I can't keep doing it

[Felon]

So yeah, I sympathize with the OP.

After reading your post in its entirety, I still have no idea what it is exactly that is remotely sympathetic about the OP.

I'm glad that modern D&D evolves and improves upon itself. I hated playing D&D in the eighties and nineties because it was so blatantly lacking in any cohesive design. Whether it was a character class or a spell or a weapon, it never felt like anything was being weighed against other things in the same category. Why should I look back with fondness that there was so much stagnation for so long? Because it meant I could go longer without buying a PHB again?

If you want to get off the train and just play with the edition you invested in, go for it. The new editions don't quash that. Personally, I regard the game as a hobby and as entertainment, and that means I budget some money for it. I don't labor under the idea that I should buy two or three books and they should last me the next couple decades.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm sorry you don't see a reason to be sympathetic towards the OP, but I see many reasons.

You say that D&D has "evolved and improved," since the earlier days, but that's a statement of opinion - the OSR stands as a testament to the idea that D&D doesn't always improve when a new edition comes out (and, come to think of it, Pathfinder stands as a testament to that also).

Most other games either don't change, or get unambiguously better over time. Monopoly (the board game) is the same as it ever was. Video games regularly offer better graphics, sound, and game-play. But table-top RPGs seem to change with regularity, without offering anything that's inarguably better.

Leaving aside all of that, if you consider that people are emotionally invested in a brand (Ryan Dancey recently spoke about this), then you grow comfortable with it, and it can be upsetting when it changes for (to you) no good reason. If you use the "the new edition is the New Coke of D&D" analogy, then it's easier to understand.

I find a lot of the people saying "if you don't like it, just don't support it; they won't burn your books" to not understand this latter point - something that's odd, since WotC's current rhetoric seems to be keenly aware of it. If you want to support D&D, then you want to support D&D as it is currently, not as it used to be. But if it keeps reinventing itself, it's hard to keep making the transition with it (even moreso if you don't like what it becomes).

Remember how Clark Peterson kept cheering Fourth Edition? He said it was because he wanted to support D&D, but even he eventually couldn't keep doing so (though a lot of that for him was due to the rules and GSL). It's that sense of fatigue - that you just can't keep up with the changes anymore - that I have sympathy for.

If the game does have to change, and the changes aren't necessarily a clear improvement, and you honestly want to stick with it, then it's at least easier when you've had a longer period of time to rest and recover from the last change.

So yes, I feel for the OP.

 

[Henry]

You're certainly entitled NOT to board the "D&D Next" train. Me Personally? I've seen some people (not you per se) hold the "no less than 10 years" torch between new editions, and I see it as an unrealistic standard, because those original 10-years gaps between 1E, 2E, and 3E were totally unintentional by TSR -- they happened because TSR was in turmoil that interrupted the introduction of a new edition.

In 1985, Gary (having mentioned this in later forum posts) recognized that, partially due to the trouble with the Blumes and Lorraine Williams, that TSR was in some money trouble, and was fully intending to release his own rules update, not only because the game needed it, but to help get some cash influx going, too. Unearthed Arcana was a stopgap to get some sales going.

Unearthed Arcana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soon after, Gary lost his controlling interest in the company, and was ousted.

According to a later interview with Skip Williams, the TSR designers had been accumulating "3rd edition" material for years, right up to the 1996 bankruptcy. Had there not been such deep financial trouble, instead of the "black book reprint" of 2E we saw in 1995, we might well have seen an Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition" instead.

So in two demonstrable cases, from accounts of people who were major movers and shakers at the time, There were full intentions to make new editions 5 to 6 years into the current edition of that time, before circumstances pulled the rug out.

While it's nice to think that a decade between every version of the game is something you can count on, Five years between editions not only realistic, it's in par with many other RPG publishers out there.Heck, I used to have a washing machine that lasted my parents for 20 years -- heck, I'm lucky if I could find a car that would last five years without major repairs.

 

[Alzrius]

While it's nice to think that a decade between every version of the game is something you can count on, Five years between editions not only realistic, it's in par with many other RPG publishers out there.Heck, I used to have a washing machine that lasted my parents for 20 years -- heck, I'm lucky if I could find a car that would last five years without major repairs.

Henry, you make some very good points. However, I think it's also worth noting that the "edition treadmill" that started with the release of 3.5 after only three years, and has yet to stop, seems to have fragmented the community pretty badly. Having things last for a decade may not have been TSR's intention, but it honestly does seem to have been good for the community (though perhaps not for them as a business).

In other words, while that may not have been their intention, it is what happened, and it set the standard ever since, rightly or wrongly. It's hard to accept that you used to get a decade of life from a game, and now can't expect to get half that. Hence why I can understand someone throwing their hands in the air and saying "enough."

Also, while a lot of other RPGs do seem to put forth new editions more quickly than once a decade, these are often less radical changes than even, say 3.0 and 3.5. Call of Cthulhu is a great example of a game that has changed very little between the last several editions. If D&D's changes were comparatively small, their frequency would probably go down easier.

 

[Agamon]

I don't understand how this is a money thing. If you invest x amount of dollars per year on D&D books, then that how does a new edition change that? If you keep doing that on the new edition, you're not down any money.

And if you only bought the core books, you have little investment, so it's not an expensive upgrade.

I can understand that one might be upset at the loss of new 4e books or the DDI, but I can't wrap my mind around this one.

