the 90's, are already on their 4th edition or later.  Perhaps we are too spoiled to expect long periods of time beteen edition changes, myself included.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 9, 2011)

D&D, and RPG's in general, need to figure out how to market themselves to be much, much easier to play so that they CAN break out of their niche market. Board games, video games, etc... are all easy to start quickly. To break out of this niche RPG companies need to package their RPG's to be similarly easy to start playing, and then they, and we, need to market this easy and fast to start playing RPG to everyone we possibly can so people will find out how awesome the strong points of these RPG's are, and see that it is worth their time to invest even more time into the more classic bigger and high page count products.

As long as RPG's keep presenting themselves as these daunting 100 to 5,000 page RPG's it is going to keep itself locked up within its niche because the bigger market will never risk investing its time into learning such a huge product.

They need to get it down to about 30 pages, with maps, miniatures, and other cool props.

Like I have been thinking, if they took the Ravenloft board game and tweaked it a bit more, it would be a great intro into 4E gaming that would be appealing to the board game crowd and possibly pull them into playing RPG's as well. Then RPG companies need to develop a $30 set that gets you started, and to steal them from the video game crowd give them access to an online interactive video environment in which they can play fully digital modules. Give them 30 to 60 days of free access in which to hook them, and then charge a $10/month fee.

I don't know about everyone else, but I found many of the Neverwinter Night "modules" to be a lot of fun to play, now imagine using that to integrate with printed books and how effectively it may draw people into investing time into learning the full table top RPG's.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2011)

I think Treebore and a few others pretty much have the right of it.  

Comparing Catan to D&D (or most RPG's) is comparing apples to oranges.  Catan is not a hobby.  It's something you and three or four of your friends can play in about two or three hours and you're done.  Mastering the rules takes about three play throughs.  

It would be pretty strange, I think, to see many people taking basic Catan and playing it every single week for two or three years.  But, that's precisely what we expect D&D players to do.  Get your core three books and play a campaign for a couple of years.

It's a totally different experience.

The board game player demographic totally dwarfs the RPG player demographic.  Probably by an order of magnitude.  How many houses in the English speaking world don't have a single board game in them?  It might only be Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit (which dwarfs Catan) but they are there.

Any parallels between board games and RPG's is tenuous at best.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 9, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Different company, though. The original Hero Games is long defunct, after joining up with Iron Crown Enterprises, splitting off from them, partnering with R. Talsorian Games, and then being bought by Cybergames. The new company is actually "Defenders of Justice d/b/a (doing business as) Hero Games." However, they've managed to take a system considered pretty much dead and bring it back with steady support for nine years as of this year. In terms of edition count, they launched with a Fifth Edition in 2002 (although the manuscript's actually a couple of years older than that date would suggest), did a Revised Edition a few years later (mostly an expansion and errata collection), and launched a Sixth Edition in 2009. However, the changes are less dramatic than the 2E-3E or 3E-4E changes in D&D--the changes between HERO's 5th and 6th Editions are probably closest to 1E-2E.
> 
> Steve Jackson Games and Palladium are still around, but almost all SJG's revenue these days comes from Munchkin, and Palladium appears to be treading water.



This kind of sums it up, I think. Selling splatbooks will only get you so far.



Treebore said:


> D&D, and RPG's in general, need to figure out how to market themselves to be much, much easier to play so that they CAN break out of their niche market. Board games, video games, etc... are all easy to start quickly. To break out of this niche RPG companies need to package their RPG's to be similarly easy to start playing, and then they, and we, need to market this easy and fast to start playing RPG to everyone we possibly can so people will find out how awesome the strong points of these RPG's are, and see that it is worth their time to invest even more time into the more classic bigger and high page count products.
> 
> As long as RPG's keep presenting themselves as these daunting 100 to 5,000 page RPG's it is going to keep itself locked up within its niche because the bigger market will never risk investing its time into learning such a huge product.
> 
> They need to get it down to about 30 pages, with maps, miniatures, and other cool props.



Agreed, though TFT had about 60 ages of rules in total.



Treebore said:


> Like I have been thinking, if they took the Ravenloft board game and tweaked it a bit more, it would be a great intro into 4E gaming that would be appealing to the board game crowd and possibly pull them into playing RPG's as well. Then RPG companies need to develop a $30 set that gets you started, and to steal them from the video game crowd give them access to an online interactive video environment in which they can play fully digital modules. Give them 30 to 60 days of free access in which to hook them, and then charge a $10/month fee.



Also agreed - I have had the same thoughts myself



Treebore said:


> I don't know about everyone else, but I found many of the Neverwinter Night "modules" to be a lot of fun to play, now imagine using that to integrate with printed books and how effectively it may draw people into investing time into learning the full table top RPG's.




I would go along with this but an even simpler integratred VTT might also work. Which is why I am hopeful forthe new VTT and associated online tools. However, the bottleneck is to train up new DM's. Lacks of DM's has always been the limiting factor in the spread of rpgs.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 9, 2011)

I think it's about bright ideas.  What happens is, people play the game and then have an idea, and they say, "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" and they write rules to support their idea.

Then someone thinks, "Wouldn't it be cool if we shared all these bright ideas with the players?", so we get rules supplements and splatbooks.  After several years, in order to play the complete game you're lugging around armfuls of rules.

Then someone thinks, "Maybe all these bright ideas weren't really so bright.  Wouldn't it be cool if we didn't have all this rules-bloat and we released a simplified, clarified, _better_ version of the game?" and before you know it, you get a new edition.

Then someone in the publishers' management decides it would be best to stop selling the old edition in the hope that this means the publishers can sell more copies of the new edition.  Meanwhile, the people who liked the options and the splatbooks start rewriting their favourite add-on for the new version of the game, so they can publish them again.

Everyone in this cycle is genuinely motivated by trying to improve things for the players--except that one person in the publishers' management who decides to stop selling the old edition, who's trying to extract money from them.


----------



## LeStryfe79 (Jan 9, 2011)

Yeah, despite the fact that I liked several things about 3/3.?, I think there were lots of things that could have been improved about 2ed AD&D without wiping the slate clean. From 1978 until 1999, AD&D was basically the same game. If wotc would have simply focused on making a cleaner more digestible product, I think the AD&D brand name would be a lot stronger now. Make no mistake, classic AD&D will always be the form in which it existed in 1ed and 2ed. Face it, we all got greedy, and so did wotc. Unfortunately, in the process, we've all lost our identity as well...


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2011)

Treebore said:


> D&D, and RPG's in general, need to figure out how to market themselves to be much, much easier to play so that they CAN break out of their niche market. Board games, video games, etc... are all easy to start quickly.



I don't believe this will ever work.

For starters, table top roleplaying *is* a niche market.  You can put "complex", "big", "simple", "quick", whatever on the front of that and you are still just rearranging who you target within the niche starting point.

It isn't all just black and white, there are certainly people who could be brought into the fold, so to speak.  But it isn't now or ever going to be any more than a niche market.  

Simplicity is good.  Virtually any time two things achieve the same result, the more simple option is better.  So if you can simplify it will be a benefit and, first, you will get a much bigger slice of the niche and, second, you will probably also reach more shades of gray, thus expanding the niche.  But you will not get beyond a niche.

But, it is very rare for simplicity to come with no cost.  A big chunk of the RPG fan base likes the meat of RPGs.  And when simplicity takes away that meat, you will do more harm than good.

Yes, early D&D was a lot more simple and was hugely popular.  But, it was also the corner on the market.  It was THE game and was also very complex in its own right.  But, as the market matured more complex games became successful because they offered what old D&D offered and even more.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2011)

What is the annual cash flow of Settlers of Catan?


----------



## the Jester (Jan 9, 2011)

I think part of the problem is that WotC has a good-sized staff. If they aren't constantly bringing in revenue, they all lose their jobs. That gives them a lot of motivation to do SOMETHING to pull in more money.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2011)

the Jester said:


> I think part of the problem is that WotC has a good-sized staff. If they aren't constantly bringing in revenue, they all lose their jobs. That gives them a lot of motivation to do SOMETHING to pull in more money.




I think it is the other way around.  There is a market present which justifies the staff.  It is just a question of keeping that market engaged.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 9, 2011)

I don't think there's anything about D&D that requires it to be a hobby for the whole gaming group. I mean, there is if each player has to read a 200 page hardback manual just to play. But if the rules are simple enough (like in Old School play), the player doesn't even have to read anything, or at most something like 5 pages or less.

To go in the "Dungeons and Dragons Family Game" direction, gamers would have to give up their "player character as CAD engineering feat" fetish. Personally I think that the whole milieu of CharOp is the deadest of all dead ends in the world commerce and marketing. But I suppose that's another thread.

Anyway, D&D has to be a bit of a hobby for the DM, since he has to at least read the module, but not for anybody else. I'm playing in a Classic Traveller campaign right now (Yay! I get to play for once!) and there's virtually no reason that any of the players would have to read a single word of rules text. You have your character and you chuck 2d6 when the Ref tells you to. The end.

Is Essentials the game that could transcend the niche? What I'm saying in this thread is "Go with it." It might not be optimal (I'm rather sure it isn't), but it's _there_. Have you ever been in a situation where people want to go out for food because they're all hungry but nobody can agree on where to go... and this conversation can go on for like an hour if you're not careful? At some point you just have to pick an option that's not perfect and go with it.

Now, as much as I have "Edition Fatigue", if they did come out with something along the lines of "The Dungeons and Dragons Family Game", where you get a big box at WalMart or Target and that's the whole game (tokens, tiles/maps, screen, dice, etc.) with one "module" (and I'm not talking some "Kobold Hall" POS either) and were committed to _go with that for at least a decade_ then I'd accept it (obviously there'd be more modules coming out for it... it is accepted that games have expansions). Otherwise, in the absence of something specifically designed to gain traction with Middle America (or whatever exists nowadays, if that has been destroyed), then I say let Essentials gain whatever traction it is capable of gaining.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 9, 2011)

Treebore said:


> Like I have been thinking, if they took the Ravenloft board game and tweaked it a bit more, it would be a great intro into 4E gaming that would be appealing to the board game crowd and possibly pull them into playing RPG's as well. Then RPG companies need to develop a $30 set that gets you started, and to steal them from the video game crowd give them access to an online interactive video environment in which they can play fully digital modules. Give them 30 to 60 days of free access in which to hook them, and then charge a $10/month fee.




To a degree, this has already been done/is being done, and it hasn't proven to be as successful.  There's been Heroquest/Warhammer Quest, Dungeon, Descent, Runebound, Dragonstrike, The D&D boxed sets (Dragon's Den, Goblin's Lair, etc.) and many others.

RPGs need to be themselves and stop trying to be something else they're not.  I wouldn't be against breaking the system in two for the casual/hardcore crowd because they have completely different wants and buying habits.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 9, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> To a degree, this has already been done/is being done, and it hasn't proven to be as successful.  There's been Heroquest/Warhammer Quest, Dungeon, Descent, Runebound, Dragonstrike, The D&D boxed sets (Dragon's Den, Goblin's Lair, etc.) and many others.
> 
> RPGs need to be themselves and stop trying to be something else they're not.  I wouldn't be against breaking the system in two for the casual/hardcore crowd because they have completely different wants and buying habits.





The fact that this has only been done to a "degree" is exactly why it has failed. Design it to be marketed from the beginning with the specific aim of pulling people over into the RPG niche market and it will be successful.

Marketing is about perception, so to grow beyond the RPG niche they will have to very intentionally change the perception of RPG's to grow beyond their current market.

The current perception is it requires hundreds of pages and many books to even begin to play. They need to change the perception to where it is quick and easy to play and even relatively cheap. That ill draw more people in. Include "messages" within this easy game that an even bigger world is out there, but not necessary for a great experience with this small easy product, z certain percentage will be drawn in further.

No RPG company has ever made a long concerted effort to market like that, and until they do, nothing will change.

Lets not forget, TSR and AD&D didn't take off until 60 Minutes exposed how you can use the books to summon devils and demons. So unless a similar incident occurs the RPG companies are only going to effect change from a concerted marketing effort to expand.


----------



## ancientvaults (Jan 9, 2011)

To shut us all up WotC should make D&D like this:
Core rules: Very barebones, like OD&D/BD&D, very small. This is your skeleton.
Secondary rules: These add new classes and monsters.
Third round: Detail. This level breaks down into a simplified array of supplements, including feats, skills and more combat and magic options.

Each level of this is color coded so there is no question about where you are at.

I am going to be showing my age here, but when I was in 2nd grade we had these different levels tiny booklets (that actually quite resembled oldschool modules) that ran from basic to intermediate to advanced levels of readership. 

Taking this idea, WotC could quite easily make one version of D&D in which the consumers decided what level they were playing at. Wouldn't it be an easier way to sell the game to start with a basic structure and add complexity as the group saw fit? We would ALL be playing D&D, some of us would be playing in an older style and some of us would be playing v.5.58999, but at its core it would be exactly the same, there would be no confusion, some of us would get by with smaller "editions" while other groups would add their own level of complexity. Adventures and other accessories could be color coded to match the levels (basic, intermediate, advanced) of the game or the DM/players could just ignore the stats/add-ons that they do not use.

To me, this is where D&D/AD&D back in the day confused everyone. Over some disagreement two games were made when one core product could have easily opened up the advanced game to those who wanted another level of complexity.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 9, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> To a degree, this has already been done/is being done, and it hasn't proven to be as successful. There's been Heroquest/Warhammer Quest, Dungeon, Descent, Runebound, Dragonstrike, The D&D boxed sets (Dragon's Den, Goblin's Lair, etc.) and many others.
> 
> RPGs need to be themselves and stop trying to be something else they're not. I wouldn't be against breaking the system in two for the casual/hardcore crowd because they have completely different wants and buying habits.




Of that list, I have only played Runebound but Runebound takes too long to play. I have spent 8 hours on a session of Runebound. However, in my opinion I htink that Munchkin is a better intro to rpgs than the likes of Runebound. The Ravenloft game is not bad, both as a pretty good game and one that does not take to long.

The key thing is that no boardgame has the DM/GM role. I think that any product that will act as an intorduction to roleplay has to include the DM role from the get go. This will limit the appeal of the game also, not everyone wants to be the DM or enjoys that kind of role.


----------



## SoulsFury (Jan 9, 2011)

BryonD said:


> What is the annual cash flow of Settlers of Catan?




Probably next to nothing. Actually, after a bit of googling, the guy who created it couldn't afford to retire from his day job until 1999 to officially create board games full time.

For some reason, despite all the intelligence on this forum, some people cannot seem to understand that if all WotC did was reprint the rules and sell them, all of the staff of D&D would be laid off. We would get no new supplements. The only updates would be from D&Di. Without new products, WotC would quit publishing D&D and it would quietly slip off the shelves, only to found at garage sales and on ebay.

The fact is, no bookstore is going to keep the same amount of stock of a 15 year old book/game on the shelf as a brand new book. A new edition means more money.



> So what if WOTC decided to just stick with 4E Essentials, regardless of whether or not it's the Platonic Form of role playing game systems? What if they just decided to go with it for a while (like, a decade) and see if it could gain traction? Is there a possible business model that could support that in this industry, or do we have to face the fact that, at heart, Dungeons and Dragons is so weak of a product that the only way it can last is by making the same few thousand people buy it over and over again every couple years?




This is why this quote won't happen. There is no money with sticking with essentials, 4th edition, 3.5, or any other edition for long periods of time because eventually, no one is gonna buy it. It is, however, comical that you would call D&D a weak product, but for some reason brag about a game that I have never heard of, and has sold so poorly, the game designer still had to work as a dental assistant for several years, and only after he had other games to sell as well. Why? Because that one game wasn't enough. And according to Amazon and the products there, there has been revisions to Settlers. I hate to tell you, but D&D gained "traction" thirty years ago when it became a household name. The fact that it is such a strong game is the reason they can make new editions. Do you think the only people playing D&D are the ones around in the late 70s or early 80s? There are new D&D players born everyday and they want a modern version of the rules, not some old, crappy system that wasn't that great in the first place. D&D has done an excellent job with changing with the times, and it is sad that some people can't see that. My kids will probably look at 4th edition and laugh at how silly it was, just like I laugh every time I pull out an old character sheet and see ThacO written on it that I used in middle school.

WotC is here to make money. If some how essentials last for a long time, it is because it is making money. The only way I see that happening is a good box set coming out every 3-4 months that contains rules variants. Within the next 10 years we will see 5th edition, or a major revision of the rules. A new "essentials" type line that will redo the base classes, redo the monsters but still be compatible with 4th edition just like essentials is, is a possibility. A lot of people like when they put out new editions of the game, and I guarantee, every naysayer of 4th edition is probably above the age of 35 and still very set in their old edition's ways. Most, if not all of the rules changes I have enjoyed. The ones I don't, I change back to the rule I did enjoy.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 9, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> To a degree, this has already been done/is being done, and it hasn't proven to be as successful.  There's been Heroquest/Warhammer Quest, Dungeon, Descent, Runebound, Dragonstrike, The D&D boxed sets (Dragon's Den, Goblin's Lair, etc.) and many others.
> 
> RPGs need to be themselves and stop trying to be something else they're not.  I wouldn't be against breaking the system in two for the casual/hardcore crowd because they have completely different wants and buying habits.



HeroQuest was quite successful, just hard to find where places didnt always carry the limited supply expansions, and the game itself was switched to Advanced and the dispute between MB and GW, and now HASBRO cannot make it as HeroQuest.

The D&D version, I don't think was quite as much a success, likewise many other of the D&D board games were as you said, not very successfull.

In actuallity board games like that that have miniature expansions of the sort HeroQuest did are great introductory items to get people into RPGs as they have all you need, and you can use the minis to play a RPG with. Also a good bridge between board games and RPGs if done right.

Just saying...


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 9, 2011)

I think that d20/SRD was designed to address this very issue.  By making a base set of flexible rules anyone can make or play whatever they want.  Is d20 perfect?  No.  But's it's a good stab at creating an immutable base game that can be played by itself or expanded in infinite ways as the players see fit.

FWIW, GURPS is the same thing.  The "U" in GURPS stands for Universal for a reason.  It's not a bad system either.

Overall, I think it's a pragmatic approach to game publishing.  The problem (from WotC's point of view) is that it rewards the best (i.e., most imaginative, well-written, fun, etc.) products rather than letting big publishers like WotC capitalize on their market dominance to sell mediocre products to people because they are "official."


----------



## ssampier (Jan 9, 2011)

ancientvaults said:


> To shut us all up WotC should make D&D like this:
> Core rules: Very barebones, like OD&D/BD&D, very small. This is your skeleton.
> Secondary rules: These add new classes and monsters.
> Third round: Detail. This level breaks down into a simplified array of supplements, including feats, skills and more combat and magic options.
> ...




Similar to this:

Core rules: Dungeons & Dragons (basically a board game with dice and cardboard minis; I own this one)
Secondary: D&D Rules Cyclopedia
Tertiary: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

?

I think Wizards has the right idea with the Red Box. They even called the Red Box a starter set, not a "basic set."


----------



## beepeearr (Jan 9, 2011)

> It would be pretty strange, I think, to see many people taking basic Catan and playing it every single week for two or three years. But, that's precisely what we expect D&D players to do. Get your core three books and play a campaign for a couple of years.




You know, I used to think the same thing, but I know people who do just this.  Every week my aunt (a literal soccer mom) and uncle play settlers with their friends, with just the seafarers expansion (and fishes, not sure if that is part of seafarers are separate).  They play every Saturday, two-three games, for the past 4 years.  

Granted it's not quite the same as playing "basic" settlers, but the OP wasn't suggesting just basic D&D either, he was saying D&D with expansions, leave the base as is, and then expand.  Make each expansion a stand alone product requiring only the basic set.  This way if it turns out something does need to be fixed, you can fix just that expansion, without affecting the base rules or other expansions.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 9, 2011)

beepeearr said:


> You know, I used to think the same thing, but I know people who do just this.  Every week my aunt (a literal soccer mom) and uncle play settlers with their friends, with just the seafarers expansion (and fishes, not sure if that is part of seafarers are separate).  They play every Saturday, two-three games, for the past 4 years.



As does my wife. I introduced her to Catan. Now she meets once a month with a group of her girlfriends to play Catan for the past year and a half. More often than I can get  together with my D&D group it seems!


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 9, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> All markets can theoretically be seen as marching towards saturation, inasmuch as theoretically once 6.5 billion people all have all of your product that they need, you can't sell anymore until people start having to replace it or new people get born.
> 
> But this isn't anything like the size 16 shoe market, and that's because people's feet don't actually grow. They stay the same size.




So what do we need to do to get "Topology: an introduction with application to topological groups" into every household? Everyone can appreciate good mathematics, can't they? While we're at it, with a little better marketing, they'll all be listening to mathcore music, too.

It may not be as concrete as size 16 shoes, but most everything has a limited market.



> The other is Steve Jackson Games with GURPS; it has had more significant changes over time but again, I don't think that a highly complicated generic system could ever have the appeal of D&D,




Ha. I created a character over the past few days for D&D 3.5. The final character took 9 books, and I looked at a few more in the process. It took many hours. The only way I can see GURPS 4 needing anywhere near 9 books is if you were making a dungeon fantasy character mage/psionist/martial artist--and even then, the Dungeon Fantasy material is more akin to the guides to making good mages I consulted rather then actual rules material.



> which alone among all the role playing games I can think of seems to possess the strange alchemy of commercial potential.




Why? On one hand, I would say that history proves you wrong; the White Wolf games were stunningly successful in their day. On the other, I would say the hugest factor is that D&D managed to hit it big and get a lock on the public consciousness. I don't know what it would take to replicate the events of the early 1980s, for D&D or any game, but personally I'm not blaming TSR for the decay in the market; that's what fads do.



Treebore said:


> As long as RPG's keep presenting themselves as these daunting 100 to 5,000 page RPG's it is going to keep itself locked up within its niche because the bigger market will never risk investing its time into learning such a huge product.




Show me one smaller RPG that's a success. FUDGE hasn't done horribly, but it hasn't made any of the authors enough to devote time solely to FUDGE. TWERPS was interesting, but didn't seem to get any real audience. Not only that, if you can't sell a huge group of roleplayers on it, you can't afford to sell it to the outer world. Only Hasbro has remotely enough money to try and sell an RPG on TV and other mass-market sources.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 9, 2011)

The Fantasy Trip: In the Labyrinth was, what...40 pages?  60?

And it was a fully realized FRPG.  Not perfect, no, but easy to learn and fun to play.  So it CAN be done.

The trick is marketing it, because most people I know who aren't in the hobby just start zoning out when you talk about roleplaying (after you clear up the fact you're NOT talking about the Naughty French Maid and her Lonely Boss).

And the thing is, I don't think the market is ripe for targeting an RPG like that to the general public without attaching it to a MAJOR property.  IOW, you could currently do well with a rules light game with LotR, Harry Potter, Aliens, Predator, or perhaps one of the big comics producers.

And the problem with THAT is, unless there's an "advanced" version of the game, the terms of the IP license would put this game at a competitive disadvantage with more classically designed RPGs.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 9, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Show me one smaller RPG that's a success.



Original Dungeons & Dragons, 1974. Arguably, without that small RPG's success, we would not have any of these big 5,000 pages RPGs to play with. And yes, I do think this is a very relevant example, mostly because it is a game that is still incredibly fun to play, extremely light on the page count (requires an understanding of Chainmail, though), with a fantastic potential for emergent complexity and customizability. This, to me, is the winning game design that should be emulated.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 9, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Show me one smaller RPG that's a success. FUDGE hasn't done horribly, but it hasn't made any of the authors enough to devote time solely to FUDGE. TWERPS was interesting, but didn't seem to get any real audience. Not only that, if you can't sell a huge group of roleplayers on it, you can't afford to sell it to the outer world. Only Hasbro has remotely enough money to try and sell an RPG on TV and other mass-market sources.




