D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[delericho]

So, if TSR writes a forward that says, "This is not a new edition," by this definition, it's not a new edition. Therefore, 2e is not a new edition.

2nd Edition said "2nd edition" right there on the cover.

On the other hand, if they explicitly number a new edition, it is a new edition, therefore 3.5 is a new edition (since it has a different number).

I quoted the specific text in the 3.5e PHB that states clearly "this is... not a new edition".

That seems pretty simple.

 

[hawkeyefan]

New edition or not...we can argue the semantics of it all day...I think the impact of 3.5 displays two important factors.

More books ultimately hurt.

Consumer perception can play a huge role.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[delericho]

New edition or not...we can argue the semantics of it all day...I think the impact of 3.5 displays two important factors.

More books ultimately hurt.

Consumer perception can play a huge role.

The second of these is undoubtedly true.

The first is harder to demonstrate. Everything fails eventually; we don't know that "more books" accelerated matters. Indeed, we don't even know that 5e's slower release schedule will lead to it lasting any longer than previous editions - it's a good bet, but at only just over two years in we can't know.

There's actually not very many games that last more than five years, and even fewer editions. It may simply be the case that there's a point they just run out of steam regardless of what the publisher does.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[delericho]

Historically, viewing the D&D line, that is not correct.

I was making a point about the larger RPG market, not just D&D specifically (hence "not many games, and even fewer editions") - so you'd have to count thinks like all those Storyteller games (with their 2nd editions after one year), the various Star Wars games, and the many many RPGs that appeared and disappeared in short order. Taken over the market as a whole, the percentage making it to 5 years is pretty small - D&D (and now Pathfinder) being very much exceptional for their longevity.

Also, a nitpick, some of your numbers are wrong: 4e wasn't published until 2008 (giving it 6 years and 3.5e 5), and BECMI was a replacement for the previous B/X, so should be split. Unless of course you want to count to when an edition ceased production, in which case your end-dates for 2nd Ed and 4e both need revising.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

2e was similar to 1e, but added some major new systems like skills, cleric spheres, specialist wizards and the like. It might have been doable as a .5, but I'm okay with it as a new edition. 3e and 3.5 were sometimes hard to differentiate if 3.5 isn't said on the cover of a book. The changes were mostly very minor.

2nd ed could not have been a .5 because back in 1989 the general game-playing public were not yet familiar with software versioning nomenclature, so would have been confused by a "2.5" edition.
Yeah sure, they would have understood it, but it would have seemed like TSR were inventing a new term just to be different.

 

[Azzy]

Also, a nitpick, some of your numbers are wrong: 4e wasn't published until 2008 (giving it 6 years and 3.5e 5), and BECMI was a replacement for the previous B/X, so should be split. Unless of course you want to count to when an edition ceased production, in which case your end-dates for 2nd Ed and 4e both need revising.

A further nitpick, the Holmes Basic set should be considered its own entity, as it was close to OD&D with some AD&D-isms (which was in the process of being written). It's a far more distant beast to B/X than B/X was to BXCMI (or BXCMI to the Rules Compendium).