Editions in RPGs - and why we should embrace change

[Votan]

Convenience, mainly. If I'm given a choice between purchasing and using system compatible adventures vs. non-system compatible adventures, I'm much more likely to go with the system compatible adventures. It's just easier.

(As a side point, there's more to adventure compatibility than just the crunch. Sometimes the design approach of the adventures is different for various systems.)

My original post said I'm more likely to accept new editions that retain broad system compatibility with what has gone before (i.e., they're the "same game" in that sense). The "adventure test" is a way of evaluating that.

This is a good way of thinking about things, in my opinion. I was one of the many people who accidentially ran B2 in AD&D at one point. You eventually find issues but you could forge ahead without ever cracking open a monster manual. Trying to run B2 for 3.5E D&D would be much more challenging and would require some serious rebuilding on the fly.

No monster having a 10 AC isn't that big of a deal; no creature has a will save is much more problematic.

I also want to jump on the bandwagon that not supporting out of print copies of the game isn't helping matters. Other companies do so -- I just noticed that most editions of Stormbringer are available in PDF (despite it being a vey minor game).

 

[Umbran]

I just noticed that most editions of Stormbringer are available in PDF (despite it being a vey minor game).

Is that despite it being a very minor game, or because it is a very minor game?

 

[Imaro]

Is that despite it being a very minor game, or because it is a very minor game?

Well another example, of a major game, would be both nWoD and oWoD (various editions/revisions) being available via PDF.

 

[BryonD]

I think there are always new ideas and new innovations.

Certainly some games have shown that you don't NEED to change. But as others come up with better ideas, not stealing or improving on them will just get you left behind. And, even better, BE the one coming up with the better ideas.

If 5E is awesome, I'll be there. This is true if it comes out in the spring or in 4 years. (still betting strongly against soon)

 

[GSHamster]

With RPGs and editions, I'm more likely to accept a new edition of a game if the new edition keeps broad compatibility with what has gone before. I'm less likely to be interested in a new edition if it drastically modifies the game, pushing it into incompatible or even "different game/same name" territory.

A lot of people say this, but remember that D&D tried this model with 3.0e to 3.5e. There was a lot of outcry and consternation when that happened.

It's not unreasonable for WotC to have concluded from that experience that a new edition needs to be significantly different than the previous edition to be accepted by the playerbase.

 

[billd91]

A lot of people say this, but remember that D&D tried this model with 3.0e to 3.5e. There was a lot of outcry and consternation when that happened.

It's not unreasonable for WotC to have concluded from that experience that a new edition needs to be significantly different than the previous edition to be accepted by the playerbase.

I suspect the timing had a lot more to do with the outcry than the high compatibility. If WotC truly did draw the conclusion that the compatibility was the issue, they drew the wrong conclusion. I don't really think that's the case, though.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

A lot of people say this, but remember that D&D tried this model with 3.0e to 3.5e. There was a lot of outcry and consternation when that happened.

It's not unreasonable for WotC to have concluded from that experience that a new edition needs to be significantly different than the previous edition to be accepted by the playerbase.

Could be. I wasn't speculating on sales strategy, just saying how I look at new editions.

(I'm not very familiar with 3.5, as that's about the time I was stepping off the edition carousel, but I remember Monte Cook's review that said his biggest problem with 3.5 was that it was "too much and not enough," so to speak.)

 

[Votan]

Is that despite it being a very minor game, or because it is a very minor game?

Despite; I would not have been surprised if the game had just quietly vanished given that it is a licensed property and quite old.

 

[Gundark]

I'd probably seek out a more stable platform, probably Pathfinder, rather than a 5e D&D that was only going to be invalidated by a 6e D&D in a few years.

Don't kid yourself, there will be a 2e of Pathfinder.

 

[amerigoV]

I suspect the timing had a lot more to do with the outcry than the high compatibility. If WotC truly did draw the conclusion that the compatibility was the issue, they drew the wrong conclusion. I don't really think that's the case, though.

It was timing and they had to make changes for change sake. 3.0 had not been out long enough to identify all the problems. They fixed the Big 3 Hs (Haste, Harm, Heal), and then commenced to fiddle with everything else to justify the release (weapon size rule changes is a prime example). One had to look up everything since they fiddled with every little thing (sleep went from an random roll to a fixed number of HD, darkness had weird changes, hold person had saving throw every round, on and on). System mastery had to be relearned.

It likely would have been better received at its originally planned release date as the changes would have been reflective of a longer period of feedback. Although they will always suffer some backlash given their propensity to publish player splat books.

OTOH, I have wondered how many people the cried foul over 3.5 then rushed into the loving arms of Pathfinder.