If the vast majority of gamers don't even know FUDGE exists how is anyone outside of the niche market going to even know? Not a good analogy.


----------



## Emberion (Jan 10, 2011)

Edition fatigue...that's what I would call it. Just when I caught up with 4E, essentials came out, and not that it doesn't look like great stuff, and that it would be really fun, my bookshelves are buckling already, my bank account whimpering, and my enthusiasm waning. After I saw the collectible fortune telling cards, whatever they are, could be a hoax or the coolest thing since sliced bread, the concept-the very notion of their existence-sent me into a catatonic slumber of complete apathy for all things 4E and essential related. It had been coming for some time, regardless of what was being released. Like an iv with a slow drip of mind-numbing anesthetic the revisions rolled out and I became more fatigued with each drop. The big drops, the essential line in particularly, had already caused severe paralysis on the purchasing front. 

And now I have cancelled my D&D insider account. I haven't even logged into it in months. Originally, I was going to download all of the pdfs (just in case I ever awoke from this), but I lacked even the motivation to do that.

I am seriously considering putting my whole 4E library (minus a few truly essential books...not D&D Essential books, mind you, but the PHB and DMG and so forth) that I accumulated on Ebay or Amazon..not because I hate the game, or would never play it again, just ...so...very...tired


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jan 10, 2011)

Emberion said:


> After I saw the _collectible fortune telling cards_...



Whoa, really? 

"I draw from the Fortune Telling Card deck."'

"Okay.  It's 'Winds of Change' - next time you are hit with an attack you may shift one square and gain a +2 bonus to all defenses, and your girlfriend is going to leave you and take your favorite band shirt."


----------



## His Dudeness (Jan 10, 2011)

Dungeoneer said:


> Whoa, really?
> 
> "I draw from the Fortune Telling Card deck."'
> 
> "Okay.  It's 'Winds of Change' - next time you are hit with an attack you may shift one square and gain a +2 bonus to all defenses, and your girlfriend is going to leave you and take your favorite band shirt."





You are missing the point. TSR published Planescape in order to milk the consumer. Wizards published fortune cards.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 10, 2011)

I think the negative stigma of being a "D&D player" by the general public who is even familiar with the name of the game is probably THE thing that will keep D&D from ever becoming as successful and mainstream as we would like it to be.

The original "boom" in the late 70s, early 80s was new- fresh. And the many people not involved had no way to form an opinion of the game yet- and the stereotypical players of said game. 

30 years later it's quite different. Oh sure you have a few moderately successful actors who play, some who mention they used to play, etc. But the general public does not have nearly the bias towards other entertainment like board games, and computer/video games because those products have been ingrained in our culture for people of all stripes and types as "normal"- whereas D&D is  still seen as "dorky, geeky" etc. Sure properties like HP, LOTR and SW have sold to the extremes to the masses, but going to the movies (IOW- mostly are "books" for people who don't feel like reading- present company not included) and RPGs are very different things,

Then on top of that you have all the issues of modern complex systems with big barriers to entry, time & scheduling necessary to play, and getting everyone together to do so  on a consistent basis.

So, IMO, Ain't gonna happen- until there is a wholesale turnaround in the perception of the D&D name, and stereotypical gamer image it conjures,  by the masses of non-gaming public.


Addition- I think for RPGs to hit that mainstream, we will have to see a different game with a different name, made by some very clever people. I don't think there will be another lightning strike for D&D.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Jan 10, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Trained goats will hunt us out and butt us until we change to the new edition.
> 
> Butt us right over the edge.




That won't work. I own all the trained goats.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 10, 2011)

DragonLancer said:


> My opinion is simply that a new edition over decade or so isn't a bad idea. *It's changing the system every edition thats the problem. There really is no need for it.*




Planned obsolescence in action?


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 10, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> Settlers has had a number of expansions. These are not necessary to play. So once you buy into Settlers, there's more to buy (but nothing required). However, Settlers has remained... Settlers. It has expansions, it has spinoffs, it has sibling games, but the game has, actually, remained "ze same".




I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot lately, but there are games which take that approach.  If it is your personal opinion that you prefer that approach over what D&D is doing -having a set core and then optional expansions- it may be a good idea to support one of those other games.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2011)

JeffB said:


> I think the negative stigma of being a "D&D player" by the general public who is even familiar with the name of the game is probably THE thing that will keep D&D from ever becoming as successful and mainstream as we would like it to be.
> 
> The original "boom" in the late 70s, early 80s was new- fresh. And the many people not involved had no way to form an opinion of the game yet- and the stereotypical players of said game.
> 
> ...




The negative gamer sterotype is not the real obstacle, it does not stop people playing WoW, which is a similar enough activity to be identical in the eyes of the disinterested bystander.

No, the real obstacles are, it is difficult to explain, particularly in a sound byte fashion. Go ahead, try it; write an explanination of rpgs in 100 words or less.

The buy in to any rpg requires an investment of 50 to 100+ bucks and to read at least one 300 page manual (Red Box aside)

One player need to enjoy being a facilitator/cat wrangler and to be engaging and creative enough to draw in the other players and keep them interested in the game/story.

I think people that mentioned a simpler but complete beginner game, but completely compatible with an exisitng advanced game has some merit.

If you strip 4e down to its essential core, keep the skills, cut down on feats and powers. Start off with a generic class but a themed advancement structure so that at 10th level you finish up with a fullblown first level regular 4e class. It could possibly be done in 150 ages or so and call it Basic D&D and then rebrand the normal 4e as Advanced D&D. 
Just a thought induced by insomnia.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 10, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> So what do we need to do to get "Topology: an introduction with application to topological groups" into every household?




A "Topology for Dummies" book? 

Using a Klein bottle for the lemonade jug?


----------



## BryonD (Jan 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The Fantasy Trip: In the Labyrinth was, what...40 pages?  60?
> 
> And it was a fully realized FRPG.  Not perfect, no, but easy to learn and fun to play.  So it CAN be done.



I 100% agree that it can be done.  But, I'm highly skeptical of it being done AND showing as a true major, lasting name in the market.  It is a different point.



			
				ardoughter said:
			
		

> The negative gamer sterotype is not the real obstacle, it does not stop people playing WoW, which is a similar enough activity to be identical in the eyes of the disinterested bystander.
> 
> No, the real obstacles are, it is difficult to explain, particularly in a sound byte fashion. Go ahead, try it; write an explanination of rpgs in 100 words or less.



I certainly agree with your first point.  But not the second.
It may be true that it takes some effort to put in writing.  But that notwithstanding, I've yet to meet anyone who didn't grasp the concept is very short order.

I can't say why, and won't even try, but the fact of the matter is that a great majority of the population have no interest in sitting around a table playing pretend to be an elf.  Yes, obviously they ARE willing to sit at a computer and pretend to be an elf for hours on end.  But there are massive differences.  Not the least of which is MMOs don't really require even a hint of roleplaying.  In my experience the "RP" realms for WOW tend to be less popular, are frequently mocked by players on other realms in the same cliche manner table top gamers are mocked in meat space, and don't tend to resemble D&D anyway.  MMOs tend to be more about personal empowerment by avatar/proxy and virtually nothing about being "in character".


----------



## ggroy (Jan 10, 2011)

JeffB said:


> Addition- *I think for RPGs to hit that mainstream, we will have to see a different game with a different name, made by some very clever people.* I don't think there will be another lightning strike for D&D.




A Harry Potter rpg?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 10, 2011)

ggroy said:


> Planned obsolescence in action?



Among other things, _most definitely_.

The game vs. "the industry", or what's left of it. I know which one I'm backing. I am also _unable to be unaware_ which "they" are.

And so it goes on.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 10, 2011)

Emberion said:


> Edition fatigue...that's what I would call it. Just when I caught up with 4E, essentials came out, and not that it doesn't look like great stuff, and that it would be really fun, my bookshelves are buckling already, my bank account whimpering, and my enthusiasm waning. After I saw the collectible fortune telling cards, whatever they are, could be a hoax or the coolest thing since sliced bread, the concept-the very notion of their existence-sent me into a catatonic slumber of complete apathy for all things 4E and essential related. It had been coming for some time, regardless of what was being released. Like an iv with a slow drip of mind-numbing anesthetic the revisions rolled out and I became more fatigued with each drop. The big drops, the essential line in particularly, had already caused severe paralysis on the purchasing front.




Same here.  I jumped off the WotC 4E "treadmill" shortly after 4E Essentials was released.  I won't be jumping back on again.

I picked up the 4E Essentials Rules Compendium and Heroes of Fallen Lands books, and stopped there.  (I was occasionally DMing this season of 4E Encounters, which was using the 4E Essentials rulebooks).



Emberion said:


> not because I hate the game, or would never play it again, just ...so...very...tired




I've been feeling the same general "burnout" over 4E.  (At this point I really don't care anymore).


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 10, 2011)

ggroy said:


> Planned obsolescence in action?





Not precisely, since only the online computer elements of D&D are really being (currently) built that way.  The books still present a game that can continue to be played regardless of support from the company.  However, by discontinuing support and, by extension, pressuring the bulk of the player network to adopt a newer system, the company creates incentive to adopt while creating a sense of obsolescence for older editions.  By tying the game now so closely to computer-tools support with a subscription business model, the company has discovered a way to shorten the cycle of editions (in actuality or in principal) amd thus renew their revenue stream.  At least some would say, though not all agree, that the move from 4e in June of 2008 to Essentials in Fall of 2010 represents the shortest such edition cycle on record.  I believe it portends even shorter cycles to come.  It's further difficult to have any discussion about edition fatigue without examining what constitutes a new edition and what constitutes producing virtually a whole new game (setting aside whether or not merely branding something qualifies something as merely an edition of a continuing game line).  Hypothetically, one wonders if as many people would have switched to the new ruleset in June 2008 and, if in then coming out with the "upgrade" last Fall, would those adpoters of the new ruleset being feeling edition fatigue at this time, since it would actually be the first "upgrade" of a new game rather than the umpteenth "upgrade" of a game that first appeared in 1974.  Can the feelings of edition fatigue be mitigated by producing multiple brands rather than reinventing a single brand?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 10, 2011)

Frankly, I don't care that much how often they change the editions of the game, because I'm going to probably be on about a 20 year edition cycle regardless of what they do.

Right now, my D&D related purchases tend to be from 1e and 3e.  Surprise, surprise, those are the two editions I play(ed).  

Second edition came out, and I pretty much kept playing 1e.  There was enough compatibility that I bought a few 2e products (Complete Book of Thieves, for example), but by and large I ignored the edition.   Then 3e brought me back, which, as much as anything, probably explains why 3e seemed to be such a smashing success.  It wasn't that people had stopped playing D&D, it's that they'd kept playing it but stopped buying it.   Then 3.5 edition came back, which was largely compatible with 3.0 and so I bought a few items, but mostly kept playing 3.0.  Now 4e is the hot new thing, and I'm still ignoring it. 

Talk to me in eight or ten more years.  Maybe I'll be ready for a new edition then.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 10, 2011)

Votan said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that the complexity of Settles of Catan is much lower than any edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  For example, it does not require a referee in order to play.  Nor is the rulebook (for settlers of Catan)on the order of hundreds of pages (as far as I know) whereas all editions of D&D have tended to require a lot of reading and rules mastery.




The girls in my family--even mom--play Settlers.  There's no way in the world they would touch DnD.

It is impossible to compare DnD and SoC in any meaningful way because DnD is NOT a "session" type game (except perhaps 4E).  It expects a large commitment of time to play it right--a way that includes all role-playing.

And we must face it that most people find role-playing abhorrent.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 10, 2011)

fumetti said:


> It is impossible to compare DnD and SoC in any meaningful way because DnD is NOT a "session" type game (except perhaps 4E).  It expects a large commitment of time to play it right--a way that includes all role-playing.
> .




If you mean SoC 'session' and 4E 'session' as the same kind of 'session' then 4E is in no way similar to SoC. Any role-playing game played in one 2-3 hour session, with no continuity between sessions would be absolutely boring.

I played in a 4E game where each set of encounters had a different DM and different plot. Most people simply played the numbers, and it was mind-numbingly boring, so much it was not a role-playing game at all. It would be like playing WOW or a computer game and having to do all the math yourself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2011)

Sacrificial Lamb said:


> That won't work. I own all the trained goats.




I stare at them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2011)

> I 100% agree that it can be done. But, I'm highly skeptical of it being done AND showing as a true major, lasting name in the market. It is a different point.




Which was kind of my point: making an RPG with a compact ruleset is easy- getting the masses to buy it is the trick.

It's not the density & complexity of the rules, it's the nature of the hobby itself.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 10, 2011)

Warning: Fat, multi-quoted post follows:



DragonLancer said:


> My opinion is simply that a new edition over decade or so isn't a bad idea. It's changing the system every edition thats the problem. There really is no need for it. As Chainsaw Mage has said, there is really little real difference between 1st and 2nd edition. 3rd edition was a vast improvement and probably nessecary from WotC's point of view to differentiate between their D&D and TSR's. Was there a need to wipe the slate clean and create yet another rules system for 4th? No.



What the GAME needs and what WotC needs are two distinctly different things which don't always taste great together.

IMO the game does need to change over time. I agree that it does NOT need to be revolutionized and/or reinvented from the ground up in ANY edition. Yet many of the changes that were made for 3E were overdue from 1E, much less 2E. 2E changed bupkus as far as the meat of the rules is really concerned. 3E, however, changed too much and WotC - IMO - took it down a road that it was NOT meant to go down. They are now seeing more and more that making "Rules Mastery" a built-in cornerstone of their vision of the D&D rules has downsides.



Votan said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that the complexity of Settles of Catan is much lower than any edition of Dungeons and Dragons. For example, it does not require a referee in order to play. Nor is the rulebook (for settlers of Catan)on the order of hundreds of pages (as far as I know) whereas all editions of D&D have tended to require a lot of reading and rules mastery.



One of the advantages of the older rulesets is that while "rules mastery" was a viable approach to play it was NOT intended to BE the play. Instead of roleplaying with "Rules Mastery" as a fun sideline it was changed to "Rules Mastery" with roleplaying as a fun sideline. That's overstating it, of course, but while it may not be true - it's _accurate_.



Treebore said:


> D&D, and RPG's in general, need to figure out how to market themselves to be much, much easier to play so that they CAN break out of their niche market.



The appeal of D&D is still a niche appeal regardless of whether the rules are simple or complex. D&D rules began as very simple rules but IMMEDIATELY were set upon by the people using them and made more complex. Even today ONE FLAVOR of D&D rules is not the flavor that everyone wants. Some want a simple set of rules to play freely by the seat of their imaginative pants; some want the libarary of intricate and infinite possibilities and focus their enjoyment around crunching the numbers as WotC said they should. The spectrum from simple to complex will only become more evenly spread with the population of the player base as time goes on. No one edition will EVER again capture them all.



BryonD said:


> Yes, early D&D was a lot more simple and was hugely popular. But, it was also the corner on the market. It was THE game and was also very complex in its own right. But, as the market matured more complex games became successful because they offered what old D&D offered and even more.



And yet, insofar as I know, D&D has never, ever been dethroned as the most popular, most played RPG. Other games did offer the same thing that D&D offered - but they were NOT D&D and when it came down to it fewer people wanted to leave D&D to play something else than continued to play D&D while wanting it to be/making it be something more/different than it was.



SoulsFury said:


> There are new D&D players born everyday and they want a modern version of the rules, not some old, crappy system that wasn't that great in the first place. D&D has done an excellent job with changing with the times, and it is sad that some people can't see that. My kids will probably look at 4th edition and laugh at how silly it was, just like I laugh every time I pull out an old character sheet and see ThacO written on it that I used in middle school.



The effectiveness and value of the degree of change that D&D has made with the times is endlessly debatable. D&D not great in the first place? Yeah, I'd agree that that's true - maybe even that in many ways it was truly crappy. But OLDER editions continue to draw ever more players over time. Again, no single edition is the be-all/end-all for the entire spectrum of players. Even if you believe that 4E is two steps forward it is also one step back - there are elements/aspects of all older versions of the rules that were foolishly eliminated or altered - again IMO.



Odhanan said:


> Original Dungeons & Dragons, 1974. Arguably, without that small RPG's success, we would not have any of these big 5,000 pages RPGs to play with. And yes, I do think this is a very relevant example, mostly because it is a game that is still incredibly fun to play, extremely light on the page count (requires an understanding of Chainmail, though), with a fantastic potential for emergent complexity and customizability. This, to me, is the winning game design that should be emulated.



Well, I'd say "admired" is a better choice of word than "emulated". Again, not everyone wants the simpler set of rules to play by - or they WOULD be playing by them. It is with 1E and 2E that D&D grew outside of the very exclusive wargamer community to a wider audience. D&D would either not be where it is now, or would not have gotten here as quickly as it did if those simple rules had not actually been expanded upon and complicated as they were.



BryonD said:


> I can't say why, and won't even try, but the fact of the matter is that a great majority of the population have no interest in sitting around a table playing pretend to be an elf. Yes, obviously they ARE willing to sit at a computer and pretend to be an elf for hours on end. But there are massive differences. Not the least of which is MMOs don't really require even a hint of roleplaying. In my experience the "RP" realms for WOW tend to be less popular, are frequently mocked by players on other realms in the same cliche manner table top gamers are mocked in meat space, and don't tend to resemble D&D anyway. MMOs tend to be more about personal empowerment by avatar/proxy and virtually nothing about being "in character".



In point of fact, calling MMO's "roleplaying" games is very much a misnomer. They simply cannot incorporate roleplaying in the way that D&D actually does because the environment that the character/avatar exists in can ONLY react in pre-programmed ways to the pre-approved and limited possibilities for action perpetrated by the player. Simply being able to talk at other PLAYERS by Skype or by text is the palest shadow of actual roleplaying in a game of D&D where interaction with every aspect of the environment and EVERY pc and npc alike is possible.

As regards Settlers of Catan or any board game there simply is little, if anything for comparison to D&D and other RPG's. That there are some who DO play SOC on a weekly or other regular basis doesn't alter the fact that SOC, being a board game, is intended to be a single, isolated, one-off event that is weeks, or really months apart from the last, always has a definitive start, a similarly definitive end, and above all - a _winner_. D&D, while it can be played in one-off sessions, is designed and intended to be played regularly, recurrently, with no definitive end and above all - no way to win, only a goal of ongoing enjoyment of play.

Settlers of Catan is NOT D&D, much the same way that Pictionary is NOT Monopoly.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I can't say why, and won't even try, but the fact of the matter is that a great majority of the population have no interest in sitting around a table playing pretend to be an elf. Yes, obviously they ARE willing to sit at a computer and pretend to be an elf for hours on end. But there are massive differences. Not the least of which is MMOs don't really require even a hint of roleplaying. In my experience the "RP" realms for WOW tend to be less popular, are frequently mocked by players on other realms in the same cliche manner table top gamers are mocked in meat space, and don't tend to resemble D&D anyway. MMOs tend to be more about personal empowerment by avatar/proxy and virtually nothing about being "in character".



First off it is possible to play D&D (and any other rpg) with little or no actual roleplaying.
I do think that the problem is not that people are not willing to sit around a table and pretend to be an elf but very very few people are willing to sit at a table and facilitate their buddies to pretend that they are an elf.


----------



## Whisper72 (Jan 10, 2011)

the Jester said:


> I think part of the problem is that WotC has a good-sized staff. If they aren't constantly bringing in revenue, they all lose their jobs. That gives them a lot of motivation to do SOMETHING to pull in more money.




I admit I have not read ALL the replies in this thread, but this is essentially the 'problem' Why can Monopoly or Settlers make decent money? There is no continuous cost of development and massive staff. It is designed once, and pretty much all future sales are pure profit (minus production costs etc.).

So, this model could very well work from a Hasbro p.o.v., just treat it like any board game. Kill the WotC staff entire. Have a marketeer/product manager run the show on his/her own. When additional product is needed, source it out on a case-by-case basis. The core game never needs to change.

The main question is, does this model produce more net-revenues than the current model? What is the Return on Net Assets of this model versus the other one? And what is the risk of switching to this other model?

If the RPG base is largely looking for the next 'new shiney', then this model may not work. It all depends upon the ability of the game to go mainstream.

I currently do not believe that DnD in any of its current and past versions has a 'basic' version that is basic enough to reach the amount of people as a Settlers or Monopoly.

So for such a model to work, a 'last' version would need to be created, or at least some 'basic' version, fitting in one box and being a complete game that can be replayed often at relatively low intervals (most mainstream players probably play less then once a month) while still providing a 'new' experience and dynamic each time.

The whole 'leveling' issue is somewhat of a gamebreaker here. The whole way DnD (in all its versions) is set up is to create a long time and 'deep' investment in the development of your character. With board games, this whole aspect is not present or minimal. The whole concept of how the game is played would need to change...

The question then would become, is this game still DnD? Is it still a real RPG? The answer for many people would then probably be: no...


----------



## MerricB (Jan 10, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> Anyway, here's the thing about Settlers: it came out in 1995.
> 
> That's right... Settlers came out over 15 years ago. It has changed very little in this time. It came out, won the _Spiel des Jahres_ prize, and has rested upon its ever-increasing laurels since then.




While the basic game is fairly unchanged (the 2007 edition changes some cards and one rule), there are a host of expansions and spin-offs.

See here: List of Settlers of Catan products - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheers!


----------



## Votan (Jan 10, 2011)

fumetti said:


> It is impossible to compare DnD and SoC in any meaningful way because DnD is NOT a "session" type game (except perhaps 4E).  It expects a large commitment of time to play it right--a way that includes all role-playing.




I wonder if products like Ravenloft might help to fill this gap?  It's not precisely an RPG but it does seem to bring many of the elements of 4E into a single session board game . . .


----------



## BryonD (Jan 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's not the density & complexity of the rules, it's the nature of the hobby itself.



Exactly right.  And the nature of the hobby is, by definition, established by the nature of the fans.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> All markets can theoretically be seen as marching towards saturation, inasmuch as theoretically once 6.5 billion people all have all of your product that they need, you can't sell anymore until people start having to replace it or new people get born.




Few products other than basic foodstuffs and energy have a market that includes every human on the planet as a realistically potential buyer.  But, since new people are being born at an astonishing rate, large enough markets effectively never saturate - new folks come into it as fast as they leave.  Every year there's more folks to sell children's books to - enough so Dr. Seuss never goes out of print.



> When Settlers of Catan came out, it was just another weird little game in that niche market of weird little games that aren't Monopoly, Sorry or Clue. That's the whole point: it broke out.




Stepping over the fact that lacking sales data I don't know how far we can say it has broken out (I've not heard anyone other than my boardgamegeek friends speak of Settlers).  But, as far as it has broken out - my point is that breaking out of that niche is not particularly difficult, because the action of playing Catan is not particularly different than playing Monopoly or Clue, either in practical actions, concepts, or player experience.  The "small, obscure board game" niche is right next to the "commonly accepted board game" niche, and the barrier between them is as much one of marketing, as any quality of the product.

