Will there ever be new editions of the major systems?

While the Python crew might have said something about Python 4, Python 3.14 released a week ago, and the changes between 3.0 and 3.14 in 17 years have NOT been minor changes! And that would not have been the equivalent of errata or FAQ equivalents in TTRPGs. They are most certainly still developing Python with 'minor' releases, which will have the result that eventually the starting point will not be the equivalent of the endpoint by a large margin.

Ans something like Perl is maybe not the best example, just like Rust is not the best example. C++ is still going strong and C++26 is in preview (currently on C++23). So it really depends what you're looking at, sometimes you have popular systems that turn out to be fads, and we totally have equivalents in TTRPGs of those.

As for comics, remember the early 90s with Image getting onto the scene and Spawn? Spawn was the hot new thing (with so many others, like Witchblade), I still prefer Spawn over the main Marvel/DC comics, but it never became the Marvel/DC killer so many thought it would be...

D&D is still the titan gorilla in the TTRPG field, they shot themselves seriously in the foot by first not renewing the contract with Paizo and then doing what they did with D&D 4e. This resulted in Pathfinder 1e becoming bigger in at least the US retailer market then D&D 4e. But WotC/Hasbro turned that around with D&D 5e. And while WotC/Hasbro has been saying that D&D 5e 2024 isn't a new edition, it's a new edition. Was it as drastic a change from 3.5e to 4e and from 4e to 5e? No. But that's because 4e was too much of a drastic change that most of the fanbase didn't accept. If you leave out 4e, the changes to each edition of D&D haven't been that drastic.

Pathfinder was made as a haven for D&D fans, but that would only last until WotC/Hasbro would fix their D&D, and they did. That still left Pathfinder 1e with 9 years of products and support, PF2e started creating it's own niche, and only 5 years later did they do another edition, with the 'Remaster', not upgrading the major version number, but a new edition none the less, in the same style as D&D. It now has it's own solid niche.

In the last 25 years on Enworld, how many people have decried the D&D killers, and they all failed to achieve this 'dream'? Quite a bite and quite often. Many folks that swore of D&D in their teens came back to it in their later years. Sure, many folks left D&D behind and never looked back, but that also happened with RPGs in general. People that left have been replaced by new fans. 'New' systems show up every month, 'new' systems get abandoned every month, by people following the next fad, because the grass is always greener on the other side...

I absolutely toss in Draw Steel, Daggerheart and Nimble in that pile, popular fads with very little staying power. You might like them, good for you! But I don't see them being around much in 2035. The first two are leaning heavily on personalities for hype, the later is essentially what 20 years ago would have been a D20/OGL product and not many of those are still around... Only the occasional game sticks around, beyond it's hype, but often taking up only a small niche. A good example would be Mutants & Masterminds 4e (if Green Ronin survives the distribution apocalypse), a bad example would be Spycraft that didn't survive beyond it's 2nd Edition and Fantasycraft in 2010. None of the three mentioned systems won an Ennie, and looking back at those that did win, they are often either a D&D or PF title or some VERY good niche products or systems. And that is absolutely fine!

We still play D&D (5e 2024) after 35+ years of RPGs. Yes, I did consider Pf2e Remastered when 5e 2024 was announced, but we ultimately chose D&D. I still want to run 'Spire the City must fall', even though the last source book for that was published two years ago. As well as other niche products that go far beyond the D&D paradigm. Those RPGs are not new, they've always been around. And some of them were considered D&D killers, some have passed into obscurity, others are still around and fill their own niche. And old games can still be played, even if there's no support for them anymore and the the hype has passed. Old worlds can be played with new rules, new worlds can be played with old rules. We're spoiled for choice!

For us D&D is a comfortable and familiar space we come home to when we've either played something else or we've taken a (long) break from RPGs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I absolutely toss in Draw Steel, Daggerheart and Nimble in that pile, popular fads with very little staying power. You might like them, good for you! But I don't see them being around much in 2035. The first two are leaning heavily on personalities for hype, the later is essentially what 20 years ago would have been a D20/OGL product and not many of those are still around...
Critical Role and Darrington Press have a lot of staying power. People said it was a fad when CR began 10 years ago. They still play every week and they have a Fantasy Adventure show on Prime. Of the three games you mentioned Daggerheart is to one that could still be around in 10 years.
 

