Editions in RPGs - and why we should embrace change

[Mercurius]

I frequently hear complaints about the possibility of a 5E of D&D coming out in 2012 or 2013--4-5 years after 4E--as being too soon. Now I personally don't think so; if anything, I feel that D&D hasn't had enough editions, that the flagship RPG should be continually fine-tuned and evolved to reflect new ideas flowing in, with at least revised versions of the core rulebooks printed 2-3 years after first publication.

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

Actually, it was Lawrence Whitaker's announcement of Runequest 6 that got me thinking about this. With RQ6, Runequest is seeing three editions within a six year span. That would be like 4E being published in 2008, 5E in 2012, and 6E in 2014.

Now I realize that with D&D there is a major difference from most other RPGs in the sheer number of supplements that are published after the core rulebooks. The only comparable game is World of Darkness, and it was a full thirteen years between the first publication of Vampire: The Masquerade and the New World of Darkness books came out. But other games that have seen frequent editions - say, Exalted or Ars Magica - have also had a significant number of "splat" books. And, as far as I can tell, there is less "editionrage" from fans of said games.

Why is this? Why are D&D fans, in particular, so upset when the boat gets rocked? And why wouldn't we want to see new editions of the game? I mean, I think 4-5 years is a perfect amount of time. It is about enough time to go through the entire span of levels twice given a weekly game, or once given a bi-weekly game. It is more than enough time to publish the standard supplements plus a few new ones particular to the edition.

Now if you look at the last couple "complete" editions of D&D--2E and 3E--you find a rebooting of both about mid-way through. In 1995, six years after 2E came out, we got the infamous Skills and Powers phase, and then in 2003, just three years after 3E came out, we got the controversial (but ultimately quite successful) 3.5 revision. One could argue that 3.5 actually "bought time" for 3E; it fixed a couple problems and extended the need for a new edition (although many believe that 4E wasn't exactly "needed", especially in 2008; I would reply to this by saying that it is better to end an edition too soon than too late in order to avoid a Dark Ages ala the latter days of 2E....just as, if you are a professional athlete, it is better to retire when you can still play than when you look terrible and tarnish your legacy).

In the current edition, we got the Essentials line in late 2010, about two and a half years after the 4E core rulebooks came out. Now Essentials wasn't quite as much a new sub-edition as 3.5 or Skills and Powers were, although it was close to the latter (it was more of a "4.1" or "4.2" if Skills and Powers of "2.3" and 3.5 was, err, 3.5).

Even if a full-blown 5E isn't due out in 2012 or 2013 (which I think is possible, even likely), we're probably going to see something, whether it is a masked "4.5" in the form of revised 4E core rulebooks that offer a simpler core system with Mearls' complexity dial built in, or whether it is going to be solely virtual, with a new and explicit "DDI is core" approach.

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 4E is Imperfect - just like every other edition, and just like 5E will be. As soon as a new edition comes out, people start figuring out things that have problems. Some of this can be worked out through later books (e.g. monster math, skill challenges), but some things are just too large and require a new edition (complexity dial).

I'm a bit of a luddite, or at least "Gutenbergian", in that I like my books and have a hard time imagining a context in which I'd prefer digital forms over paper books. In combination? Certainly. In the context of D&D, I don't need books of crunch - I'm happy getting character creation options mainly via Character Builder. But as far as table reference, core rulebooks, setting and theme books, give me some pages to flip through.

That said, DDI has immense potential, especially in the realm of rules updates, revisions and editions. If WotC takes the bold but logical step and says, "DDI is Core", then they have a lot of flexibility to evolve the rules in micro-changes. We would probably still see major jumps (punctuated equilibrium), but little things could be worked out as they arose in DDI. We might see revised versions, "state of the game" sub-editions, every few years. In other words, imagine the game being continually evolved via DDI, but with new revised core rulebooks every few years that reflect those changes. This approach could even stretch out the life of a full-blown "edition" to a decade, because there would be more room to adjust and tinker within the edition cycle.

Once again, I've gone on too long. In summary: change is good, embrace it or suffer; embrace and love it. It Feels Good. Mmmm.

 

[dagger]

Interesting post.

 

[Ulrick]

Maybe people just don't want to spend money on another edition when the old one perfectly suits them fine.

Maybe they've invested a lot of time and money into the current edition and simply don't want to see their old stuff become obsolete because they can't find players to game with.

Maybe some people think that the new edition just sucks for various reasons (and you only need one reason not to play).

Maybe now its the perfect time to get into D&D because there is so much variety/editions to choose.

