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

[DEFCON 1]

When I want to go back to D&D, I want it to still be D&D when I get back to it.

Well, it is. The game you played before is still there on your shelf. Go grab it and play it. Just because there's another game out there in the stores with the same name (plus an additional number) doesn't change the D&D game you were playing and wish to play again.

You want to know why they keep using the name 'D&D' for all these "new versions" of the game? Because the name means something. As is evident from the fact that you don't want other games (besides the version you like) to use it. If the name meant nothing, you wouldn't care that there was another game out there with Dungeons & Dragons on the cover.

 

[BryonD]

The problem there is in one place you are say "D&D" is "D&D" and in another you are saying it is fine because "D&D" alone is just a label and "D&D a" still on the shelf is not impacted by "D&D b" being the new version.

 

[Desdichado]

Laziness? Greed?

lolwut?

 

[Mallus]

Laziness?

I think by virtue of putting the effort/resources into designing a "significantly different game", they're undeserving of being called "lazy".

Greed?

It's greedy to try and maximize sales? Revitalize/capitalize on a well-known brand? Meet a market demand? Ummm, sell stuff? I skew pretty far to the left... but this seems a wee bit unfair to me.

Also, Hobo nailed it in one pithy sentence a few posts back.

 

[rogueattorney]

Well, it is. The game you played before is still there on your shelf. Go grab it and play it. Just because there's another game out there in the stores with the same name (plus an additional number) doesn't change the D&D game you were playing and wish to play again.

You want to know why they keep using the name 'D&D' for all these "new versions" of the game? Because the name means something. As is evident from the fact that you don't want other games (besides the version you like) to use it. If the name meant nothing, you wouldn't care that there was another game out there with Dungeons & Dragons on the cover.

I think you're reading more hostility into my original post than I meant to convey. I was trying to express confusion more than anything. I really don't understand the drive to be on the edition treadmill.

You do raise a legitimate point, and re-reading my original post, I see that I didn't articulate well at all what makes putting out D&D ed. 5 is any different from releasing Super Mario Galaxy 2.

Most video games end. I can "100%" Super Mario Galaxy. I can't beat Dungeons & Dragons ed. x. When the video game ends, it's time to move onto another video game. If I liked Super Mario Galaxy, the video game I move on to will be Super Mario Galaxy 2.

However, if I liked Dungeons & Dragons ed. x, and am still playing it, why would I move on to D&D ed. x+1? It seems to me, one would be more likely to move on to ed. x+1 if they weren't enjoying ed. x.

I've got the Dungeons & Dragons I like. If I want to play a different rpg, I will play an entirely different game. If I want to play D&D again, I'll play the D&D I like.

What I don't understand is the people who claim to like D&D, but are willing to drop it for whatever the IP holder suddenly proclaims is the "new D&D." It simply doesn't make sense to me. So, yeah, the name "D&D" means something to me. I just don't understand what the name "D&D" means to those who seem to have more loyalty to a brand name than the content of the game products.

 

[Dausuul]

What I don't understand is the people who claim to like D&D, but are willing to drop it for whatever the IP holder suddenly proclaims is the "new D&D." It simply doesn't make sense to me. So, yeah, the name "D&D" means something to me. I just don't understand what the name "D&D" means to those who seem to have more loyalty to a brand name than the content of the game products.

I'm not willing to drop D&D for "whatever the IP holder suddenly proclaims is the 'new D&D.'" I am willing to drop the edition I'm currently playing in favor of one that, in my view, is a net improvement. That's the main reason I migrate between editions, although there is a certain "network effect" as well--it's usually easier to find players of the current edition.

 

[Desdichado]

Also, Hobo nailed it in one pithy sentence a few posts back.

I've always been better at pithy observations than real substance. I play to my strengths.

However, if I liked Dungeons & Dragons ed. x, and am still playing it, why would I move on to D&D ed. x+1? It seems to me, one would be more likely to move on to ed. x+1 if they weren't enjoying ed. x.

You wouldn't, I presume. But you can imagine, right, that there may be a lot of other gamers that have lingering dissatisfactions with the game? When 4e was announced I was astounded at all the hostility that people were suddenly announcing about 3.5. How they had just gotten completely tired of certain aspects of it, and really needed something new to recapture the D&D flag again, or they'd just play something else. It certainly happens. In big numbers.

I've got the Dungeons & Dragons I like. If I want to play a different rpg, I will play an entirely different game. If I want to play D&D again, I'll play the D&D I like.

