Good question Walker.
 
The suits knew that D&D was like World of Warcraft except without the Internet and the monthly subscription. From the way the DI died an ignoble "lock it in the attic and wait for it to die" kinda death, I'm confident that it's was never meant to be. It was just an illusion to placate the bean counters. "Gee boss, it was exactly like WoW except it failed completely. I guess everyone but you was right after all!"
 
Secondly, I think that the suits did not understand secret mojo of D&D and were therefore afraid of making sweeping changes unless the game was broken. I suspect that's the real reason why the design team was so ruthless to previous editions -- to make it appear broken so they could fix it. They created a substantial problem (in the minds of the bean counters) to get permission to scrap the old game and rebuild it from the ground up.
 
In short, the bean counters gave away artistic control in exchange for digital initiative garbage, previous edition smack talk, and the risk of alienating the Settites. The designers got what they wanted except they ran into a deadline and had to waste time on management stuff.

You do know that Mearls is not the "marquee name", on all three books. In fact his name appears on the Monster Manual cover, as well  as something like "Final Development Strike team", and "Development", but not credited with the design.

I must admit, I like 4E better than 3E on the surface. I think it looks to be a very good (if complex) tabletop miniature game. It seems to do what OD&D did, and do it well. It is definatly aimed away from the "theatrical" or "actor" style of play.  Guess where I fall on that spectrum? I'm going to give it a try with one of my groups, then likely go back to playing my FRPG, and things like Talislanta.

Well, Sett is basicaly asking if someone left WotC after publishing of 4e. I think none of their emploees left after that, so mine answer is no.

As someone who wears suits and counts beans for a living, I wish I had the same kind of authority that some people seem to attribute to the suit wearing bean counters at Hasbro. If I were feeling sceptical, I'd wonder how much some people actually knew about the way most large organisation actually opperate.

Quote from: jrients;245521If I was designing a new edition of D&D and I was under the gun to make it a commercial success I'd take a good hard look at prior successful editions of the game.  Why did OD&D bust out of wargames and create a new genre of game all its own?  How did the 1st edition PHB manage to stay in print as a profitable venture after 2nd edition AD&D came out?  Why were the '81 and '83 Basic sets such huge hits?

One, that's all subjective. Two, I'm not sure what you're saying is true. And, three, do I need to understand FORTRAN to write an app for Facebook?

Seanchai

Quote from: Silverlion;245633It seems to do what OD&D did, and do it well.

What would that be...and are you basing this judgment on having read/played OD&D?

Quote from: Seanchai;245695One, that's all subjective. Two, I'm not sure what you're saying is true. And, three, do I need to understand FORTRAN to write an app for Facebook?

FORTRAN and Facebook are not a good analogy. A better example would be learning what made the first versions of Wordstar and WordPerfect so great to make a new Word Processor.

Also another thing breaking your analogy is that that D&D was a game. Games as such are timeless. See Yahtzee, Monopoly, and so on. There nothing obsolete about the rules of 1974 OD&D.  Sure their presentation sucks compared to today's standards but that an issue of technical writing and marketing not whether the game itself is obsolete.

By their nature RPGs are indefinitely expandable in a number of areas. Unfortunately old TSR in their drive to retain their market leadership allowed the system to become ever more complex. Rather than keeping a core set of Basic/Expert D&D they choose to cater to the hard core segment.

D&D disappeared off of the shelves of Toys R US and other places where mass market games are sold. While you have D&D and other RPGs in Barnes & Nobles and other mass market bookstore that is not the first place where most people go to look for a game to play.

Plus despite is lack of realism and lack of "stuff to fiddle with for characters" Basic D&D is a simple game to learn and pick up. It is the original lite system. Especially when you use the Holmes/Moldavy/Mentzer rulebooks.

With the rise of computers, internet, card games, and finally MMORPG alternative games were formed and pared off a segment of the core audience that fueled D&D rise. If D&D wants to grow then it need to reach back out and be accessible to the general population.

The only RPG that had a proven track record at doing this was Basic D&D of the Holmes/Moldavy/Mentzer lineage.

Quote from: estar;245702Also another thing breaking your analogy is that that D&D was a game. Games as such are timeless.

Really? When was the last time you saw a group of children playing with a hoop and stick? Mansion of Happiness? Drop the Hankerchief? Clearly, games are not timeless. Moreover, what folks want and expect out of them change with the times.

Quote from: estar;245702The only RPG that had a proven track record at doing this was Basic D&D of the Holmes/Moldavy/Mentzer lineage.

You say it has a proven track record, yet all you've offered is supposition. When you can put another game in OD&D's place and have it fail, then you can demonstrate that OD&D's success was due to some factor instrinsic to the OD&D rule set.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;245738Really? When was the last time you saw a group of children playing with a hoop and stick? Mansion of Happiness? Drop the Hankerchief? Clearly, games are not timeless. Moreover, what folks want and expect out of them change with the times.