That's not necessarily true about RPGs - play of games in our hobby is qualitatively different from pretty much anything else people do after they give up Cops and Robbers.  I don't think you can assume that RPGs as we know and love them will ever appeal to anything like the same number of people, because the activity is fundamentally different, and simply may appeal to fewer people.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 10, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> First off it is possible to play D&D (and any other rpg) with little or no actual roleplaying.



Yes, it CAN be done.  The game can absolutely be played as a strategic/tactical conflict resolution experience.

However, that is hardly ever done.  Mainly because it just is not the expectation, but also because other media do that so much better.



> I do think that the problem is not that people are not willing to sit around a table and pretend to be an elf but very very few people are willing to sit at a table and facilitate their buddies to pretend that they are an elf.



I'm quite confident that they don't want to do it in the first place, and in the presence of other people just seals the deal ten times over.

But, they really don't want to do it in the first place.

People equate WOW fans with D&D a lot.  (At least D&D playing people).  I think that is a pretty big error.  The vast majority of WOW fans have background experience in other computer games.  No one would presume that playing Halo means the same person probably plays D&D.  And no one presumes any roleplay in Halo.  WOW is FAR more accurately described as Halo in a fantasy skin than online D&D.  Yes, there are huge differences.  But it is still played and, more importantly, perceived much more closely to various first person teamwork games.

The bulk of WOW players don't think about their characters thoughts, motivations, roles, whatever.  They are playing a game of overcoming challenges.  The bulk of D&D players are roleplayers.

It may be that when us tabletop folks start talking WOW, a great deal of our peers are also tabletop gamers.  And we bring that legacy along with us and hear our friends talking in the same terms.  So we get a skewed view on the experience.

But a typical WOW player has no desire whatsoever to pretend to be a Night Elf.  They DO want to use the Night Elf build base for their approach to computer gaming / challenge resolution.  They don't even think of the idea of pretending to be a Night Elf.

Again, that isn't to say that there are not a lot of people roleplaying in WOW.  They absolutely are there.  But they are not representative of the mass scale phenomena that is WOW.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 10, 2011)

ggroy said:


> Planned obsolescence in action?




Not at all. If you keep the rules the same, tweaking them slightly each edition, you keep the game the same. This allows new players and old players alike to learn the same system and have the same game if they join together. At the moment an 2nd ed player and a 4th ed player and too different animals especially if they don't play the other's edition.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 10, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> And yet, insofar as I know, D&D has never, ever been dethroned as the most popular, most played RPG. Other games did offer the same thing that D&D offered - but they were NOT D&D and when it came down to it fewer people wanted to leave D&D to play something else than continued to play D&D while wanting it to be/making it be something more/different than it was.



Fair enough. The point I was going for is it went from being 98% of the market to being the biggest single slice, but one of many slices.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 10, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If you mean SoC 'session' and 4E 'session' as the same kind of 'session' then 4E is in no way similar to SoC. Any role-playing game played in one 2-3 hour session, with no continuity between sessions would be absolutely boring.
> 
> I played in a 4E game where each set of encounters had a different DM and different plot. Most people simply played the numbers, and it was mind-numbingly boring, so much it was not a role-playing game at all. It would be like playing WOW or a computer game and having to do all the math yourself.




There was an attempt to take role-playing into a more mainstream venue through the creation of dinner party "murder mystery" boxed games.  

The games are aimed at 6-8 people (3-4 couples).  Each person takes a particular role in a self-contained situation and has a script containing a set of statements that need to be made to the other players over the course of the game.  At the end of the evening once all the secrets are out, each player accuses his choice for criminal.  

The games have a modest appeal to the non-gamer crowd (they'll typically try the games once or twice), but there is little interest evinced for more such play either structured or unstructured, with continuity or without.

Breaking into a wider community depends more on finding a magic feature that will appeal to those who only play anything casualy and that hasn't happened yet.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 10, 2011)

The Man in the Funny Hat speaks the truth.  I would give XP, but apparently I need to spread the stuff around a bit.


Man in the Funny Hat said:


> What the GAME needs and what WotC needs are two distinctly different things which don't always taste great together.



The most important statement in the thread.  Other gems:



Man in the Funny Hat said:


> IMO the game does need to change over time. I agree that it does NOT need to be revolutionized and/or reinvented from the ground up in ANY edition. Yet many of the changes that were made for 3E were overdue from 1E, much less 2E. 2E changed bupkus as far as the meat of the rules is really concerned. 3E, however, changed too much and WotC - IMO - took it down a road that it was NOT meant to go down. They are now seeing more and more that making "Rules Mastery" a built-in cornerstone of their vision of the D&D rules has downsides.



and,



Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Settlers of Catan is NOT D&D, much the same way that Pictionary is NOT Monopoly.



It's hard for me to claim "edition fatigue," since I have only really played two editions of the game.  I played BECM through middle school and high school, and didn't play anything else until the 3rd Edition was released.  I still play both, and I find that they complement each other very nicely.

See, sometimes I feel like playing a detailed, rules-heavy game with lots of stats and rules...and sometimes I just want to skip all of that and get right to the storytelling.  (shrug)

My interest in a possible 5th Edition of the game is purely a leisurely one.  It's my hobby, not my livelihood.  If/when WotC decides to make a 5th Edition of the game, I'll probably check it out...but I doubt it will replace my other editions.  I've got everything I need right now.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 10, 2011)

I've played BECM, AD&D, 2E AD&D and 3X. 
Right now I'm playing Pathfinder pretty much exclusively. I think as far as the D&D treadmill goes, I'm off never to return. I have my edition that I'm going to stick with. There are TONS of support for 3x/Pathfinder so I'm never going to run out of resources for the game. WOTC lost me with 4E (in that they made a game that I'm not interested in playing or running but is not a bad game) but more importantly the years long Edition Wars have really made me dislike fandom to the point where I'd just as soon as NOT PLAY than have to deal with jerk players of ANY edition. 

I've come to the realization that my Edition Fatigue has more to do with the people than it does the actual games themselves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2011)

> First off it is possible to play D&D (and any other rpg) with little or no actual roleplaying.



And



Whisper72 said:


> I admit I have not read ALL the replies in this thread, but this is essentially the 'problem' Why can Monopoly or Settlers make decent money? There is no continuous cost of development and massive staff. It is designed once, and pretty much all future sales are pure profit (minus production costs etc.).
> 
> So, this model could very well work from a Hasbro p.o.v., just treat it like any board game. Kill the WotC staff entire. Have a marketeer/product manager run the show on his/her own. When additional product is needed, source it out on a case-by-case basis. The core game never needs to change.




1) there have been actual Fantasy-based boardgames (Dungeon, Dark Tower, etc.) with various levels of success.  None were world beaters.

2) as mentioned before, there are many RPGs out there that have changed their rules very litttle over their decades of existence and who have legions of happy fans, but by sheer force of business realities, are extremely unlikely to ever be The 800lb Gorilla of the RPG market.

A "Static Core" could work, and to me, one of the best things about a business model like that is it's much easier to support multiple game designs that way (in theory, at least).  

If you do go with a "Static Core" design theory, you have to find something else to sell to keep your company afloat because you're not going to sell enough of one single game to make it.  So, you might be able to sell D&D1, D&D2, D&D3, etc., each based on a revised & cleaned up version of a particular version of D&D...just like Habro sells more than just Monopoly.

But even that won't keep an RPG company afloat.  Look at some of the "Static Core" games out there, like HERO or GURPS: despite _needing_ only the core rulebooks to play, despite the stability of their rulesets, both games have a few editions and _dozens_ of supplements.

So even though the rules are stable, you still get edition treadmills (though really, they're more like revisions) and you have to produce adventures and/or supplements that are well-written and provide utility to the end users.

Because if you don't, static core becomes stagnation which becomes going out of business...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think that static core could work for Paizo since their business model was already in place with subscription based sales of adventure paths.
At least as long as they can sustain interest in the adventure path subscriptions.

I don't think it is an option for Wizards unless the pen and paper D&D game becomes a loss leader for some other money cow. I guess that DDI could generate enough revenue to slow down the edition churn but I do not see it stopping it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2011)

Given that static core games like HERO and GURPS are on their 6th and 4th editions respectively, I don't see the edition treadmill ending for ANY RPG...just slowing, perhaps.

On top of that, static core has it's own traps.

Adventures are only going to be purchased by 1/7th of the market, tops.  AND they have to be well written or they won't sell THAT well, and that requires a good creative writing team...and creative writing skill is a bit rarer than we'd all like to believe.

If you keep publishing supplements- equipment, settings, whatever- you're almost guaranteed to introduce new rules that are going to interact with the core with varying levels of compatibility.  They may even shed painful illumination on sections of the core, showing that they could have been done better.  Perhaps it could even spawn an errata document...or a revision.

Or a new edition.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Given that static core games like HERO and GURPS are on their 6th and 4th editions respectively, I don't see the edition treadmill ending for ANY RPG...just slowing, perhaps.
> 
> On top of that, static core has it's own traps.
> 
> ...




 Hero’s case, the editions  were partially driven by new ownership.

1st edition was a small release (<1000 copies I think).
2nd edition was revised to correct serious power issues and received wider game store release.
3rd edition was a incremental improvement of 2nd edition.  It adjusted additional power issues, added more skills, and character options.  It also added colour to the rulebook!  This is the edition that seemed to get the largest market penetration.   
4th edition happened about the time ICE got ownership/partnership.
5th edition happened when one of the co-creators of 4th regained control.
6th edition happened about the time of the sale to Cryptic Studios.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 10, 2011)

I for one am tired of incompatibility. It's too late to fix it. I do not want to buy any more of the same stuff for a new edition. New is not better only better is better.


----------



## nedjer (Jan 10, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> I for one am tired of incompatibility. It's too late to fix it. I do not want to buy any more of the same stuff for a new edition. New is not better only better is better.




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwTGGHaCHAE"]YouTube - Classic Movie Line #30[/ame]


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 10, 2011)

nedjer said:


> YouTube - Classic Movie Line #30




Sorry about that. It was afternoon here.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 10, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> I don't think there's anything about D&D that requires it to be a hobby for the whole gaming group. I mean, there is if each player has to read a 200 page hardback manual just to play. But if the rules are simple enough (like in Old School play), the player doesn't even have to read anything, or at most something like 5 pages or less.
> 
> To go in the "Dungeons and Dragons Family Game" direction, gamers would have to give up their "player character as CAD engineering feat" fetish. Personally I think that the whole milieu of CharOp is the deadest of all dead ends in the world commerce and marketing. But I suppose that's another thread.
> 
> Anyway, D&D has to be a bit of a hobby for the DM, since he has to at least read the module, but not for anybody else. I'm playing in a Classic Traveller campaign right now (Yay! I get to play for once!) and there's virtually no reason that any of the players would have to read a single word of rules text. You have your character and you chuck 2d6 when the Ref tells you to. The end.





I very much agree. When I started D&D (with OD&D as it happens), only the DM needed to know anything - and it was a fantastic (literally) environment for players to engage with.

The idea that playing D&D requires lots of rules knowledge and 'expertise' is a relatively recent concept IMO. Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice. 

Cheers


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> I very much agree. When I started D&D (with OD&D as it happens), only the DM needed to know anything - and it was a fantastic (literally) environment for players to engage with.
> 
> The idea that playing D&D requires lots of rules knowledge and 'expertise' is a relatively recent concept IMO. Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice.
> 
> Cheers




I would add one more thing here Plane Sailing:  "Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice" AND a good DM.  A mediocre or (shudder) bad DM with older versions of D&D result in horrible games that have probably done more to drive people away from gaming than any rules set ever could.

I think people tend to ignore how bloody awful so many games were back in the day.  Mindless hack fests with the DM being outright encouraged to screw over the players at every single opportunity.

Not that every game was like this.  Of course not.  But, many were.  At least in later era D&D, DM's are encouraged to facilitate the players, not screw them over.

-----------

How much more mainstream do people really expect D&D or RPG's to become?  I mean there are literally thousands of RPG's out there and none of them have come even close to the mainstream recognition that D&D has.  

I mean, D&D branded novels are regularly featured on NYT best seller lists.  Frequently hit into the top ten sellers in fantasy on Amazon and have actually made it onto TV and movies a couple of times.  WOTC reported something like a 90% brand recognition in their market research.

You just can't get more mainstream than that.  This is as good as it gets until such time as we can figure out a new way to present the game.  And, by present the game, I mean a new paradigm for how the game is played - be it online with some sort of VTT or some other form that I have no idea what it might look like.

But, until such time as we can make playing D&D or RPG's less of a lifestyle hobby and more of a game, what we have right now is as good as it gets.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jan 11, 2011)

I'm getting fatigued with new editions. Set aside the expense; I'm just getting tired of having to "buy in" and re-learn the game every few years now. I realize they need to make money to stay in business. I'm more than happy to buy adventures or accessories, maybe a splatbook here and there, or even to subscribe to the online stuff. It's just the matter of having to learn a new version of the same game. 

I have tons of other, non-D&D, RPGs, and I don't mind buying and playing a new one if it's significantly different from others that I have. For that matter, I even enjoyed buying d20 games/sourcebooks that covered genres I had an interest in but weren't directly related to D&D's default setting - Mutants & Masterminds, Medieval Players Handbook, The Black Company, stuff like that. They added to or modified the game I already knew in ways that interested me. 

Buying what is essentially a new game system every few years that should cover the same ground doesn't appeal to me as much anymore. I mean, I like Monopoly, and I think all the various versions of it are cool, but at its core it's the same game. If they retooled Monopoly (or Panzer Leader, or chess) at its core every 3-5 years, I think I'd get fatigued of it, too. None of this is a knock on 4e, which I like. It's just...well, like I said, I'm a bit tired of learning a new D&D every few years, especially when it's so hard to get what few players I can round up to play, only to have them still wanting to play older editions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2011)

> Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice" AND a good DM.




ALL seemingly in short supply!

(You can never have enough dice...NEVER!)


----------



## BryonD (Jan 11, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> I very much agree. When I started D&D (with OD&D as it happens), only the DM needed to know anything - and it was a fantastic (literally) environment for players to engage with.
> 
> The idea that playing D&D requires lots of rules knowledge and 'expertise' is a relatively recent concept IMO. Classically D&D requires little more than imagination and dice.
> 
> Cheers



This always has been and always will be true.

However, that doesn't mean there are not systems that provide a synergy and enhancement to the imagination, no matter how little or great that imagination may be.

The problem is that when it is just imagination, there is very little for tastes to vary on.  Different players, in the same group even, can imagine different justifications for all many of fantastic events.

When you add a system you bring a sort of vector to the experience.  If a given player's tastes run along that vector, the play experience grows.  "Imagination and dice" are great, but that vector is a multiplier.  It doesn't contradict the truth of your statement.  But, your statement doesn't undermine the value of advanced systems.

It is just when another player's tastes run in a different tangent that the value of the multiplier drops below one for that person.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If you mean SoC 'session' and 4E 'session' as the same kind of 'session' then 4E is in no way similar to SoC. Any role-playing game played in one 2-3 hour session, with no continuity between sessions would be absolutely boring.
> 
> I played in a 4E game where each set of encounters had a different DM and different plot. Most people simply played the numbers, and it was mind-numbingly boring, so much it was not a role-playing game at all. It would be like playing WOW or a computer game and having to do all the math yourself.




Yes, I mean that an SoC session has a fixed beginning and end, and there is no carry over to the next session.  It's always a one-and-done event (no matter how many you play in an evening).  It's no different from MageKnight or Magic in that regard.

4E is basically designed to be a session game, refered to as Encounters.  You play one encounter this week with one set of players and characters, and you play another encounter next week next week but perhaps with a different set of players and characters.  That the sessions are technically connected, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't change the story.  A one-time player can show up and play this week's encounter and then disappear forever.  The group comes back the following week, plays with whoever is there, and there is nothing amiss from all the character changes each week.    And this all works because 4E leaves all non-encounter activity virtually unplayed.

I have always bragged on DnD as the ultimate story (rpg) game that totally outplays video games.  But 4E is far less story oriented than the popular video game "rpgs" like WoW or Elder Scrolls.  It's so disappointing.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 11, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Given that static core games like HERO and GURPS are on their 6th and 4th editions respectively, I don't see the edition treadmill ending for ANY RPG...just slowing, perhaps.
> 
> *On top of that, static core has it's own traps.*
> 
> ...





As someone who owns Low-Tech, High-Tech, and Bio-Tech for GURPS (all of which are refered to as 'equipment catelogs for the system,) I highly disagree.  The same rules are used no matter if I'm using a lance, light machine gun, or a laser pistol.  Though I would generally say that it's not unheard of for game systems in general (including GURPS) to find that there is a hole in the rules or an area which could be covered better, and have that lead to something being done differently enough to warrant a new edition.


_I will somewhat agree with the adventures not being as profitable.  That's usually because -with such a wide variety of game styles supported by the system- it's tough to write an adventure which will have useful crunch for all groups.  However, I feel -at least in SJG's case- they have found a way to work with this: cheap adventure pdfs, concise articles written in Pyramid, and a few sample starter adventurers mixed into the world books.  Also, since the system (again, in the case of GURPS... I don't know enough about Hero to have what I'd consider an educated opinion,) generally attempts to be somewhat realistic, adventures could -in theory- be written with very minimal game crunch and simply provide the real world statistics for things. _

*With this I agree.  I don't think there's a perfect business model which suits everyone.  If there were, I don't think multiple profitable rpg businesses would exist.*


----------



## Canor Morum (Jan 11, 2011)

D&D has to change periodically in order to appeal to new generations of players.  It's no different than Marvel rebooting their whole line to modernize the characters and repair story continuity. Ultimate Marvel anyone?  

The changes in game mechanics and art direction to resemble video games and miniatures games is not by accident.  It's what the current generation of kids are into it.  To ignore that most important section of the market would be foolhardy.     

So I totally disagree with your assumption that D&D should never change.  I would rather be able to share the game with my kids and grand kids than sit around listening to some old grognards reminiscing about the good ol' days.


----------



## Ulrick (Jan 11, 2011)

For me, edition fatigue sets in when I'm moving to a new place and have to carry all of my boxes of gaming books from each edition of D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2011)

> *Johnny3D3D*
> As someone who owns Low-Tech, High-Tech, and Bio-Tech for GURPS (all of which are refered to as 'equipment catelogs for the system,) I highly disagree. The same rules are used...




As someone who was involved in a GURPS 2Ed (or 3Ed, I forget which) supers game who noticed that the TK rules varied between the basic books and the supers supplements, I can say that it happened even in that system.

Subsequent editions may have changed this, but that just goes along with what I said later in the post you quoted.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't think that edition fatigue is the real problem.  I think it's supplement fatigue.

There's a significant potential market of roleplayers who only ever buy a couple of books for any game they play, even D&D.  The reason is that most game supplements don't provide enough value individual for them.

Even I get a bit of buyers remorse from almost every 4e book I've ever purchased, not because the content is bad, but because I don't feel like I got enough for my money.

On the other hand, I think that the Pathfinder Advanced Players Guide is some of the best money I've ever spent.

I would argue that there is decent money to be made in releasing fewer, more comprehensive products.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 11, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As someone who was involved in a GURPS 2Ed (or 3Ed, I forget which) supers game who noticed that the TK rules varied between the basic books and the supers supplements, I can say that it happened even in that system.
> 
> Subsequent editions may have changed this, but that just goes along with what I said later in the post you quoted.





Right, I addressed that there are times when a rule is discovered to work better a different way. Indeed, that can lead to wanting to design a new edition and evolve the game. I'd even go so far as to say that evolution of the game for the purpose of making the rules better and more functional is healthy.

However, it's not necessarily true that printing more books requires printing rules which deviate from the core. 

I wasn't suggesting that there's never a time when a game needs to evolve; I was stating that I disagree with the idea that more suppliments = more required rules in all cases.

edit: Now, in GURPS 4E there are suppliments which contain "new" rules. I say "new" because while there are some new options included, they are still based upon the same core concepts; with very few exceptions*, there aren't rules introduce which require changes to be made to the core. Also, the options are... well, optional. I can do everything with the Basic Set that I can do with the other books I have; the other books just showcase some really good worked examples and alternate ways I may not have considered of how to do some of the things I want to do.  They're also written by people who have a much better grasp of game design than I do, so they often have advice which is valuable no matter what system I'm playing, and they often have ways of doing things which are better than what I had come up with myself.

*Thaumatology would be an exception because one of the purposes of that book is to showcase different ways of handling magic which break from the established system in the core books. In the case of something like Low-Tech, there are _optional_ rules made available for those who want more in depth detail for things like how certain types of armor should more realistically react to being hit by certain types of weapons. The core concepts still function the same way regardless of if I use those rules or not. The only thing which changes is what level of depth or what level of abstraction I want.

None of this is to mean that there still aren't times when I choose to modify a rule. There are times when I do that. However, that's somewhat par for the game considering that part of the ideals behind a universal system is to allow customization to better suit the experience I want.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2011)

> I wasn't suggesting that there's never a time when a game needs to evolve; I was stating that I disagree with the idea that more suppliments = more required rules in all cases.




Ah, then you misunderstood my point.

I wasnt suggesting that new supplements _required_ new rules, but rather, as the number of supplements increase,_ the greater the odds_ that someone will introduce new/variant rules.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 11, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ah, then you misunderstood my point.
> 
> I wasnt suggesting that new supplements _required_ new rules, but rather, as the number of supplements increase,_ the greater the odds_ that someone will introduce new/variant rules.





My apologies then; I did read what you had posted differently than it was meant.

I think I'd mostly agree.  I think the issue might be made worse my constant staff changes or an overly large staff as well.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 11, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which was kind of my point: making an RPG with a compact ruleset is easy- getting the masses to buy it is the trick.
> 
> It's not the density & complexity of the rules, it's the nature of the hobby itself.




They said that about MMORPG's.

Then WoW sold 8 million copies (and it's even more now).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> They said that about MMORPG's.
> 
> Then WoW sold 8 million copies (and it's even more now).




Key differences:


RPGs typically demand a few hours to do setup; CRPGs take minutes.  And the CRPGs' computers handle all the math and rules arcana that players must master for a standard RPG.
RPGs involve scheduling time to sit around a table being geeky with other people; CRPGS can be played solo or with a group, at any time, and nobody need ever see how geeky you are*

That last one is pretty important.  My current group includes a couple hardcore computer gamers (and a designer), and several in the group are married with children.  We're lucky to be able to game every 2 weeks due to our various commitments.  However, a CRPG player need only log in any old time to get his gaming fix (which, while some may view it as inferior, has the advantage of immediacy).  One of the guys has even missed D&D sessions because he was "leveling."



* Never _EVER_ underestimate the selling power of anonymity: it's one of the key reasons why amateur Internet porn generates more $$$ than Hollywood AND is threatening the mainstream porn companies.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

Canor Morum said:


> D&D has to change periodically in order to appeal to new generations of players.  It's no different than Marvel rebooting their whole line to modernize the characters and repair story continuity. Ultimate Marvel anyone?




That's an analogy that doesn't much help.  Ultimate Marvel failed to take hold as the primary continuity.  Despite its promise, it never rose above a sideline concept.  The regular old continuity is now bigger than ever (thanks to recent mega crossovers).  Ultimate Marvel did not draw in all those new readers that Marvel hoped it would.  It drew some, but not enough.  So modernization was not necessary.  The bulk of fandom still wants the regular old continuity.



Canor Morum said:


> The changes in game mechanics and art direction to resemble video games and miniatures games is not by accident.  It's what the current generation of kids are into it.  To ignore that most important section of the market would be foolhardy.




