Dislike 4E? You can write off 5E

[Nikosandros]

Edit: Thanks for posting the Feb `07 announcement, saves me some trouble sourcing that quote

I always had the impression that 4e development cycle had been cut short by 6 months or one year, but it is fair to point out that Scott Rouse (then brand manager for D&D) stated that he had been misquoted and that he had actually stated that they had many good products slated for 2007, not 2008.

 

[ggroy]

Wow, SW Saga is only 3 years?

Some other recent rpgs lasted 3 years despite publishing more than two dozen splatbooks, such as Mongoose's Runequest (MRQ).

The first Mongoose Runequest was first published in 2006, and eventually petered out in 2009.

Mongoose Publishing :: View topic - Collector's Checklist

A new Mongoose Runequest II was just published last month.

Mongoose Publishing : For All Your Gaming Needs ...

 

[keterys]

Given that D&DI is their new 'evergreen', they have a much more compelling business reason to stick with 4e than previously. Much like how many MMOs work, a new one jeopardizes the existing one. World of Warcraft will keep on improving itself - even down to completely and utter changes that have been in since day 1 - rather than put out WoW2 and potentially lose millions (or billions).

I actually wish that their boundary for things that they can't do til the next edition were a bit looser. Go ahead and make the expertise changes core. Cleanup magic items if that bothers you. Etc.

The people who liked the old way can always just use the old books.

 

[BryonD]

1. Saying 3E's lifespan was 8 years is deceptive. 3.5 was a new edition of the game, not a minor once over to update the rules. It came out in 2003 and lasted until 2008.

I think there are serious limits on comparing any of these numbers.
I'd strongly disagree that 3.5 was in any way a new edition. I continued using pre 3.5 with post 3.5 without a hitch.

Whereas 1E's life should include consideration that it was a near monopoly on the market for a while and it took some time for serious competition to even come about, much less start to be noticed.

2E's life was probably a lot less than listed, it just dragged on as a propped up corpse for the end portion.

If anything, "on the order of a decade" is ok, and "getting shorter as technology and increased alternatives grow".

 

[ggroy]

Given that D&DI is their new 'evergreen', they have a much more compelling business reason to stick with 4e than previously.

This is assuming DDI remains an "evergreen" cash cow for WotC. If enough people let their subscriptions lapse without renewing, it may not remain a cash cow.

 

[gamerprinter]

Not a problem

Now problem here, I've written off WotC - so they could put out 25e, and it don't matter I'm through with that company.

GP

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I think there are serious limits on comparing any of these numbers.
I'd strongly disagree that 3.5 was in any way a new edition. I continued using pre 3.5 with post 3.5 without a hitch.

Whereas 1E's life should include consideration that it was a near monopoly on the market for a while and it took some time for serious competition to even come about, much less start to be noticed.

2E's life was probably a lot less than listed, it just dragged on as a propped up corpse for the end portion.

If anything, "on the order of a decade" is ok, and "getting shorter as technology and increased alternatives grow".

Would you say that Pathfinder is a new edition (no snark intended)?

I can speak for my group with regards to 3-3.5: We didn't use any 3E era stuff with 3.5 for player options (adventures were fair game though). If I run a pathfinder game, I'll be hard pressed to allow 3.5 player options into the game.

Just for me, I sometimes wonder about the perfect storm of 4E. Why the changing of editions has been met with such vocal passion, both for and against.

 

[BryonD]

Would you say that Pathfinder is a new edition (no snark intended)?

The Pathfinder poster on my game roon wall says: 3.5 Thrives. So, no. Though I would say it is a bigger change than 3.0 to 3.5 was. And it still isn't a "new" edition at that. Heck, that is its most common criticism, it is just a re-tooling and not a new edition.

I can speak for my group with regards to 3-3.5: We didn't use any 3E era stuff with 3.5 for player options (adventures were fair game though). If I run a pathfinder game, I'll be hard pressed to allow 3.5 player options into the game.

Noted.
Your election to not use 3.0 with 3.5 or 3.5 with PF is perfectly valid.
However, in no way does that make them at incompatible. I'm already using 3.5 with PF regularly.

Just for me, I sometimes wonder about the perfect storm of 4E. Why the changing of editions has been met with such vocal passion, both for and against.

Huh? non sequitur?

 

[Dausuul]

I think there are serious limits on comparing any of these numbers.
I'd strongly disagree that 3.5 was in any way a new edition. I continued using pre 3.5 with post 3.5 without a hitch.

If that's your standard for edition changes, then 1E and 2E must be considered a single edition spanning 25 years. 1E material was quite usable in 2E games.

When I first started playing AD&D, it wasn't long after 2E's release and a lot of 1E stuff was still on the market. I picked up a couple of 1E sourcebooks (the Dragonlance hardcover and the Manual of the Planes, IIRC), and it was a while before I even realized there was a difference. I noticed some odd inconsistencies, to be sure, but didn't really put it together at first.

To the original topic: I agree with those who say that Wyatt's extremely theoretical statements are far from the Word Of God. I think the 4E/5E jump, when it comes, will be bigger than 1E/2E; probably a little smaller than 2E/3E; definitely not as big as 3E/4E.

My guess is that the core structure of the rules will remain as-is. We'll still have at-will, encounter, and daily powers, we'll still have the unified attack/defense mechanic, 4E-style saving throws, monsters divided up into minion/regular/elite/solo, and so on and so forth. However, there will be a fair bit of tinkering with the details.

 

[BryonD]

If that's your standard for edition changes, then 1E and 2E must be considered a single edition spanning 25 years. 1E material was quite usable in 2E games.

I would agree that the two were rather compatible. I'd say that 1e to 2e is vastly larger than 3E to 3.5, but far smaller than either 2e to 3e or 3e to 4e.

To me, the difference in 1e (which I played) and 2e (which I also played until I found better games) was enough to call it a new edition. I'm using the same standard, but perhaps with a different sensitivity.

Mixing 3E and 3.5 is no different than implementing errata.