Editions in RPGs - and why we should embrace change

[Dannyalcatraz]

I get what you are saying but think you're being a tad extreme (more than a tad). If 3E isYes,then 4E is certainly not gangsta-rap. It might not even be Rush, but it could be something like Primus - spastic rock with elements of prog.

I'm exaggerating to make a point, to be sure- the gap between 3.X and 4Ed are not so great as that between classic Prog and hardcore gangsta rap- but the point remains: despite my having a decent overall opinion of 4Ed as a FRPG, it does not deliver to me (as has been phrased by others) that "D&D Experience."

(As for KC, I'm more a fan of Discipline and THRAK era stuff...)

 

[Corathon]

If you look at some other RPGs, D&D's edition history is actually less frequent then most. Below is a list of a few RPGs. I've put "sub-editions", including anniversary and commemorative versions, in parentheses. In the case of D&D, I didn't include the BECMI line as it was a separate game from AD&D and was absorbed within the D&D umbrella with 3E.

Dungeons & Dragons
1974, 1977-79, 1989, (1995), 2000, (2003), 2008, (2010)
Call of Cthulhu
1981, (1982), 1983, 1986, 1989, 1992, (1998), (2000), (2001), 2004, (2006)

World of Darkness
1991+, 2004

Exalted
2001, 2006

Ars Magica
1987, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2004

Talislanta
1987, 1990, 1992, 2001, (2005), 2006
Runequest
1978, 1980, 1984, 2006, 2010, 2012

I can't comment on WoD, Exalted, RQ, or Ars Magica, but the editions of CoC are pretty much backwards compatible. A 1E character can be run through an adventure from later editions (or vice versa) with no real problems. That's not true for D&D.

My opinion is that we should embrace the possibility (inevitability) of a new edition of D&D. Why? Here are a few reasons:



[*]No One's Going To Kill You and Take Your Stuff - I understand that some don't like to hear this, but no one is going to take away your old rulebooks. Every edition of D&D is not only still fully playable and enjoyable, but has lifetimes of material to draw from. Asking WotC to continue to support your edition of choice indefinitely would be like asking musicians to keep the same sound they had when they started.

This is a good point. I don't recall who it was, but someone on ENWorld posted a thread titled something like "The Edition Wars are Over and Everybody Won". The thesis was that older edition players had the OSR products, 3E fans had Pathfinder, and 4E fans had WotC products, so everybody ought to be happy. A new edition won't prevent those who prefer older editions from playing what they like.

[*]Change Is Good...Usually - As the Buddhists say, everything is impermanent. Embrace it or suffer. Not only that, but everything needs to change and evolve to remain vital. Without change, there is no possibility for innovation and growth.

Change is good sometimes. Its also bad sometimes. I don't agree that its usually good or usually bad.

[*]The More the Merrier - why not have more editions? Obviously there is a balance, but we're talking about 5E not 27E. Again, all previous editions remain playable, enjoyable, and--best of all--convertible to your edition of choice.

Personally, I don't care how many editions there are. But if the release of a new edition splits the fanbase, this could make problems for WotC.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My experience with most systems--strictly from my personal preference of what works, why, and what i like--is that the longer a company tinkers around the edges with a system, the worse it gets. There might be a ramp up period where something released rough gets steadily better. But then you hit a point where they have done X as well as they are going to do it. At that point, I want any new edition to be a fairly radical departure from what came before, at least in some ways. Plus, some things you simply can't fix without reworking from the ground up.

If branding and networks of players and tribal loyalty weren't so important, then maybe none of that would matter. All "new editions" would be tinkering around the edges, until there was nothing left to change that would sell. Radical changes would be whole new games, from the "creators of". And maybe if a frog had wings ...

 

[Eric Tolle]

The sad thing about this is how versions of D&D is regarded as a zero-sum game. "MY version of D&D is the TRUE version of D&D is the correct one, and anybody publishing or playing a different version subtracts from my version's success." So we get people comparing new versions of a game to rape amd murder, and otherwise behaving like a pack of starving stray dogs fighting over the decaying corpse of the rpg hobby.

The idea that different versions of the game could be a good thing, that we could grow the hobby by bringing in people who like different things in, has been lost. It's a pity, because on the one hand, you have 4E to appeal to those who like spiffy effects, and on the other, there's 3rd edition for the people who like to build characters like a Magic the Gathering deck, and the retro clones for people who like slightly modified AD&D. Three games, appealing to different sensibilities, which should be fine. Instead we get "splintering the fanbase", as if we suddenly got rid of 4E suddenly those players would go flocking to Pathfinder. The reality is that nobody I know who's playing 4E has any interest in playing Pathfinder, since their attitude to 3.X ranges from irritation to loathing.

The reality is that the fanbase has been splintered for decades, and that we should accept that and try to grow the overall market. As Michael Tresca pointed out in the GenCon report, while Pathfinder had more players, 4E seemed to be bringing in more 1st.-time players. Which is good. Hopefully DDI and the Pathfinder OGC are doing the same, while the EnWorld hyenas are busy snarling at each other.

 

[S'mon]

See, I disagree with this. I like Philotomy's "adventure test" although don't find that TSR D&D, 3E and 4E are as incompatible in terms of adventure running as he says they are. In fact, I've proven otherwise, at least for myself. I started running a 4E-version of White Plume Mountain a few months ago with very little conversion prep time. I took the 1E and 3E versions, swapped in 4E monsters, and eyeballed the rest. Cake, really. You don't need any conversion for "fluff"; traps are relatively easy to convert, as are anything requiring skill tests. Monsters are also quite easy - you just swap in your edition of choice's version. Etc.

Eh, I know you can convert - my 4e campaign has been the 3e adventures Vault of Larin Karr & Forge of Fury. But they might as well be systemless adventures since I have to convert all the monsters etc to 4e. By contrast OD&D-Classic D&D-AD&D 1e-2e is basically one system that requires basically NO conversion work.

 

[Mercurius]

Eh, I know you can convert - my 4e campaign has been the 3e adventures Vault of Larin Karr & Forge of Fury. But they might as well be systemless adventures since I have to convert all the monsters etc to 4e. By contrast OD&D-Classic D&D-AD&D 1e-2e is basically one system that requires basically NO conversion work.

Ok, but my point is that conversion is rarely (if ever) a Herculean task. In many cases all that it requires is pulling out the appropriate monster book or eyeballing a trap's damage or difficulty factor and ac hocking a target number or skill challenge.

But yeah, I hear your point - as Philotomy implied, there are different family trees of D&D. You could say that the first branching was OD&D into B/X and AD&D. BECMI was a further branching of B/X, and 2E of AD&D, but still basically the same "limb." One could say, as Philotomy did, that 3E wasn't a continued branching or even consolidation of both branches of TSR D&D, but a new limb altogether, and then 4E another new limb. I can buy that.

Now what I'd like to see, and Mearls' articles give me hope, is a clarification of the core rules in a so-called "5E" onto which just about any advanced option or modular rule can be added. If this was done well, you could make just about any flavor you wanted, and emulate at least the feeling of whatever edition even.

 

[billd91]

The idea that different versions of the game could be a good thing, that we could grow the hobby by bringing in people who like different things in, has been lost. It's a pity, because on the one hand, you have 4E to appeal to those who like spiffy effects, and on the other, there's 3rd edition for the people who like to build characters like a Magic the Gathering deck, and the retro clones for people who like slightly modified AD&D. Three games, appealing to different sensibilities, which should be fine. Instead we get "splintering the fanbase", as if we suddenly got rid of 4E suddenly those players would go flocking to Pathfinder. The reality is that nobody I know who's playing 4E has any interest in playing Pathfinder, since their attitude to 3.X ranges from irritation to loathing.

I think you'd have something there if support were offered for older editions or inter-edition compatibility were higher. But that's often not the case (Traveller being one of the few exceptions I've seen). Once a new edition comes out, the company usually shifts over to devote their efforts on moving forward. That inevitably means that fans of the older editions see their edition's products become scarce, support from the designers dries up. That raises the stakes a bit. People may cling to their favorite systems, but I really doubt anybody likes it when their favorite is the dying system no matter how long it takes to fade away.

Right now, with the OGL-fueled Pathfinder, we really do have a case where a new edition coexists with a previous edition (if somewhat shifted but highly compatible), both receiving ongoing support. That should help the situation, and I do know of people who play both 4e and PF (myself included).

On the other hand, a supported older edition means disputed lines of succession. You can't simply say "The king is dead, long live the king," if the preceding king isn't dead. Instead you may get a dynastic struggle...

 

[S'mon]

Ok, but my point is that conversion is rarely (if ever) a Herculean task.

Yes, but I think you missed my point. When I said "shelves of mutually incompatible books" I was not primarily talking about adventures. I was talking about rulebooks, monster manuals & such. The 1e stuff does little to support the 3e stuff, and neither support 4e.

 

[Mercurius]

Yes, but I think you missed my point. When I said "shelves of mutually incompatible books" I was not primarily talking about adventures. I was talking about rulebooks, monster manuals & such. The 1e stuff does little to support the 3e stuff, and neither support 4e.

[further nitpicking]
OK, but even then, the fluff is still "compatible" and for that which is "incompatible", there is usually an easy replacement. Sure, Martial Power is essentially useless in any other version of the game--there is no way around that--but most books are, at worst, still usable for pillaging or, quite simply, occasional browsing and memory lane strolling. Actually, this is one of the reasons why I think/hope that with the next edition, stuff like Martial Power will be relegated to DDI and that there will be no need for a Martial Power, let alone Martial Power 2--except as, perhaps, a rules update annual at the end of the year that would include much more than just Martial Power.

(But then again, I'm the type that buys Players Handbook 2 and 3, but none of the Power books).

My point being, nothing is every lost--at least with regards to gaming collections--and, more specifically to the conversation, everything that needs converting is easily convertible and that which is truly "incompatible" is just inevitable detritus of prior editions, at best an idiosyncratic look into the past taking up half and inch on your gaming shelf.

I will probably never use any statistics from my 1E Field Folio (you know, the one with the mysterious drooping goo coming out of the githyanki bandages), but I love owning the book, having it in my collection, and every once in awhile pulling it down and thumbing through it. The same can't really be said for Martial Power 2, but then again I didn't buy Martial Power 2.
[/nitpicking]

 

[prosfilaes]

[further nitpicking]
OK, but even then, the fluff is still "compatible"

Which is also true for any number of games, from Warhammer Fantasy to GURPS Fantasy to Rolemaster to Palladium Fantasy. If that's all that matters, why should we be thinking of change in a linear fashion? If change for its own sake is good, and at no cost, we should change every time a new fantasy system comes out.