Editions in RPGs - and why we should embrace change

[Stormonu]

I used to keep up with editions for a slightly different reason - I wanted to be employed int RPG industry, and that meant keeping up with the latest and greatest.

I still would love to write RPG material for a living (perhaps once the kids move out), but I don't feel the pressing need to keep up anymore, and the OGL/OSR movement has made it easier to write and publish stuff for older systems.

I don't think new editions are a bad thing - there's invariably some redeeming qualities to keep in a new edition, but I don't think it should be an automatic thing. Update the game when the old game is bloated, convoluted and/or you've found a better way of doing things. Not just because you're on the money treadmill.

And don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's reasons folks bought the prior editions, after all.

 

[prosfilaes]

Game companies (particularly the big ones) put out new editions when they can make money by selling customers the basic books again. Since that's money out of the customer's pocket, it's entirely reasonable for the customer to question it.

The fact is, the costs to the customer aren't trivial. Stats can not be trivially converted, even between 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder; classes and races need to have their power adjusted between Pathfinder and 3.x, for example, and there's no automatic way to do so. Between 3.x and 4.0, a race or class would be a completely new build rather than a conversion. If it's better and your fellow players agree, that's fine. If not, then a new edition cuts off your stream of new material and breaks your player base.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't necessarily like shelling out hundreds or thousands for rules revisions for games, but that isn't what gets under my skin.

I buy lots of games with multiple editions- some I liked a lot, some left me unimpressed. Some of the edition changes occurred when there was a transfer of ownership, but most didn't. Only a couple have cheesed me off.

The common element to edition changes I disliked: they changed things I didn't think needed changing, usually at a fundamental level. When the baby gets tossed with the bathwater, I'm not going to look kindly on the "revision".

I'll cut some slack for editions that were the result of ownership changes to companies more interested in using the IP of the fluff with their own system mechanics. That, to me, is understandable. If SJG bought up Palladium lock, stock, and megadamage barrels, I'd fully expect them to take that IP and release it in GURPS form.*

But when it's your own IP? Unless I see the change as an obvious improvement on what has gone before, no amount of 'splainin' is going to make me happy.

And at the top of the list of disliked edition changes are those that occurred in my 2 favorite games: the FUZION rules for HERO and the 4Ed rules for D&D.

Too many good ideas from previous editions got tossed; too many new ideas introduced that I felt didn't match up with my expectations of what those games were all about.

To it's credit, I think that overall, 4Ed is a good FRPG; it's just not what I'm looking for out of D&D. Its like if the Prog-rock group Yes released a pure gangsta-rap album: even if it were the best gangsta-rap album ever released, I still would criticize it as lacking elements I expect from Yes.





* FWIW, even though I'm no huge fan of the GURPS system, I sure as sin would buy THAT!

 

[S'mon]

This leads to an interesting question why does the current edition matter? Why not continue with 4e and simply ignore 5e>

If 5e came out tomorrow I would certainly continue playing & running 4e for a good long time. 4e came out in 2008, I was running 3e until November 2010 and may well run it again sometime - I was just considering the 3e "Forest of Doom" conversion yesterday.

If I was looking for new material though I'd eventually gravitate towards an in-print system.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That would be like 4E being published in 2008, 5E in 2012, and 6E in 2014.
.

That sounds just about right.

 

[delericho]

Now I realize that with D&D there is a major difference from most other RPGs in the sheer number of supplements that are published after the core rulebooks. The only comparable game is World of Darkness, and it was a full thirteen years between the first publication of Vampire: The Masquerade and the New World of Darkness books came out. But other games that have seen frequent editions - say, Exalted or Ars Magica - have also had a significant number of "splat" books. And, as far as I can tell, there is less "editionrage" from fans of said games.

The thing is that D&D editions tend to dramatically change the rules, and D&D supplements tend to be very rules-heavy. I can use my Vampire 2nd Ed books with Vampire: Revised (or even the New World of Darkness) with no difficulty, but I can't meaningfully use "Martial Power" with 3.5e.

No One's Going To Kill You and Take Your Stuff - I understand that some don't like to hear this, but no one is going to take away your old rulebooks.