It explains what WOTC is aiming for.  But has it been successful?  Has WOTC successfully traded in the old timers for the next generation?  Doesn't look like it.  It seems moderately successful, but WOTC is still selling 4E to the same old crowd of gamers.  I don't see the young video game crowd as yet being the "most important section of the market."

As I've said elsewhere, the problem I have with 4E isn't the new mechanics---it's the total disregard for the longview of playing out a story, the non-combat elements of the game.  Virtually everything that is non-combat parts of the story is skipped over.  That's not roleplaying, that's MageKnight without the leveling up.

Every character has the same combat abilities except for armor class.  Everybody does (roughly) a d8+ability modifier (probably with a shift or some other feature) every single round.  Just because it's called "magic" or "psionics" doesn't make it different; they're all doing the same basic things.  Everybody has combat powers (even characters traditionally not trained for combat such as thieves).  No diversity of character, no role limitations that matter--because the only thing that matters is combat.  It's no wonder that 4E has so many character classes...they're all just slight revisions of the fighter class.

If today's kids are only interested in combat, selecting the right combination of combat powers, and leveling up, then why switch from video games to real RPGs?  They've got that anytime they want with WoW.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 11, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Yes, I mean that an SoC session has a fixed beginning and end, and there is no carry over to the next session. It's always a one-and-done event (no matter how many you play in an evening). It's no different from MageKnight or Magic in that regard.
> 
> 4E is basically designed to be a session game, refered to as Encounters. You play one encounter this week with one set of players and characters, and you play another encounter next week next week but perhaps with a different set of players and characters. That the sessions are technically connected, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the story. A one-time player can show up and play this week's encounter and then disappear forever. The group comes back the following week, plays with whoever is there, and there is nothing amiss from all the character changes each week. And this all works because 4E leaves all non-encounter activity virtually unplayed.
> 
> I have always bragged on DnD as the ultimate story (rpg) game that totally outplays video games. But 4E is far less story oriented than the popular video game "rpgs" like WoW or Elder Scrolls. It's so disappointing.



Most of this is arrant nonsense, the encounters program is designed for pickup play where each session does not necessarly have the same players/character present in each session but 4e supports the campaign game as well as most rpgs out there. 
What is does not have (and neither did 3.x) is advice and support for strong holds and that kind of high politics/wargame which AD&D did. 
I suspect that the majority don't want it and that its presence in the earlier versions of (A)D&D was due to the interest of the original creators and the wargaming roots of the game.

I would like to see a splatbook on that topic but to suggest that 4e does not support out of combat stuf and long term campaign continuity is insulting and denigrating those DMs of 4th edition who are doing just that.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2011)

I would add a bit to the line about Encounters.  The Encounters program is a HUGE gamer outreach that we've probably never seen the likes of before.  WOTC has sunk a serious amount of time and cash into the idea of roping in new players.  And they're using the ideas that have been bandied about in this thread:

A simplified game that someone can just sit down and play.  That describes Encounters to a T.  Is it fantastic role playing?  Probably not.  Then again, most of us started out gaming exactly like this - characters were lucky to have a name, let alone a personality or background.  Here's a whole program meant for new gamers.

Has it worked?  I have no idea.  Without any numbers, anyone claiming success or failure is just pulling numbers from their belly button lint.

But, let's give a bit of credit shall we?  For the first time in since White Wolf got Minds Eye Theater going, a gaming company is actively going out and trying to bring in new blood, rather than sitting on their laurels trying to let existing gamers grow the hobby.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 11, 2011)

Canor Morum said:


> D&D has to change periodically in order to appeal to new generations of players.



Actually, the point is that it DOESN'T have to be changed to the degree that it has been from one edtion to the next.  Changes are fine and well but what DOESN'T need to happen is to tear the whole thing down and rebuild it in an entirely different manner.

When D&D first really began to hit its stride it was written by an adult and largely intended for other adults, but it became POPULAR with a much wider, younger demographic of smart, creative players.  Who can then sensibly assume that what made the game initially attractive across age levels has to CHANGE in order to continue to appeal to that SAME demographic.  Evolution, not revolution.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 11, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Actually, the point is that it DOESN'T have to be changed to the degree that it has been from one edtion to the next. Changes are fine and well but what DOESN'T need to happen is to tear the whole thing down and rebuild it in an entirely different manner.
> 
> When D&D first really began to hit its stride it was written by an adult and largely intended for other adults, but it became POPULAR with a much wider, younger demographic of smart, creative players. Who can then sensibly assume that what made the game initially attractive across age levels has to CHANGE in order to continue to appeal to that SAME demographic. Evolution, not revolution.




True that and you can own 2e 3e and 4e but you will only be using one when you sit down.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Actually, the point is that it DOESN'T have to be changed to the degree that it has been from one edtion to the next.




Well, that would depend upon the next generation of players, and how it may differ from the previous generation, would it not?

Do remember, we are talking about a game whose original design is contemporaneous with the home version of Pong.  1e and 2e are different, but they use largely the same engine.  You think 3e should has still have used the same engine?  

How many people today would you expect to play much of a video game based on the same engine as Pong?  How much wold they pay for that these days?

So, that gets us the 2e to 3e difference.  We could quibble over whether they needed to go so far with 4e, but we are at worst talking about a single instance of redesign that didn't have to happen, rather than a pattern of behavior.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Well, that would depend upon the next generation of players, and how it may differ from the previous generation, would it not?
> 
> Do remember, we are talking about a game whose original design is contemporaneous with the home version of Pong. 1e and 2e are different, but they use largely the same engine. You think 3e should has still have used the same engine?
> 
> ...




I see what you are trying to get across here. I have to disagree on the pong reference simply because video games have enjoyed advances brought about by an intensely competetive venue. (Electronics)

P&P tabletop games have not experienced this sort of growth and competition.

It would be more accurate to compare OD&D to WoW Cir 2003 vs. 4e to WoW 2011.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Do remember, we are talking about a game whose original design is contemporaneous with the home version of Pong.
> 
> ...
> 
> How many people today would you expect to play much of a video game based on the same engine as Pong?  How much wold they pay for that these days?



Tabletop RPGs of the late 1970s did not share the technological limitations of computer games.

Pen, paper, dice, and imagination are all quite identical to what they were in the 1970s.

I would say that changing the appeal (dragonborn) is the kind of thing that needs to happen.

And, also, as much as I admire old school D&D, that admiration is based on leading the way.  More current games have certainly had the benefit of seeing the good and the bad in the early games.

But comparing it to changes in computer processing is pretty meaningless.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2011)

> Do remember, we are talking about a game whose original design is contemporaneous with the home version of Pong.




Just had a sudden image of all those celebrity WoW commercials- Mr. T, Ozzy, etc.- closing with the words, "Screen images created using the acclaimed Pong (tm) engine!"


----------



## shadzar (Jan 11, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Tabletop RPGs of the late 1970s did not share the technological limitations of computer games.
> 
> Pen, paper, dice, and imagination are all quite identical to what they were in the 1970s.




This would then suggest not edition fatigue, but environment fatigue. Changing the appeal will do nothing if people are not willing to join in the environment and would prefer something with quicker gratification.

"Video killed the radio star"

CCGs killed sports cards.

Video games killed tabletop games.

You will either have to get people to return to the environment and dragonborn wont do it, or you will have to follow another cliche:

"If you can't beat em, join em."

And the next edition will be a video game as will all others after that.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> I see what you are trying to get across here. I have to disagree on the pong reference simply because video games have enjoyed advances brought about by an intensely competetive venue. (Electronics)
> 
> P&P tabletop games have not experienced this sort of growth and competition.






BryonD said:


> Tabletop RPGs of the late 1970s did not share the technological limitations of computer games.
> 
> Pen, paper, dice, and imagination are all quite identical to what they were in the 1970s.




But, you're both quite wrong. The arts and sciences of game design, and their application to RPGs, did not exist in 1974.  Gary and his people had only the smallest set of folks to use as playtesters, they knew little of formal testing and evaluation procedures, and they had little or nothing to compare and contrast their works to.  By today's standards they had incredibly slow and inadequate feedback.  Really, the original design of D&D was kind of pulled out of their collective butts.  They had very intelligent butts, so it basically worked.

But let us not kid ourselves - we've learned a great deal about RPGs since then.  There has been a significant amount of competition, using substantially different designs than the engine that original D&D uses.  We've gone from play by tens of people, to play by tens and hundreds of thousands.  We know a whole lot more about what makes an RPG work, and how to bend it to work for various sorts of players, than Gary did.

So, I think the comparison is fairly apt.  The information available to designers (of board, video, and RPGs) has changed - and application of those sciences to the games over time has led to different expectations in gamers.  

Layer on top of that cultural changes that have little or nothing to do with RPGs, and it seems pretty obvious to me that you cannot assume the same game would make the cut in the mass market today.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> How many people today would you expect to play much of a video game based on the same engine as Pong?  How much wold they pay for that these days?
> 
> So, that gets us the 2e to 3e difference.




(Blink)

Are you actually suggesting that the difference between 2e and 3e is comparable to the difference between Pong and contemporary video games?

Man, I just . . . man.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> Are you actually suggesting that the difference between 2e and 3e is comparable to the difference between Pong and contemporary video games?




It is called an analogy.  You know, drawing information and meaning from one subject to another.  I am saying the two should, and do, follow similar logics.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> So, I think the comparison is fairly apt.  The information available to designers (of board, video, and RPGs) has changed - and application of those sciences to the games over time has led to different expectations in gamers.




OK I have come to this thread 6 times since you posted this, and cannot for the life of me figure out what that entire post has to do with what BryonD said in what you quoted.

So that I may understand your full point, did you mean to quote someone else, or missed a connection in your post to what BryonD was saying?


----------



## Canor Morum (Jan 11, 2011)

fumetti said:


> It explains what WOTC is aiming for.  But has it been successful?  Has WOTC successfully traded in the old timers for the next generation?  Doesn't look like it.  It seems moderately successful, but WOTC is still selling 4E to the same old crowd of gamers.  I don't see the young video game crowd as yet being the "most important section of the market."




Long term, young gamers *are* the most important demographic.  The hobby simply can't continue without them.  I would assume that many of the old-timers stop playing when marriage, kids, and careers get in the way.  Why would WotC keep catering to a slowly diminishing audience?  Especially when a lot of them have been very vocal about not continuing to buy products and sticking with older editions?




> As I've said elsewhere, the problem I have with 4E isn't the new mechanics---it's the total disregard for the longview of playing out a story, the non-combat elements of the game.  Virtually everything that is non-combat parts of the story is skipped over.  That's not roleplaying, that's MageKnight without the leveling up.




Then you and I have been playing very different versions of 4e.  My last session consisted mostly of non-combat encounters.  Not a single mini was touched for more than half the game.  If you are running 4e sessions that consist of nothing but combat you are doing it wrong.




> Every character has the same combat abilities except for armor class.  Everybody does (roughly) a d8+ability modifier (probably with a shift or some other feature) every single round.  Just because it's called "magic" or "psionics" doesn't make it different; they're all doing the same basic things.  Everybody has combat powers (even characters traditionally not trained for combat such as thieves).  No diversity of character, no role limitations that matter--because the only thing that matters is combat.  It's no wonder that 4E has so many character classes...they're all just slight revisions of the fighter class.




A defender wades into battle and keeps the enemies off the rest of the party, soaking up damage.  A striker moves swiftly around the battlefield taking down targets with burst damage while avoiding aggro.  Controllers debuff targets and AOE from a distance.  Leaders heal and buff the rest of the party.  These roles are immediately familiar to anyone who has played an MMORPG.  In other words, the target audience.

I think 4e's emphasis on giving each class a role and the ability to do something in combat other than "i hit with sword" is a strength, not a weakness.  You disagree and I respect your opinion.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 11, 2011)

Apologies I've just spotted this thread, and I visit ENWorld two or three times every day without fail, so I've not read all of the 8 or so previous pages. I have read the OP and a few others on the first page.

I've played D&D in all its PnP editions, I'm an old-ish git.

I didn't know Settlers was a board game, I seem to remember an electronic game of the same name, I think I played it on an Amiga 500 many moons ago.

So Settlers is a board game then... I don't play board games, I can't remember the last time I played a board game, I own absolutely zero board games. I have, to the best of my knowledge never been around somebodies house (since I was in short trousers) to play a board game. I have never heard any one say, an RPG person or anyone, 'I played this really good board game the other day...' Actually... somebody did say that once but it was about a racing game and I was 12 or so- Totopoly?

My point is D&D is a game that evolves alongside other media- it's played via VT, PBP, it's available (in other formats) as a MMORPG, various stand-alone PC & or console games and as a... board game. And probably in many other formats that I can't think of. 

Settlers isn't, I don't think.

D&D over the years has staked a claim to all manner of niche and/or (supposedly) mainstream markets, and yet it remains (in the PnP format we're so in love with here) a niche game/hobby- not the films, cartoons, merchandising, cards, minis or t-shirts have changed that. Well certainly not in my world over here in the UK.

To conclude D&D can't be Settlers (or compared to a board game like Settlers), if the single edition format generated (like Settlers, apparently) market domination, or at least enough kudos/sales to keep happy the shareholders et al then... Well they'd have probably done that by now, or at least called a hiatus for x years while the owners basked in the glory and the gold. But that would probably not stand them in good stead as D&Ds competitors would just steam ahead (see Pathfinder and the myriad other games that compete/d for the same market- many of which come in multiple editions).

D&D is bound to evolve because Fantasy Fiction Media (and games in general) evolve all the time- I played board games when I was a kid because there were no computer games, I started playing D&D as a 12 year old becuase it was the most fantastical world (it still is by the way) and different than board games- which my parents played. I played Atari Console/Spectrum/Amiga & finally PC/PS/XBox games (mostly RPGs) because they came along and continued to explore a world that mirrored the one in my imagination (thanks to Tolkien and D&D), but mostly just because they came along, and were different/available. 

I now play D&D in the trad. format (around a table) once a week, and via Skype & Maptools with people I have never met and who are based all over the globe (see sig). WOTC, it seems, have at last figured this out.

Do people do this with board games? I don't know actually but I can't think of any.

The rules for D&D get reinvented for all the reasons offered above, and also to mirror the wants/needs/desires of the market- remember all the stuff about 4e being a PnP MMORPG et al, perhaps WOTC had an eye on that market. I play D&D (edition-neutral, as in whatever edition) because it explores that world, new media reinvents and rejuvinates Fantasy Fiction (in new formats), D&D repositions/reinvents itself to sell stuff and stay on the front page, pretty much like everything else.

Except Settlers...

I appreciate the analogy but... it doesn't work for me.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I would like to see a splatbook on that topic but to suggest that 4e does not support out of combat stuf and long term campaign continuity is insulting and denigrating those DMs of 4th edition who are doing just that.




You can choose to be offended if it makes you happy.  I'm talking about the focus of the product, not what *you* are doing in your game.

The empirical evidence (particularly when comparing 4E with early editions, esp 1E/2E/BECM) is overwhelming.  When you read the books being made, 4E skips over non-combat events.  It would be ridiculous to claim that 4E treats out-of-combat the same as it treats in-combat.  If 1E had a ratio of 2-to-1 (in to out), then 4E has a ratio of 100-to-1, if not more than that.

Show me the mechanics dealing with out-of-combat activity in 4E.  Then compare it to 1E/2E/BECM.  No comparison.

WOTC has shifted almost entirely towards combat.  Simple fact.


************************

Comments 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 giant.robot: 
  fumetti needs to realize an in-game encounter and the Encounters program are indeed different things

Not for what I'm talking about.  The Encounters program is clearly a "pick-up" combat session and almost nothing more.

The rules written in the 4E rule books are equally focused on combat, combat, combat.  There is a smidge of rules for non-combat (skills), but not much.    Look at the structure of spells.  They're devoid of real time -- everything measured in-combat and by the encounter.  The non-combat spells were shifted to rituals (good idea) but then dropped from the update Essentials books (only a mention of their existence).

I haven't read all the 4E published adventures, but the ones I have just go from one combat encounter to another.  They read very differently from 1E/2E/BECM published adventures which focused far more on the non-combat events.

The 4E books and Encounters program are basically made the same.  If DMs are roleplaying the inbetween story, they are doing it without any mechanical structure within the 4E system.  Far different from earlier editions.


----------



## Canor Morum (Jan 11, 2011)

fumetti said:


> You can choose to be offended if it makes you happy.  I'm talking about the focus of the product, not what *you* are doing in your game.
> 
> The empirical evidence (particularly when comparing 4E with early editions, esp 1E/2E/BECM) is overwhelming.  When you read the books being made, 4E skips over non-combat events.  It would be ridiculous to claim that 4E treats out-of-combat the same as it treats in-combat.  If 1E had a ratio of 2-to-1 (in to out), then 4E has a ratio of 100-to-1, if not more than that.
> 
> ...




Do you really need rules and tables in order to role-play?

Check out Skill Challenges.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

Canor Morum said:


> I think 4e's emphasis on giving each class a role and the ability to do something in combat other than "i hit with sword" is a strength, not a weakness.  You disagree and I respect your opinion.




"something in combat"... THAT is a good idea.

Everybody doing the SAME thing?  Not so good. 

I think 4E got carried away with their at-will structure and turned all the classes basically into the same class with different clothes on.

FWIW, I was attracted to 4E because Wizards have something they can do in combat.  I became disappointed when it became apparent that there's very little now for out of combat activity.

What I am NOT saying is that DMs can't run non-combat scenarios with 4E.  I'm saying it's not built into 4E like it was in earlier versions.  And then add the Essentials books that almost throws it all out completely, and then the Encounters program that is just "pick up combat encounters" (not that it can realistically be much more; it just adds more to my perception of WOTC abandoning non-combat).


----------



## rounser (Jan 11, 2011)

> But let us not kid ourselves - we've learned a great deal about RPGs since then. There has been a significant amount of competition, using substantially different designs than the engine that original D&D uses. We've gone from play by tens of people, to play by tens and hundreds of thousands. We know a whole lot more about what makes an RPG work, and how to bend it to work for various sorts of players, than Gary did.



As was pointed out on Grognardia recently, designers of new RPGs tend to chuck out things that they can't see the point of and misidentify as weaknesses.  It's the "I don't care if you like rolling on random tables, they are so two decades ago" kind of game design fashion syndrome that is just "different" dressed up as "better."

For instance, if D&D were designed from scratch today, it would probably be using all d10s.  Never mind that polyhedrals of various types are fun, I can argue you black and blue why my unified percentile mechanic is all the game will ever need.  And traps are unfair and I can't see a way to make them work, so let's exclude and ignore them.  Oh, and my mechanics are suggesting this class which doesn't map to an archetype, but I think it's cool anyway or needed for rulesy reasons...let's attach an artificial name to it like "warlord" or "mystic theurge" and go to it, nevermind that it's difficult to use as a fantasy construction kit whenever gamist stuff like this sneaks in.

With game design, steps sideways or backwards seem just as common as steps forward, seemingly.  And the human processors aren't any faster than in 1980, yet here we are trying to take on Moore's Law with dice.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

Canor Morum said:


> Do you really need rules and tables in order to role-play?
> 
> Check out Skill Challenges.




Two points.

1) Roleplaying is more than just having characters talk in a tavern.  You need rules and tables for overland travel, acquiring resources, hiring services, and all the other non-combat activity that is prevelant in any story-based game.

2) Skill challenges help.  But when I see how skills were so strong a part of 3E (characters could actually be built around their skills instead of combat abilities thanks to the leveling up process), 4E looks just a notch above what BECM was doing in the Gazetteers 20 years ago.  Looks like DnD took a step backwards.


----------



## Canor Morum (Jan 11, 2011)

fumetti said:


> "something in combat"... THAT is a good idea.
> 
> Everybody doing the SAME thing?  Not so good.
> 
> ...




I see what you're saying.  I agree that more variety in individual class mechanics would be a good thing.  They have tried this to some extent with psionics, fighter stances, and bringing back magic schools.  Deviating from the standard AED power structure for certain classes would make them "feel" different.  

I'm still not sure what you mean by wanting more out of combat rules.  Beyond skill checks and pure role-playing I don't see the point.  An imaginative DM can run non-combat scenes without rolling a single dice, referencing a table, or setting up visual aids.  Descriptive narration and improvisation is all that's required.


----------



## Canor Morum (Jan 11, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Two points.
> 
> 1) Roleplaying is more than just having characters talk in a tavern.  You need rules and tables for overland travel, acquiring resources, hiring services, and all the other non-combat activity that is prevelant in any story-based game.




I'm pretty sure there are rules for some of those.  Personally, I don't use them because my players don't find it interesting.  To each his own.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

Folks, I'm just flabbergasted that anything I'm saying is the least bit controversial.  It's all pretty clear, all in black and white in the 4E books--and I have 23 hardbacks, all the Essential books, and several published adventures.

Just pick up, say, the Arcane Power book.  Wizards overall are traditionally about as non-combat a class (certainly in the lower levels) as exists in the game (second only to Thieves).   Yet vitually all the powers, feats, and Magic Tomes are combat in nature, or described in combat terms.  

Only the familiars section and New Rituals are less about combat than non-combat... 11 pages out of 160.

Old timers know how to fill in those gaps and use 4E as a story-based game (that's very heavy on combat, in terms of playing time if nothing else) But I just don't see how anyone coming into 4E as their first DnD experience can see the game as anything but a combat game.  That's about all that's been covered in the books.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 11, 2011)

fumetti said:


> You can choose to be offended if it makes you happy. I'm talking about the focus of the product, not what *you* are doing in your game.
> 
> The empirical evidence (particularly when comparing 4E with early editions, esp 1E/2E/BECM) is overwhelming. When you read the books being made, 4E skips over non-combat events. It would be ridiculous to claim that 4E treats out-of-combat the same as it treats in-combat. If 1E had a ratio of 2-to-1 (in to out), then 4E has a ratio of 100-to-1, if not more than that.
> 
> ...



It ani't that simple and it is definitely no fact, it is your opinion. Now I cannot speak for 1E or 2e, I never owned the rulebooks, I just rolled the dice my DM told me to role. I just had a quick look at the Basic Red Box rule books, the whole players handbook is 64 pages. There is 8 pages of games concepts explained via an adventure narrative, followed by 5 or so pages on the character. There is a page on town business and a solo adventure that goes from page 14 to page 22. Page 23 to 47 is character classes and a couple pages of charts, sample character sheets, sample characters and a sheet of graph paper. Page 48 to 52 is how to create a character and the remaining pages are about mappers, callers, order of march, alignement, dividing treasdure, combat encounters, hirelings and a glossery and 2 pages of ads.

The DM book has 2 pages of introduction, 9 of sample adventure and the reat monsters, treasure and charts.
Aside from the couple of paragraphs on ability checks and the retainer ruls there is nothing in the Basic books I would call non combat rules.

Now the 3.0 phb 286 pages including glossery and credits and the 4e phb1 317 pages so we are clearly is completely different territory in terms of rules complexity. interestingly the combat chapters are about the same length on both.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

Canor Morum said:


> I see what you're saying.  I agree that more variety in individual class mechanics would be a good thing.  They have tried this to some extent with psionics, fighter stances, and bringing back magic schools.  Deviating from the standard AED power structure for certain classes would make them "feel" different.
> 
> I'm still not sure what you mean by wanting more out of combat rules.  Beyond skill checks and pure role-playing I don't see the point.  An imaginative DM can run non-combat scenes without rolling a single dice, referencing a table, or setting up visual aids.  Descriptive narration and improvisation is all that's required.




