Editions in RPGs - and why we should embrace change

[prosfilaes]

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

Sure there will be. But the D&D trademark is worth way more than the Pathfinder trademark, and Paizo knows that. They know that many call Pathfinder a D&D (and even trade on that--3.5 thrives!), that many of their players consider themselves D&D players. Furthermore, it would be easier to clone Pathfinder then it was to clone 3.5, especially as so much more is open. If Paizo makes a Pathfinder 2e that deviates too much and displeases their customers, they know that there are companies on their heels that will take advantage of their lapse. They can't make a hugely divergent game and call it Pathfinder 2e and survive, and they know that, so they won't.

 

[Votan]

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.

I do think that the issue of system mastery matters more as the games get more complex and I get older. The ability to spend the time to get really into the details of the system is a luxury . . .

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the issue with d&d is new editions are complete re-toolongs of the game. That doesn't make much sense because wizards has to win existing fans over again with each edition. I think most people stick with a game brand because they like what it offers. If you change that every edition, there is no stable system. Some people will like the change, but i think a lot of people just find it jarring.

 

[amerigoV]

I do think that the issue of system mastery matters more as the games get more complex and I get older. The ability to spend the time to get really into the details of the system is a luxury . . .

I wholeheartedly agree. Thus, I moved on to Savage Worlds. I get to cherrypick material from other systems since conversion is generally a no-brainer.

I have wondered who the target market of a new edition truly is. 3e certainly had lapsed D&Ders in mind - I know I bought in heavily as I left the fold in early 2e. 4e seemed to have a different target group (some aspects to kids what kids see as fantasy these days, some to 2e diehards). Was the hope that the name would carry long enough to get teens/college age people hooked and then "treadmill" them with product? I have also wondered if the long-term approach is "even/odd" - each even numbered edition looks to cater back to the prior even number edition, and odd looks back to odd - you get some carry from the current, pick up a group of lapsed players and they bring in new players (kids, friends, "get the old gang back together"). So 5e mighty be more 3e-ish to pick up those lapsed players, 6e will reach back to 4e, etc.

Just pure idle speculation, of course.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

That goes without saying, of course. But what I was trying to get at is that incompatibility isn't as big a deal as many make it out to be; furthermore, I would guess that most that cry foul with "I wasted millions of dollars on game books that are now unusable" are experienced DMs that have little problem eyeball-converting.

(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.)

True. I've had this conversation with someone here before and my view boiled down to the idea that I think it depends upon how comfortable an individual DM is with ad hocking and fiating. I do it all the time, so don't mind winging it with regards to rules conversions (as long as I have most of the leg-work done before the session, if only in terms of printing out Monster Builder sheets).

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.

Fair enough. Speaking for myself, I'm more likely to accept new editions if they are good and offer something innovative and fresh to the D&D experience, while still retaining enough of the core elements of the game to remain "D&Dish."

I have wondered who the target market of a new edition truly is. 3e certainly had lapsed D&Ders in mind - I know I bought in heavily as I left the fold in early 2e. 4e seemed to have a different target group (some aspects to kids what kids see as fantasy these days, some to 2e diehards). Was the hope that the name would carry long enough to get teens/college age people hooked and then "treadmill" them with product? I have also wondered if the long-term approach is "even/odd" - each even numbered edition looks to cater back to the prior even number edition, and odd looks back to odd - you get some carry from the current, pick up a group of lapsed players and they bring in new players (kids, friends, "get the old gang back together"). So 5e mighty be more 3e-ish to pick up those lapsed players, 6e will reach back to 4e, etc.

Just pure idle speculation, of course.

Not a bad idea but I don't think it is that thought out. While economic considerations are, of course, the bottom line with an umbrella corporation as large as Hasbro watching over the shoulders of WotC game designers, I think we often forget a simple truth: Mike Mearls isn't just trying to manipulate the masses; actually, as the lead designer (which I think he is, if I'm not mistaken) his job is to develop the game, to make the best possible D&D that he can. It is the job of other people to make sure it is economically viable - in conjunction with Mearls, of course. But what we forget is that Mearls is, most likely, primarily interested in developing the game itself. I'm sure he's very aware of economics, but his attention is focused on developing the game itself.

The good news is that one of the things I hear Mearls saying is that he wants to evolve the game in a way that brings new innovations (modularity, the "complexity dial") while retaining/recovering the classic D&D feel.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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

While this may be true, it seems to me that if Paizo primarly makes its money by selling advenutres then the edition cycle can be very long, or even not at all.

Essentially the rules are aloss leader in the selling of adventures.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I thought I was jumping off the edition treadmill, and that was true of D&D after 3.5. However, I do find myself looking forward to HARP 2E after I've seen some of the quite reasonable concerns about 1st edition splatbooks (well, Martial Law, mostly). Some of the talk on the ICE forums about changes to the core fantasy book I'm on board with, others not so much, but not even the things I disagree with would be a deal breaker.