Is D&D the only game that radically changes each edition?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So nothing is ever changed because designers say 'You know, when we wrote this thing five or six years ago, we were new to game design and everything else but now we've learned from our mistakes and we have the talent and knowledge to make things much better now'?

The motivations for the designers don't count in some people's mind.

 

[tenkar]

2.5 years is enough time for the new edition to be released, and be given plenty of time to try (and fail). It will fail because:

1) I am not shelling out for a new edition. I have enough editions.
2) Many people are refusing to buy 4E, because they are waiting for 4.5E
3) Sources keep saying the hobby is shrinking. I have no evidence whatsoever for this, but I don't see why the people saying this would lie
4) The D&D market is splintering between editions. Everytime a new edition is released, some people are left behind. See #1
.

1 - You, me, my son... to say the game is going to fail because you won't be buying it is a drop of water in a nice sized pond... as an individual you won't be missed.

2 - People refusing to buy 4e because they are waiting for 4.5e? First time I've heard this one

3 - I'd agree the market is shrinking based on anecdotal evidence... I also have no direct or personal evidence of this

4 - Every time an edition is released some people are left behind, and some people get brought in by the hype... the question becomes "can you keep the new fan base and still cater to the fan base that came from the old edition?"

The release of 4e is definitely timed to pump sales from WotC that have been declining. Whether the new edition will be a significant improvement on the old one is anyone's guess at the moment.

As for predicting the demise of D&D in 2 1/2 years... ain't gonna happen. Sales will bump enough from the 4e release to cover those 2 1/2 years of sales... by the time the bottom line starts sliding 4.5e will be on the horizon.

Additionally, we are forgetting the Digital Initiative. Even if just 10% of the D&D market signs up for online play you now have a significant monthly cash flow at a very high profit margin. If they open up the DI to D20 / OGL gaming they could probably increase that cash flow at very little cost to WotC.

4e will live or die with the DI IMHO. Therein lies the profits that WotC will need to prove their worth to Hasbro.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I can't believe no one's mentioned RIFTS yet. The ultimate "never gonna change" game. Same game now as it was when first released back in 1990 (I think it was 1990, anyway). The recently released "Ultimate Edition" is basically the same game with more stuff added and the order of contents shuffled around.

 

[tenkar]

I can't believe no one's mentioned RIFTS yet. The ultimate "never gonna change" game. Same game now as it was when first released back in 1990 (I think it was 1990, anyway). The recently released "Ultimate Edition" is basically the same game with more stuff added and the order of contents shuffled around.

That is one game that could severely use a re-write

I still have my signed first printing from GenCon from oh so many years ago.

Kevin... let somebody cut the bloated carcass to something usable please

 

[Derren]

I think the German RPG "DSA" = Das Schwarze Auge (engl.= The Black Eye) also changed radically from 2nd to 3rd Edition. But I don't know the extend of those changes.

And while no drastic mechanical changes, the fluff and setting from Shadowrun changed radically from 3rd to 4th Edition.

 

[WizarDru]

That is one game that could severely use a re-write

I still have my signed first printing from GenCon from oh so many years ago.

Kevin... let somebody cut the bloated carcass to something usable please

That would require Kevin to admit that his creation needed fixing...something that seems to run counter to the many anecdotes I've read about him.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Because you're dealing with a first generation RPG trying to become a 3-4th generation RPG.

Most games that are still around in any form are late 3rd generation games that were designed from the get-go to be more flexible in many ways than D&D was. In essence they learned from D&D's mistakes, which is something D&D itself has only recently been allowed to do.

3.0 was certainly a 3rd generation game. It's about as advanced as gurps.

What is a 4th generation game...mood/storytelling gaming?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

So nothing is ever changed because designers say 'You know, when we wrote this thing five or six years ago, we were new to game design and everything else but now we've learned from our mistakes and we have the talent and knowledge to make things much better now'?

A question on this -- how often does a new edition feature a new design team? How often is a new edition due to a new team coming in and saying "Well, if we were designing D&D, we would have done things very differently, so let's make our edition what we think D&D should have been all along."

Most of the designers on 3E weren't around to "learn from their mistakes" for 3.5. Some of them still prefer 3E to 3.5 and don't regard the 3E design decisions as "mistakes."

 

[Darkwolf71]

To clarify what seems to be a comman mis-conception: Basic D&D did not get replaced by AD&D. In fact they were born at nearly the same time. The basic box set and AD&D Moster Manual were both published at the end of '77. Both systems were perfectly viable as seperate and continually supported systems.

Yes, most players moved from BECMI to AD&D 1st or 2nd, but the system itself was supported by TSR throughout the companies lifespan right alongside AD&D.

 

[Glyfair]

2nd Edition was released to cut Gary Gygax out of the royalties.

That's a rumor that was passed among anti-TSR people (at the time). As far as I know there has never been a bit of evidence to back it up.

To clarify what seems to be a comman mis-conception: Basic D&D did not get replaced by AD&D. In fact they were born at nearly the same time. The basic box set and AD&D Moster Manual were both published at the end of '77. Both systems were perfectly viable as seperate and continually supported systems.

However, Basic D&D was concieved originally as an introductory game for OD&D. Since AD&D was in the works, it was written to lead into both. The PHB wasn't even done, leading to odd bits like references to the AD&D witch class.

The move from Basic D&D as an introduction to BECMI as a paralled version of D&D was later (early 80s). I still haven't heard any reasons for this change to Basic D&D.