I do want 5E (and 6E, and 7E...)

[Spinachcat]

I love playing OD&D...and 4e. But regardless of new editions, I will probably always return to my OD&D houserules. That said, I am very happy to buy a new edition of D&D every decade. Just no half editions. I want significant change from prior editions.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I wrote they should brand an OOP D&D edition as "classic" and keep it on the market with new products and support. The existence of PF as a retroclone demonstrates this is possible

OK. So then you think that fan dispersal over editions is essentially a managerial and marketing problem? All WotC has to do is manage and brand D&D such that everyone will collapse onto one edition?

You don't work for the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, do you? I think I've seen this kind of top-down solution before ...

 

[slwoyach]

I hate 4e, but I still hope they keep making more. I may love 5e, I may not; if I don't like it I won't play it. I'm perfectly happy with my 3e and 2e campaigns, but I'll still give anything new a look and maybe yoink a few choice bits.

 

[SoulsFury]

I used to work full time and go to college. I was always broke so I didn't get to get all the 4E books I wanted but now that I can afford one book every week or two, I'd like to be able to collect an entire edition. Now, if 5E sucks, that won't be it, but I'm ready for a new edition to try. I like 4E, and I play in a Pathfinder game. I've played 2nd, 3rd and 3.5. I've enjoyed every edition, so I'm now looking for something new. If 5th edition came out tomorrow, I'd continue the two games I am the DM for, the game I am a player in and I would start up a new group.

 

[rogueattorney]

I've never understood the desire for new editions, especially new editions which are essentially entirely different games issued under the same name.

When I get done with a computer game or a board game, I go out and buy a different computer game or board game. I don't see why rpgs are any different. If I'm done with D&D for a while, I'll go out and get Star Frontiers. Then maybe Call of Cthulhu. When I want to go back to D&D, I want it to still be D&D when I get back to it.

When WotC calls their new games "D&D, ed. x" I judge it against my preferred edition of D&D. If they were to call their games, "WotC's New Fantasy RPG," I'd be able to judge it at face value. As it is, what they call "D&D" isn't the game I want to play when I want to play D&D.

 

[Hussar]

Well, why settle for only D&D though? If you're interested in new editions because you're interested in new ways of doing things which could potentially better cater to you style, why not also explore other brands? While you're waiting for D&D 5E, there are plenty of games such as Savage Worlds, GURPS 4th Edition, Fate, and many others which have a variety of takes on roleplaying. Some of those games are even versatile enough to allow you to bring some of the D&D elements you know and love to life within their rules by being toolkits.

Thing is, I don't. I like playing other games.

But, unlike RogueAttorney above here, I don't see the games as being so different as to be different games. I see them as evolutionary changes as we learn more about what works at the table and what doesn't.

IOW, I see each edition as being an improvement on what came before. I honestly like 4e more than 3e. I like 3e more than AD&D. That in no way means that I don't like other versions of D&D. I just like the latest version more.

 

[Gronin]

I wrote they should brand an OOP D&D edition as "classic" and keep it on the market with new products and support. The existence of PF as a retroclone demonstrates this is possible

The problem here is who decides which edition becomes the "classic" edition? You? Me? Do they hold some sort of poll? It really is a no win scenario as no matter which older edition is picked to support they are going to alienate a great many gamers.

I am not trying to antagonize you and I do sympathize with your situation (and yes I read your posts on another thread) but this is not something that is unique to the gaming industry. When a newer version of something is developed the older versions slowly lose any official support. Companies like WOTC are in the business of making money and supporting old editions does not make money, at least not like bringing out a new edition will.

 

[prosfilaes]

But, unlike RogueAttorney above here, I don't see the games as being so different as to be different games. I see them as evolutionary changes as we learn more about what works at the table and what doesn't.

I have a hard time seeing D&D 4 as evolutionary changes, and unlike D&D 3 it doesn't seem like they put a lot of effort into making it feel like an evolutionary change.

IOW, I see each edition as being an improvement on what came before. I honestly like 4e more than 3e.

Okay, but there's many people who disagree. I find your trust in WotC unrealistic; sooner or later they're going to make an edition that you find inferior to the last. And if they keep making large jumps, the more likely it is to be inferior in a significant way.

 

[Jhaelen]

When I get done with a computer game or a board game, I go out and buy a different computer game or board game. I don't see why rpgs are any different.

I think that's unusual. Most people are interested in getting expansions, mission packs or whatever they're called and look forward to play sequels of the titles they enjoyed.

And for the publishers it's a lot safer to create updates/sequels/new editions rather than trying to come up with something completely new all the time.

 

[Desdichado]

I've never understood the desire for new editions, especially new editions which are essentially entirely different games issued under the same name.

If it's not a significantly different game, then what's the point? I don't need to buy the game all over again to get a few cosmetic updates and house rules. The only reason I'd be interested in a new edition of D&D is if it's an all new game.

When I get done with a computer game or a board game, I go out and buy a different computer game or board game. I don't see why rpgs are any different. If I'm done with D&D for a while, I'll go out and get Star Frontiers. Then maybe Call of Cthulhu. When I want to go back to D&D, I want it to still be D&D when I get back to it.

I don't think you picked the best example there, though. Computer games and board games are all about sequels, series, expansions packs, add-ons and stuff like that.

Not unlike the RPG market.

Granted, I'm talking more about the "indie board game" business model moreso than like the Hasbro or Parker Brothers business model.

Then again, how many new editions of Candyland, Monopoly, Clue or Risk have there been over the years? Heck, we've got a dozen different versions of Clue just in our house alone.

When WotC calls their new games "D&D, ed. x" I judge it against my preferred edition of D&D. If they were to call their games, "WotC's New Fantasy RPG," I'd be able to judge it at face value. As it is, what they call "D&D" isn't the game I want to play when I want to play D&D.

So, when you buy a game like Gears of War 3, Halo Reach or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, do you judge them on their own merits, or against the other games in their series?