Gargoyle
Adventurer
This is a "select all that apply" poll; but if you select the last option, please don't select anything else, and don't select #7 if you selected anything else (because if you do I'll know you're chaotic neutral).
The "earlier edition" the poll refers to could be any edition other than the current one. So if you couldn't afford to switch from OD&D to 1E, you didn't buy BECMI because your friends didn't like it, you didn't like 2E, updated to 3E as soon as it came out, and didn't upgrade to 4E because you didn't like DDI: you'd select all except #3, #5, and #7.
For the purpose of this poll, "staying with an older edition" means buying products and actively playing or DM'ing it. Just buying a bunch of books to read doesn't count IMO, because while it helps the hobby in the short term, it doesn't help D&D in the long run as much as actually running and playing the new game. Success IMO for any edition is when a lot of people buy at least a few books and play the game regularly, because that regular gameplay is what encourages others to purchase the game and play.
Every time a new edition of D&D has emerged, the player base has been split to some degree. Pathfinder's success seems to be the catalyst for Wizards of the Coast's initiative to reunite players of all editions under the new edition. I think it's a good move, not only for WotC's bottom line, but for the hobby. But given the hobby's history, it seems to me that the odds are stacked against this. It is more likely that players will be even more divided on what edition to play, mostly for reasons that have little to do with the quality of the new edition.
To unify players, D&D needs to accommodate varying player and DM'ing styles with a modular format. But more importantly, it needs to be a very fun, polished, and professional game that is easy to learn, but also that can be expanded on endlessly without breaking it. It can't have glaring typographical errors, bad or recycled art, rules mechanics that simply fail to work in actual play, overly weak or strong classes, overly long combats, missing archetypes, or a mountain of errata. It also needs strong electronic/Internet support, compelling campaign settings, fantastic cartography, and a lot of great published adventures, as well as improved organized play.
However, even if "D&D next" is great, many of the reasons in this poll have nothing to do with the quality of the game, and thus the reason for this post. I'm curious how many people with at least a passing interest in the new game (defined as people reading this forum) are still unlikely to buy it and play it regularly based on what they've done with past editions.
Here is hoping that WotC's open playtest lasts a long time, and that there are many iterations of the game before it is published so that it at least has a shot of becoming a great edition, even if the playerbase is further divided.
The "earlier edition" the poll refers to could be any edition other than the current one. So if you couldn't afford to switch from OD&D to 1E, you didn't buy BECMI because your friends didn't like it, you didn't like 2E, updated to 3E as soon as it came out, and didn't upgrade to 4E because you didn't like DDI: you'd select all except #3, #5, and #7.
For the purpose of this poll, "staying with an older edition" means buying products and actively playing or DM'ing it. Just buying a bunch of books to read doesn't count IMO, because while it helps the hobby in the short term, it doesn't help D&D in the long run as much as actually running and playing the new game. Success IMO for any edition is when a lot of people buy at least a few books and play the game regularly, because that regular gameplay is what encourages others to purchase the game and play.
Every time a new edition of D&D has emerged, the player base has been split to some degree. Pathfinder's success seems to be the catalyst for Wizards of the Coast's initiative to reunite players of all editions under the new edition. I think it's a good move, not only for WotC's bottom line, but for the hobby. But given the hobby's history, it seems to me that the odds are stacked against this. It is more likely that players will be even more divided on what edition to play, mostly for reasons that have little to do with the quality of the new edition.
To unify players, D&D needs to accommodate varying player and DM'ing styles with a modular format. But more importantly, it needs to be a very fun, polished, and professional game that is easy to learn, but also that can be expanded on endlessly without breaking it. It can't have glaring typographical errors, bad or recycled art, rules mechanics that simply fail to work in actual play, overly weak or strong classes, overly long combats, missing archetypes, or a mountain of errata. It also needs strong electronic/Internet support, compelling campaign settings, fantastic cartography, and a lot of great published adventures, as well as improved organized play.
However, even if "D&D next" is great, many of the reasons in this poll have nothing to do with the quality of the game, and thus the reason for this post. I'm curious how many people with at least a passing interest in the new game (defined as people reading this forum) are still unlikely to buy it and play it regularly based on what they've done with past editions.
Here is hoping that WotC's open playtest lasts a long time, and that there are many iterations of the game before it is published so that it at least has a shot of becoming a great edition, even if the playerbase is further divided.
