D&D General How Long Does It Take to get Sick of an Edition?

[Tony Vargas]

How Long Does It Take to get Sick of an Edition?

Playing it: 10 years.

Listening to narrow-minded pedants dumping on it: 10 seconds.


Seriously, though, a decade fella lije a nice, round number between editions...

1e I got to play 9 years before 2e came out, and, well, it turned out I wasn't done with it.

2e I played a little, but mostly ran, for 5 years and realized, when paging through Encyclopaedia Magica or something, that (1) I was already kinda sick of it and (2) I hadn't really been running it, but a hybrid of 1e, the whole time anyway. So I gave up on it.

(But, that was really more finally getting sick of 1e after 15 years.)

3e, after 8 years? Yeah, the luster was off, but I wasn't sick of it, the rev-roll seemed too early.

(4e, obviously, never had the chance to get sick of it, it really only had a 2 year run - even, most charitably, 4-6.)

5e? I'm mentally preparing myself for the possibility there'll never be a 6e.

 

[ccs]

Depends upon the edition.

BE/CMI - effectively I got tied of it after about 2 years. Though practically I played it (sporadicly) up through Companion until about '87.
As I've said before, I started playing Basic Chistmas 1980. Then we added Expert about a year later. But by '83 we'd pretty much shifted to 1e.
Basic is ok, but the race as class thing was the 1st thing we ever house ruled. And this was when we were 12 & had no other rpg xp.... So when we found 1e.

1e - I'll be an old man with no rpg friends & I still won't be tired of this edition.

2e - played this one '89 - about '96 - when my gaming switched to Vampire, MTG, & more miniature wargaming.

3x - effectively skipped 3e, played 3.5 2006 -2009, switched to PF1 2009+.
PF is ok. Its not 1e, but as long as the group wants to play PF1 I'm down.

4e - I think I tied of this edition while reading it through upon launch.
I did however give it a fair shot:
I DM'd it for 1 year & played as PC for a 2nd.
Initial assessment confirmed: I really dislike this edition.

5e - my 2nd favorite edition. I could run/play this edition for many years. Though I suspect that 6e will improve it & render playing 5e itself moot.

Pf2 - ? I don't know yet.
Good news though, one of the guys in my PF1 group has expressed interest in trying it. So maybe, if he'll DM, I'll get to play it sooner than I'd thought.
(Either way I'll still get the book when I get back from GenCon (no reason to buy it there vs at my FLGS)

 

[jasper]

Take two slime molds and drink a half can of Mountain Dew. You will me better. Call me in the morning.

 

[mortwatcher]

Our 5E group gets together every other week. So for the in-between weeks, we created a R&D group, where we play various other systems for 1-2 sessions. Nothing feels getting old yet after a few years with 5e.

 

[Greg K]

It really depends upon the edition.

I enjoyed AD&D 1e for about 6 years, but became very dissatisfied with the patchwork nature and specific other elements after being exposed to non-TSR games such as Rolemaster while away at University. However, upon returning home after my first year, my friends were intimidated by RM character generation so I stuck with AD&D for a few more years when running fantasy.

By the time AD&D 2e came out, I was ready to leave D&D entirely, but I liked some of the 2e changes (Priests of Specific Mythoi, Spheres for clerics, Rangers and Thieves getting to spend points) and several of the early supplements and settings. so I played 2e for a couple of years. By the time Planescape was released I was done with AD&D completely. 2e kept me in D&D for about 3 or 4 additional years and still like several supplements and settings for reference.

As for 3e, while I ran 3e for less time than either 1e or 2 due to a multi-year M&M campaign, a house ruled D&D 3.0 that ignores most WOTC supplemental material and relies on DM decision rather than the listed skill DC is my preferred edition if I want to run D&D. However, 3.0 is not my first choice for fantasy at the moment. Savage Worlds, GURPS, HERO, Barbarians of Lemuria, and possibly both BASH Fantasy and Warhammer Fantasy 1e are all ahead of D&D. D&D is my compromise edition.

Pathfinder: I looked at it and passed. I didn't care for anything other than the changes to a few summoning spells and the wizard item option instead of a familiar. I was also impressed with much of Owen K. Stephens stuff for his Rogue Genius, his third party imprint (I was not, however, as impressed with the Genius guides that I had seen by others).

I looked at 4e and 5e. Both have things that I like and dislike, but I have decided not to run nor play either. Both would require as much as house ruling as I did in 3e. Also as with 3e, I would not want to run either above levels 10-12. I have stated some other issues that I have with both so there is no need to discuss the here. That all said, there are still elements from both that I would house rule into a 3e game.

 

[Lanefan]

Forever.

Why's that? Because instead of jumping to a new system I'll just tweak the one I've got, and carry on.

But I'll raise another question here, just to throw a pebble in the pond and see where the ripples go: is it the edition itself you get sick of, or the game(s) you're playing within that edition? Put another way, how often is the release of a new edition used as a convenient reason (or excuse) to chuck the current game due to dissatisfaction with the story or the players, and start afresh?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I’d say that that could be a part of it. I think it’s important to start new characters and a new campaign every now and then. Trying something new helps both players and DMs grow. But I’ve never used an edition change as an excuse for that. Our 1e characters continued on into 2e. The 2e campaigns I ran were cold and done before 3e was a thing. I closed up shop on our 4e campaign before 5e even came out.

But I'll raise another question here, just to throw a pebble in the pond and see where the ripples go: is it the edition itself you get sick of, or the game(s) you're playing within that edition? Put another way, how often is the release of a new edition used as a convenient reason (or excuse) to chuck the current game due to dissatisfaction with the story or the players, and start afresh?

 

[Umbran]

5th would get a thanks but no thanks- it lost me during all the prerelease info from playtest reports.

What people said years ago before it was finished, much less released, is relevant today, after folks have figured out how to work with it?

I'm guessing you get to play enough to scratch your itch - me, I'm the one who runs games, so I don't get to be very picky about what I play.

 

[iserith]

But I'll raise another question here, just to throw a pebble in the pond and see where the ripples go: is it the edition itself you get sick of, or the game(s) you're playing within that edition? Put another way, how often is the release of a new edition used as a convenient reason (or excuse) to chuck the current game due to dissatisfaction with the story or the players, and start afresh?

For me, never. I always wrap up what we're doing before converting. My campaigns run 20-40 sessions generally speaking anyway. I'm not up for anything longer than that. So it's not like I'm rushing or cutting short something we're currently doing to jump into another game system.

As for players, I have a system for screening players so that my groups are always populated with just fantastic people who are good at D&D. So I'm never dissatisfied with my group.

 

[TwoSix]

But I'll raise another question here, just to throw a pebble in the pond and see where the ripples go: is it the edition itself you get sick of, or the game(s) you're playing within that edition? Put another way, how often is the release of a new edition used as a convenient reason (or excuse) to chuck the current game due to dissatisfaction with the story or the players, and start afresh?

Games for my group rarely run more than 2 years or about 25-30 sessions, so we don't really need a new edition to start over.