10 years was too long.

[Desdichado]

Well, I've been able to beat off the sucker punching money grabbers (or the other way around, I suppose...) mostly; I've only picked up the Monster Manual, and that mostly because I think it's better organized (and I like some of the new art better. I'm running classes off the SRD for the games I play in, and I won't touch it as a GM.

 

[Umbran]

All the bits to create D&D3E were available at least 5 years before it actually came out.

And as I've already mentioned, mere existance of the parts in another game is not sufficient. The other games would have to circulate and percolate for a while. It takes time for folks to see the things in action, to see what bits are good, and what bits aren't, and then to realize why they are good or bad, and how they might fit with other bits from other games. Each of these other games (and also for games that didn't wind up inspriing D&D design) goes through this process separately. And the designers deal with this process while having day jobs and working on other projects.

So, let's say that the D&D designers spent no time reinventing wheels. Five years - minus the time spent doing the design work on D&D from the bits and the attendant writing, minus also the playtesting time, and the editing time, and the months between the final draft and when it hits the shelves....

What we have is probably only a couple of years between when all the bits became available and the new design begun. How is that unreasonable?

 

[KingOfChaos]

I have mentioned more than once when the subject has come up that many games seem to have a 2-4 year revision cycle. Call of Cthulhu and Ars Magica come to mind in particular.

A major revision every 10 years maybe - for example CoC has had no major revisions since their 5th edition, however evry edition of Ars Magica has been a major overhaul.

I ahve no problems with a four year cycle for D&D, though I am sure that there would be much booing and hissing from the crowd.

The Auld Grump

I have a problem with it because I don't have money coming out of my nether regions on command. These books are expensive...much more expensive than anything Chaosium puts out, so I care not if they put out a new rules system every four or five years. However, when I have to spend 150 dollars every four years for just the BARE BONES rules of a RPG system, that's a bit much.

I can understand a need to keep things from getting stagnant, but I still think 10 years between new editions is relatively safe. That way I don't waste money on books that won't get used much after the new edition comes out.

 

[Orius]

I think that it was a big mistake on TSR's part to let that long elapse between editions.

2E was substantially overdue - many of the core 1e rules descriptions needed an overhaul, and from the "patches" of Unearthed Arcana onwards, the rules were spread over more and more books.

With regard to 2e to a (conceptual) 3e that continued on the AD&D tradition, it was almost needed after one year! The supplements to 2nd edition were dramatically adding onto a base that hadn't been designed to handle them, and were inconsistent with each other.

Well, there are other circumstances to consider here too:

Wasn't Gygax already considering a new edition around the time he left in '85? IIRC, work on 2e began somewhere around '87 and it was released in '89. So Gygax's departure from TSR may have delayed the release of 2e.

And of course 3e wasn't released until after WotC bought TSR in '97 and spent about a year probing the game community to see how much gamers were interested in seeing a new edition. Also, it seems TSR was content in breaking up their market and probably would have taken even longer to release 3e if they hadn't gone bankrupt.

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.

That's because 2e really didn't change a lot from 1e in their core books. There were some changes to initiative, experience, adjustments to some classes, and some classes and half-orcs were dropped, but that's about it. However, once the PHB suppliments started taking off the game really started changing a lot, and there were fairly widespread in use. The Player's Options books also added another level of change, but their impact has often been compared to the impact the original UA had on 1e.

 

[Orius]

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...

I think that goes back to the marketing philosophy TSR used back in the '80s: players would start with Basic D&D, then eventually move up into AD&D. Not so much a problem in the 1e days when the two rule sets existed together and people would use material from both on a regular basis. It was a bigger problem in the 2e days when the 2e core books seems to work on the same principle, but Basic D&D had gone OOP.

 

[Arnwyn]

However, I don't believe it was great. I think that it was a big mistake on TSR's part to let that long elapse between editions.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I had a finely tuned and house-ruled 2e game going strong, and was having a great deal of fun. I don't think 10 years between editions is unreasonable at all.

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

I reject and dismiss your sentiments entirely.

 

[diaglo]

I was having fun with first edition and seciond edition well into their 9th and 10th years, so I wasn never looking for a new version.

I was having fun with OD&D well into its 15th year and wasn't looking for any other version.

I'm still having fun with OD&D, now into its 30th year.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I couldn't disagree with you more. I had a finely tuned and house-ruled 2e game going strong, and was having a great deal of fun. I don't think 10 years between editions is unreasonable at all.

I reject and dismiss your sentiments entirely.

Well, I can honestly see where you're coming from. My group and I was heavy in a 2nd Edition FR campaign set in (where else) Whaterdeep and the North and I didn't want to switch editions.

However, I find 3rd edition handles many things better than 2nd edition did, and the whole OGL thing makes it more than worth while.

Some may complain that there's a HUGE price tag but $150 (which using Amazon or anything else on the net, would lower it to say $60 as it's three core books at $30, not five core books or three core books at $50), but $150 over say, five years time is only $30 a year. If $30 a year is too expensive for entertinament... man, we've got different priorities... (Looks at so far unwatched boxed set of Band of Brothers...)

 

[diaglo]

... (Looks at so far unwatched boxed set of Band of Brothers...)

i complained about the price of my Original Boxed set.

some things are too much money for the initial layout.

you have to bite the bullet and decide.

that still doesn't mean it is worth the price. even as much of a fanboy as i am when it comes to OD&D. it was too expensive for a game.

and the current editions aren't even as enjoyable. so they definitely aren't worth it.

 

[Arnwyn]

However, I find 3rd edition handles many things better than 2nd edition did, and the whole OGL thing makes it more than worth while.

Oh, absolutely. I certainly don't dispute that - 3e has allowed me to detail my FR campaign much closer to my 'vision' than ever before.

But trying to tell me that 10 years is much too long? I think not.

Some may complain that there's a HUGE price tag but $150 (which using Amazon or anything else on the net, would lower it to say $60 as it's three core books at $30, not five core books or three core books at $50), but $150 over say, five years time is only $30 a year. If $30 a year is too expensive for entertinament... man, we've got different priorities... (Looks at so far unwatched boxed set of Band of Brothers...)

Though this paragraph wasn't directed at me, I'll discuss it: I do agree with you about your point re: price tag... but, to be fair, you are forgetting the amount of support material that will be involved.

Honestly, if I were to complain about "cost", it would be the cost in time of adopting a new edition. At this time of my life, learning a brand new edition and converting all my older material is simply not going to happen.