D&D General How Long Does It Take to get Sick of an Edition?
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I just play whatever edition of D&D is most current for however long that lasts with D&D 4e being the only edition I sometimes play in addition to D&D 5e. And that's pretty rarely since there are certain logistical issues that arise with that game that make it a little difficult (not everyone has the character builder, for example, which I find essential). I also run the odd Dungeon World game and play in various other systems as the opportunity arises.
I can honestly say that I've never gotten "sick" of a given edition of D&D or not had fun playing or running a particular edition. I think that stems from a general philosophy of not having very specific needs or expectations when it comes to the game itself, so I'm never really disappointed. Some folks have this idea that the game must be THIS or THAT and if it doesn't have THIS or THAT then it's not D&D or it's not good. I'm more flexible than that, changing expectations with the system.
I can honestly say that I've never gotten "sick" of a given edition of D&D or not had fun playing or running a particular edition. I think that stems from a general philosophy of not having very specific needs or expectations when it comes to the game itself, so I'm never really disappointed. Some folks have this idea that the game must be THIS or THAT and if it doesn't have THIS or THAT then it's not D&D or it's not good. I'm more flexible than that, changing expectations with the system.
You see, for my tastes, I wouldn't say Pathfinder "had a good run of 10 years." I was annoyed with it when it first released and became completely disgusted with it about 5 years into its run. On the other hand, I didn't like 4E when it first released, but today I go back to it to scratch my tactical combat itch. I bought my first copy of Savage Worlds in 2008, dismissed it but held onto it for 11 years until I ran my first session this week.
Also "getting sick" of a game has a lot of variations. There are numerous games I've enjoyed, but have problems with a few small aspects, so I tinker with it and tweak it.
Also "getting sick" of a game has a lot of variations. There are numerous games I've enjoyed, but have problems with a few small aspects, so I tinker with it and tweak it.
Yes, that was my personal opinion. Glad to have helped. My name isn’t Morris though.
You may have rather missed the point by a country mile.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I never really get sick of an edition. I just write more house rules.
I would probably at this point completely rewrite 1e AD&D before I would pick up a new edition. I think finally 25+ years after dropping the rules set I know enough about what was wrong with it to fix it while still maintaining its feel. Trouble is, it would take me years to do it and be an even bigger project than taking on some of the newer editions.
At this point my preferred edition is a heavily rewritten version of 3.0e which I call "3e AD&D". I'm currently playing Pathfinder as a player, and for the most part I find the rules inferior to my house rules but I am very likely to steal some of their reforms to skill ranks and class/non-class skills, and I'm toying with stealing at least the idea and language of unified combat maneuver rules if I can figure out how to do it right. In short, I'm enjoying being a player, but I'm finding no need for a new edition, just more house rules.
As far as I'm concerned, the introduction of new editions of D&D is never really done for the sake of the game or the customers, and that has been at the heart of what has been wrong with every new edition of D&D except (largely) 3.0 and possibly 5e. You could make the argument that new editions of some RPGs are done for the sake of the game or the customers, but for example CoC tends to be heavily compatible across editions and any changes made tend to be ones people were asking for. Rather, new editions of D&D have always been introduced to deprecate the older material and encourage the customers to by all the same material but in a new edition and always have changes to the prior edition that almost no one was demanding.
Basically, I expect each new edition of a game to be a heavily playtested and refined version of the prior edition, and not something which represents a large departure from what went before. That is, new editions ought to be as compatible with each other as say 3.5e was with 3.0e. My huge objection to 3.5e was that so much of it was not in fact heavily playtested or refined from the prior edition, but off the cuff changes by someone that thought himself smart but had never really played with the new rules to validate them. They were theoretical and not practical or done for reasons of formalism and not the empiricism of play.
It is my hope that "D&D Next" becomes "D&D Last" and we will never again see an edition of D&D that isn't largely compatible with 5e and represents only some minor improvement on the prior edition to address concerns that came up in actual play. I may never adopt the new edition, but at least the edition wars will be over.
I would probably at this point completely rewrite 1e AD&D before I would pick up a new edition. I think finally 25+ years after dropping the rules set I know enough about what was wrong with it to fix it while still maintaining its feel. Trouble is, it would take me years to do it and be an even bigger project than taking on some of the newer editions.
At this point my preferred edition is a heavily rewritten version of 3.0e which I call "3e AD&D". I'm currently playing Pathfinder as a player, and for the most part I find the rules inferior to my house rules but I am very likely to steal some of their reforms to skill ranks and class/non-class skills, and I'm toying with stealing at least the idea and language of unified combat maneuver rules if I can figure out how to do it right. In short, I'm enjoying being a player, but I'm finding no need for a new edition, just more house rules.
