Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
4 years really isn't all that quick of an edition turnover, except by 1e-2e AD&D->D&D3e standards, it's a little faster than 3.5e-4e, but a little slower than 3e-3.5e (and given than there were 3.5 replacements/equivalents for almost all 3.0 products, I think despite the name we have to consider 3.5 a real edition, not a half-edition; given the huge number of changes, even if individually minor, 3e->3.5e was almost as big of a change as 1e->2e); a lot of other RPGs release new editions much more frequently. If they go five years (announcing 5e next year and begin large-scale external play testing then, releasing it in 2013), then that's pretty normal for WotC D&D or just about any other RPG.
Are 3.0 and 3.5 separate editions and 4E and Essentials separate editions - or - was 3.5 a 3.0 clean up and Essentials a 4E cleanup? Either way, it's a marked acceleration. I'm not sure looking on 3.5 as a distinct edition from 3.0 then looking at Essentials as merely a 4E cleanup really tracks. In any event, 3.0 was released in August(?) 2000, 3.5 in June 2004, 4E in June 2008 and Essentials in November 2010.
When a product fails you can blame the product or the marketing. IF WotC believes that 4E has been a failure (a big IF since I am not convinced WotC believes it), then these articles are the early marketing push for 5E and the the main designer of 4E is apparently in charge of 5E. IF 4E was a failure in their eyes (same caveat as above) and the problem was both the product and the marketing (or the product and not the marketing), and IF this is the early marketing of a 5E, then it doesn't bode well for the apparent choices being made at this stage.
Last edited: