But 3e materials were all intended to be usable with the 3e core books. 3.5 was a change, but not one that specifically invalidated the 3e books. People could, and did, and do play with a mix of 3e and 3.5 materials. The fact that 3e was a different game than AD&D doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be evergreen by itself. Hell, it wasn't even called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons - it was simply called "Dungeons & Dragons" and the 3rd edition therefore refers to being the iteration after the Basic/Expert rules rather than the iteration of AD&D after 2nd.

4e is the point where they literally start having monthly updates and planned obsolescence. 3e could have been kept alive indefinitely as an evergreen product. In fact, pathfailure people claim to be doing exactly that.

-Frank

Quote from: Gabriel2;395393The only nice thing I can say nowadays about Palladium is that they seem to be the only company I can say uses an evergreen model.  They keep worthless crap like Recon and Ninjas & Superspies in print.  KS has only ever let a few things go permanently out of print.  Otherwise, products stay in the catalog forever.

It may be easier to go the evergreen route like Palladium, when it is a small one-person operation (ie. Kevin).

Time spent on creating a completely different new core ruleset, is time that isn't spent on cranking out new supplement books.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;395601In fact, pathfailure people claim to be doing exactly that.

We'll see in a few years whether they go the "thriving by inertia" evergreen route of Palladium, or if their true colors actually resemble WotC or Mongoose.

Quote from: Gabriel2;395589Meanwhile, Hasbro and WotC are reinventing the entire game every 2 years.

They're not the only ones doing this.

Mongoose has been doing this for their product lines too, like clockwork.

For example, the first Mongoose Runequest 1 (MRQ1) was first released in mid-2006 and petered out by early-mid 2009.  They released around 50 titles for MRQ1 over three years.

The second Mongoose Runequest 2 (MRQ2) was first released this past January 2010.  So far over the last six months, they already released ten MRQ2 titles already (not including unreleased titles in the pipeline).

FrankTrollman, you are obviously talking about the products being evergreen within a timespan of perhaps 2 or 3 years.  I'm, perhaps unfairly and idealistically, thinking about a longer timeframe.

Perhaps it would be better to phrase it this way.  Why do RPGs not seem to have an identity outside their brand name?  As far as long term play is concerned, the D&D mechanics are irrelevant.  A player from 1992, 2002, and 2009 will all have vastly different ideas of the mechanics of how playing D&D works.  None of the three are playing anything resembling the same game mechanically.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it really seems like this is considered the norm in RPGs.  There is no mechanical identity to the games.  They are just brand names.  This is even supported in the Palladium evergreen case above.  KS doesn't really give a damn about his game's mechanics, thus the current state of his rules.

Hopefully that's not seen as moving the goalposts, because that's not the intent.  It's just that there aren't many stable elements of our hobby.

Quote from: Gabriel2;395605Hopefully that's not seen as moving the goalposts, because that's not the intent.  It's just that there aren't many stable elements of our hobby.

The fantasy rpg tropes are fairly stable: elves, dwarfs, orcs, goblins, fighter, wizard, cleric, thief/rogue, medieval weapons, castles, trolls, dragons, etc ...

Quote from: Gabriel2;395605FrankTrollman, you are obviously talking about the products being evergreen within a timespan of perhaps 2 or 3 years.  I'm, perhaps unfairly and idealistically, thinking about a longer timeframe.

No. I'm talking about how the 3e version of Oriental Adventures was still being used entirely successfully with materials published by WotC seven years later and that right now there are Pathfinder books published this month that people are using successfully in their games with the Oriental Adventures hardback that was now published nine years ago. If you have some other meaning of "evergreen" I don't even know what it is. The entire hobby is still only four times that age.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;395608No. I'm talking about how the 3e version of Oriental Adventures was still being used entirely successfully with materials published by WotC seven years later and that right now there are Pathfinder books published this month that people are using successfully in their games with the Oriental Adventures hardback that was now published nine years ago.

