Will there ever be new editions of the major systems?

[Faolyn]

We're getting Toon 2.0, and nothing's more major than that.

Speaking of SJG, I'd kind of like a new edition of In Nomine. I've only played it once but it had an almost-but-not-really-GURPS clunkiness to it.

 

[The Soloist]

What I'm also more hinting at is that something like Draw Steel is doing siginifcantly better in the crowdfunding department for supplements then DH is. While you're essentially saying that DS is more a fad then DH is, I cannot but wonder if your own preferences are not playing a part here. Why in a year? We'll see in 2035 if these games are still around (as in actively receiving new product support).

I do not play or like DH.

Nor did I say DS was a fad. DS is drawing in the D&D 4e crowd, who have been waiting for a new 4e-like RPG. Colville cultivated this for many years. Not surprised by his numbers.

But I still think Darrington press and CR are in a better business position to endure long term because of their direct sales model and the Prime tv show which gives them huge international exposure.

Ok, we will see in 10 years if you prefer. But I might have expired by then. Not getting any younger. I'm talking it one year at a time since I turned 60!

 

[Blue]

Agreed. When WoTC said 5e would be evergreen in 2014, no one believed them, but they were serious. 5e is now almost 12 years old. Many people started with it. I don't see any major rules shake up either.

Umm, it's absolutely not evergreen. The fact that community as a whole has had to adopt 2014 and 2024 prefixes because it's needed even though WotC won't admit it shows it.

Play a 2024 fighter using the 2014 equipment. If it's the same edition the lack of mastery keywords isn't an issue. Play with 2014 feats and pick them up at 1st with a 2024 character build because they have no prerequisites. It is very much not a single edition where you can mix and match as you wish. Nor can any claim be made that the 2024 books are errata invalidating earlier material since no errata for the earlier books has been issued.

 

[mamba]

What I'm also more hinting at is that something like Draw Steel is doing siginifcantly better in the crowdfunding department for supplements then DH is.

we will only know once DH crowdfunds its first expansion, so far we are comparing apples (Drakkenheim for DH or some cards for existing content) and oranges (the new MCDM KS)

 

[Morrus]

Umm, it's absolutely not evergreen. The fact that community as a whole has had to adopt 2014 and 2024 prefixes because it's needed even though WotC won't admit it shows it.

And we're slowly get new versions of everything. New artificer this month!

 

[Voadam]

You can call it whatever you like but if you do not call it by its name how am I supposed to know what it is? I can see being upset with corporate naming conventions and marketing but it also a community that cannot agree as to what "railroading" means.
Communication here can be difficult enough with out everyone adopting their own private language for products they do not like.

If I tell you I am going to link to a tweet from yesterday I think you will know what I mean even though the company calls it something different now.

If I make a comment on Obamacare and you are American I think you might know what I am talking about even though its official title is the Affordable Care Act.

You call it by a name, whether that name is what the corporate owner/coiner named it is not necessarily the only name.

 

[The Soloist]

Umm, it's absolutely not evergreen. The fact that community as a whole has had to adopt 2014 and 2024 prefixes because it's needed even though WotC won't admit it shows it.

Play a 2024 fighter using the 2014 equipment. If it's the same edition the lack of mastery keywords isn't an issue. Play with 2014 feats and pick them up at 1st with a 2024 character build because they have no prerequisites. It is very much not a single edition where you can mix and match as you wish. Nor can any claim be made that the 2024 books are errata invalidating earlier material since no errata for the earlier books has been issued.

3e was a dramatic departure from 2e.
4e was a dramatic departure from 3e.
5e was a dramatic departure from 4e.

5e24, is NOT was a dramatic departure from 5e14.

 

[Morrus]

3e was a dramatic departure from 2e.
4e was a dramatic departure from 3e.
5e was a dramatic departure from 4e.

5e24, is NOT was a dramatic departure from 5e14.

2E was not a "dramatic departure" from 1E. 3.5 was not a "dramatic departure" from 3E. Pendragon 6th edition is not a "dramatic departure" from Pendragon 5th edition. The current Call of Cthulhu was not a "dramatic departure" from the previous one.

Questions:

(1) Who decided that a new edition had to be a "dramatic departure"? You?
(2) Where does "dramatic departure" appear in the definition of the word "edition"?
(3) Who gets to define "dramatic"? You?

This is just a bunch of criteria you just made up. You can decide what the word "edition" means to you, but you don't get to force that definition on everyone else.

 

[overgeeked]

Hard to say. They updated it slightly with Fate Condensed. Fred Hicks also said that Forged in the Dark outsells Fate, which is also why there hasn't been too much Fate from Evil Hat Games as of late. (The only thing that comes to mind is turning Masters of Umdaar into a bigger game.)

Fate was definitely ahead of its time.

 

[The Soloist]

It's just my point of view and I'm not forcing anything on any one. I'll see myself out now. Have a good evening.