Of course NOT all games sell year after year. Use some common sense.

Quote from: Seanchai;245738You say it has a proven track record, yet all you've offered is supposition. When you can put another game in OD&D's place and have it fail, then you can demonstrate that OD&D's success was due to some factor instrinsic to the OD&D rule set.

Mentzer D&D was pulled from Toys R Us because of the edition change to 2nd. Subsequent editions had starter sets which had none of the value or appeal of the earlier Basic OD&D boxed sets. Sales tanked and the company moved away from boxed sets altogether to hardback which don't fit with toy stores.

So yes there was another game, the starter sets, put in Mentzer D&D place and tanked.

Quote from: estar;245750Mentzer D&D was pulled from Toys R Us because of the edition change to 2nd. Subsequent editions had starter sets which had none of the value or appeal of the earlier Basic OD&D boxed sets. Sales tanked and the company moved away from boxed sets altogether to hardback which don't fit with toy stores.

No.  Although my evidence is only anecdotal.  It's probably more that Toys R Us and the other major chains carrying the game intentionally stopped doing so.  Even before AD&D2 came along, every major retailer carrying RPGs was trying to get rid of their stock at total liquidation prices.

My Mentzer sets were purchased from Toys R Us during this era.  They were variously marked $2.50 or $5.00 each.  At that point the games weren't enjoying healthy sales.  They were dead stock the stores were just trying to unload.

Quote from: Gabriel2;245765No.  Although my evidence is only anecdotal.  It's probably more that Toys R Us and the other major chains carrying the game intentionally stopped doing so.  Even before AD&D2 came along, every major retailer carrying RPGs was trying to get rid of their stock at total liquidation prices.

My Mentzer sets were purchased from Toys R Us during this era.  They were variously marked $2.50 or $5.00 each.  At that point the games weren't enjoying healthy sales.  They were dead stock the stores were just trying to unload.

I guess we will need some hard data then because I remember this happening after AD&D2.

But then the alternative is that TSR over printed which they often did when Lorraine Williams was in charge.

Quote from: estar;245750Of course NOT all games sell year after year.

"Games as such are timeless." Pick an argument and stick with it.  

Quote from: estar;245750So yes there was another game, the starter sets, put in Mentzer D&D place and tanked.

I meant another game entirely. And by in its place, I don't mean just on the shelf. The point being, you can't say another totally different game in similar circumstances wouldn't have produced the same results.

For example, if you could file the serial numbers off OD&D and 4e, then release them, would grogards still love OD&D and hate 4e? I'd bet their feelings for the two wouldn't be remotely as strong.

Given that and to return to my point, there's not necessarily a point in studying OD&D because 4e's designers can't replicate grognard's love of olde school. It's not intrinsic to the rules set; it arose from the situation.

Seanchai

Quote from: Jaeger;245318I'm starting to get the impression that those who didn't like/switch to 4e are having a hard time accepting that they are now in the  "everybody else" category.

I completely understand.   I was a big fan of AD&D 1e.  When 2e came along, I did not see the point in "upgrading", but I enjoyed the settings, especially Planescape.   When 3e came out, I tried to get into the game, but after playing 20+ times, I decided I would rather not play anything than play 3e.

It was weird going from "D&D fan" to an outsider in the D&D community.  I greatly enjoy 4e as a fantasy skirmish boardgame, and I imagine the 3e fans who don't like 4e are having that same experience where you have to accept that you have been kicked out of the clubhouse.

However, unlike in 2000, there is Pathfinder and many OGL / D20 resources immediately available to 3e fans.   And fortunately, there are now fan resources available today to fans of all editions of D&D.

Quote from: Seanchai;245785Given that and to return to my point, there's not necessarily a point in studying OD&D because 4e's designers can't replicate grognard's love of olde school. It's not intrinsic to the rules set; it arose from the situation.

My view on this is, you're right, but for the wrong reasons. For the time and for the people who made up the original generations of D&D players, the boardgamification and design-heavy approach that's accelerated from 3e onward would not have caught on the way that OD&D and AD&D1e did.

But I think people who call for a new version of Moldvay or Mentzer Basic are simply missing the fact that the culture and society have changed.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;245819But I think people who call for a new version of Moldvay or Mentzer Basic are simply missing the fact that the culture and society have changed.

The point is that the world most popular RPG requires $50+ dollars in order to play it thus limiting it's appeal to novices. That the system incorporated in the latest is of average complexity and not at all easy for novices  to pick up.

That any other RPG simply doesn't have the brand name nor the market penetration to serve as a gateway for introducing people to role-playing games.

That the Moldavy/Mentzer edition updated with new layout, new art, and new packaging would be a far better system to introduce novices to roleplaying.

It not a question of a time gone past it is a question of getting new players in the hobby period. Currently Wizards has gone off the deep end in this regard.