Worlds of Design: To Move or Not to a New Edition?

Many tabletop RPGs besides D&D have multiple editions. How many people stick with older editions rather than move to the new one?

When the RPG ruleset you use is replaced by a new edition, what do you do?


Many tabletop RPGs besides D&D have multiple editions. How many people stick with older editions rather than move to the new one?

newedition.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Flipping & Turning Through New Rules​

I was reading an issue of Flipping & Turning (an online magazine for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, free through DriveThruRPG). A contributor to that magazine mentioned that years ago he thought no one played AD&D (First Edition, 1E) anymore, not once the Second Edition (2E) was released, but discovered many years later that Old Schoolers often play 1E.

My own experience is that I moved to AD&D from the original booklets, ignored 2E, played 3E along with 1E, played but did not game master 4E, and appreciate many virtues in 5E but don’t play it, still playing 1E.

New Editions, Other Games​

Thinking about other kinds of tabletop games, I suspect everyone moves to each new edition (there have been many) of Magic: the Gathering, because of “organized play” tournaments and the annual replacement of cards with new ones.

When an expansion for a board game is published, most people play with the expansion(s) if they can. New editions of board games are uncommon. I cite my own Britannia. In the UK people played the original H.P. Gibsons (1986) edition, in the USA gamers played the slightly different and later Avalon Hill (AH) edition (1987). When I revised the game to fix some errors introduced by publishers, in 2006, it replaced the AH edition at the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC) tournament, though a few people still prefer the AH edition. The 2020 reissue of the game does not change the rules, but uses plastic pieces (and new board artwork). Many long-time players don’t like the idea of plastic figures, and I think we’ll see a mix of sets when WBC next meets. But because the rules haven’t changed, though the interface has, it’s not comparable to a new edition of an RPG where the rules do change.

The Pros & Cons of a New Edition​

If you stick with the old you don’t have to worry about official updates to the rules. Updates can vary in quality and reception; some provide new ways for players to get something in a way that seems "easier" to players, which can cause friction at the table when those players want to use the new rules, and the game master doesn't. This may not be a problem for strong personalities, but can be a problem for a GM who isn’t clearly the leader of the group. That GM will be constantly bombarded with requests to use new rules. Forty years ago I advised GMs to avoid letting players gain unearned advantages through new rules (I banned all additions to my 3E game); but that only applies to RPGs as games, not as storytelling mechanisms.

A new edition can fix problems, but can introduce new ones. I’m not sure where the advantage lies. Another consequence of staying with the old is that new players who have bought the new edition may prefer to play what they’ve bought.

By the time a new edition is released, there’s so much material available for the older edition (often free or quite cheap) that there may not be an obvious need to switch. Those sticking with older RPG editions may be more likely to make up their own material, and thus depend less on updates. Gamers sometimes accuse publishers of releasing a new edition simply to make more money rather than actually improve the game, but a company’s motivation can certainly be both (See The Dilemma of the Simple RPG).

Finally, there is the belief that new is always better, predicated on the notion that a new edition is always an improvement on the older one. That’s certainly how publishers position their new editions, but it’s not true for every player. It wasn’t true for me with D&D, but with an historian’s perspective I also see that new often isn’t better, it’s just new.

Your Turn: How many people stick with older editions of RPGs? After all, many tabletop role-playing games have multiple editions, not just D&D. So we have a poll!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Originally he was quite expansive and open to all kinds of possibilities and house rules. When someone famously wrote in Alarums & Excursions (in '75, I think?) that "D&D is too important to be left to Gary Gygax", Gary wrote into a subsequent issue and agreed!

But when the market had been established, the sales really started rolling in, and he had broken with Dave Arneson and didn't want to share royalties anymore, we started seeing the much more corporate, money-focused Gary try to narrow down the vision, standardize the game, and assert more control. Some of that was related to other factors, of course. Like how tournaments were a significant early source of income, and tournament play really kind of necessitates clear rules and consistent interpretation.
 


Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Hence my winking emote. ;)

Although, to be fair, IMO, it's always been about both the money and the hobby. Even in those first heady, halcyon days, Gary was trying to feed his family. And the loan he had to take from Brian Blume to get TSR off the ground in the first place had far-reaching implications, eventually down to Gary being forced out of the company in '85/86.

Perhaps we could say that in the period where WotC first acquired TSR to save D&D from TSR's creditors, it really wasn't about the money. Although of course WotC management really didn't want to lose any more money once they had acquired that dying company.