I guess it all comes down to one's experiences.  Most of my gaming experiences were as much about what happens between the fights as the fights themselves.

We never just showed up to an encounter.  The travel was a big deal.  It was a lot like Lord of the Rings.  There was incredible danger involved in going from town across the mountains and swamps to get to the dragon's lair.  We lived in fear of wandering monster rolls and running out of food/supplies.  Getting wagons to the dragon's hoard was a serious challenge!  

And we really didn't like our chances just being a matter of the kindness, or impatience, of the DM.  We didn't like monsters to show up just because we hadn't made attack rolls in the past 45 minutes.  It was just more real using the tables and taking our chances.

Maybe some players would get mad if their party got slaughtered _on the way_ to the adventure.  To me, it made the game stronger.  More real.  More fun.  Any time a DM said "okay, you're there," I felt a little bit cheated.

Same with all the other types of inbetween activity. 

To me, 4E reads as if it relies on a whole lot of "okay, you're there" expediency.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 11, 2011)

Canor Morum said:


> Do you really need rules and tables in order to role-play?
> 
> Check out Skill Challenges.




This is the part where I play my broken record....

Players bring role play to the table.  When comparing systems, things that the players bring to the table are not relevant.  Only things that the system brings to the table are relevant.

Not all systems provide the same level of interaction between roleplaying and mechanics.  For me personally, and apparently for a large number of other people who like a good level of "simulation" in their games, there are systems that do a vastly better job of creating that feedback between the mechanics and the roleplay.  That doesn't mean you don't LOVE 4E and roleplay your hearts out on top of the system.  It just means that there are perfectly valid reasons for people with other preferences to find 4E well down the list of games of preference.

Long before 4E existed I was using encounters that would be recognized as very skill-challenge-like.  But, they also varied from event to event pretty substantially.  IMO skill challenges put the mechanics to much in front of the roleplaying.  The mechanics are set in and it is up to the players to describe how their characters meet the requirements.  It is very similar to the use of powers in combat.  I've seen many 4E fans praise the GREAT roleplaying perk of needing to come up with an on-the-fly explanation of WHY their power worked under the circumstances at hand.  I can see how someone could enjoy that.  But, for my preference, I want the mechanics to be as invisible as possible.  I want the players to just roleplay their part and have mechanics that respond to that, not have the roleplay react to the mechanical expectations.

I don't want wizards to get better at climbing for no other reason than they gained levels.  If the wizard is imagined as someone who can climb, then cool, but let the player make that call.  In 4E the mechanics demand that the character have that aspect.

I want the AC of a pirate and a knight to be defined purely by the fact that they are a pirate and a knight, not primarily by the challenge level they are supposed to fit.

Over and over 4E is about mechanics first and then roleplaying to fit the allowances of the mechanics.  I want my game to be about roleplay first and the mechanics do their best to keep up.

It isn't that you CAN'T roleplay 4E.  Obviously you can.  But the expectation is that the mechanics lead.  And please, don't tell me you can ignore that any time you want.  I agree 100% that you can, you can go off script and make the mechanics try to keep up.  But you are now just doing a workaround that is counter to the system presumptions.  The fact that you can go against the grain of the system is not a selling point for the system.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 11, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> It ani't that simple and it is definitely no fact, it is your opinion. Now I cannot speak for 1E or 2e, I never owned the rulebooks, I just rolled the dice my DM told me to role. I just had a quick look at the Basic Red Box rule books, the whole players handbook is 64 pages. There is 8 pages of games concepts explained via an adventure narrative, followed by 5 or so pages on the character. There is a page on town business and a solo adventure that goes from page 14 to page 22. Page 23 to 47 is character classes and a couple pages of charts, sample character sheets, sample characters and a sheet of graph paper. Page 48 to 52 is how to create a character and the remaining pages are about mappers, callers, order of march, alignement, dividing treasdure, combat encounters, hirelings and a glossery and 2 pages of ads.
> 
> The DM book has 2 pages of introduction, 9 of sample adventure and the reat monsters, treasure and charts.
> Aside from the couple of paragraphs on ability checks and the retainer ruls there is nothing in the Basic books I would call non combat rules.




BECM is FAR more than just that red box DM's book!  Oh my!  

There is an abundance of non-combat material in the Expert, Companion, and Master sets.  And then there are all those Gazetters (14 of them) filled with noncombat material.  Plus the Almanacs.  

1st Edition had two whole hardbacks dedicated to non-combat... the Dungeoneers Survival Guide and the Wilderness Survival Guide. Plus, a fair bit of the DMG.  

2nd Edition seemed to have a book for everything, including all the noncombat aspects of the game.  Several just on campaigns. Even a book for building and running a castle.

And I didn't just start posting after the first 4E books appeared.  We've already run through most of what 4E will likely cover, and so far that we are already seeing "4.5" rulebooks (called Essentials) being done.  And after all that, I just don't see much emphasis at all on the roleplaying (noncombat) side of the game.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 11, 2011)

fumetti said:


> snip
> 
> To me, 4E reads as if it relies on a whole lot of "okay, you're there" expediency.




Some people like the ok your are there expediency and some people like to replace the cross country travel with a skill challange but there is nothing stoping a DM from doing the wandering monster thing. Unlike 3.x any 4e monster can be run straight from the monster manuals, as is. No hit points to calculate and all powers are completly described in the statblock.

The thing is (IMO) wandering momsters made more sense in pre 3.x D&D because it attritted resources but in 3.x once you have aaccess to a wand of cure light wounds, the resource attrition becomes somewhat meaningless.

In 4e the resource one is attritting are healing surges not hitpoints. So it is a bit more potent but not as dangerousc as the wandering monsters in the older editions.


----------



## rounser (Jan 11, 2011)

> Aside from the couple of paragraphs on ability checks and the retainer ruls there is nothing in the Basic books I would call non combat rules.



Spells and thief abilities alone put the lie to this, don't they?  Basic didn't hive off everything non-combat into "rituals".

Oh and guys, despite game design fashion, you simply aren't likely to be going to encounter as many wandering prostitutes in a game which lacks a wandering prostitute table as in one that does, just as you likely won't have as much whimsy as in a game which lacks whimsical spells and items.  This modern RPG design idea of relying on players to bring the main course whilst not even suggesting what the meal could be with some hors d'ouerves is, IMO, predictable but very shallow treatment of the subject.

Part of the job of the DMG is to teach the scope of the game in a non purely theoretical manner, else it will just get ignored.  You need that scope to manifest in rules somehow (e.g. horse personality random tables, or a spell that fills a bathtub with hot bubblebath water) else people will tend towards what the rules suggest by default, it'll be reinforced by community culture, and the scope of the game will narrow except for those educated by games with wider scope suggested by the rules.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 12, 2011)

Umbran said:


> It is called an analogy.  You know, drawing information and meaning from one subject to another.  I am saying the two should, and do, follow similar logics.




Since you know what analogies are, I'm certain you know about faulty or false analogies.

There is a clear, qualitative, and easily quantifiable difference between the technology of Pong and, say, Halo.

No such difference exists between 2e and 3e.  These technology analogies are about as accurate as "evolution" analogies or what I like to call "maid" analogies (ie, "D&D 3.5 cleaned up many of the messes in 3.0).

Not all analogies are useful.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 12, 2011)

Now that I think of it, for 1E Dragon magazine published at least several dozen character classes (NPCs) that were of little or no use at all in combat.  Anyone remember the Cloistered Cleric?

Or the Ecology series?

Just tons of stuff that didn't involve combat in any way.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 12, 2011)

A while back, I had a "great idea" for a houserule.  We were playing 3.5E, and I thought it would make everything a lot easier and fix a lot of problems if I made all spellcasters learn and cast spells the same way.  Essentially, all of the spellcasters were bards who chose which spell list they wanted to use, and replaced Bardic Music with things like metamagic feats, wild shape, and turn undead.  (I'm glossing over quite a bit here.  Class skills didn't change, nor was all magic Charisma-based and arcane.  Like any good 3.5E houserule, it was at least 4 pages long.)

It looked good on paper.  Game-breaking high-level spells?  Gone...all spell lists are capped at 6th level.  Hours spent preparing and memorizing spells at the start of every game day?  Gone...everyone is spontaneous now.  Instead of a half-dozen different spell lists, we had one.  Spellcasters all use the same BAT, have the same HD, and get lots of skills.  It was streamlined, efficient.  Everyone was excited about it.

Things were great for about three game sessions.  Then it started to get boring.  Everyone spent all of those extra skill points on the same skills.  They all selected the same feats.  They all bought the same equipment, and quarreled over the same pieces of treasure, because they were all essentially the same characters.  When the only real difference between the wizard and the cleric is their spellbook, well...characters lost their identity.

We switched back after a month, and I learned an important lesson about streamlining.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

fumetti said:


> BECM is FAR more than just that red box DM's book!  Oh my!
> 
> There is an abundance of non-combat material in the Expert, Companion, and Master sets.  And then there are all those Gazetters (14 of them) filled with noncombat material.  Plus the Almanacs.
> 
> ...




Because you mentioned the gazetters: Shouldn´t most of the non-combat stuff you´re talking about be moved from core to setting? Seriously, when you´ve got a more or less generic core and offer different settings for the flavour, shoudn´t the setting books include the parts of the rules that work with that flavour? I really can´t imagine Wilderlands of High Fantasy without brutally dangerous overland travel, wandering prostitutes and random encounters, they just don´t really fit in with my Eberron.

If WotC is to blame for something here, it´s the fact that the setting books are bland and missing the non-combat stuff, not the Core.

...... please, Judges Guild, make a 4E Wilderlands Box ...


----------



## MerricB (Jan 12, 2011)

The thing about streamlining... is that it works some of the time. AD&D could really do with some streamlining, especially in the nonsensical initiative rules.

Probably the thing that disappointed me most about the AD&D 2E change is the change to the wizard specialist - and the loss of the illusionist. The AD&D illusionist has character. The AD&D 2E illusionist is boring and with artificial restrictions: it's streamlining gone wrong.

4E shows an abundance of good design; it's just not always design for the same goals we have in a RPG. Quicker high-level combats compared to 3E? Fantastic! (I ran three level 21 combats on Sunday, each took under an hour, which is far, far better than what 16th level combat took in 3.5e). However, combat still takes a lot of time - and the time emphasis it has takes away from exploration and roleplaying.

Settlers of Catan has simple goals, but will it last another 20 years? It's a great family game, no doubt, and will maintain that going onwards, but state-of-the-art in gamer's games is changing. Of the Top 10 on boardgamegeek, the years published are as follows: 2005, 2002, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2005. (Sitting at #11 is 1995). Is this cult of the shiny? 

There is that factor, but it's also very true that the best new boardgames are much better designed than those of the 70s. (I've played a few old AH games recently, and it's incredible to see the major design flaws they have. Some are still good games, yes, but they really needed some polish).

And people's tastes change. Titan recently got republished. A well thought-of game from 1980. It just takes too long in 2010 for most people to consider it.

Cheers!


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 12, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Now that I think of it, for 1E Dragon magazine published at least several dozen character classes (NPCs) that were of little or no use at all in combat.  Anyone remember the Cloistered Cleric?
> 
> Or the Ecology series?
> 
> Just tons of stuff that didn't involve combat in any way.




This is one of the reasons that the 2e Monstrous Manual remains one of my all-time favorite monster books.  Tons of material for each beastie on habitat, physical appearance, mating habits, care and feeding of young, and usefulness in chopping up body parts for spell components.

Seriously, the monster descriptions alone in 2e MM are rife with adventure hooks.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> Because you mentioned the gazetters: Shouldn´t most of the non-combat stuff you´re talking about be moved from core to setting? Seriously, when you´ve got a more or less generic core and offer different settings for the flavour, shoudn´t the setting books include the parts of the rules that work with that flavour? I really can´t imagine Wilderlands of High Fantasy without brutally dangerous overland travel, wandering prostitutes and random encounters, they just don´t really fit in with my Eberron.




I would say most emphatically NO. I want my core to cover general rules including non-combat travel and exploration. I want my core rules to be a tool kit that extends beyond the encounter and beyond combat. Setting books should cover specific concerns about their settings, sure. Perhaps with more sophisticated detail when it's important like the desert setting rules of Al-Qadim. 
But what if I want to build my own setting? Shouldn't the core offer me some support? And shouldn't that support be shared as part of the core rules so that the general rules for my campaign world are similar to my friend Brian's, or Rob's, or Stephen's, particularly if we are all trying to play the same basic game?
No, general rules for all sorts of things I may want in the core. Specific overrides, extensions, or gloss-overs can be put in the settings.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I would say most emphatically NO. I want my core to cover general rules including non-combat travel and exploration. I want my core rules to be a tool kit that extends beyond the encounter and beyond combat. Setting books should cover specific concerns about their settings, sure. Perhaps with more sophisticated detail when it's important like the desert setting rules of Al-Qadim.
> But what if I want to build my own setting? Shouldn't the core offer me some support? And shouldn't that support be shared as part of the core rules so that the general rules for my campaign world are similar to my friend Brian's, or Rob's, or Stephen's, particularly if we are all trying to play the same basic game?
> No, general rules for all sorts of things I may want in the core. Specific overrides, extensions, or gloss-overs can be put in the settings.




There are two view-points here, prefab and diy. Also, I may be a bit biased because I tend to travel around the world a lot and enjoy the challange of overcoming the cultural barrier.

From the prefab (or specific) pov, having all the rules to emulate a specific culture in one place beats generic rules by several magnitudes, like with Al´Qadim.
From a diy pov, having a group of generic rules to adopt to a culture may be neat, but you need to know the culture you want to create or emulate, else it´s an intellectual waste of time.

To draw a real world analogy, for me as a german it´s as difficult to be in Mumbai, India as it is to visit New York, USA. My "generic" social rules I know by heart don´t mean  in both cases. So when I take that analogy to RPG terms, I need social rules in my India-based setting as well as in my USA-based setting because both are alien to me and both differ from the core in meaningful ways.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2011)

The issue, I suppose, with including setting based rules - overland travel, what cities look like, heck the whole "shopping for magic items" thing in 3e - is that you have to make a lot of assumptions about someone else's setting.  Particularly if the setting based rules have any impact on adventure design, which, in my mind, they inevitably will.

I can see the point of removing almost all setting based material from the core books.  Savage Worlds does this rather well.  You'll find almost no setting stuff in the Savage Worlds core book, other than really, really generic "pulp" stuff like.  SW does what Coldwyn suggests and moves 99% of the setting material into the setting books

GURPS does the same thing as well.  The basic GURPS book (at least from my rather fuzzy memory) doesn't really include a whole lot of specifics on setting design.  That's left to supplements.

At the end of the day, I suppose it depends on whether you see D&D as a generic fantasy game vehicle or a rather specific one strongly based on a specific branch of genre fiction.  I think the problem becomes that you can make arguements for D&D in any edition that it could go either way. 

Taking 3e for example, all you have to do is look at the SRD to see D&D without setting material.  The SRD strips out pretty much all the flavour (such as it is) from the books.  And, I think there are a number of 3e players who stick to the SRD as their base book, so, it certainly can be done.

There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 12, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Two points.
> 
> 1) Roleplaying is more than just having characters talk in a tavern.  You need rules and tables for overland travel, acquiring resources, hiring services, and all the other non-combat activity that is prevelant in any story-based game.




Those are rules for accounting, not for role-playing. D&D never had any rules to support role playing except alignments.

I think you are mixing up role-playing with non-combat activity. Moreover, you focus on non-combat activities that usually happen between adventures and thus are of minor importance in most games. For the things you mention, my handwaving is as good as the handwaving of the guy that wrote the rulebook (Or do you think and edition of D&D ever had realistic prices for goods and services?).

Rules for non-combat activity  are much more important for actions that happens during the adventure, when the life of the PCs is on the line. Here the rules support has steadily increased with the editions. D&D and AD&D 1 (core) had next to no support for non-thieves, during the move to 2nd ed non-weapon proficiencies were added, 3.x added a full skill system and 4.0 provided a general resolution mechanic based on the skill system. Evolution in action.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 12, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> It ani't that simple and it is definitely no fact, it is your opinion. Now I cannot speak for 1E or 2e, I never owned the rulebooks, I just rolled the dice my DM told me to role. I just had a quick look at the Basic Red Box rule books, the whole players handbook is 64 pages. There is 8 pages of games concepts explained via an adventure narrative, followed by 5 or so pages on the character. There is a page on town business and a solo adventure that goes from page 14 to page 22. Page 23 to 47 is character classes and a couple pages of charts, sample character sheets, sample characters and a sheet of graph paper. Page 48 to 52 is how to create a character and the remaining pages are about mappers, callers, order of march, alignement, dividing treasdure, combat encounters, hirelings and a glossery and 2 pages of ads.
> 
> The DM book has 2 pages of introduction, 9 of sample adventure and the reat monsters, treasure and charts.
> Aside from the couple of paragraphs on ability checks and the retainer ruls there is nothing in the Basic books I would call non combat rules.
> ...




I'm back. Y'all have been busy. It's funny you should mention BECM. If you have 40 pages of combat rules and 2 of noncombat and you have 9 pages of combat rules and 0 noncombat. That 0 might seem larger. In fact you say 52-62 sounds like it has a fair amount of noncombat stuff. It might  not be the now ubiquitous skill list, but it is noncombat, none the less. It has combat, time keping, what might be called etiquette, vision and light assorted info and rules. None of these rules are individually complex. This allows for air in the conversation.


It was then that I was looking at PF's character sheet
A third of the front covers skills a third of the back covers spells. There is a slightlly larger section for feats and specal abilities. 

Here's what struck me. The equipment section is small. If you think back in older editions you payed more attention to your equipment. Chalk, fish hooks, rope, hammers and pitons. 

D&D's MacGuyver stuff.

You would find creative uses for this when you might need to save vs. death in the next few minutes.

There wasn't much in the way of noncombat skills. It was ingenuity and creativity. Nowadays it's is all too often nab a d20 and roll a check. Granted, I like the skill system with a few exceptions. It increases continuity. That same continuity can bite us in the arse if we forget to be creative. When rules make it easy for us we might lean on them too much.


----------



## rounser (Jan 12, 2011)

> Those are rules for accounting, not for role-playing. D&D never had any rules to support role playing except alignments.



I disagree - what are class archetypes but cliches to hang your roleplaying on? 
And I find the idea that D&D doesn't default to a western Europe pseudo-medieval setting with it's implied setting, therefore DIY because every setting is a blank slate culturally kind of ridiculous.

Here's a reasonable assumption for you that D&D feels confident in making:  standard settings in line with the implied setting contain castles.  And peasants.  Etcetera.  Pretending the implied setting is a blank slate is disingenuous, because everyone knows that it's a default to build from.  Assume it's a non-cultural-specific void containing combat and you'll get predictable results, because people default to the implied setting by default.

It's D&D, not GURPS.  Or at least, it's supposed to be.  On the other hand, the dragonborn and tiefling empire stuff in the core is IMO the wrong way to build an implied setting, and a IMO worse than nothing.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

rounser said:


> I disagree - what are class archetypes but cliches to hang your roleplaying on?
> And I find the idea that D&D doesn't default to a western Europe pseudo-medieval setting with it's implied setting, therefore DIY because every setting is a blank slate culturally kind of ridiculous.
> 
> Here's a reasonable assumption for you that D&D feels confident in making:  standard settings in line with the implied setting contain castles.  And peasants.  Etcetera.  Pretending the implied setting is a blank slate is disingenuous, because everyone knows that it's a default to build from.  Assume it's a non-cultural-specific void containing combat and you'll get predictable results, because people default to the implied setting by default.
> ...




Then be invited to find it rediculous.

D&D is a lot of things but not western Europe pseudo-medieval and never has been. It´s rather some fantasy-version of a western with a light touch of medieval.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> Then be invited to find it rediculous.
> 
> D&D is a lot of things but not western Europe pseudo-medieval and never has been. It´s rather some fantasy-version of a western with a light touch of medieval.





I've heard it argued that the current version is more like super heroes with a fantasy paint job.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I've heard it argued that the current version is more like super heroes with a fantasy paint job.




You mean because of the flashy powers and stuff?
Nah. It´s still got the same old trappings: fringe of civilization, outlaw vs sheriff mentality, evil natives, and so on.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 12, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> I'm back. Y'all have been busy. It's funny you should mention BECM. If you have 40 pages of combat rules and 2 of noncombat and you have 9 pages of combat rules and 0 noncombat. That 0 might seem larger. In fact you say 52-62 sounds like it has a fair amount of noncombat stuff. It might not be the now ubiquitous skill list, but it is noncombat, none the less. It has combat, time keping, what might be called etiquette, vision and light assorted info and rules. None of these rules are individually complex. This allows for air in the conversation.
> 
> 
> It was then that I was looking at PF's character sheet
> ...



most of the non combat stuff covers either exploration and what would now be called the social contract and some tips on the creative use of equipment.

On the latter, well all the equipment is still there but the skill system will give consistiency across tables where as the old way depended on a shared view of what was practical and possible with the tools on hand.

How does a pressure plate trap actually work mechanically or a swinging blade trap.

IMO in thre 3.x era there was something of a backlash against DM fiat decisions and this lead to more of an emphasis on using skills and rules to resolve such thing and a less on using tools and equipment which depended on DM fiat to make it work.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 12, 2011)

I think one of the issues with 3.5 was that it was trying to serve two masters. I loved 3.5; quite honestly, it's what brought me into D&D full swing. However, now that I have more experience with how other games work, I look back and 3.5 sometimes feels as though it was trying to split its identity between being both D&D and a universal system. It somehow managed to put D&D style level based design into the same package as a physics engine (not sure what else to call it) that seems better suited to something like GURPS or Hero. (As odd as it may sound, I actually had a really easy time learning GURPS when I first picked it up because some of the rules looked similar to what I was accustomed to.)

With the many complaints I have about 4E and 4E.E, one thing I can give WoTC credit for is deciding upon an identity for the game. I may not agree with the identity, and there may be times when I'm not thrilled by their customer service skills, but there's been a pretty solid identity given to the product.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> Because you mentioned the gazetters: Shouldn´t most of the non-combat stuff you´re talking about be moved from core to setting? Seriously, when you´ve got a more or less generic core and offer different settings for the flavour, shoudn´t the setting books include the parts of the rules that work with that flavour? I really can´t imagine Wilderlands of High Fantasy without brutally dangerous overland travel, wandering prostitutes and random encounters, they just don´t really fit in with my Eberron.
> 
> If WotC is to blame for something here, it´s the fact that the setting books are bland and missing the non-combat stuff, not the Core.
> 
> ...... please, Judges Guild, make a 4E Wilderlands Box ...




Yes and no.  

You're right that a lot of non-combat activity is well suited in other tomes.  (And I *am* looking at this situation after seeing 20+ 4E hardbacks released without it.)  But....

1) Non-combat adventuring needs to be covered somewhat in the core books if WOTC intends for non-combat to be a "core" part of the game.  Otherwise, the "core" of the game is combat and traditional roleplaying is just optional.

2) Even if travel data, etc., is left for campaign guides, the powers themselves need non-combat language.  Every power is written in combat terms.  I see none that even give a hint that that power can be used in a non-combat situation.  (Not even a passage elsewhere that suggests these powers have non-combat application.)  This leaves much of roleplaying to be house-ruled.  (And I don't like paying $$$ for rulebooks that effectively tell me to make the rules up myself.)