I can see your argument about D&D3.0, even if I don't agree with it.  But Pathfinder is irrelevant to the conversation because it isn't D&D.

So let's take this beyond D&D.

I've named the Star Fleet Battles Captain's Edition Basic Set as a game which is 20 years old and, for good or ill, is still purchasable under the same name with the same rules and a familiar format.  I know this because I recently got a new player into the game (great spaghetti monster forgive me).

So, just name some current games that existed at least 10 years ago and are still currently supported.  The current editions must have the same mechanics and more or less the same core product(s) as back then.  The gist is that they must be identifiable by someone who hasn't kept up with gaming for the past 10 years who is only looking at product spines.  To use your example, D&D is going to jump off the shelf but not be the D&D the player is going to identify with.  The currently supported edition is not the same product.  The same person isn't going to have any fucking clue what Pathfinder is and isn't going to have any inclination to look at it.  It's not the same product either.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe evergreen products of this sort are much more common than I think.  That's why I started the thread.

Would "Call of Cthulhu" be considered an evergreen title?

Outside of rpg games, what would be considered "evergreen"?

For example, which of these would be considered "evergreen"?

- Ozzy Osbourne
- the Beatles
- chess
- poker
- CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York
- Motley Crue
- Nirvana
- Cher
- Sheryl Crow
- Guns 'N Roses
- Wile E. Coyote
- Ani DiFranco
- Britney Spears
- Al Sharpton
- Miami Vice
- Mr. T
- Gary Condit
- John F. Kennedy
- New Kids on the Block

?

Quote from: Gabriel2;395620So, just name some current games that existed at least 10 years ago and are still currently supported.  The current editions must have the same mechanics and more or less the same core product(s) as back then.

Well, there's your problem, negation is included in your premises. Something is "still supported" in the RPG industry if they are still making rules for it. If something is "supported" for ten years, then the rules won't be the same as they were ten years ago.

But I can still buy a 3rd edition Player's Handbook, and I can get an adventure that is vaguely compatible with it that was published in the last thirty days. Those two publishing events are ten years apart. What the fuck do you want?

There are more people playing 3rd edition games in gaming conventions than anyone has ever been able to wrangle together GURPS tables. For that matter, does GURPS count? What about HERO system? Both of those are essentially recognizable from their halcyon days in the mid 1980s.

-Frank

Quote from: ggroy;395625Outside of rpg games, what would be considered "evergreen"?

For example, which of these would be considered "evergreen"?

- Ozzy Osbourne
- the Beatles
- chess
- poker
- CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York
- Motley Crue
- Nirvana
- Cher
- Sheryl Crow
- Guns 'N Roses
- Wile E. Coyote
- Ani DiFranco
- Britney Spears
- Al Sharpton
- Miami Vice
- Mr. T
- Gary Condit
- John F. Kennedy
- New Kids on the Block

?

What?!

Dude, what RPGs should be comparing themselves to are RISK, Clue, Monopoly, Stratego, Battleship, etc.. there are shitloads of GAMES that are evergreen.

That said, the "evergreen" model might not be practical for all RPGs, the smaller ones probably need something beside that. But one of the biggest mistakes made by the RPG industry was not having an Evergreen version of the D&D game (probably the Basic/expert set) that would not actually change rules every three years.  

RPGPundit

HASBRO already screwed up the "evergreen" model with some of the traditional family games that they own the rights to.

 Specifically: RISK.

The standard version our distributor sends us is in a red, white, and black box with odd symbols for the armies and the country/continent colors aren't what people are used to.
 I get customers walking in that want the RISK that they grew up with to play with other dating/married couples or their kids - and the current version is NOT what they want. They wanmt the classic map, the little clear boxes to hold the aermies, and the pirces in classic shapes. *

Hell, there has been at least four versions of "Connect Four" in the past seven years that I've worked at the game store.  Some of those changed packaging or artwork as well during the time the version was abvailable.  They can't even let 'Connect Four' alone for pity's sake.