Part of publishing games we love, once we get out of just doing it as a hobby, does mean that the money matters and influences everything. That being said, from what I've seen there have always been passionate, hardworking gamers focused on the game itself even during the periods of worst mismanagement. Whether that was when Williams & co were threatening fansites with lawsuits and making the terrible business decisions around Buck Rogers and the Random House deal, or in 3.5 when WotC was pumping out books ad nauseum seemingly at the behest of Hasbro to sell MORE, MORE, MORE!
 
Last edited:

Helpful NPC Thom

Adventurer
Switching to a new edition depends entirely on the changes in the new edition. For instance, when Savage Worlds released their newest edition, Adventure Edition, my group and I readily embraced the changes. The system is largely backwards compatible with the old rules set, the changes to the game were extensively playtested, and almost every tweak to the rules has been well-received an overwhelmingly positive.

On the other hand, when a new edition involves drastic changes or modifications to the playstyle, I'm less inclined to embrace change. Our group initially transitioned from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder, but we were disinclined to migrate to Pathfinder 2e, instead choosing 5e for the simpler ruleset. In our view, D&D 5e is more similar to D&D 3e and Pathfinder than Pathfinder 2e is. Not to mention, the DMs (myself and my husband, Ryan) are big fans of some of the design decisions, like bounded accuracy, which is something we've been talking about for years before 5e coined the term. Guess WotC will have to hire us on as the next lead developers. ;)
 

RFB Dan

Podcast host, 6-edition DM, and guy with a pulse.
I started with 2nd Edition AD&D. Staying close to the core rulebooks it always worked great for us. 3.5 left a bad taste in my mouth for a few reasons which I choose not to discuss here for the sake of avoiding edition-warring, but I'll play it as a PC still. I've since gone back to BECMI & 1st Edition and enjoyed them fine. Despite its major changes, my time playing 4th ed was enjoyable; I'm not sure I'd go back to that ruleset for a long campaign again, though. 5th ed is the best ruleset I've used since 2e. I'm currently running a 2e game and was in a 1e game as a player for about a year. For me I suppose it depends on the group I'm in. I've had groups where everyone had a different "Will-Not-Play" rules set and we had to work it out before beginning. 5e & 2e were always the only ones we could all agree we would play.

But, all that noise aside, I've run all six major editions at Gen Con in years past (I called it the Edition Gauntlet Ordeal) and I stand by the statement that the players at the table make or break the game more than the rules can.
 

Casimir Liber

Adventurer
Started playing D&D in 1978 - basic then 1E - loved the speed of 1E combat and the richness of the monsters/dungeons/content etc. - hated the arbitrary level limits and class restrictions. Moved to 2E (needed after the cavalier/UA screw up), my memories are that it was okay-ish? IIRC an improvement on 1E but my life was such that I played less. Played little during the time of 3/3.5E. Restarted in 2008 with 4E - found that a complete trainwreck with no redeeming features that I can recall. Moved to Pathfinder, enjoyed to a point. Love 5E though combat still a little slow and not sure why. I would hate it if they made 5.5 or 6E within the next 5 years given how much content there is for 5E now.

Played TFT (in the labyrinth/melee) in the 80s. This was an amazingly simple game of combat mechanics that was really fun. This recently had a reboot and I lost interest in some of the rule changes, so I won't be playing that I suspect.
 

Casimir Liber

Adventurer
To answer the question, I’ve been playing D&D through two edition changes: 3.5 to 4e and 4e to 5e. The former I eagerly embraced because I had a lot of issues with 3.5, and the latter I was disappointed with because I loved 4e, but also excited for because of the open playtest process. I enthusiastically jumped on the opportunity to help shape the next edition, and found myself liking the direction they were going in more than 4e, though I still think a lot of great design ideas got thrown out simply for being associated with 4e.
I have to ask...what did you like about 4e?
 

Casimir Liber

Adventurer
My reasoning is this: New core rulebooks are cash cows and WotC would be foolish (economically) not to exploit them. If you're going to publish new books, you might as well make adjustments from 10 years of experiencing the edition, both addressing "warts" and incorporating new ideas, and once you start tweaking things there's a bit of a domino effect and you end up with a new edition.

What I hope is that they turn to new settings for big books before feeling the financial need to do 6e (and yet more core rulebooks)...Dark Sun...Gamma World....more Eastern...more Ravenloft (given that has only just made it into 5e now!)....
 

Hussar

Legend
I have to ask...what did you like about 4e?
Heh, I'm not @Charlaquin but, for me? Pretty much every good part of 5e has its origins in 4e. From two step resource recovery (short/long rest) to the powers set up, to the standardization of classes (although 5e backed off on that somewhat), to the simplification of monsters and the separation of monsters and PC rules. There's a shopping list of "great ideas in 5e" that had their genesis in 4e.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top