But you can imagine, right, that people may like different versions of D&D for different reasons? Or that people who weren't even unhappy necessarily with a prior version of D&D might find the the new one unexpectedly scratches their itch much better than they expected it would?

What I don't understand is the people who claim to like D&D, but are willing to drop it for whatever the IP holder suddenly proclaims is the "new D&D." It simply doesn't make sense to me. So, yeah, the name "D&D" means something to me. I just don't understand what the name "D&D" means to those who seem to have more loyalty to a brand name than the content of the game products.

I didn't realize that what you were actually saying all this time was that people who switch editions aren't pure/orthodox/fundamentalist/worthy enough. I guess that explains why you seem to struggle with the idea that many gamers aren't necessarily crusading converts to the edition that they're playing, even if they enjoy it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've got the Dungeons & Dragons I like. If I want to play a different rpg, I will play an entirely different game. If I want to play D&D again, I'll play the D&D I like.

Which is fine. The difference with me though, is that I don't play 'D&D'. I play 'D&D 4e', or sometimes I play 'D&D 3.5', sometimes I play 'OD&D', sometimes 'AD&D'. To me, they are different games. Just as much as GURPS, Mutants & Masterminds, 7th Sea, and Shadowrun are.

I've played OD&D and all four and a half editions of D&D over my lifetime. And I'll keep picking up new editions of the game as they're released, because new games are fun to read and fun to play. And it doesn't matter to me in the slightest that they might all have 'Dungeons & Dragons' on the cover, because as far as I'm concerned... they're all different games. And if I get tired of one, I'll play another.

Not everyone feels like they only have/need to play one Dungeons & Dragons game. And that's why we all are willing to pick up or switch to other editions as time goes on. Because it's not about switching loyalty, it's just trying and enjoying a new RPG.

 

[was]

I doubt that I would buy anything other then the PHB in future editions. I already have too much from the past four editions.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Really? Hrm, the powers rules are straight from Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle. Most of the mechanics are pretty much the same - the skills, while differently named, work exactly the same way in both edition. On and on.

4e is FAR closer mechanically to 3e than, say, Basic/Expert. So, does that mean that 3e isn't an evolutionary change? Heck, 4e is closer to 3e than 3e is to 2e. 3e changed pretty much every single mechanic from 2e. Every class got changed, task resolution mechanics got massively changed, adventure design got completely reworked and flavour was GREYHAWK which didn't even appear in any significant form in 2e.

Yes, to me it's an evolutionary change.

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.

Fair enough. They could certainly go in a direction that I don't like. So what? I've got a game that I like. The mistake you make here is that you presume that I will think that I don't like it means that I think it's inferior. I don't like 1e. I make no secret of that. But, I don't think it's "inferior". It's a well designed game that I don't like.

Superior and inferior are not and never should be, tied to taste.

What I don't understand is the people who claim to like D&D, but are willing to drop it for whatever the IP holder suddenly proclaims is the "new D&D." It simply doesn't make sense to me. So, yeah, the name "D&D" means something to me. I just don't understand what the name "D&D" means to those who seem to have more loyalty to a brand name than the content of the game products.

I played the heck out of every edition of D&D. I played many, many hours of 1e D&D (or, well, our faulty understanding of it), yet I changed to 2e when it came out because the design priorities of 2e were more in keeping with what I wanted. I resisted switching to 3e for quite a while because I didn't see the point in switching editions. Then someone ran a 3e game for me, and I saw that it fit much better with what I wanted at that time.

Then I played the crap out of 3e. After a while, I realized that there were parts that I didn't like (mostly having to do with the amount of work it would require for me to design adventures that I liked) and I only ran modules in 3e. Then 4e came out and I switched to 4e because it had what I considered to be the best of 3e - consistent rules that make sense, focus on stuff that I like - but it dropped the workload for DM'ing to a very, very small fraction. Suddenly I could design adventures and not have it feel like a part time job.

The problem is, people presume that because someone changes edition they don't like the previous edition. That's not it at all. It's that the previous edition was good, but the new one is better, for that person.

But, then again, I've never, ever understood this compulsive need for gamers who are not playing to current edition to constantly bitch and complain about the current edition. We saw it all the time in 3e with people constantly whining about how 3e was video-gamey, animey, not really D&D, so on and so forth. And, now, in 2011, we see EXACTLY the same thing with 4e.