Actually, this is no longer necessarily true. Many groups have stopped buying the books in favour of the DDI. For many others, the DDI is so useful that they have become dependent on it. When 5e hits, WotC may well remove 4e from the DDI.

(If 5e is radically different from 4e, they'll need almost all-new tools; it makes no sense to also spend money to support the 4e stuff when they really want people to stop using it, and switch. If 5e is not radically different, it is still likely they'll want to use the new edition to clean out the option bloat of 4e, which still means they'll probably want to remove the 4e support.)

4E is Imperfect - just like every other edition, and just like 5E will be. As soon as a new edition comes out, people start figuring out things that have problems.

See, this is the crux of it for me. In my opinion, 4e made some very serious missteps, some of which cannot be fixed without a new edition (how can you get rid of the option bloat without one? ). But, since then I've seen little sign of a change of direction from the team at WotC, and indeed some further moves that worry me (Fortune Cards being the worst).

That being the case, I really don't have any confidence that any 5e wouldn't be essentially more of the same. And there's no sense in my supporting a new edition that is a further step in what I consider to be the wrong direction.

Now, I would support a 5e that returns to the drawing board, takes the game apart again and rebuilds it in a new form, especially if that form were more to my liking. I believe that is a necessary (but not, by itself, sufficient) step for my buying into 5e. I'm just not at all sure I can see that happening, and nor am I sure the 4e fans would likewise support such a move.

So, yeah, I'm very much in a "wait and see" mode. There is more chance of my embracing 5e than of returning to 4e (since one of these is zero), but at the same time, I'm not going to blindly support change - it will depend crucially on the nature of that change.

But one more thing: If and when 5e comes out, I will check it out. This is the first edition of D&D since I started gaming that I won't buy sight-unseen, and it may well be the first edition since then that I just don't buy at all. Furthermore, if 5e doesn't win me back, then I won't even look at 6e. This is a make-or-break edition for me. (Oh, and finally - I'm currently working on a homebrew D&D-replacement. If I get that done before 5e hits, I'm not interested.)

 

[Bluenose]

My opinion is that unlike most other RPG systems, D&D changes the mechanics every single edition rather than just an update. Call of Cthulhu, for example, has barely changed mechanically since it was released. D&D however, has changed with every edition. That's the problem. We get defensive, even angry, because the system that we know gets changed.

I'm not sure that part I bolded is particularly true. There are plenty of systems where the mechanics change significantly with every edition. Traveller, Legend of Five Rings, even Runequest. There are others where the 'fluff' changes a lot, with significant world implications; again Traveller, World of Darkness, etc. The two things aren't even necessarily linked, as sometimes major mechanical changes make no difference to the setting, and sometimes there are major changes to the setting not reflected in mechanical changes.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I embrace change if I think the change is good. If I don't think it's good, I stick with what I think is good.

With RPGs and editions, I'm more likely to accept a new edition of a game if the new edition keeps broad compatibility with what has gone before. I'm less likely to be interested in a new edition if it drastically modifies the game, pushing it into incompatible or even "different game/same name" territory.

Obviously, I'm not drawing crisp lines: "incompatible" and "different game" aren't exact definitions. There's some wiggle room from person to person. My rule of thumb is the "adventure test." That is, can I run an adventure written for the core rules of Edition A using the core rules for Edition B without much fuss and without completely ignoring the stats? If so, even if there are some differences, there's broad compatibility.

I think all the editions of Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu pass the "adventure test." Even the various editions of Runequest do well with the adventure test. I think TSR D&D editions pass the "adventure test." (Heck, I bet a lot of people ran B2 with AD&D and didn't even realize B2 was written for a different edition.) I find that WotC D&D veers into incompatibility with TSR D&D in 3e, and the break becomes decisive with 4e. In fact, from this broad perspective, I'd say there are three "versions" of D&D: TSR D&D, 3e, and 4e.