- Ed C.

*...and  I wasn't even talking about RISK 2210, RISK: Godstorm, or the temporarily/limited availability of RISK: Lord Of The Rings, RISK: Transformers,  RISK : Star Wars,....etc

Quote from: FrankTrollman;395601But 3e materials were all intended to be usable with the 3e core books. 3.5 was a change, but not one that specifically invalidated the 3e books. People could, and did, and do play with a mix of 3e and 3.5 materials. The fact that 3e was a different game than AD&D doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be evergreen by itself. Hell, it wasn't even called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons - it was simply called "Dungeons & Dragons" and the 3rd edition therefore refers to being the iteration after the Basic/Expert rules rather than the iteration of AD&D after 2nd.

4e is the point where they literally start having monthly updates and planned obsolescence. 3e could have been kept alive indefinitely as an evergreen product. In fact, pathfailure people claim to be doing exactly that.

-Frank

The "planned obsolescence model" [POM] is alive and well at WoTC. In this year-old thread entitled "ENWorld and 5e Threads", I specifically discuss POM in posts #18, #28, #55, and #69, and I even briefly mention you getting clusterfucked on RPGnet in post #55.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14595

I'd elaborate more, rather than pointing out an old thread, but I'm on a muscle relaxant right now for an injury, and it's making me too loopy to think. That thread is relevant to this discussion...

Edit: Just remembered to link the thread...

Oh hell yeah. WotC was writing 3.5 with the idea that a 4th edition would come out eventually to replace it. 4th edition was written under the assumption that it was a placeholder before 5th edition was revealed. While I don't think they know what the next edition will hold (or even who will write it, subject to the constant firings), that there will be a next edition that will replace rather than supplement the old is not even at issue. No one seriously believes otherwise. D&D Essentials is supposed to be "evergreen" but that's a fucking joke - once 5e comes out (and it will come out), printings of Essentials will cease. And that's assuming that there are ever any of the bonus printings we're being promised. I remind you: if you go to a game store today, you can buy a 1st printing 4e PHB1. In fact, that's the only kind of PHB1 you can buy. Anywhere.

It is somewhat difficult to figure out WotC's plans for future development. In no small part because either bad sales or a marketing director with bipolar disorder has caused them to radically alter their direction. Several times a year. Most recently they said that they were going to put 4e D&D on the shelf for seven months while they make their Essentials line, but seven months is a long time in 4e's market direction. It was seven months between Scott Rouse saying that the PDFs would get updated to include errata (Sep 08) and WotC pulling the PDF sales altogether (Apr 09). It was seven months from them saying that they would not produce 4e D&D in 2008 (Jul 07) to them releasing the now infamous Tiefling & Gnome video (Feb 08). Going by past behavior, the chances of them actually completing the Essentials line and going back to regularly scheduled 4e books without a major direction change is slim to none.

In short: yes, the POM is a real thing. But it's not the only thing. We're now not only dealing with a "patch it later" mentality and the virtual certainty that people will come in to rewrite the core books in a few years. We are also looking at something that looks for all the world like panic in the face of freefall. The complete abandonment of marketing strategies half a year or less after they have been articulated. Right now we are in "the year of the threes" but the DMG3 has been cancelled. It didn't even have time to come out an be made obsolete by the DMG4, because the entire marketing direction was canned before that could happen. By the time sales figures were in for Martial Power 2, there was no Arcane Power 2 on the schedule.

This of course makes the entire "patch it later" methodology even more reprehensible than it normally is. There's seriously no guaranty that "later" will ever come. The unplanned obsolescence comes so fast and furious that it is implausible to assume that any future products within the edition will necessarily materialize.

There will be 5e. The question is whether anyone will be left who doesn't suffer from such severe event fatigue that they just don't care anymore by the time it does.

-Frank