As far as I'm concerned, the introduction of new editions of D&D is never really done for the sake of the game or the customers, and that has been at the heart of what has been wrong with every new edition of D&D except (largely) 3.0 and possibly 5e. You could make the argument that new editions of some RPGs are done for the sake of the game or the customers, but for example CoC tends to be heavily compatible across editions and any changes made tend to be ones people were asking for. Rather, new editions of D&D have always been introduced to deprecate the older material and encourage the customers to by all the same material but in a new edition and always have changes to the prior edition that almost no one was demanding.
Basically, I expect each new edition of a game to be a heavily playtested and refined version of the prior edition, and not something which represents a large departure from what went before. That is, new editions ought to be as compatible with each other as say 3.5e was with 3.0e. My huge objection to 3.5e was that so much of it was not in fact heavily playtested or refined from the prior edition, but off the cuff changes by someone that thought himself smart but had never really played with the new rules to validate them. They were theoretical and not practical or done for reasons of formalism and not the empiricism of play.
It is my hope that "D&D Next" becomes "D&D Last" and we will never again see an edition of D&D that isn't largely compatible with 5e and represents only some minor improvement on the prior edition to address concerns that came up in actual play. I may never adopt the new edition, but at least the edition wars will be over.
Still not tired of 3.X, and I’d play 1Ed or 2Ed again in a heartbeat if someone offered to run it...but not as quickly as if 3.X were an option. 4Ed I’d play again, but ONLY as a player, not as a GM.
5th would get a thanks but no thanks- it lost me during all the prerelease info from playtest reports.
So my “tiredness” with particular editions ranges from “not tired after decades” to “immediately”, and depends on the details of my opinions about the mechanics and other factors.
5th would get a thanks but no thanks- it lost me during all the prerelease info from playtest reports.
So my “tiredness” with particular editions ranges from “not tired after decades” to “immediately”, and depends on the details of my opinions about the mechanics and other factors.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
For me, it totally varies. I could still sit down and play BECMI, 1e, or 2e, easily, and that’s been decades. But I was sick of 4e before I even started running it (I still ran it for my group, because that’s what they wanted to play, mind you). I got sick of I Am Zombie within a few months. The Dresden Files RPG lasted about eight months before the cracks started showing. Shadowrun 5e took maybe four-five sessions before I got fed up with it.
I’m more and more excited to play 5e, even five years later. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I am a stubborn creature of habit, so I figure that probably has something to do with my tastes.
I’m more and more excited to play 5e, even five years later. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I am a stubborn creature of habit, so I figure that probably has something to do with my tastes.
5e was designed as a "semi-evergeen" edition, and it is not going to leave us anytime soon. My suspicion is that it will last at least as long as 3.x, possibly longer, and will eventually have things like the Player's Handbook II, Monster Manual II (they can't hide them behind cute names forever!) and such, as well as sourcebooks which will be a bit less necessary to have (Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica has already accomplished this). It too will lapse into redundancy, but I believe that it will remain much better balanced than 3.x and Pathfinder 1e ever were. A revised ranger will probably be released, along with new classes like the Artificer and Mystic, and other expansions yet undreamed of will follow for over a decade from now. At some point, WotC might even do what they said they would, and incorporate fan-made homebrew content into official products (with some revision).
And, if you get tired of playing 5e, just switch to something else for a while. The next game I play with my home group is going to be Starfinder, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Exalted (yes, I finally tried it, and it isn't as bad as I thought), or Pathfinder 1e. The choice of which system depends on what my home group wants to play.
And, if you get tired of playing 5e, just switch to something else for a while. The next game I play with my home group is going to be Starfinder, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Exalted (yes, I finally tried it, and it isn't as bad as I thought), or Pathfinder 1e. The choice of which system depends on what my home group wants to play.
Last edited:
Myzzrym
Explorer
As long as the system isn't completely broken or that I don't fundamentally dislike it (which happened for 4e), I'm pretty sure I can play without end - as others said, if a rule doesn't feel right to you as a DM, you just change it. I switched from 3.5e to 5e because it was notably easier to play on the fly, but I could have kept on going with 3.5e as well without much issues.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I've never really gotten tired of any edition. I still have never played all the races and classes, of any edition. I've yet to play a single monk for example, in any edition, though I am up for it. I have a long, long, long way to go in 5e. I am plugging my way through a halfling druid (my first druid, ever) and a dwarf fighter these days, having previously played a half-elf bard. I look forward to a wizard some day soon. Maybe a paladin too. It's going to be a really long time before I encounter just all the basic options this version of the game offers a player - not to mention the subclasses. My guess is 6e will come out long before I'm feeling over 5e.