I don't mind this. I'm satisfied with the way the D&D market has developed: my needs are being met, just not by the current holder of the D&D trademark. I'm decisively off the "edition carousel." I like TSR D&D. I don't find WotC and what they're doing with the D&D brand to be relevant to my D&D gaming, so I ignore them. I don't mind other people liking WotC D&D, but I don't think all change is good, or a positive "evolution." And I see no reason to embrace it if I prefer something else.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm not sure that part I bolded is particularly true. There are plenty of systems where the mechanics change significantly with every edition. Traveller, Legend of Five Rings, even Runequest. There are others where the 'fluff' changes a lot, with significant world implications; again Traveller, World of Darkness, etc. The two things aren't even necessarily linked, as sometimes major mechanical changes make no difference to the setting, and sometimes there are major changes to the setting not reflected in mechanical changes.

There are always going to be systems where the mechanics do change. But my experience over the last twenty odd years has been that the major game systems don't change. Those that do probably suffer split player base as D&D does now, just not as in the limelight.
World of Darkness while changing fluff every so often still has the basic game system. Vampire was completely compatible regardless of the four editions of the game (though Requiem is meant as a separate game). Minor rules tweaks aren't a problem and don't tend to split the player base.

D&D's problem is that other than a tenuous link between 1st and 2nd editions, 3.x and 4th have completely different systems. 5th will probably have an entirely different one again.

 

[Mercurius]

I was organising my RPG books today - the shelf worth of 1e AD&D, the shelf worth of 3e D&D, and now the shelf worth of 4e D&D, all mutually incompatible.

See, I disagree with this. I like Philotomy's "adventure test" although don't find that TSR D&D, 3E and 4E are as incompatible in terms of adventure running as he says they are. In fact, I've proven otherwise, at least for myself. I started running a 4E-version of White Plume Mountain a few months ago with very little conversion prep time. I took the 1E and 3E versions, swapped in 4E monsters, and eyeballed the rest. Cake, really. You don't need any conversion for "fluff"; traps are relatively easy to convert, as are anything requiring skill tests. Monsters are also quite easy - you just swap in your edition of choice's version. Etc.

But this might boil down to personality types and the degree to which one cares about details. I don't mind Fiating and Ad Hocking as necessary or, for instance, making up difficulty classes for skill tests on the fly, so conversion is relatively easy. It requires some work but not a lot.

I think there is a very real possibility of a 5E splitting the base even more and WotC has to be aware of that possibility. I imagine the solution will be either to figure out a way to re-sell 4E to it's current fans, or to concentrate on non-RPG related D&D branded items (ie board games). It's certainly too soon after Essentials for the former, and it sure looks like they are giving the latter a shot.

Even though I do not play 4E, I am curious to see how it develops, especially with GenCon right around the corner. Maybe they'll decide to try and bring lost players back to the fold by supporting legacy editions. Maybe they will open up the game with a relaxed GSL.

Possibly, although neither would be a game changer and completely reinvigorate the game, imo. But what you say here is why I think "5E" (in whatever form it takes) won't be a complete reboot, but more of a revisioning and retooling of 4E. This relates to delericho's comments quoted below, and one of the Big Questions, imo, if you are Mearls and WotC:

How can we revision and retool D&D while both retaining close compatibility with the 4E rules set, and thus hopefully the 4E base--the only "bird in hand" we have left--and making it appealing enough to lapsed and new players that they'll give it a try?

In my opinion, the answer is related to this idea of the "complexity dial." If you strip back 4E to its core you can find a very simple game that can be the basis of numerous variations of game play, from a virtual recreation of 4E to a more classic feel. In other words, "5E" doesn't need to be a new game system, what it needs to be is a re-organization of the game into a more modular approach.

Stripping back the game to its core isn't only mechanical, it also means making the core, "Basic", game be classic D&D and only classic D&D. Dragonborn and "elfier elves" belong in optional supplements, not the core rules. And so forth.

You're massively under-counting, here. The major World of Darkness games each went through an initial edition, a 2nd edition, a revised edition, and then the reboot to the New World of Darkness.

You're right - call me lazy, thus the "+".

But I still think if WotC wants to double-down on DDI, they should do the game first in DDI, with a Beta, and then subscriber-only play. Then when it is humming like mad, print a set of books that incorporate the best of play. Get in early; do it their way. Or wait a bit, and get the best material of the edition.