 

[DragonLancer]

Why is this? Why are D&D fans, in particular, so upset when the boat gets rocked? And why wouldn't we want to see new editions of the game? I mean, I think 4-5 years is a perfect amount of time.

My opinion is that unlike most other RPG systems, D&D changes the mechanics every single edition rather than just an update. Call of Cthulhu, for example, has barely changed mechanically since it was released. D&D however, has changed with every edition. That's the problem. We get defensive, even angry, because the system that we know gets changed.

 

[AeroDm]

I think people oppose frequent new editions for two reasons:

(1) D&D promotes itself as a cheap hobby. It doesn't seem to dominate as much of the discourse these days, but for years all I heard were breakdowns of the cost of D&D per hour compared to a movie theater or remote control cars or whatever the fancy of the moment was. A tremendous part of that value/dollar comes from longevity.

(2) Near almost all the value of D&D comes from positive network externalities. The better you learn the rules, the quicker and more fluid play becomes. The better your friends learn the rules, the quicker it gets back to your turn. The more people that play, the larger the pool of players is, the more folks you get to talk to, and the more ideas float your way. The more books you have, the more you can draw upon to bring your vision to life.

All of these externalities have to start back at zero and begin rebuilding with a new edition. Now, along with that comes a fair deal of excitement, but when the editions come too soon (a purely subjective determination), the externalities are still destroyed but the excitement isn't as high.

 

[racoffin]

New Editions

New editions have a wonderful side effect, at least for me. Now I can pick up all the books (and third party books!) that i couldn't afford the first time around at insane bargains!

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't know who may remember the 1e to 2e change, many more likely remember the 2e to 3e change.

The first time around many players had purchased every single book and many of the modules and miscellany of the game. The cry was not about them changing the game, heck many people saw the need for more coordinated and organized works. It was more:

"I have hundreds of dollars invested in this stuff, now it will all be worthless!"

But 2e was very adamant that it would be the same game and all the old books would be compatible with the new. Still, the community split on opinions that it was fundamentally different and conversion was required.

The same call went out during the change from 2nd to 3rd. There was even more material, endless stacks of it players had bought all through the 90s. But this time most everyone saw the ship sinking and the death of the hobby. And so a new edition was argued for and against, but in the end it was largely a success in gaining previous players. Just like the first shift people used their old books with the new. 3rd edition was very careful to ensure everyone could freely access a conversion guide.

3rd to 4th didn't really include a conversion, but even if they did it wouldn't have mattered. With the bloat of 3e books and 3rd party d20 books just about everyone I knew was:

"I have thousands of dollars invested in this stuff, now it will all be worthless!"

And so some stay with old editions and some go on to new. And publishers still profit best when selling lots of product routinely put out under a branded game system.

 

[Mercurius]

howandwhy99, I discussed this point. I get it, but I think it is misplaced and even a bit disingenuous when people cry foul in such a way. First of all, no game book is ever "worthless," no matter how old the rules system. I haven't played 1E AD&D decades but I still love and reference my books, especially the DMG. Secondly, most serious gamers love to buy game books. As many have pointed out, beyond the core rulebooks the majority of books are bought by a small percentage of gamers - it might be a 20/80 thing, that 20% of gamers spend 80% of the money spent on books, at least after the core rulebooks (so, overall, it might be more like 20/50).

I think the ire is something less rational and more emotional. It has something to do with what Ulrick mentioned, about the difficulty of finding players of X Edition of Yore. Any major reason is that we all like the feeling of being part of something that is alive and growing. There is a 2E community, but is very, very small.

But any specific reason is secondary, imo, and it comes down to a feeling. My point is that if we're willing to investigate that feeling, deconstruct it a bit, then it won't feel nearly as bad and we might just find that we like embracing change.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I avoided any bruhaha on the 1e,2e, basic D&D by not buying any. I was playing with other systems at the time for other reasons.

I like 3.x but toward the end I had pretty much decided that I did not like DM'ing in it. So I was happy with 4e.
I would be unlikely to go to 5e anytime soon because I have all this 4e material i have not used yet. It might be 6e or 7e before I hop on the bandwagon again.
I could not imagine I would be particularly upset about it. But if I am going to drop a couple of hundred bucks on a new game anytime soon it will be very unlikely that it will be D&D in any form.

 

[S'mon]

There's a big difference between new "editions" that are slightly updated printings (Call of Cthulu, 1e to 2e AD&D was close) and new editions that invalidate all my old material.

I was organising my RPG books today - the shelf worth of 1e AD&D, the shelf worth of 3e D&D, and now the shelf worth of 4e D&D, all mutually incompatible.