Given the emphasis on appealing to new players, 4E is effectively teaching the next generation of players that DnD is more a tabletop strategy game with miniatures than a classic roleplaying game.  Since I teach teenagers everyday, I can predict their statement:  "Wandering around adventuring isn't a part of DnD!  DnD is all about the combat!  It doesn't even mention any of that inbetween stuff."

I have looked without success for a wandering monster table of any kind.  It doesn't sound like much, but it shows a huge chunk of the game--adventuring--is now missing.  

How long does it take for a party to travel from town to the dungeon?  No mention of this activity at all.  All movement is described in combat situations, not basic traveling.  

There are many disconcerting examples of roleplaying being removed from 4E.  And it bothers me.  I don't want DnD to be turned into a lesser, one-dimensional game.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 12, 2011)

Harlekin said:


> Those are rules for accounting, not for role-playing. D&D never had any rules to support role playing except alignments.
> 
> I think you are mixing up role-playing with non-combat activity. Moreover, you focus on non-combat activities that usually happen between adventures and thus are of minor importance in most games. For the things you mention, my handwaving is as good as the handwaving of the guy that wrote the rulebook (Or do you think and edition of D&D ever had realistic prices for goods and services?).
> 
> Rules for non-combat activity  are much more important for actions that happens during the adventure, when the life of the PCs is on the line. Here the rules support has steadily increased with the editions. D&D and AD&D 1 (core) had next to no support for non-thieves, during the move to 2nd ed non-weapon proficiencies were added, 3.x added a full skill system and 4.0 provided a general resolution mechanic based on the skill system. Evolution in action.




Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script).  The story is where the roleplaying exists.  

You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying.  But it is a major part.  It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.

If Lord of the Rings was a 4E game, much of "Fellowship" would not have happened.  Much of that first book reads as accidental encounters, based on which path the party took and/or which camping mistake they made.  In 4E terms, Frodo (not Bilbo--oops) would have left the shire and appeared at Bree, then just appeared in Rivendell, then just appeared in the Mines of Moria.  Not the same story at all, because 4E reduces the game from an adventure to just a series of encounters.

And the difference, I am saying, lies in the presence or absence of non-combat elements.  

And if the game doesn't include non-combat activity as part of its core, then new players are going to respond accordingly.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script).  The story is where the roleplaying exists.
> 
> You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying.  But it is a major part.  It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.
> 
> ...




I think you mean Frodo.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script).  The story is where the roleplaying exists.
> 
> You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying.  But it is a major part.  It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.
> 
> ...




I agree with you in general.  Having rules to cover living in the world as opposed to existing within a combat environment is very helpful especially to drive a consistent understanding of how the game works between tables.

That said, how many people put money on Free Parking when they play Monopoly?  How many of them know it's a house rule?

The game's traditions will continue expecially since a lot of new players are brought into the through established groups.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2011)

fumetti said:


> /snip
> 
> I have looked without success for a wandering monster table of any kind.  It doesn't sound like much, but it shows a huge chunk of the game--adventuring--is now missing.




I would point out that this was missing since 3e was released as well.  3e did not include any random encounter tables in the core rules.



> How long does it take for a party to travel from town to the dungeon?  No mention of this activity at all.  All movement is described in combat situations, not basic traveling.




Now this is a mistake

Page 260 and 261 of the 4e PHB lists travel speeds by terrain and also lists a number of possible methods for overland travel.  I don't have my DMG handy, but the PHB mentions that the DMG has additional rules for overland travel, including fatigue rules.



> There are many disconcerting examples of roleplaying being removed from 4E.  And it bothers me.  I don't want DnD to be turned into a lesser, one-dimensional game.




Well, so far, nothing has actually been removed since 3e although, to be fair, the random encounters did appear in earlier editions.  So, what else has been removed that turns D&D into a one dimensional game?


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script).  The story is where the roleplaying exists.
> 
> You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying.  But it is a major part.  It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.
> 
> ...




To tell the truth, I´m absolutelly unconvinced and I think you´re stuck on the mechanics.

In 4E, most of the Fellowship would be an extended Skill Challenge with a huge amount of sub-challenges.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 12, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> Here's what struck me. The equipment section is small. If you think back in older editions you payed more attention to your equipment. Chalk, fish hooks, rope, hammers and pitons.
> 
> D&D's MacGuyver stuff.
> 
> ...



 You are saying there wasn't noncombat skills back when you worried about your chalk and pitons?


Coldwyn said:


> D&D is a lot of things but not western Europe pseudo-medieval and never has been.




It was always designed around western Europe medieval.





Blackmoor diverted into strange fantastic, but Greyhawk that the core of D&D was built around, until 3rd edition, was pretty much based on an alternate medieval earth (Oerth) where magical creatures existed.

Not sure what type of westerns you have watched, but it hasnt been anything like that "with some medieval". Boot Hill was the wild west game.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

It was designed around medieval western Europe in the same way Conan's Hyborian Age or the Gray Mouser's Newhon was -- that is to say it adopted a few notable trappings -- more in the beginning and then drifted.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I would point out that this was missing since 3e was released as well.  3e did not include any random encounter tables in the core rules.




Pages 122-126 of the 3.0 DMG and 78-81 of the 3.5 DMG tell me that your memory needs refreshing.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Pages 122-126 of the 3.0 DMG and 78-81 of the 3.5 DMG tell me that your memory needs refreshing.




Wasn´t he talking about non-combat stuff for players? I don´t think the DMG should enter the argument then. Else, I think 4E DMG 1&2 hold up pretty well when it comes to non-combat ideas and such.

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]:
That´s like calling a pizza a gyros. Well, they put "medieval" on the cover but besides some trappings, there isn´t anything medieval inside (and with this, I also mean fantasy medieval).


----------



## shadzar (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> [MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]:
> That´s like calling a pizza a gyros. Well, they put "medieval" on the cover but besides some trappings, there isn´t anything medieval inside (and with this, I also mean fantasy medieval).




How so? I dont just mean for that book, but others as well as other editions.

What was really missing from making it medieval?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> Wasn´t he talking about non-combat stuff for players? I don´t think the DMG should enter the argument then. Else, I think 4E DMG 1&2 hold up pretty well when it comes to non-combat ideas and such.




No, Hussar was talking about random encounter tables. How exactly those would factor into what a player needs, I don't know. So basically I have no idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

shadzar said:


> How so? I dont just mean for that book, but others as well as other editions.
> 
> What was really missing from making it medieval?





A social class system that reflects the period
A basic discussion regarding Low Justice, High Justice, and Church Justice
The roles of Church, nobility, and peasantry
 A discussion on feudalism, nobility, knighthoods (all types), reflecting the obligations and perks.
A discussion on Christianity, Judaism, Islam and paganism and the ability for a character to be from those religions.

Now Chivalry and Sorcery -- there is a game that had medieval basis.


----------



## Elton Robb (Jan 12, 2011)

Nagol said:


> A social class system that reflects the period
> A basic discussion regarding Low Justice, High Justice, and Church Justice
> The roles of Church, nobility, and peasantry
> A discussion on feudalism, nobility, knighthoods (all types), reflecting the obligations and perks.
> ...




And Ars Magica, and Pendragon, and . . . 

There's a lot of them.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

Nagol said:


> A social class system that reflects the period
> A basic discussion regarding Low Justice, High Justice, and Church Justice
> The roles of Church, nobility, and peasantry
> A discussion on feudalism, nobility, knighthoods (all types), reflecting the obligations and perks.
> ...




To add further to that, let´s remove the stuff from D&D that isn´t medieval:
- Frontier mentality
- Taming the wildernes
- Low population figures
- Dangerous overland travel
- Individual rights
- Natives & Barbarias


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> To add further to that, let´s remove the stuff from D&D that isn´t medieval:
> - Frontier mentality
> - Taming the wildernes
> - Low population figures
> ...




To be fair, you can find medieval areas with wilderness frontiers, dangerous overland travel, and barbarian equivalents (Huns, Mongols)  -- Eastern slavic regions and other areas pushing east and north of the Byzantines.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 12, 2011)

Nagol said:


> A social class system that reflects the period
> A basic discussion regarding Low Justice, High Justice, and Church Justice
> The roles of Church, nobility, and peasantry
> A discussion on feudalism, nobility, knighthoods (all types), reflecting the obligations and perks.
> ...




1. That was there and discussed throughout MANY books and adventures and how the kingdoms were run

2. This also was there.

3. There again, just augmented for the game since there was more close relations to deities

4. I would say those roles are clearly covered in the positions they held.

5. I hope nobody has to explain why those are not there...The game wouldnt be here today if they had been because there would have been more from "D&D has people summoning demons from books" crowds had it reference real world religions. Worse, if you had kids/teens/etc playing Christians going out in the game killing Jews. 

All that you claim is lacking to make it medieval it is not. It is just toned down so that you can add back the heavier part if you want them, or can take the game into even more fantastic and out of this world directions.

Pretty much you just wanted a exact replica of a medieval setting to play in before you would accept it was medieval?

The games state pseudo-,edieval for a reason, adding too much would confine the game and not leave the room to grow for things like Athas, Krynn, Toril that were not exactly King Arthur, etc. As well not forcing feudilism means you can add whatever society you want for your group, while others can have what they want for theirs.

It was a plug-and-play system, where you could plug what was there into any style, but featured mostly the medieval themes, knights, kings, queens, paladin, etc.

Most people find the splatbooks to be a cause of fatigue, and hated them, but the green ones actually had your direct historical representation translations of the game.

WotC editions moved to off-world for the core parts of the game, I didnt see medieval mentioned much in 3rd if at all, and I dont think 4th edition touches it. TSR editions had it running through them at every turn.

The more you wanted you are able to add though to ANY edition.

The more you added you just would have stylized the game too much to one area of time and world that it might not have survived until today. You have your "trappings": no guns so before Renaissance, and iron was a staple so we have gone into the iron age, science and technology is starting, so that places D&D right into fantasy early middle ages (medieval), 5th~15th century.

That is a lots of years to cover in that 1000 years worth. In particular regarding your 5 points,  most of those were constantly changing over that period of time.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]: Let´s define what we´re talking about. When I mean western medieval, I mean 600 - 1500 AD and from Portugal to Great Britan and France to Greater Germany with Sweden added.
That´s all known and settled country. You could even go further east to Marienburg or cross over to the african continent.

Travel on the Kings Roads/Salt Transit Ways was damn safe as there were actually no robber knights or brigands until the end of the late middle ages.
Huns and Mongols also weren´t really in sight.

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]: It´s hard to explain, maybe because im missing the vocabulary to do so. Still I´ll try:

Medieval society is mostly one thing: absolutelly immobile. Until the Black Death, there was no movement, neither physical nor social, no exceptions.
I´ve read a good amount of TSR/WotC books and no, that stuff isn´t covered at all.

For me, a useable medieval setting should be based on 4 pillars: piety - power - station - corruption. Pendragon does that right, for example, whereas D&D describes the lawless frontiers of the wild west instead.

[Edit] Just an afterthought, take a look into Darklands which can be found on abandonia.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

I was going to do a point by point counterpoint, but I have work to do so I'll leave it by simply saying D&D in all of its core incarnations does not include the points I raise.  Some optional (usually late cycle) material in some editions did cover some of it somewhat often as description rather than with mechnical effect.

I have seen games that were published and were medieval-based RPGs that do cover those points with depth and mechanical effect (i.e. rules as opposed to description) as part of their core.

Chivalry and Sorcery is very much like a complex version of 1e that is firmly set in a medieval society and published in the late '70s.  It pretty much covers all of my points in its core.

Pendragon is an Arthurian game using Chaosium's BRP system and covers some of my points, but its focus is a very narrow timeframe inside Britain.

Ars Magica (one of my favourites for other reasons) has a fantasy version of historical Europe as its default setting and covers a few of my points in depth in the core system.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]: Let´s define what we´re talking about. When I mean western medieval, I mean 600 - 1500 AD and from Portugal to Great Britan and France to Greater Germany with Sweden added.
> That´s all known and settled country. You could even go further east to Marienburg or cross over to the african continent.
> 
> Travel on the Kings Roads/Salt Transit Ways was damn safe as there were actually no robber knights or brigands until the end of the late middle ages.
> ...




I tend to narrow to timeframe from about 600 - 1300.  I expand the geography in include the Byzantine Empire, areas north of the Black Sea, and down into the Iberian peninsula (Aragon, Navarre, et al.).

I agree roman road/King's Road travel tended to be reasonably safe and trouble free (save when confronted with war).

Medieval socierty did have some travel -- religious pilgrimages were reasonably common even to very distant sections (England to the Holy Land -- pilgrims that went to the Levant region were known as Palmists and told the most outrageous tales upon their return) and war called across the territories.  Still, I agree you typically didn't travel as far as the next county to buy anything and social mobility was somewhat rare.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> [MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]: It´s hard to explain, maybe because im missing the vocabulary to do so. Still I´ll try:
> 
> Medieval society is mostly one thing: absolutelly immobile. Until the Black Death, there was no movement, neither physical nor social, no exceptions.
> I´ve read a good amount of TSR/WotC books and no, that stuff isn´t covered at all.
> ...




Power, station, and corruption are definitely there in all editions.

Presence of the gods and directly relating to them is in MOST except for 4th, and emphasis isnt that high in some editions.

Virtue is like alignment and between players and DM to figure out.

To make it as detailed as some may want, would mean that it just doesnt leave itself to be as open for other things and people to design their own settings.

How easy is it to remove those elements if they have such strong connections in those other games that were mentioned as more closely representing "medieval"?


----------



## nedjer (Jan 12, 2011)

Moving around in medieval times was mainly about privilege. Serfs spent five months of the year sleeping most of the time and didn't have much in the way of shoes for getting about. Odd trip to market if they were lucky.

Merchants, teachers, artists and artisans, warmongers and the godly travelled extensively and were generously supplied with shoes.

So little change in 1000 years

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afY4v0y4fL4"]YouTube - The Armstrong and Miller Farmers market[/ame]


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Power, station, and corruption are definitely there in all editions.
> 
> Presence of the gods and directly relating to them is in MOST except for 4th, and emphasis isnt that high in some editions.
> 
> ...




You´re missing the point a bit. It´s not only what´s missing, it´s also what need to be removed that matters.
To quote myself:



> To add further to that, let´s remove the stuff from D&D that isn´t medieval:
> - Frontier mentality
> - Taming the wildernes
> - Low population figures
> ...



What I´d like to add: - Outlaws vs. Sheriff

Actually, I think that the deities themselves wouldn´t really play a role, not as much as their chruches anyway.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 12, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> You´re missing the point a bit. It´s not only what´s missing, it´s also what need to be removed that matters.
> To quote myself:
> 
> 
> ...



Robin Hood dates back as far as 14th centruy, which is within the medieval period.

You wanted to add outlaws v. Sheriff should be removed or be there? Because apparently it was in the medieval period, and as far as the game is concerned, that would be up to the adventure and MANY include the PCs on either side there as plot hooks.

I am guessing by frontier mentality you mean as opposed to living within a build society. Again Robin Hood tells of that very thing, so removing it would mean it doesn't correlate with medieval as it was present. Not everyone lived within the confines of the protection of the city. Thus as to your next point, people expanding beyond the city limits would need to "tame the wilderness".

Population has to deal with the setting again. There are adventures with cities of large populations, but in game terms that can be a problem depending on what you are trying to present. Not something for the game itself to decide, but the adventures and settings to have be decided for individuals rather than trying to force all cities to be England with 1 million residents.

Safe travel...well it is an adventure game featuring monsters, and they didnt exist in historically accurate medieval Europe. As some people would not find it fun to jsut travel and meet peasant and such along the way, why roleplay travel at all if nothing can happen. Travel is presented in the for of a Quest for the Holy Grail manner where you are on an adventure.

Rights people DID have, but just not many. Again being a game, you need to have the ability for players to play it, and if the DM is controlling it so tightly as to what the players can do, you really lose the game.

Natives and barbarians are there in the forms of monsters and humans and demihumans, etc.

Accurate historical representation fatigue in gaming was the thing the miniature wargamers that created D&D were trying to move away from for more freedoms because of the limits set by some of those things you listed. It doesnt mean they are not present, just not as much focus is put on them so that players can play in the types of games they want.

The ame pretty much has to cover ALL the medieval period, as well leave room for other things to fit, so again you couldn't constrain it to every precise detail within the adaptable system. You had room to add those constraints back if you wanted, but others were also free to venture into other ways.

The game never claimed to be perfect 800 AD European Earth, but you could add those elements in your game world if you wanted to, while it allows me to have Fantasy World #1453132542 with the rules of society that I have set for my world.

Again it says _pseudo-medieval_ because it needs to be open enough to not scare away people not wanting to play solely in 1086 England.

Even 4th edition can be placed into a strict year within the middle ages, even though it doesnt give you the info on that. It is up to the one(s) designing the game you are playing in.

These products form TSR might be somethign that would help realize the midle ages you are looking for in older editions, but would probably require some rules conversion for newer editions.

9322 HR1 Vikings Campaign Sourcebook
9323 HR2 Charlemagne’s Paladins Campaign Sourcebook
9376 HR3 Celts Campaign Sourcebook
9370 HR4 A Mighty Fortress Campaign Sourcebook
9425 HR5 The Glory of Rome Campaign Sourcebook
9408 (HR6) Age of Heroes Campaign Sourcebook
9469 (HR7) The Crusades Campaign Sourcebook


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 12, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I've heard it argued that the current version is more like super heroes with a fantasy paint job.



Certainly high-level D&D has always been very like superheroes in fantasy constumes from 1E onward.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 12, 2011)

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]

First of, some things: Whatever your timestamp may say, it´s close to midnight when I start writing this, I´m thru half a bottle of fine japanese whiskey by now, I´m used to communicate in a very precise language and need to translate my thoughts to english, I´ve majored in art history and finaly, can some mod please split that post over to it´s own "Is D&D really Western Europe Medieval" thread?

For simplicitys sake, let´s focus on Greater Germany because it´s easier to look up wikipedia with the locations and dates given.

When I say D&D has a frontiers mentality, I mean that there are little towns/hamlets sitting alone in the wilderness, surrounded by antagonistic creatures.
When I say Outlaws vs Sheriffs, I mean brave heroes going out to solve the problem because the local authorities can´t.

For contrast and context, compare a map of modern Germany with a map of Greater Germany in the middle middle ages and compare what you see. It´s the same.
Now think about the state most Settings in D&D are in an compare that to early to middle 1800 in the US.
So, coming back to that, the local authorities in Greater Germany really tamed the wilderness, made travel and commerce save and reacted to any problem by massive force of arms. Check out the History of Erfurt, for example, a town that around 1300 not only fielded 3 universities but also managed to secure the trade routes between Moscow, Greater Germany and Paris by force of arms.
Now think about your typical D&D towns and inviroments and compare that to the situation west of the Mississippi around 1800. Notice something?
I could go on about travelling distances between places (from villages to full-blown cities) and castles/outposts, but I´m certainly too drunk to do that.

So let´s get over to the social aspects.
The actual middle ages saw Greater Germany very fractured as well as very unified. Fractured because it was, at times, well over a hundred kingdoms and small tiefdoms, unified because they nearly all shared the same outlooks and priciples. That existed on a physical ground a bit smaller than modern day Texas.

Now compare that to D&D, huge tracts of land, all belonging to more or less the same nation(s), settlements without contact to the rest of the world and so on.

by that time, there was no sole rule by a monarchy or other heritary class, it was already shared by the merchant class, like the Fuggers or Medici, still, the serving class (serfs) had to serve, else there´d be punishment. Having said this, we also see the rise of the citizen and the artisan in this era.

Ah well, to cut it short, when you compare D&D to early and middle 1800 USA, then to actual medieval Europe, you see where you land.

Now I gotta get me a refill of that japanese stuff =D


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2011)

Shadzar - I believe that you are making Coldwyn's point for him.  It isn't that setting information for doing Medieval Europe wasn't present, it's that it wasn't present in the core rules.  And, his point is, the setting material shouldn't be in the core rules because it makes it difficult to break the game out of that specific setting.

It's all back to the whole Toolbox vs Specific Game debate.  Is D&D a toolbox game where you use the mechanics to build your world, similar to GURPS, or is it a specific game where you are expected to play in the baseline world, like Vampire?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Shadzar - I believe that you are making Coldwyn's point for him.  It isn't that setting information for doing Medieval Europe wasn't present, it's that it wasn't present in the core rules.  And, his point is, the setting material shouldn't be in the core rules because it makes it difficult to break the game out of that specific setting.
> 
> It's all back to the whole Toolbox vs Specific Game debate.  Is D&D a toolbox game where you use the mechanics to build your world, similar to GURPS, or is it a specific game where you are expected to play in the baseline world, like Vampire?




Because it doesnt force strict adhesion to all historical accuracy of medieval europe, doesnt mean it isnt medieval though is what i was saying.

I dont know from these terms everyone comes up with i just use the old-fashioned ones so to me D&D had to be an dynamic system rather than a static one that forced things like "playing in Elizabethan England". It had to be adaptable but has a focus on a time period.

Probably what throws me off the most is comparing Westerns to Medieval because the connections made in his most recent post I can understand a bit more in regards to "the world". Otherwise i was seeing Clint Eastwood in plate mail, Rooster Cogburn with a battleaxe, and Apache and Comanche living in castles. 

The game is medieval, but obviously not the strict adherence that Coldwyn would have liked at the core, or in the published adventures. But it didn't set out to stop you from making it that strictly historical if you so wanted to. That was/IS the beauty of D&D. Heck you can Buck Rogers (TM LW and the DFT) it if you really want and go Spelljamming.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Because it doesnt force strict adhesion to all historical accuracy of medieval europe, doesnt mean it isnt medieval though is what i was saying.
> 
> I dont know from these terms everyone comes up with i just use the old-fashioned ones so to me D&D had to be an dynamic system rather than a static one that forced things like "playing in Elizabethan England". It had to be adaptable but has a focus on a time period.
> 
> ...




It may be because it´s easy for me to follow the path of our history.
Without any rancor, when I visited the US, I came up with a feeling of disconnect and I´ve only been able to tell why when I got back home.
If I want to see Classic Culture, I simply go to Rome, Greece or Egypt. If I´m interested in the middle ages, I use some weekends to visit (still complete) towns all around Europe. If I want to know more about the renaissance, I visit France and Italy, take a look at Michaelangelos or DaVincis Workshop and be satisfied, and so on. Maybe this easy availlability of History breeds a certain sense of kinship and belonging with me.

Having said this, D&D is fun. Period. There is, for example, a local german system that, by sticking to what we know about medieval history and its mores, managed to drive D&D from the market. Yepp, you read correctly, we don´t have D&D anymore in germany  because sales culdn´t keep up with a more historically correct game.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now this is a mistake
> 
> Page 260 and 261 of the 4e PHB lists travel speeds by terrain and also lists a number of possible methods for overland travel.  I don't have my DMG handy, but the PHB mentions that the DMG has additional rules for overland travel, including fatigue rules.




Yep.  Missed it.  I went through the PHB and DMG and missed it.  Two pages in the PHB that does actually address activity in real world, non-combat terms.  And weather and starvation are discussed, terms of DC checks, on pg 158-9 of the DMG.  So I can't say "removed" anymore, although non-combat is still under-developed in 4E.

Mea Culpa!




Hussar said:


> Well, so far, nothing has actually been removed since 3e although, to be fair, the random encounters did appear in earlier editions.  So, what else has been removed that turns D&D into a one dimensional game?