In the last 25 years on Enworld, how many people have decried the D&D killers, and they all failed to achieve this 'dream'?
Honestly, I think that's a silly phrase. People don't make games thinking they're going to "kill" D&D. That's not the "dream" they have set their hopes on. They make games hoping they can carve out a niche and find an audience. This whole "D&D killer" nonsense is foisted upon them.
The first two are leaning heavily on personalities for hype,
That's an interesting point I hadn't really given a lot of thought to. Having a strong following (usually on YouTube, but other social media applies) is the current main route to million dollar Kickstarters, and it certainly works. But if these things hinge on a single individual maintaining that presence for years on end, that can be quite a burden--maintaining a YouTube channel day in day out sounds like a LOT of work and energy! Then again, it's not like the same doesn't hold true for other creatives--musicians, actors, etc. So it's certainly doable, especially if it continues to prove lucrative. Or, alternatively, if they can build a company around them to shift some of that responsibility a bit, which companies like MCDM etc. appear to be successfully in the process of doing.

So, jury is out on this one, but I think it'll be a mix--some will do OK long term (MCDM, Darrington, for example). Others might burn out or prove to be a flash in the pan. But time will tell.
 

I think there were a couple of reasons, which probably overlap a fair bit.

The biggest was that they nuked their main product lines. Their Big Three (Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage) always had a vibe going of imminent ending, and they eventually published a set of three books (plus IIRC one for all the other lines) where that actually happened. This was then followed by the New World of Darkness which, while it certainly had some things going for it, never had the same appeal as the original WoD.

They were also producing a huge number of product lines, with varying levels of relation to one another as well as various levels of using the same rules. You had the World of Darkness with its original Big Five (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Wraith, and Changeling), followed by assorted other product lines (Hunter, Mummy, Demon, Kindred of the East, probably something I'm forgetting), some of which required another core book. You also had the three games in the Trinity Continuum: AeonTrinity, Aberrant, and Adventure!. There was Exalted, which tried to challenge D&D for the fantasy space (I remember they were doing a promotion where you could send them your PHB and they'd send you the Exalted core book). I'm guessing they were learning some of the same lessons as TSR did about splitting the customer base too many ways.

And eventually, the owners sold out to CCCP (the Icelandic company making Eve Online), who were flush with cash but pretty soon had to contract, and the RPG side were the ones suffering for it.
All this.

At a more vibes level, the '90s aesthetic died off pretty quickly (at least here in the US) after the dot-com bubble burst and post-9/11. The original White Wolf lines were all very much of their time, which made moving back into them more difficult.

Also, the end of the original WoD lines coincided with the release of 3e and the early '00s d20 publishing bubble, which made getting traction for the new lines even more of an uphill climb.
 

Yes, calling sequel games "editions" is one of the strangest things to me about the ttrpg industry. And then when something is actually just a new edition of an existing game (ie: 2024 D&D) you aren't supposed to call it a new edition.
It is an absurdity, and I see that practice basically dying at this point. New editions, in the normal use of the word edition, like you say? Yeah, that will happen. But the juice is not worth the squeeze doing those sorts of "Not Your Grampas D&D!" manuevers.
 

Critical Role and Darrington Press have a lot of staying power. People said it was a fad when CR began 10 years ago. They still play every week and they have a Fantasy Adventure show on Prime. Of the three games you mentioned Daggerheart is to one that could still be around in 10 years.
In the 50 year history of the hobby, Daggerheart's positioning is really something rather new and different. Interesting to see where they go with it.
 
Last edited:

Yes, calling sequel games "editions" is one of the strangest things to me about the ttrpg industry. And then when something is actually just a new edition of an existing game (ie: 2024 D&D) you aren't supposed to call it a new edition.
Apparently WotC is allowed to call what they do whatever they want, and everyone else is supposed to just agree and follow suit.
 

Honestly, I think that's a silly phrase. People don't make games thinking they're going to "kill" D&D. That's not the "dream" they have set their hopes on. They make games hoping they can carve out a niche and find an audience. This whole "D&D killer" nonsense is foisted upon them.
Agreed. I honestly think that the people who talk most about "D&D killers," much like the people who talked about "WoW killers," are mostly those within the D&D community itself who enjoys showboating its continued prominence as the 800 lb. gorilla and imagines itself constantly defeating any uprising (strawmen) challengers. It feels like a mask for some strange insecurities about D&D.
 

Apparently WotC is allowed to call what they do whatever they want, and everyone else is supposed to just agree and follow suit.
A brand owner is always going to be able to name a brand whatever they want. Who else gets a say? You may wish they used a different name, but you are not paying for the advertising and so have very little power to overturn the branding.
 

A brand owner is always going to be able to name a brand whatever they want. Who else gets a say? You may wish they used a different name, but you are not paying for the advertising and so have very little power to overturn the branding.
It's the second thing, where everyone just goes along with WotC's advertising as if that's the way it's supposed to be for the whole hobby because they have the most money, that I see as a problem.
 

Remove ads

Top