delve
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 170
|
Post by delve on Jul 18, 2009 14:03:37 GMT -6
Hiya folks, I just wanted to see what others thought about this topic. I know it may spark up some talk but that's what a forum is for anyways.
Once a concept is out of the creators hands is it really the same concept anymore?. How many versions of D&D do we really need anyways?. Was the original concept that bad, that it needed so many revisions?. It captured the imagination of thousands and it still has the power to do it again. Will there ever be a final version of the rules? Or will we keep buying it cause it's NEW and new means better, or does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jul 18, 2009 16:32:29 GMT -6
I think there will continue to be new editions of D&D as long as times, tastes, and experiences change. That doesn't mean earlier editions are bad, just that they were made for their own time and place.
|
|
benoist
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
OD&D, AD&D, AS&SH
Posts: 346
|
Post by benoist on Jul 18, 2009 18:16:07 GMT -6
New editions are about cash, coin, bread, dough, dollars, pez, moolah... money.
It's not about making the game better. It might be for a revised edition, if the author(s) didn't get it right the first time around, but afterwards? It's just a question of marketing.
If your game is really good, all it's going to need is printings with minor fixes. Cf. Call of Cthulhu. Otherwise, either the authors/designers changed and want to start from scratch because the original game isn't theirs, or the original authors aren't that good to begin with, and/or the company tries to squeeze every single dollar it can from the brand.
In all cases, it's kind of lame, when you think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 19, 2009 5:29:00 GMT -6
I think with a game like D&D that people are encouraged to be creative, and when people are creative they want to share their stuff.
The OD&D boxed set from '74 is a complete game in its own right. Sure it might have been more clear in its presentation, but it's all there. Except that folks thought that it would be fun to play a ranger. Or an illusionist. Or a bard. And those pesky supplements gave us more options. Once you move away from "core" rulebooks, organization tends to be lost. "Um, was that rule in supplement III?" Once you lost organization, it's natural to re-do things to bring it back. To re-write things that were unclear and to bring in things from supplements and magazines that weren't there in the first place. And this is always the first step in the road to you-know-where.
OD&D+Supplements sort of becomes AD&D, and in many ways AD&D is better than OD&D because it's more organized. But AD&D wasn't "complete" because Dragon magazine kept puttung out new ideas and variants, and Gary was writing Unearthed Arcana. Eventually there are enough new supplements that we're back where we started, where organization is lost again. You can argue it's about money (they were in a business, after all) but it's still about creativity.
Dungeons & Dragons is different from many other RPGs in that there were two parallel product lines, D&D and AD&D, and they aren't quite the same game. This adds even more editions and gives the illusion that it's changing twice as fast as it really is. After 30 years, T&T has reached some of the same problems by promoting a new 7E while actively supporting the old 5E. T&T has many players who love 7E but is finding an amazing number who are more into the "old school T&T" of 5E, so they have an edition split less venomous but otherwise similar to D&D/AD&D.
Enough years pass and it's a new group of people doing the writing, and with new ideas. The new guys say "the old ranger stinks" or "I don't like the way AC goes down as armor gets better" or whatever, so they try to fix what they percieve as a problem. This spawns more and more editions, as well as fragmenting those who like rule X from those who dislike rule X. Add to that the fact that some editions serve to "cut off" earlier authors from their product and you get further motivation other than simply money.
It's exploding now, thanks to the internet and the SRD. Now everyone and their cousin can type up some "clone" rules and market them. We've got BFRPG, OSRIC, S&W in two flavors, C&C S&S, LL, and a host of others out there. Each is a product of creativity and authors who want to tweak the game the way they like it. Some are also motivated by cash. Each further fragments the market somewhat, since there are only a certain number of games that can be run and those games are now run under different rules systems. Gary's AD&D vision of "one rules set to rule them all" would appear to be farther and farther from ever coming to pass, but in many ways his OD&D and AD&D games (in one variant or another) are more popular than ever.
So ... do we need so many editions? No.
Will we ever unify back into a single edition (such as OD&D)? No.
Is that a bad thing? Probably not.
Just my two coppers worth...
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 19, 2009 18:53:25 GMT -6
It's the age-old dilemma. The only game that's "complete" is the one that's no longer being supported. Every time you put out another book, whether rulebook, sourcebook, or adventure, you're adding to the game as a whole. Metamorphosis Alpha never had a supplement or additional rulebook, just some articles in The Dragon. As a result, it pretty much disappeared without a trace (except for the fortunate fact that Jim Ward owns it himself; it didn't go to WOTC when they bought TSR. So it's still out there, and the fourth edition is much more of an expansion than a change of the underlying system).
Of course, not all of those things are necessary; one could stick with the three core books of OD&D, or AD&D, or 4e, or whatever, and say "that's it; anything else I need I'll invent myself."
But that doesn't keep game publishers in business.
I thought a good strategy was the one Steve Jackson used for GURPS: A core book (or two) and a bunch of supplements giving various additional rules for specific settings (or similar; you know what I mean). Add this to the already successful board/card game company and you have a company that is diversified enough to carry on for quite a while. (Of course, this success has to have a downside. Anybody hoping for a reprint of Ogre may be waiting for quite a while, because it's nowhere near as popular as Munchkin.)
See, this is where the business/hobby dichotomy comes right to the fore. Those of us that are hobbyists are content to have some rules and make up the rest. Others, the current crop of "completist" buyers, feel the need to own the whole thing (whether they have the time or energy to digest it all). (When 4e was announced, a friend of mine groaned "I don't want to have to shell out another two thousand dollars!")
Whew, that got kind of rambly, didn't it? Sorry.
Anyway, the basic question: How many editions of D&D do we need? Just one, of course. Except that it's a different one depending on who you ask.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2009 19:13:02 GMT -6
Anyway, the basic question: How many editions of D&D do we need? Just one, of course. Except that it's a different one depending on who you ask. That is a useful and well-wrought response. You get an exalt for that! |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 20, 2009 2:24:11 GMT -6
Anyway, the basic question: How many editions of D&D do we need? Just one, of course. Except that it's a different one depending on who you ask. That is a useful and well-wrought response. You get an exalt for that! Thanks! I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jul 20, 2009 16:51:45 GMT -6
As long as there are RPG's there will be revisions and editions. It has become an industry standard for good or ill. The problem lies in exactly where the RPG lies as a game. Coming from the hobbies wargame roots where rules did need to be revised, expanded and updated to clarify confusion, account for new data (new historical finds, etc) and make the game more complete. I think this may account for some of the revising done in RPG's
I don't think all new editions and revisions are for cash or some ill intent on companies to separate gamers from their money. I'd say quite a few games that have multiple editions have those editions because they were needed either by clarification or rules unwieldiness. Even if it is for money you can't fault the companies since in the end they are a business; and businesses die without money. Even Tim Kask acknowledges things were done in the early days to grow the business and make money.
Now, my personal opinion is that revisions and editions should follow a distinct design pattern, where one should be able to trace changes in the evolution of the system. Any time that pattern is disrupted where the next edition is grossly different from the last it should be considered as a derivative not the next step in a logical growth. Sometimes edition is a misnomer tacked on for comprehension.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick krebs on Jul 21, 2009 7:28:36 GMT -6
Do Monopoly & Risk add anything to the discussion ?
|
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jul 21, 2009 16:13:22 GMT -6
I found this in that other thread, with the link to the interview with Gygax in an issue of White Dwarf.
Personally, I like to think of 4E not as a replacement or an upgrade for OD&D, but simply as a different form. 4E, to me, is that sophisticated "expert" version that Gary was talking about.
|
|
