10 years was too long.

[reanjr]

So, I'm looking forward to an even better version of D&D. And don't get me wrong, 3E is a vast improvement, it's just that it seems so hyper-sentive in the crunch department. Indeed, is it possible to have a better version of D&D without so much crunch?

Certainly it is possible. The game would just have to empower the DM like the earlier editions did. I think that's where the game fails most. The DM has been turned into a rules reference, where they used to be a rules interpreter and developer.

 

[MerricB]

I had no problem with the length of time between 1st and 2nd Edition and between 2nd and 3rd edition. The years just seemed to fly by . . . (maybe it was my young age and I didn't care about new editions).

Indeed. Back when 1e was around, I wasn't hoping for a new edition.

I was wishing that the rules were clearer, though. The amount of time I spent trying to understand the 1e initiative rules... and I didn't even bother with the unarmed combat rules.

1e would have been well served by a reprinting of the book with a few changes of the rule descriptions. Nothing to make it necessary to rebuy the books, but something to help new players.

In the end, my campaigns relied on the Moldvay Basic set for many of the procedures of the game which Gygax hadn't managed to explain in the DMG...

Cheers!

 

[Emiricol]

I'm happy with rules that are clear enough to go from Group A to Group B and be able to function at full strength as a player (and the PC!). One of the biggest weaknesses of 1E, which I played a LOT of, was that it was not really playable without a lot of interpretation.

As a novice, I'd appreciate the unambiguous rules. As the experienced DM I am, if I want to re-interpret something, I can do it as easily now as I could when I was forced to.

Back on topic, I do not think 10 years is too long. I think it's probably just about right for a system as developed as D&D. The Complete books and other supplements fill the role of incremental systems without breaking compatibility, which I like. The modularity of D&D supplements is ideal for this, since you don't have to own ALL of it for the system to keep working. I buy what I like.

Heck, 3.0 came out five years ago, and it doesn't seem that long. Five more years seems about right for a major version revision.

 

[Jupp]

The problem I see with having to wait 10 years until a new ruleset is release is as follows:

I think if WotC does indeed wait 10 years until they decide to release 4e then we will end up with the same problem as with 2e, if not worse. When 3E was released and you took a look back to 2e you were presented with a bookcase full of optional rulebooks, each having numbers in them that you could add to the core rules. Especially the "Options" and "Complete" books come to mind there. For me they were the pest that had to be banned from the game on sight. 2e ended in a rules inflation, and they were inconsistent to boot, so it really was time to get 3E. Now I think WotC is slowly going the same route with 3.xE and even by today we have a ton of optional rules. And because 3E books have much more numbers compared to their 2e counterparts this problem is getting worse even faster. So I am for releasing 4e in the next for years. But not because 3E is bad but because I dont want it to end like 2e, in some ways at least. If you have a company that decides to not release adventures (as was the case with WotC) but only rulebooks you are literally flooded by this stuff and with time you start to get the silly things in them because the good ideas have already been covered in earlier books.

Aside from this I am on the same line as dead was in his post. It would be awfully sweet to get a leaner, less number heavy game with 4e so the DM has to do less number stacking but can concentrate more on the adventure itself.

 

[Psion]

I dunno Merric. I think I could go 10 years beore another revision, so long as this version was competantly supported.

 

[MerricB]

I dunno Merric. I think I could go 10 years beore another revision, so long as this version was competantly supported.

But was 10 years too long between editions for 1e/2e and 2e/3e?

Cheers!

 

[Henry]

Keep in mind that ideas travel MUCH faster between gaming groups than they did 10 years ago... and faster than 10 years before that... and 10 years before that...

People get upset that books come out within months of one another because "the releases are too slow." Keep in mind TSR released the 1E MM in 1977, the PHB in 1978, and the DMG in 1979. It was a pretty lengthy release between the 2E PHB and DMG too, if I recall correctly. Release schedules are accelerated because LIFE is accelerated compared to previous.

 

[Jupp]

Keep in mind that ideas travel MUCH faster between gaming groups than they did 10 years ago... and faster than 10 years before that... and 10 years before that...

People get upset that books come out within months of one another because "the releases are too slow." Keep in mind TSR released the 1E MM in 1977, the PHB in 1978, and the DMG in 1979. It was a pretty lengthy release between the 2E PHB and DMG too, if I recall correctly. Release schedules are accelerated because LIFE is accelerated compared to previous.

My vote goes to Henry to wear the "Philosopher for a day" badge! Too much truth in that statement of yours *faints*

 

[TerraDave]

Devil

I don't think 10 years is a good amount of time to wait between new editions.

However, there is another side to this: I don't think edition changes as vast as 2E to 3E are a good thing. I think it was necessary in that case, but I also believe that having more frequent editions reduces the necessity, because the game is adapting all the time.

Cheers!

You really are playing the devil's (or wizards?) advocate on this one. So 3.5 came out at the right time? Should we have 3.75 sooner rather then latter--2006?

I guess to the extent that this maintains backwards (or forwards) compatability, and that edition changes are used to incorporate errata--the great failure of 3.5--it is not so bad, though I also don't think it is so great.

But yes, there are things that could be tweaked. In addition to what has been listed, more class or race customisation--so things like trap sense, pokemounts, or heavy armor prof become optional--and a more "definative" list of PrCs could be good. Though the latter could be beyond any new addition. And yes, all the options floating around right now will create pressure to redefine what is core and what is not

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think 10 years is a good amount of time to wait between new editions.

I don't think there is anything like a "proper" amount of time between editions. A RPG is not like Windows, it doesn't become obsolete. An edition can be poor, in which case it's a positive thing that it gets updated to the next one, or it can be great, in which case it doesn't need to be changed but only expanded.

My feeling is that gamers are just addicted and want "new stuff" or changes all the time but other games like Monopoly haven't changed and are still best sellers after 30yrs or more (clearly the comparison is poor, given the complexity and virtual lack of limits in a RPG). But when we open the weekly new thread about 4ed, most of us either propose (1) changes so large that it would turn D&D into unrecognizable, or (2) changes so small that aren't worth a new edition.

I am not sure if it makes sense for D&D to have editions one after the other.