I'm not making a case that there aren't resources for non-combat activity.  For certain, everything has been addressed in the past 30 years.  But new players aren't going to be aware of all that, and/or won't have access to those older books.  I'm going on the premise that new players will play the new edition--and if certain elements aren't in the new edition, then players aren't going to see them as a part of the game.

4E looks to me like a one-dimensional game because virtually everything is described in in-combat terms.  Not in feet, but squares; not in minutes or 1-minute rounds, but in "encounters" (an indistinct measurement that can theoretically be anywhere from one minute into infinity).

Older versions of spells were written perfectly for both combat and noncombat.  AoE was in feet/yards, distance was in feet/yards, time was in fixed measurements (one minute rounds or ten minute turns or days, etc).  4E spell effects are almost entirely limited to combat effects.  For example, Freezing Burst stats read like just another magical attack.  It does not convey that this spell has non-combat use (the flavor description does, but players are warned that flavor text is not to be used in-game).  

An experienced player or DM might readily see that powers can be used in noncombat situations (which might require some house-ruling on the specifics).  But what will this look like to a new player or DM who doesn't have veterans around to point these things out?


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> To tell the truth, I´m absolutelly unconvinced




Fine by me.  I'm just sayin' what I think.  



Coldwyn said:


> and I think you´re stuck on the mechanics.




It's possible.  I wouldn't rule it out.



Coldwyn said:


> In 4E, most of the Fellowship would be an extended Skill Challenge with a huge amount of sub-challenges.




Skill challenges are pre-determined scenarios, which are entirely the antithesis of the game elements--the danger and randomness of traveling between pre-determined scenarios--I was discussing.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> You are saying there wasn't noncombat skills back when you worried about your chalk and pitons?




I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.  If not, then no there were no noncombat skills early on.  They first appeared in Unearthed Arcana, I believe, as non-weapon proficiences.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

Nagol said:


> It was designed around medieval western Europe in the same way Conan's Hyborian Age or the Gray Mouser's Newhon was -- that is to say it adopted a few notable trappings -- more in the beginning and then drifted.




Um... except for Conan's northern origin, Conan' world was pretty much based on Africa and the Middle East.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> D&D is a lot of things but not western Europe pseudo-medieval and never has been. It´s rather some fantasy-version of a western with a light touch of medieval.




Can't agree with you at all.  There is nothing in the earlier Basic or 1E books that even obliquely deal with Asian, African, or any other non-European culture.  The Magic-User is pure Merlin and Gandalf.  The fighters are pure Knights.  The Clerics are crusaders.  Elves, dwarfs...it just goes on and on.

The terminology, the classes, the equipment, the game world--EVERYTHING was European.  It was all King Arthur and Lord of the Rings (also European)... all stuff drawn from the reality and the myths and legends of Europe.

Look at the Companion set for BECMI.  In the section about strongholds, every term is pure European.  Every job description is in pure European language--unless Egypt or Persia had the jobs "peasant, baron, bailiff, reeve, provost, seneshal, steward, warden, falconer, forester, miller, magistrate, herald, squire, and lady-in-waiting."

Non-European stuff didn't show up till much later, in Oriental Adventures and Al Qadim stuff.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 13, 2011)

fumetti said:


> I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.  If not, then no there were no noncombat skills early on.  They first appeared in Unearthed Arcana, I believe, as non-weapon proficiences.




Someone else would have to check as I only have BCI of the BECMI to see where they come from, but a list is in the Rules Cyclopedia that has things similar to the NWPs and without getting out the book, I even recall Knowledge and Shipbuilding to be among them.

Maybe they were created just for it or taken from UA, but someone would have to check the Expert Set and Masters set to make sure.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> @Nagol: Travel on the Kings Roads/Salt Transit Ways was damn safe as there were actually no robber knights or brigands until the end of the late middle ages.
> Huns and Mongols also weren´t really in sight.




Whoa!  That's a gross exaggeration.  There were some roads that were somewhat protected, but the vast majority of travel was along small roads --barely more than a path-- that were by no stretch of the imagination "safe."  There were ALWAYS brigands about somewhere (often in the form of local knights).

And much of the rural land was still sparsely populated.  After the plague, there were entire villages cleared out.  Not a soul for miles and miles.  And no 'police' protection to be seen anywhere.

And then you have to figure in the unreliability of protection.  If you were a stranger (and travel was so infrequent that it was easy to spot a stranger), you really had no idea if the 'police' was going to protect you or rob you!






Coldwyn said:


> @shadzar: It´s hard to explain, maybe because im missing the vocabulary to do so. Still I´ll try:
> 
> Medieval society is mostly one thing: absolutelly immobile. Until the Black Death, there was no movement, neither physical nor social, no exceptions.
> I´ve read a good amount of TSR/WotC books and no, that stuff isn´t covered at all.
> ...




Your interpretation isn't exactly the determining factor.  

OD&D, Basic, and 1E were clearly and unequivocably built upon Western European society and Western European culture--including their myths and legends.  And the last part is key.  To use a culture's myths and fantasies is just as direct as using their coinage and fashions.

No, DnD doesn't dwell much on feudalism or manoralism (although the BECMI Companion set did _at great length_).  But there are no Knights in Asia, no Druids from Africa, no Rangers from Arabia, and no DnD-type Wizards from anywhere but the Arthurian Legends and Lord of the Rings.

And you surely cannot contest the direct relationship between DnD and LOTR--since TSR itself had to concede that point.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Someone else would have to check as I only have BCI of the BECMI to see where they come from, but a list is in the Rules Cyclopedia that has things similar to the NWPs and without getting out the book, I even recall Knowledge and Shipbuilding to be among them.
> 
> Maybe they were created just for it or taken from UA, but someone would have to check the Expert Set and Masters set to make sure.




In BECMI, they first appeared in the Gazetteers, many of which came out before the Rules Cyclopedia.  And 1E's UA was out well before either.

Before all that, all we had were "secondary skills" under the heading "Player Character Non-Professional Skills" from 1E DMG pg 12.  Just a list of medieval professions--assigned by random percitile roll--that would give PCs a bit of extra knowledge on a particular subject.  The mechanics of which were left totally up to the DM to work out.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 13, 2011)

Back to noncombat stuff...

*I HAVE FOUND IT!!!*

I finally found a spell that was not just another combat spell.  In the _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, page 239, is the spell "Otto's Song of Fidelity."  It has the description line:

*"Requirement:  You must be outside a combat encounter."*

And the duration is explained in fixed time:  6 hours.

Interesting that it wasn't just made into a ritual.  Makes me wonder if 4EE isn't going to continue this route and keep rituals out of the picture indefinitely...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 13, 2011)

> Can't agree with you at all. There is nothing in the earlier Basic or 1E books that even obliquely deal with Asian, African, or any other non-European culture. The Magic-User is pure Merlin and Gandalf. The fighters are pure Knights. The Clerics are crusaders. Elves, dwarfs...it just goes on and on.
> 
> The terminology, the classes, the equipment, the game world--EVERYTHING was European. It was all King Arthur and Lord of the Rings (also European)... all stuff drawn from the reality and the myths and legends of Europe.




Well, with the obvious exception of the 1Ed Monk, which bears ZERO resemblance to any European monastic tradition.  The martial artist stuff in that class is clearly pseudo-Asian in inspiration.

Oh yeah- the composite bow was also primarily an Asian thing as well.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 13, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Yep.  Missed it.  I went through the PHB and DMG and missed it.  Two pages in the PHB that does actually address activity in real world, non-combat terms.  And weather and starvation are discussed, terms of DC checks, on pg 158-9 of the DMG.  So I can't say "removed" anymore, although non-combat is still under-developed in 4E.
> 
> Mea Culpa!




Heh, no worries, I miss stuff all the time.   




> I'm not making a case that there aren't resources for non-combat activity.  For certain, everything has been addressed in the past 30 years.  But new players aren't going to be aware of all that, and/or won't have access to those older books.  I'm going on the premise that new players will play the new edition--and if certain elements aren't in the new edition, then players aren't going to see them as a part of the game.
> 
> 4E looks to me like a one-dimensional game because virtually everything is described in in-combat terms.




Gonna break down the next bit into smaller bits, because I think a lot of this actually is addressed, just in a different way than perhaps it was before.



> Not in feet, but squares;




This was started in 3e.  And, since the only time squares actually matter is in combat, it's not surprising that it seems like it's a major combat thing.  Once you're out of combat, you no longer use the grid.



> not in minutes or 1-minute rounds, but in "encounters" (an indistinct measurement that can theoretically be anywhere from one minute into infinity).




Well, it should be about 5 minutes according to the DMG.  And, 4e is hardly new at this.  A flexible time frame appears in many games.  Additionally, this is specifically a combat rule and not meant for use outside of combat.



> Older versions of spells were written perfectly for both combat and noncombat.  AoE was in feet/yards, distance was in feet/yards,




Once upon a time, distance was in inches which translated to either 10 feet per inch indoors or 10 yards per inch outdoors.  



> time was in fixed measurements (one minute rounds or ten minute turns or days, etc).  4E spell effects are almost entirely limited to combat effects.  For example, Freezing Burst stats read like just another magical attack.  It does not convey that this spell has non-combat use (the flavor description does, but players are warned that flavor text is not to be used in-game).




Again, this gets back to a different design approach.  Not one that's better or worse, just different.  The narrative is largely divorced from the mechanics in 4e and the players are specifically encouraged to fit the narrative to whatever is going on in game.  Which can certainly lead to confusion and, if the player is not sufficiently motivated, really boring actions where the player just states the power's name and the game turns very mechanical and overly gamist.

 Earlier editions tied narrative to mechanics.  You know pretty much exactly what an effect does and that effect does the same thing every time.  The problem here can be twofold though.  One, if the wording is a bit vague, you can get some really bizarre results - such as fireballs that melt lead but don't have any explosive force or lightning effects that don't behave like electricity (you can cast shocking grasp in 3e while grappled and standing in a puddle of water and not take damage, for example).  Secondly, it can be very easy to abuse effects - create water inside a target in earlier editions, Continual Light in the eyes for permanent blindness, Stone Shape to smother victims, etc.

Note, in either system, the problems are certainly not insurmountable.  They aren't.  You can resolve these issues and most groups do.  It's just that there are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches.



> An experienced player or DM might readily see that powers can be used in noncombat situations (which might require some house-ruling on the specifics).  But what will this look like to a new player or DM who doesn't have veterans around to point these things out?




In my personal opinion, people tend to go through pretty much the same stages when they start role playing.  First, they grapple with the mechanics because most people want to know how to play the game.  So, things like creativity and role play and whatnot takes a back seat.  Later on, once they're comfortable with the system, then they'll start branching out.

Fortunately for 4e, there is a really excellent DMG to give that push into being more creative and engaging more than just the mechanics.  Unfortunately, WOTC's modules tend to leave a LOT to be desired and really aren't promoting more engaging play.  Combine that with a PHB that is pretty damn dry and it's easy to get a sense that 4e is nothing but a massive combat engine.

I don't think that it is, but, I can certainly see why people might take that view.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 13, 2011)

fumetti said:


> In BECMI, they first appeared in the Gazetteers, many of which came out before the Rules Cyclopedia.  And 1E's UA was out well before either.




We will just have to wait for Wiseblood to say when they were talking about, but the other things I think hold true to the point. While there are lots and lots of rules for combat, the reason was the rest wasnt about looking for the answer in the book, but making up you own solutions to problems rather than looking for a skill even in editions that had skills for outside of combat.

Combat doesnt give you the answer as to how to overcome your opponent, but rules for types of attack modes and such, you must still use those attack modes, but outside of combat there is now a leaning towards just rolling a skill check rather than put the same effort towards deciding how to "use" the things provided.

It is like saying before the firebuilding NWP people weren't able to build fires as there were no rules for it. People didnt need rules for it because, to use his phrase, they were fantasy MacGuyvers.

Basically another there was no "non-combat rules in the game" war. Where some say the hard rules are needed, and others say there isnt a need for a rule for everything (see building a fire before NWPs example above.)

The absence of a rule for it, does not make it impossible as a rule for everything cannot be made.

Its confusing you seem to be taking the opposite approach to your original stance now about being that 4e focuses heavily on combat in this post by trying to show where earlier edition didnt have noncombat rules... 



fumetti said:


> You can choose to be offended if it makes you happy.  I'm talking about the focus of the product, not what *you* are doing in your game.
> 
> The empirical evidence (particularly when comparing 4E with early editions, esp 1E/2E/BECM) is overwhelming.  When you read the books being made, 4E skips over non-combat events.  It would be ridiculous to claim that 4E treats out-of-combat the same as it treats in-combat.  If 1E had a ratio of 2-to-1 (in to out), then 4E has a ratio of 100-to-1, if not more than that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nagol (Jan 13, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Um... except for Conan's northern origin, Conan' world was pretty much based on Africa and the Middle East.




It has castles, kings, priests, strong fighting men, mail armour, heavy swords, horses, man-at-arms, and gold and silver coins.

Which is pretty much all D&D took for its medieval trappings.  Other sections of the world have similar trappings it's true.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 13, 2011)

fumetti said:


> <snip>
> 
> Your interpretation isn't exactly the determining factor.
> 
> ...




Japan and Saladin would like to discus the concept of knighthood with you.

Druids existed no where like D&D.  Rangers either.

China and Africa would like to discuss their respective sorcery myths with you.

D&D is a game written by Americans of European descent that is loosely based on a bunch of fantasy works written by authors of Europeon descent.  The mash-up is fairly generic and has rarely had anything you can point to and say "There!  That thing there!  It corresponds to/emulates this practice/medieval expectation/social relationship!" in the same way games patterned on medieval settings do.  It can just as easily be Newhon-based as based upon the European medieval setting.  Are there commonalities with medieval period?  Sure!  Are those commonalities enough to get a feel of the period and the social mindset?  Not for me.  Are there anachronisms that drift quite a distance from the medieval period?  Yep.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 13, 2011)

fumetti said:


> An experienced player or DM might readily see that powers can be used in noncombat situations (which might require some house-ruling on the specifics).  But what will this look like to a new player or DM who doesn't have veterans around to point these things out?



The new GM would need DMG2 for some (very limited) advice on integrating encounter and daily powers into skill challenges.

As I detailed at some length here, in my most recent session Twist of Space (wizard 7th encounter power that teleports on a hit) was used by a PC to free a woman magically trapped in a mirror. More generally, I discovered through experiment that 4e can handle an exploration-based (ie non-combat) scenario very well.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Back to noncombat stuff...
> 
> *I HAVE FOUND IT!!!*
> 
> ...




Keep looking and you will find more - they're called Utility Powers. At any given level many of them are related to combat in some way but there's almost always one that isn't. They're usually something like darkvision for 5 minutes or a bonus to a certain skill for one roll or a movement boost like feather fall, jump, spider climb, etc. 

In fact if you want out of combat mechanics then I would say between rituals, the skill system, skill challenges, and the various class features & racial features that affect those things, there is more mechanical support for non-combat activity in 4E than in any edition, and they are more widely available than in older editions. 

I will grant that 3E had some pretty detailed crafting rules that may have been more to some players' tastes than 4E. Other than wands and potions I only saw them used twice in 10 years of playing and DM'ing so I tend to see them as a minor thing.

However if the comparison is to 1E then there is very little mechanical support in the PHB for anything outside of combat - storongholds and followers is about it and even then it's more along the lines of "a linkboy costs 1cp per day" than how to actually get stuff done. Sure, we did all kinds of crazy stuff back then but there weren't any rules for it. It's no more of a barrier to play or a failing of the system for 4E than it was for 1E.

I've been running a Basic D&D game and a D&D 4E game for different groups over the last year and it's surprising how similar they are at a high level - in short, combat is where all the detail is, then out of combat it's a lot of free-form DM interpretation. The details (especially in combat) are very different but the overall design approaches are interestingly similar.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, with the obvious exception of the 1Ed Monk, which bears ZERO resemblance to any European monastic tradition.  The martial artist stuff in that class is clearly pseudo-Asian in inspiration.
> 
> Oh yeah- the composite bow was also primarily an Asian thing as well.




True, there are bits here and there.  But when looking at the whole, the design is European.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Japan and Saladin would like to discus the concept of knighthood with you.
> 
> Druids existed no where like D&D.  Rangers either.
> 
> China and Africa would like to discuss their respective sorcery myths with you.




Fine, but they will find they have no significance to speak of regarding the creation of DnD.

Japan and Saladin did not have "knights."  Knights are European, particularly (but not limited to) French and English.

Where are ANY druids?  Europe.
Where are any rangers?  LOTR.  What's LOTR?  England, for the most part.

China did not have Merlin or Gandalf or Saruman.



Arneson specifically said his Blackmoor was based on Europe.  And that's as close to a comment by Gygax or Arneson I can find at the moment regarding specifics.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> The Magic-User is pure Merlin and Gandalf.



The traditional D&D Magic-User _dresses_ like Merlin and Gandalf, so from a sartorial perspective, you've got a point.

But the Magic-User _also_ has a big dollop of characters like Turjan of Miir from Vance's Dying Earth in them --ie magicians from a post-everything-on-our-Earth science-fantasy setting-- as well as obvious influences from comic books, of all things --what do the various Bigby's Hands spells resemble if not a Green Lantern using their power ring?

The one thing D&D spell casters _aren't_ is pure. It's part of their charm...


----------



## Stereofm (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> No, DnD doesn't dwell much on feudalism or manoralism (although the BECMI Companion set did _at great length_).  But there are no Knights in Asia, no Druids from Africa, no Rangers from Arabia, and no DnD-type Wizards from anywhere but the Arthurian Legends and Lord of the Rings.
> 
> .




I see where you're coming from, but actually, was there any need for a different ruleset for that at the time ? No. It was a matter of roleplaying your character. And coming from "Africa" was no worse than any other choice.

Besides, in the old D&d basic gazetteers line, I seem to remember analogs for Africa and other places ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 15, 2011)

fumetti said:


> True, there are bits here and there.  But when looking at the whole, the design is European.




You need to look closer.  As others have pointed out, you'll find plenty of non-European elements in the spells (not just the Green Lanternesque Bigby's spells), especially in the early versions of the game.

There are spells like Shocking Grasp- based on a practical joke from a magic shop (the Joy Buzzer).

Or ones like Sticks to Snakes, which comes from the pre-Christian Bible (namely, the story of Moses), which is, essentially, part of Middle Eastern culture.

Some of the magic items also came from non-European, non-Medieval cultures, like the Ioun Stones of Jack Vance's sci-fi classic _Tales of Dying Earth_.  And famously, some creatures came from Japanese toys and other sources (Rust Monster).

Scimitars?  Brigandine armor?  Middle eastern and Asian in origins.

The game is a pastiche of Europe and other cultures, Medieval and other times, fantasy, horror, sci-fi myth religions and comics.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 15, 2011)

Gandalf actually comes from the Poetic Eddas from Norse mythology, the same poems, if they can be called that, that give us thor. He is actually an elf in that work.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 15, 2011)

I do think WotC is silly not selling an evergreen "Dungeons & Dragons" in a box in toy stores that contains everything you need, with a presentation and complexity similar to the 1983 Mentzer Basic set (but more levels - say 10 levels).  Something the public could relate to and which would reliably bring in a continuous stream of new players.


----------



## delericho (Jan 15, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The game is a pastiche of Europe and other cultures, Medieval and other times, fantasy, horror, sci-fi myth religions and comics.




Very true. In fact, the primary inspirations were probably not directly historical at all, but rather in the types of stories Gygax and the others liked to read (see: Appendix N). So, Conan, Lankhmar, Dying Earth, Lord of the Rings (a bit), etc.

Of course, to a large extent, some or all of those writings were influenced by European inspirations, probably just because those were the ones most familiar to the respective authors.

In fact, if there's one thing I think D&D has lost over the years, I think it has been in that move from being a glorious mish-mash of influences and styles, and become it's own distinct "D&D fantasy".

In the past, the game could do a kinda-Conan, it could do a kinda-Arthurian myth, it could do a kinda-Dying Earth. Hell, there was even a place for the nonsense of "Alice in Wonderland"! (As Jeff Rients said, in D&D, "You play Conan, I play Gandalf. We team up to fight Dracula.")

And I think that that may well be one of the reasons why D&D was so successful. Like the Roman mythology (and, dare I say it, early Christianity), when it spread into a new area, it didn't declare what it found to be incompatible and move on, it instead absorbed and assimilated it.

But now, D&D doesn't really do that. You can't really run a "Black Company" style game natively in 4e (or in 3e, except at extremely low levels). The tone just doesn't work.

And where's Harry Potter? Yes, you can model Harry himself in D&D, but he'll look just like any other Wizard with a wand. Really, what would probably be more suited is some sort of Academy-Trained Mage class/build, with a relatively fixed set of known spells, albeit with some customisations to reflect different OWLS. (Sort of like a more flexible 3e Warmage, or even better the 2nd Edition speciality priests.)

And, of course, there's more to Harry Potter than just the character himself. There's almost no support in any of the existing settings for "Wizard sports" like Quidditch. Sure, the "Sharn: City of Towers" book has one example of a local race through the skyways, but where's the sporting leagues (just getting back after the Last War)? Where's the "Wizard Olympics"?

Or Pokemon? Sure, we had the joke about the 3.5e Paladin mounts, and there are Summoner classes, but those classes generally summon unnamed and generic creatures. Where's the class that has a handful of named creatures he can summon, each with individual quirks and abilities?

Maybe there's nothing in it. Maybe it's better this way. Or maybe I'm wrong (or just getting old). But maybe D&D would do better to stop taking itself so seriously, adopt more of an attitude that "it's what you make of it", and stop tying every damn thing down into it's own little niches.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 15, 2011)

Delericho - just on the Harry Potter point - I'm not sure.  Considering you generally have between three to five choices every time you gain a new power (either encounter or daily), creating a specialized wizard isn't all that difficult.  The basic powers are the at-wills, and Prestidigitation covers 99% of the non-combat stuff like writing quills and the like.

I actually think you could do a Harry Potteresque wizard pretty well just with core 4e.

As far as "Wizard Olympics" and the like, I think that the big issue here isn't one of game design but one of legality.  JK Rowlings would crush WOTC if they came within a hundred yards of Quiddich in a product.  Back in the early days, when TSR rip... err... borrowed ideas from other people's IP, it was a fairly minor thing.  I mean, they outright used Moorcock's IP and what happened?  They had to pull it from the rerelease of the Dieties and Demigods.  These days, the lawsuits would be much more serious.

The days when RPG's companies could willy nilly lift IP to use are long behind us.  Look at the beating FASA took over the use of the various Mech's "borrowed" from Japanese anime.

There's no way WOTC's going to risk that sort of thing.  Hasbro would have a litter of kittens if they even suggested it.


----------



## delericho (Jan 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> As far as "Wizard Olympics" and the like, I think that the big issue here isn't one of game design but one of legality.  JK Rowlings would crush WOTC if they came within a hundred yards of Quiddich in a product.




That was why I said "Wizard Sports" and "Wizard Olympics", rather than "Quiddich" and "The Triwizard Tournament". Put bluntly, there is nothing original about those concepts, only the specific forms Rowling used - Hogwarts itself is nothing more than a Wizard-analogue to a somewhat old-fashioned UK public/boarding school *, and Quidditch is just an analogue of the rugby played in such schools (and, at the higher level, professionally).

Assuming WotC aren't stupid enough to just copy Quiddich/Triwizard, then Rowling doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

* I didn't attend a boarding school, but my school _did_ have a house system, and did have inter-house sporting and academic competition (though no-one really cared). Sadly, we learn magic, but then my school sucked.