 

[Henry]

...it's also worth noting that the "edition treadmill" that started with the release of 3.5 after only three years, and has yet to stop, seems to have fragmented the community pretty badly. Having things last for a decade may not have been TSR's intention, but it honestly does seem to have been good for the community (though perhaps not for them as a business).

This is very true -- but note:

-There was five years between 3.5 and 4, and
-There will have been - what, 5 or 6 years between 4 and 5?

So, five years has been more frequent that two or three, and five isn't an unreasonable standard to shoot for IMO.

Now, as to the community being used to it as a standard? Nothing we can do about that, except to suggest the community needs to realize the pace of release schedules of everything from software to appliances to entertainment in the modern age. There are probably more movies released in one year now than there were released in any 10 year time span from the past. (Random Googling Example: there were over 900 films released to theaters and dvd last year, as opposed to like 200 in 1985 and 30 in 1970). Getting five years out of a game as the "new hotness" is pretty darned good.

 

[Umbran]

In other words, while that may not have been their intention, it is what happened, and it set the standard ever since, rightly or wrongly.

Did it, really? That's kind of using one data point to claim a pattern.

Did we generally see editions last that long for other games? In 20 years, Shadowrun has had 4 editions - averaging 5 years per edition. GURPS had 3 editions in as many years at its start, didn't it? Vampire: the Masquerade put out 3 editions in seven years, Werewolf did 3 in 8 years, and those are before the nWoD reboot.

Methinks there may be a bit of a mismatch between how quickly D&D and other RPGs actually put out editions, and the perception of the standard. There's only so much WotC (or any publisher) can do to reconcile our perceptions with reality.

 

[Mallus]

However, I think it's also worth noting that the "edition treadmill" that started with the release of 3.5 after only three years, and has yet to stop, seems to have fragmented the community pretty badly.

I think the "unified community" of the past is a myth.

Just because people used the same edition didn't mean they were playing the same game -- in practical terms-- at their tables.

 

[Alzrius]

This is very true -- but note:

-There was five years between 3.5 and 4, and
-There will have been - what, 5 or 6 years between 4 and 5?

So, five years has been more frequent that two or three, and five isn't an unreasonable standard to shoot for IMO.

As a minor point, I tend to think of it as four years between 3.5 and 4E. I say this because 3.5 support dried up after the 4E announcement at Gen Con 2007 (which was four years to the month after 3.5 released).

Now, Exemplars of Evil and Elder Evils did come out immediately after that, plus some 3.5 web articles for the online Dragon and Dungeon, but that was about it. It wasn't at all like the 2E to 3E changeover, which had products coming out until about two months before the switch, plus the magazines were in print.

There are probably more movies released in one year now than there were released in any 10 year time span from the past. (Random Googling Example: there were over 900 films released to theaters and dvd last year, as opposed to like 200 in 1985 and 30 in 1970). Getting five years out of a game as the "new hotness" is pretty darned good.

The movie analogy doesn't really work, though. This isn't about quantity, it's about the speed of change, and how quickly it invalidates that which has gone before. Likewise, as I noted before, even that would be more palatable if the changes were less drastic or of such higher quality as to be inarguably better. But neither of those is true, so the pace feels rushed.

Did it, really? That's kind of using one data point to claim a pattern.

Did we generally see editions last that long for other games? In 20 years, Shadowrun has had 4 editions - averaging 5 years per edition. GURPS had 3 editions in as many years at its start, didn't it? Vampire: the Masquerade put out 3 editions in seven years, Werewolf did 3 in 8 years, and those are before the nWoD reboot.

Methinks there may be a bit of a mismatch between how quickly D&D and other RPGs actually put out editions, and the perception of the standard. There's only so much WotC (or any publisher) can do to reconcile our perceptions with reality.

It's two data points (1E to 2E, and 2E to 3E).

Seriously though, I think that gets back into the questions of how much change goes into a new edition. The 1E->2E transition was comparatively small, as were most of those for the other games you mentioned. The 3.5->4E change was much larger, and much quicker.

Maybe it's best to say that it's not just the speed at which the new editions are coming, but how they're changing so much so quickly, for such questionable benefits (I say that last part only because of just how much the community seems to be fragmenting).

To put it another way, very few of the edition changes in the games you mentioned rises to the level of what an "edition change" has constituted in D&D in the last decade or so.

I think the "unified community" of the past is a myth.

Just because people used the same edition didn't mean they were playing the same game -- in practical terms-- at their tables.

See, I have the opposite viewpoint. I think plenty of people were using house rules, but not so many of them, or with such great changes, that they were playing a game that was markedly different from D&D. In most of those cases, they could have sat down at another group and not missed a beat. That's my impression, at least.

 

[Mallus]

I think plenty of people were using house rules, but not so many of them, or with such great changes, that they were playing a game that was markedly different from D&D. In most of those cases, they could have sat down at another group and not missed a beat. That's my impression, at least.

It goes well beyond house rules, though (which in my experience could significantly alter the play experience -- heck, using weapon specialization from Unearthed Arcana produces a big change).

Consider this: part of the community used AD&D to run epic fantasy (a la Dragonlance -- D&D's home grown Tolkien-clone) and another part used it for sandbox-style campaigns.

Both were common, and yet very different, play styles. Don't you think that was a pretty big split? Well, except for the people who were busy blending those styles together...

Again, way too much is made of the golden age of D&D unity -- back then, most of us were more concerned with tailoring our individual campaigns into unique experiences.