I can't keep doing it

[Alzrius]

Both were common, and yet very different, play styles. Don't you think that was a pretty big split?

I'll be honest, I don't. I think that it's not really about terms of play-style in terms of the unity of the game community, and house rules don't tend to be too big of a part of style of play anyway.

Most people like more than one style of game, too.

 

[billd91]

I think the "unified community" of the past is a myth.

Just because people used the same edition didn't mean they were playing the same game -- in practical terms-- at their tables.

Whether they played with different styles or emphases or not, they still had a common language underpinning it all. So, while the games may have appeared different, they shared tremendous commonalities. I'd even say that you see many of the same commonalities between editions that are more compatible - 1e and 2e for example, 3.0 and 3.5 for another, and 3.5 and PF for a third.

When it comes to edition treadmills, I'm a lot more tolerant of them if the editions are more compatible than if they are not. Call of Cthulhu has been through at least 6 editions now. If a 1st edition CoC player had been blown in to the North Atlantic, frozen into a state of suspended animation, and thawed out in 6th edition's time frame, he'd recognize it and be able to play it with relatively little instruction. The same is largely true for Champions. I have copies of 1st and 5th edition rules.

 

[Umbran]

(I say that last part only because of just how much the community seems to be fragmenting).

The community has been fragmented at least since the introduction of all those games I just mentioned. It has been decades since we could say everyone was really playing the same basic game all the time.

I, personally, am starting to see this as a form of natural process. One game grows ascendant (like 1e). Then, players grow and change, and look for something else. There is a fragmentation, as new games develop and folks experiment (2e, The White Wolf Era). Then, someone gets the bright idea to pull lessons from the diversity of the fragmentation, and the game they produce grows ascendant (3e).

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

And, by the way, everyone seems to be ignoring a major influence on communications that is apt to explain a large amount of the change in D&D's particular cycle - THE INTERNET.

You realize that gamers weren't communicating on message-boards by the tens of thousands in the times of 1e and early 2e, right? We mix ideas much more quickly now. Developers get feedback much more quickly. You should expect this to accelerate the cycle.

It is the 21st Century. Things move more quickly. Deal with it

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's not like you are forced to buy new books. They aren't coming to burn your books.

Well, if like many I know, you are DDI only, replacing 4Ed with 5Ed online will effectively "burn their books".

And if they actually love the game enough to go buy the books to replace what they lost, they'll have paid for them twice.

Me? I've no great love of 4Ed, but I bought the main books* because I think it's a decent FRPG, even if it doesn't scratch my D&D itch. And I did so at least in part because of my dislike of renting ephemeral products I intend to be able to use 30 years down the road.







* DMG1, MM1, PHB1-3, MP1 & 2, DP, AP, PriP, PsiP, HotFK, HotFR, HoS, HotF, Rules Compenium, and a few of the campaign settings.

 

[Aramax]

Look at how much per hour of use youve spent!
Between playing and reading,if your anything like me youll have spent pennies an hour on your many books.
Always a good value in entertainment-RPG

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

4E Essentials - 2010 (admittedly, this one is questionable, but I know some 4E players who feel this way)

Missed that one. I can only explain it as evidence of how little attention I've wanted to pay to things between 4E and now.

Hence, 1E lasted a decade, and 2E lasted a comparable length of time. We thought 3E would get the same treatment, only for things to last half that long...if we're lucky.

So yeah, I sympathize with the OP.

I may have sounded a bit snarky but really, I sympathize as well. I don't agree but do sympathize. Yet your statement, "if we're lucky," is the whole point. The long reigns of 1E and 2E were exceptions for RPG's in general and I think must now be considered exceptions for D&D as well. We WERE lucky that 1E and 2E lasted as long as they did. By rights they probably OUGHT to have been replaced by new editions sooner than they were. And as I said having to make this choice of fish or cut bait is really inevitable if you hang around playing long enough. You'll ony avoid it if you give up the game altogether before it comes around.

 

[Felon]

Look at how much per hour of use youve spent!
Between playing and reading,if your anything like me youll have spent pennies an hour on your many books.
Always a good value in entertainment-RPG

Exactly. That's what makes the complaints about "buying books twice" kind of a canard. There are a lot of thing you buy more than once throughout your life.

It's just another deeply-engrained mentality, like the bias against physical components that I mentioned in another thread. People feel like D&D should be a hobby they only have spring for once and you got everything you need, because that's how it was when they were kids playing the game.

 

[Njall]

TBH, I'm fine with them releasing a new version of the game every 5 or 6 years. Heck, I'd be fine with them releasing a new edition every 3 years, for that matter.
Look at 4e: if you take into account Dungeon and Dragon, I wonder how much design space is left. I felt the same when 4e was announced: 3.5 was done, and I don't really see a reason to be interested in a wave of "Perfect(est) handbook of quasi-gnome bard/rogues" ala 2e just to keep the edition "alive".
4e is a complete game, as 3.5 was, and whenever WotC releases a new edition, I get more choice as a customer.
Why should I care how long an edition lasts, as long as it's playable and complete?