And Eberron was specifically constructed as a setting that might exist if it evolved with the D&D magic system in place. Well, such a setting _would_ include sports, and some of those sports would be specifically suited for magewrights (and wizards, and others). Furthermore, if the Last War is an analogue for our historical First World War, then adding sports adds another area of potential interest - in the UK and elsewhere, many of the various football (soccer) teams were in existence. Of course, any leagues would have been disrupted by the War, but would be about ready to restart. But what happens now that the borders have shifted, and teams that were once in the same nation are now separated? How does the advent of the Warforged affect the makeup of the teams? And, since everyone knows there's another war coming, is there going to be an analogue of the Berlin Olympics?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 15, 2011)

Oh, fair enough.  And I can certainly see the place for magical sports.  Might even be fun.

But, if you put in a game where the contestants ride broomsticks and shoot balls through hoops, you're gonna get pummeled.    I think my point was, after all the legal wrangling through the 80's and even into the 90's, RPG companies are pretty gunshy about stepping on anyone's toes.

To be fair though, sports haven't exactly been presented in D&D very much ever.  I'd even go so far as to say most leisure activities have been given pretty short shrift.  And, really, I can see why.  Sure, I might like it, but, is there really a big call for Fantasy Football in D&D?  How much involvement is the average D&D group going to get out of a Bloodbowl tournament?


----------



## delericho (Jan 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, if you put in a game where the contestants ride broomsticks and shoot balls through hoops, you're gonna get pummeled.




Yes, you're absolutely right.



> To be fair though, sports haven't exactly been presented in D&D very much ever.  I'd even go so far as to say most leisure activities have been given pretty short shrift.  And, really, I can see why.




True. My bringing up sport _is_ directly a reaction to its place in Harry Potter - before then, fantasy didn't really have a big place for sport. However, if you're doing a "kinda-Harry Potter", you probably need something like it (and Wizard academies, and school rivalries and friendships, and the awkwardness of teenage dating... ah, then again, let's not bother  ). It's not enough to just be able to create a Harry Potter clone in 4e.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Delericho - just on the Harry Potter point - I'm not sure. Considering you generally have between three to five choices every time you gain a new power (either encounter or daily), creating a specialized wizard isn't all that difficult. The basic powers are the at-wills, and Prestidigitation covers 99% of the non-combat stuff like writing quills and the like.
> 
> I actually think you could do a Harry Potteresque wizard pretty well just with core 4e.
> 
> ...





kinda funny isn't it?

...when you consider that Harry Potter was originally a character in the movie Troll.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 15, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Scimitars?  Brigandine armor?  Middle eastern and Asian in origins.




You know there was trading and travel (Christopher Columbus 1492) during the middle ages (5th~15th century), so Europe got things like spices, honey, fireworks, and even scimitars and armor from other areas. So when saying the game was of European origins, it should be thought of as "things you could find in Europe", not "things only made in Europe"


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 15, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> kinda funny isn't it?
> 
> ...when you consider that Harry Potter was originally a character in the movie Troll.




If you check Google Books, he graduated from both Yale and Harvard, was a pyromaniac in New York, was a union man injured in a crash, was a big business man, and a host of other escapades prior to 1980. Harry Potter is not exactly a rare name.


----------



## scourger (Jan 15, 2011)

Yes, I think there is a way to do it: keep it accessible & familiar.  I mean, established gamers will buy into new editions as long as they are relatively easy to get into & keep many concepts that players already know (& love).  

Here is my own experience.  D&D peaked for me with 3.0.  I played all the prior editions from 1980 to 2000, to greater & lesser extents.  I played a lot of 2e and really liked it.  In fact, I started my 1st 3e game with a new group to "save" my 2e game for an established (but infrequent) group.  Ironically, after running 3e, I converted the 2e game to 3e.  d20 isn't what I would now call simple, but it was accessible and familiar enough to me to be easy to understand; and it kept much of what I already knew about the game.  I even branched into a couple of other d20 games and really liked that experience, too.  

3.5 (like its predecessor SWSE) was the beginning of edition fatigue for me.  It changed just enough to be different but not enough to really be worth the change.  I bought it--the core books.  I've played it, but it wouldn't seek it again.  I've run it, but I won't again.  I have and would go back to 3e.  

In fact, the D&D game I ran last year was a D&D minis skirmish campaign.  Basically a simpler d20 game.  What it lacked in depth, it more than made up for in being easy and fun.  I would have preferred something more robust with roleplay, but who has the time for all the rules and options that brings--not me at this point in my life.  I really only need the bad guy to do a few things that should be able to be summarized on a card that I can scan at the table.  I need the PCs to be able to do a lot more, especially with skills; but I can't have the game bogged down with all the NPCs and foes having the same complexity.  Plus, the minis and maps are so much fun on the tabletop when combat encounters are due.  

When 4e was announced, I figured it was my chance to get off the edition roller coaster.  A good friend and fellow gamer predicted that I would not do so.  In fact, he foresaw me embracing 4e even more than 3e.  He's usually right.  Not this time.  

I read the 4e previews and freebies that showed basically how it worked.  We even played a few sessions that one of our group ran.  Turned out it wasn't for me (or anyone else I game with).  4e just makes everything bigger without making it better.  The only thing I have purchased with the 4e brand is Hammerfast because I thought it was intriguing (turned out to be a great product, too).  Otherwise, 4e just doesn't appeal to me.  

Now, here's the curious part.  I love the new Gamma World, which is based on 4e.  But, it's simpler (accessible) and uses many foes that I remember from several editions of GW (familiar).  Even the rules hearken back to d20 in many ways (familiar).  I love the fire & forget nature of everything I need being in the box, including counters and maps (accessible).  I've even bought the first expansion and a couple of booster decks of cards.  I plan to buy more as I continue to run it.  If WOTC would market 4e (or 5e) the way GW is managed, I could become a good D&D customer again.  I won't buy it all, but I will buy some.  

So, that is my take on edition fatigue and how to cure it.  Keep new editions accessible & familiar.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The game is a pastiche of Europe and other cultures, Medieval and other times, fantasy, horror, sci-fi myth religions and comics.




But not of equal measure.  There is more from medieval Europe than all others combined (and by several multiples.)


That DnD is based on Medieval Europe is *clearly specified in the 2E DMG.*  No interpretation needed.

(Seriously, I find this discussion quite silly.  Having a scimitar in the game doesn't in any way change the medieval european foundation.  It just means that the game isn't _entirely, or strictly_ based on medieval Europe.)


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I do think WotC is silly not selling an evergreen "Dungeons & Dragons" in a box in toy stores that contains everything you need, with a presentation and complexity similar to the 1983 Mentzer Basic set (but more levels - say 10 levels).  Something the public could relate to and which would reliably bring in a continuous stream of new players.




You'd think WOTC would remember how successful BECMI was.  That was supposed to be an evergreen approach, something easily stocked in stores.  

And it was probably more successful than TSR imagined it would be, since it became the longest running version of DnD, 1978-1992 (depending on whether you combine the Mentzer and Moldvay books), and eventually became an entire game system of its own not just an intro version.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 16, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> If you check Google Books, he graduated from both Yale and Harvard, was a pyromaniac in New York, was a union man injured in a crash, was a big business man, and a host of other escapades prior to 1980. Harry Potter is not exactly a rare name.




You should see what Jerry Cornelius has been up to...


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 16, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> If you check Google Books, he graduated from both Yale and Harvard, was a pyromaniac in New York, was a union man injured in a crash, was a big business man, and a host of other escapades prior to 1980. Harry Potter is not exactly a rare name.





Rare name?  Nope, not at all.


However, Harry Potter from Troll was a young boy who couldn't quite seem to fit in with his family.  Through the events of the movie, he discovers that he has the potential to be a wizard and is given a wand by his mentor with which to battle against the BBEG.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 16, 2011)

> However, Harry Potter from Troll was a young boy who couldn't quite seem to fit in with his family. Through the events of the movie, he discovers that he has the potential to be a wizard and is given a wand by his mentor with which to battle against the BBEG.




The bespecticaled misfit who over time becomes a modern master of magic is not that uncommon either- see Tim Hunter for yet another example (he also had an owl).  Note that Hunter's creator said that he "wasn't the first writer to create a young magician with potential, nor was Rowling the first to send one to school."

Or what Dylan Horrocks said of Hunter and Potter:


> the superficial similarities are striking - but no more so than any number of other stories in the genre. As Gaiman has repeatedly said, he and Rowling were merely drinking from the same well. In fact, there was even a story in '2000AD' (called the Journals of Luke Kirby) which came out a few years before the 'Books of Magic,' which was extremely similar to both the 'BoM' and 'Harry Potter.' This is a genre - and Gaiman and Rowling are both playing with the conventions of the genre, to different ends.




Just add Harry Potter from Troll to the pile of similar characters.

(Besides, if it really were plagiarism, don't you think there would have been a lawsuit to drain a little bit of that _billion_ dollars J.K. Rowling got from her HP?)


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just add Harry Potter from Troll to the pile of similar characters.
> 
> (Besides, if it really were plagiarism, don't you think there would have been a lawsuit to drain a little bit of that _billion_ dollars J.K. Rowling got from her HP?)




Except for the exact same name "Harry Potter" being used, and it wouldn't be plagiarism so much as IP theft.

Speaking of names, again in regards to edition fatigue, putting so much presure on the name of the game to sell the product could be creating the fatigue, due to expectations people have, be they new with 4th what they expect of 5th, form 3rd what was expected form 4th and got drastic changes, etc.

Expectations of a name and the failing to provide those expectations can damage the player in regards to that name.

Technically editions don't have any fatigue to the players, because there are those that have been playing OD&D since it came out. The fatigue really is only a business perspective, unless the players just get tired of playing the same game over and over and switch games which has nothing to do with one particular game; because sales fatigue is actually waht is being discussed. The longevity of the edition to generate revenue is the only fatigue that really matters when a new edition is created.

Also these really aren't "editions" of D&D, but rather different versions as in many ways they are different games. Sure you could call AD&D the "Monopoloy Deluxe Edition", but even that you can play the original game with, or ad the deluxe parts and mechanics (if memory serves me), but with D&D AD&D you couldn't really play OD&D with.

So it is version fatigue, based on ability to sell more product for the version attempting to be sold under that name. And as with the "Harry Potter" dispute, the name is the key thing trying to be sold, or the thing that sells the version of the game as opposed to selling a new unrecognized game/brand.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 16, 2011)

> Except for the exact same name "Harry Potter" being used, and it wouldn't be plagiarism so much as IP theft.




Speaking as an Entertainment attorney, I'll just say that (barring something like parody or fair use) plagiarism = IP theft.  They would have sued if they thought they had a case.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Speaking as an Entertainment attorney, I'll just say that (barring something like parody or fair use) plagiarism = IP theft.  They would have sued if they thought they had a case.




Maybe this should be split to another thread, if this forum has that added feature, so as to not further derail this one, as there may be things about this that could be discussed about RPGs using the "Harry Potter" example, in to what all other things could revolve around this?

As the resident expert (I guess), I will let you get that thread started and then continue there. Maybe it will return to and related back to this thread as well link to the "reason for changes thread", which could all easily be rooted form the same concept where fatigue and change come from such things as what is mentioned here (Tolkien v TSR, etc.)


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Speaking as an Entertainment attorney, I'll just say that (barring something like parody or fair use) plagiarism = IP theft. They would have sued if they thought they had a case.





I wasn't quite suggesting I viewed it as plagiarism. Though, with Troll being an old movie, it would appears possible that Rowling had watched the movie at some point in her life. ...possibly had some inspiration from it in addition to other works she may have been familiar with before becoming a writer. It's not unheard of for writers and/or creators of entertainment to use ideas they themselves were entertained by; D&D at one point having Vancian casting would be an example. 

My point and what this has to do with the topic?

The wizard olympics idea had been mentioned. The issue of plagiarism was also mentioned. It's possible to be inspired by something and use it in your work without entirely ripping it off. If I were to write a fantasy novel, I imagine my fondness of R. Howard's work would come through in some way. It's even likely that there would be a barbarian character, but I'd avoid naming said barbarian 'Conan' or 'Kull.' Also, I'd make an effort to put my own creative energies into the work and tweak a few things to make it my own; inspired, but my own.


edit: I'll also add that one of my reasons for pointing this out was to show that a lot of ideas we think are 'new' aren't always quite as original as we always believe.  I would see the idea of wizard olympics being used no less noble than the odd coincidence of two boy wizards named Harry Potter.  Now, that being said, with Harry Potter being more fresh in the collective minds of people as well as more popular than Troll, you'd probably get more negative attention from re-using the idea so soon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 16, 2011)

> I'll also add that one of my reasons for pointing this out was to show that a lot of ideas we think are 'new' aren't always quite as original as we always believe.




Agreed!

I know a lot of people dismiss the Shanarra books as a direct ripoff of LotR, but others have pointed out that Brooks was a big fan of the same sources J.R.R.T. used to create his masterwork...and how many elements from LotR can be found in the fairytales and legends of Europe.

And the thing is, as a fan, it is VERY tempting to defend or uphold the talent of our favorites...who may be more aware than we of the real story behind the stories.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

With the Terry Brooks example though, it goes a bit farther - to the point where you have almost identical _scenes_ lifted almost verbatim from LotR.  To be fair though, this really only applies to the first Shanarra book.  But, Brooks was skating pretty darn close to the source IMO.  Then again, in the 1970's, you could get away with far more than you could today.

Which was my origininal point about the whole "wizard olympics" thing.  Game companies certainly could put out a book about a wizard school - there is an RPG aimed at younger female gamers about witches at a wizard's school that could easily be turned into a Harry Potter RPG.  ((Sorry, forgot the name of the game right now))

But, that's a small time press thing an likely never going to come onto anyone's radar.  If WOTC does the same thing, people are going to notice and I'm sure that Hasbro's legal department would be all over WOTC like a cheap suit if they tried.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> With the Terry Brooks example though, it goes a bit farther - to the point where you have almost identical _scenes_ lifted almost verbatim from LotR.  To be fair though, this really only applies to the first Shanarra book.  But, Brooks was skating pretty darn close to the source IMO.  Then again, in the 1970's, you could get away with far more than you could today.




There are huge names- authors & critics alike- on both sides of the debate.  Brooks himself admits the influence, but cites other works as well, including suggestions from his editor, Lester Del Rey.



> Which was my origininal point about the whole "wizard olympics" thing.  Game companies certainly could put out a book about a wizard school - there is an RPG aimed at younger female gamers about witches at a wizard's school that could easily be turned into a Harry Potter RPG.
> 
> But, that's a small time press thing an likely never going to come onto anyone's radar.  If WOTC does the same thing, people are going to notice and I'm sure that Hasbro's legal department would be all over WOTC like a cheap suit if they tried.




I agree, to a point.  Since you can't copyright game rules, it could be done...as long as it wasn't called "quidditch."  (That is how its spelled, right?).  Still, your instincts are right about the legal eagles on both sides: I doubt Hasbro/WotC would put such a game on the market without an OK from Rowling's camp, if for no other reason than to spare the company an expensive lawsuit.  Win or lose, Hasbro would lose money & time...as well as getting bad press.


----------



## Krensky (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The days when RPG's companies could willy nilly lift IP to use are long behind us.  Look at the beating FASA took over the use of the various Mech's "borrowed" from Japanese anime.




As a point of order, FASA borrowed nothing. They licensed the right to use the mechanical designs for the Macross variable fighters and destroids, along with a few other mecha designs. They got scared by the complex and downright weird status of the Macross IP and the long running legal fight between Studio Nue, Big West, Tatsunoko Productions, Playmates, and Harmony Gold. So they dropped all the licensed designs.


----------



## delericho (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Maybe this should be split to another thread, if this forum has that added feature, so as to not further derail this one, as there may be things about this that could be discussed about RPGs using the "Harry Potter" example, in to what all other things could revolve around this?




Agreed. In any event, my point wasn't just about the viability of dropping a Harry Potter clone into D&D and calling it done.

What I had hoping to get at was that the umbrella of fantasy that D&D encompasses seems to have shrunk in time, as it's all become quite formalised and po-faced. Consider some of the early modules like "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" or "Dungeonland". WotC would _never_ publish anything like these now, any more than they'd clone Harry Potter, Pokemon or the dragon-riders of Eragon. They just don't fit the notion of what "D&D fantasy" is any more.

And I think that's a loss for the game - sure, you or I may not like them, and may be relieved at such things no longer having a place, but then, _we_ don't need to buy/use them.

But maybe to someone else they're exactly the change that's needed. Maybe they're the thing that inspires the designer of the future to take his game off in some new and unexpected direction, and...

As it is, we see much the same things we've seen for the past 30+ years: yet another variant of the high-fantasy Adventure Path (last time was a rising Dark Lord, this time it's snake-men, next time it's drow, awesome!), or yet another variant of the low-fantasy sandbox. Again, and again, and again. It's no wonder we're fatigued!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

Now that Del, I'll totally agree with.

I WANT MORE WEIRD IN MY GAME PLEASE!!!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

Failing in my role as Hussar's sock puppet - I'm not sure I want more weird. (I don't mind others getting it, provided it doesn't get too much in the way of me getting what I want. Although personally, I'd have to wonder whether anyone really likes Dungeonland/Beyond the Magic Mirror. I'm not sure they're the pinnacle of module design even by the standards of weird.)

But even within more conventional high fantasy constraints, I would like modules that are more open to moral and thematic possibilities than WotC has given us (either in 3E or 4e). Compare the Atlas Games Penumbra modules, for example, to anything WotC has produced. 


Or look at Bastion of Broken Souls -


*SPOILERS BELOW*


- an angel is the lock to a prison, and saving the unborn souls of the universe requires opening that prison, and the module presents only the option of fighting the angel (when I GMed this, one of the PCs persuaded the angel to let him kill her - the module as written doesn't allow for this)

- inside the prison is a banished god who has a crucial artefact for saving those unborn souls, and the module presents only the option of fighting the god (when I GMed this, the PCs befriended the god - in part on the basis of having already befriended a dead god who had been the banished god's friend before he died - and he gave them the artefact to borrow - but this required overriding the express text of the module)

- another source of information is a night hag, who (once again) the module assumes must be fought (when I ran it, the PCs struck an uneasy agreement with her when she released she couldn't fight them and win, and she gave them the information they needed in exchange for her freedom).

This module has the potential to be a really interesting epic adventure, but as written is just a sequence of combats that are meaningless slogs - and needlessly so, because they have all the seeds of engaging roleplaying encounters written into them.

What is wrong with WotC?


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 18, 2011)

I´m of two minds regarding weird, mostly because most writers hit my kind of humour. OTOH I´m reading Clark Ashton Smiths Tales of Zothique to pass the time during public transit an stuff like the stranded alien in "The Tomb-Spawn" really enhance the setting for me.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]:

I think it´s hard to do morality and thics right, especially in a game. You really run the risk of offending some readers sensibilities there. Also, add that there has to be a certain level of maturity and self-reflecten for it to work. And, to tell the truth, nothing against hard moral choices but I for one am gaming for recreation so while it´s fine for some intelectual stimulus, it doesn´t help me on escapism.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Failing in my role as Hussar's sock puppet - I'm not sure I want more weird. (I don't mind others getting it, provided it doesn't get too much in the way of me getting what I want. Although personally, I'd have to wonder whether anyone really likes Dungeonland/Beyond the Magic Mirror. I'm not sure they're the pinnacle of module design even by the standards of weird.)




I certainly wouldn't hold those modules up as high art to be emulated. But it does seem to me that there's something there that WotC would just never touch at all. Sure, we can have the Vorpal Sword and Jabberwocky from Carroll, but Pelor forbid we touch anything else! There is no place for whimsy in our product; D&D is _serious business!!_

I'd just like to see WotC push the envelope more, be more open to other aspects of fantasy than the endless quest for the next power-up. And not even all the time, either - but let's have some variety to our diet.



> But even within more conventional high fantasy constraints, I would like modules that are more open to moral and thematic possibilities than WotC has given us (either in 3E or 4e). Compare the Atlas Games Penumbra modules, for example, to anything WotC has produced.
> 
> What is wrong with WotC?




Back when Paizo did Dungeon, they made a point in each of their Adventure Paths to have one "odd" adventure. Maybe the PCs have to intrigue at the mad tyrant's dinner party, or break someone out of an extra-planar prison without their gear (not actually from an AP, but you get the idea), or whatever.

Of course, those adventures invariably got mixed reviews. That's probably inevitable if you're doing something different - some people will love it, but some will _hate_ it, whereas with the "same old thing", everyone will at least be comfortable.

But it does occur to me that eDungeon (or whatever succeeds it) is probably the ideal place for this sort of experimentation. Sure, you do your Adventure Paths (or whatever), and the 'standard' adventures to be dropped in any campaign anywhere. But also, in addition to these adventures of general utility, every so often you throw in something a bit offbeat - the PCs are trapped in the mad dreams of a tortured ex-Paladin, the PCs must recruit allies to swing a vote against the deforestation of the elven nation, the PCs are turned into kobolds and thrown into a ditch and must make their way home. Or something.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

Del said:
			
		

> I'd just like to see WotC push the envelope more, be more open to other aspects of fantasy than the endless quest for the next power-up. And not even all the time, either - but let's have some variety to our diet.




I have a module kicking around here somewhere, The Silver Key (I think that's the name) from 2e where the PC's are polymorphed into orcs in order to infiltrate an orcish city and retrieve... well the Silver Key.  

The trick in the module is the addition of what they call Orc Points.  Every time you do something orcish, anyone at the table can nominate you for an orc point and if the majority of the table agrees, you get one.  Every orc point is worth a fairly big chunk of xp.  However, if the orc points exceed your Wisdom (or maybe Cha, it's been a while since I read this module) you are permanently transformed into an orc with an orc's mentality.

The writers even extend a bit of meta game to this - if the player swears out of character but still at the table, he gets an orc point.  Striking another player, even as a joke, gets you an orc point.  That sort of thing.  I ran this module a couple of times and it was hillarious every time.  Really a good hit.

I'd love to see more of this sort of thing in modules.  WOTC really, REALLY needs to get some creative mojo going for their modules.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I have a module kicking around here somewhere, The Silver Key (I think that's the name) from 2e where the PC's are polymorphed into orcs in order to infiltrate an orcish city and retrieve... well the Silver Key.




In 4e the players would be horrified at this.  "I'm an orc?? What about my POWRZ??"


----------



## Mallus (Jan 18, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> In 4e the players would be horrified at this.  "I'm an orc?? What about my POWRZ??"



Don't be silly, in 4e the PC orcs would have ORC POWRZ!!

note: this is not a criticism of 4e...


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> In 4e the players would be horrified at this.  "I'm an orc?? What about my POWRZ??"




See, this is why this is such a difficult conversation to have.  

I don't know if you're just making a joke or not Chainsaw Mage, but, there are more than a few people who actually seem to mean it when they say this kind of thing.  During 3e there were all sorts of this sort of criticism thrown around that 3e players were nothing but combat wombat power monkeys.

As if somehow picking up a particular ruleset will strip away any role playing ability the player has and picking up another ruleset will magically inject it directly into the player's brain.

I've met players in all editions would would love The Silver Key and players in every edition that would absolutely hate it.  

Role playing is not edition dependent.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 19, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> In 4e the players would be horrified at this.  "I'm an orc?? What about my POWRZ??"




Ah, you mean like "What? I´m an orc now? I want my Elf racial traits back!" or "What? I´m an orc now? Then I can´t be a ranger anymore!". Blame the player, not the system.


----------