I completely agree and think it possible, likely even, that Mearls' recent articles are akin to a kind of pseudo-alpha testing.

I don't think new editions are a bad thing - there's invariably some redeeming qualities to keep in a new edition, but I don't think it should be an automatic thing. Update the game when the old game is bloated, convoluted and/or you've found a better way of doing things. Not just because you're on the money treadmill.

And don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's reasons folks bought the prior editions, after all.

I agree, although the problem--or challenge, really--in our current information-rich environment is that bloat and "better ways to do things" occur much faster than before. Maybe the good folks at WotC have a file folder that they've kept since 4E first came out of "things to do differently with 5E" and when that folder gets to a so-many-inches thick, they say "Time for a new edition." Of course it doesn't really work that way, but my point is that this "folder" probably got to maximum capacity much sooner than in previous editions, and this isn't only because of flaws in 4E design - but because of the nature of information in 2008-2011 vs even 5-10 years before.

The "answer," I think, is not to publish a new edition every 2-3 years to reboot the game, but to make DDI the core rules set of the game and incorporate micro-changes as they arise, with new "revised versions" of the core rules every few years, as well as rules annuals reflecting new material.

The 4E game system is very simple at its core. Actually, it is virtually the same game as 3E in terms of the core mechanic and the "inner circle" of rules. If WotC could solidify that core rules set into the "basic game," then everything else becomes a modular option, and therefore there is less need for "new editions" and what we might see are revisionings, new modular packages to attach to the core game, etc.

To it's credit, I think that overall, 4Ed is a good FRPG; it's just not what I'm looking for out of D&D. Its like if the Prog-rock group Yes released a pure gangsta-rap album: even if it were the best gangsta-rap album ever released, I still would criticize it as lacking elements I expect from Yes.

I get what you are saying but think you're being a tad extreme (more than a tad). If 3E isYes,then 4E is certainly not gangsta-rap. It might not even be Rush, but it could be something like Primus - spastic rock with elements of prog.

I'm more of a King Crimson than a Yes fan, and I've used them as an analogy for D&D, something like so:

Chainmail: Giles, Giles and Fripp
OD&D: In the Court of the Crimson King/In the Wake of Poseidon
B/X: Lizard/Islands
AD&D 1E: Larks Tongues in Aspic/Starless and Bible Black/Red
AD&D 2E: Discipline, Beat, Three of a Perfect Pair
3E: Thrak, aka 90s version
4E: Construcktion of Light/Power to Believe

Now my personal favorite version of King Crimson is the 1972-75 version under the heading 1E. And I certainly prefer any of the earlier versions of King Crimson to their 90s-present stuff. For D&D it is a bit different; I actually feel that, overall, each edition has gotten better, or at least changed in an interesting way. But my point is that even if Power to Believe sounds nothing like In the Court of the Crimson King, they are all still King Crimson. I don't have to stop listening to Starless and Bible Black (my favorite album of theirs) even if they haven't made music like that in 35 years.

Perhaps a better Yes analogy would be Close to the Edgevs Owner of a Lonely Heart, and that might even be more extreme than various versions of King Crimson.

.
See, this is the crux of it for me. In my opinion, 4e made some very serious missteps, some of which cannot be fixed without a new edition (how can you get rid of the option bloat without one? ). But, since then I've seen little sign of a change of direction from the team at WotC, and indeed some further moves that worry me (Fortune Cards being the worst).

That being the case, I really don't have any confidence that any 5e wouldn't be essentially more of the same. And there's no sense in my supporting a new edition that is a further step in what I consider to be the wrong direction.

Now, I would support a 5e that returns to the drawing board, takes the game apart again and rebuilds it in a new form, especially if that form were more to my liking. I believe that is a necessary (but not, by itself, sufficient) step for my buying into 5e. I'm just not at all sure I can see that happening, and nor am I sure the 4e fans would likewise support such a move.

You may be right - it is a vicious cycle that they've found themselves in: new edition, core rules, main supplements, fringe supplements, bloat, new edition, etc.

The question, I think, which I touched on above, is whether or not they can "go back to the drawing board" and present a game that remains compatible enough with 4E, but also appeals to lapsed and possibly new players.