D&D General How Long Does It Take to get Sick of an Edition?

[TwoSix]

I can honestly say that I've never gotten "sick" of a given edition of D&D or not had fun playing or running a particular edition. I think that stems from a general philosophy of not having very specific needs or expectations when it comes to the game itself, so I'm never really disappointed. Some folks have this idea that the game must be THIS or THAT and if it doesn't have THIS or THAT then it's not D&D or it's not good. I'm more flexible than that, changing expectations with the system.

This is a pretty good philosophy overall, not just for games! You'll be a lot more happy with things in general if you accept things as they are, rather than having expectations as to what they should be.

 

[Istbor]

I will say I was tired of running 3.5 games, but not of playing in them. I think the amount of extra work I had to put in for encounter design and monster/npc design was what did it for me. Too much crunch to think about.

5e on the other hand, I feel like I have barely begun. I really enjoy running it, and due to that, I haven't had much time to play. So I have all of these ideas that are yet to be realized.

Most other editions, yeah, I haven't gotten sick of. It also helps to play different systems or game types now and then. So like Starfinder, Iron Kingdoms, Warhammer Fantasty.

 

[LordEntrails]

4,237 years.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Definitely longer than it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop.

I mean, I played 1e from 1981 to 2012 when we switched to 5e playtest (using 1e modules I converted over). Never got sick of 1e. As [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] said upthread, it's probably like anything else. If you do too much of something too often, the goodness sort of wears off, so to speak, and after taking a break you'll get the desire again.

 

[Xeviat]

For me, an edition lasts as long as I have players to play it and as long as new stuff doesn't fix enough of my complaints about an old edition. I never made the switch to Pathfinder, as I followed D&D to 4E. 4E fixed a lot of my complaints with 3E, but I lost several of my players in the switch. 4E got bloated fast, which made me happy to switch to 5E even though all it fixed for me was the bloat.

And now, here I am, strongly considering going back to a kitbashed 4E.

So, to answer your question, I think I'm mainstream D&D fan that follows the edition where it goes.

 

[Parmandur]

5e was designed as a "semi-evergeen" edition, and it is not going to leave us anytime soon. My suspicion is that it will last at least as long as 3.x, possibly longer, and will eventually have things like the Player's Handbook II, Monster Manual II (they can't hide them behind cute names forever!) and such, as well as sourcebooks which will be a bit less necessary to have (Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica has already accomplished this). It too will lapse into redundancy, but I believe that it will remain much better balanced than 3.x and Pathfinder 1e ever were. A revised ranger will probably be released, along with new classes like the Artificer and Mystic, and other expansions yet undreamed of will follow for over a decade from now. At swome point, WotC might even do what they said they would, and incorporate fan-made homebrew content into official products (with some revision).

And, if you get tired of playing 5e, just switch to something else for a while. The next game I play with my home group is going to be Starfinder, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Exalted (yes, I finally tried it, and it isn't as bad as I thought), or Pathfinder 1e. The choice of which system depends on what my home group wants to play.

They will never, ever do the PHB 2/MM 2 thing for one reason: they've proven that they are bad for business, and hurt ROI. The cutesy names are here to stay.

People are still playing OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.x and even 4E, so one isn't bound to ever get tires of an edition if it scratches the right itch.

 

[generic]

They will never, ever do the PHB 2/MM 2 thing for one reason: they've proven that they are bad for business, and hurt ROI. The cutesy names are here to stay.

People are still playing OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.x and even 4E, so one isn't bound to ever get tires of an edition if it scratches the right itch.

You're probably right, it just makes more sense, as a business, to have "cute" names, rather than more monster manuals.

 

[Parmandur]

Still not tired of 3.X, and I’d play 1Ed or 2Ed again in a heartbeat if someone offered to run it...but not as quickly as if 3.X were an option. 4Ed I’d play again, but ONLY as a player, not as a GM.

5th would get a thanks but no thanks- it lost me during all the prerelease info from playtest reports.

So my “tiredness” with particular editions ranges from “not tired after decades” to “immediately”, and depends on the details of my opinions about the mechanics and other factors.

...

You've never even tried 5E?

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Parmandur]

You're probably right, it just makes more sense, as a business, to have "cute" names, rather than more monster manuals.

The issue is that the sequential naming convention confuses customers and depresses sales of all the books: customers assume it is like video games, and the PHB II is what they need to buy to start the game, and things go downhill from there.

 

[Sadras]

You'll be a lot more happy with things in general if you accept things as they are, rather than having expectations as to what they should be.

Like the last season of GoT, the decade long wait for books 6&7, the last Nolan Batman movie and the election of a president. I say screw that Vulcan mentality, I'm following Bones!