Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5626473" data-attributes="member: 59082">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 & Dragons1974, 1977-79, 1989, (1995), 2000, (2003), 2008, (2010)Call of Cthulhu1981, (1982), 1983, 1986, 1989, 1992, (1998), (2000), (2001), 2004, (2006)World of Darkness1991+, 2004Exalted2001, 2006Ars Magica1987, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2004Talislanta1987, 1990, 1992, 2001, (2005), 2006Runequest1978, 1980, 1984, 2006, 2010, 2012Actually, 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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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).</li> </ul>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.</blockquote>

Verification