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

[Aus_Snow]

I think the new World of Darkness is pretty much completely different than the old World of Darkness (and even the terminology is different, I think).

Indeed. Even the character specs equivalent to abilities in D&D are different, something that's never happened from OD&D through to 4e, with the data available atm.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't consider that a change. One of the earlier editions had a "generic" rule book (might have been fourth edition, but the only edition change I felt significant was from 1st to 2nd) and Champions was a different release.

Apologies -- you're right. HERO System was first published as a standalone book for the Champions 4e era (Champions was also published as a standalone book). That said, the HERO book was poorly supported at best and was never the flagship product. In 5th ed, the exact opposite has been true, really (well, Champions support isn't poor but it's also no longer the company's flagship product).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

THE German roleplaying game, "Das Schwarze Auge" had also severe changes between the editions - but mostly the rules, I don't think the flavor changed much, but I am not an expert on that. (It still feels aimed a little more at younger players, but on the other hand, the setting and adventures are interesting and are not as "hack & slash" intensive as in D&D. They also put some thought into details - not neccessarily metaplot detail, things like dog races and so on - but that might just be because it is only _one_ setting. But I am going off-topic... )

Oh, and I second the motion for Shadowrun. There were always some notable changes in the rules, and the fluff in 4th edition changed - wireless technology entered the setting, and spellcasting is now more unified.

(Battletech did also have a RPG, right? I think a lot changed there with the Clans arrival and later the Dark Ages..)

 

[Nikosandros]

Third edition had a HERO System rule book and a Champions rule book. Both were standalone products, though the former received little support and Champions remained the company's flagship product. Neither was officially a supplement for the other (though both could arguably be used together).

In fourth edition, the generic rule book (HERO System) and Champions were packaged under the same cover as one product. The HERO System was, however, merely treated as an appendix in the Champions core book (the title that the book actually bore, as Champions was still the company's flagship line). Only Champions received any noteable support.

In 5th edition, only HERO (the generic system) is a standalone product, while Champions (the flagship game for more than two decades) became a supplement. You might not see that as much of a change -- but for anybody who has been a longtime fan of the system and has more than a passing familiarity with it, this was (apparently) a rather large change.

I recall the screaming.

HERO 4th edition was also available separately, as a stand alone universal rules system.

In any event, there are also several rules differences among the games. Powers getting different point costs, package deal discounts disappearing, etc...

 

[VirgilCaine]

Apparently, until GURPS 3rd edition, the game had little material on settings outside of the fantasy genre.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

You know, I used to have a bunch of 1e Shadowrun stuff, that I could still use with 2nd edition shadowrun, and I think could probably be used in a 3e shadowrun game.

<snip>

So, really, you've got three different versions of D&D - BECMI D&D, "Advanced" D&D, and WotC D&D. None are truly compatible "out of the box".

Is D&D the only game that does this? What other examples can you think of? And, here's the meat of the question: why does D&D do this?

After all, it is the most popular RPG. By my logic, that should mean it would stay the same, yet it doesn't.

Discuss.

This gets rather essay-like at the end, so beware.



Cthulhu has changed minimally over the years. This is something I didn't appreciate until recently...being able to buy a 20 year old module and run it as is after a single read through. In the more than 2 decades since it was released, and through six editions, there have been a few minor changes (especially in spells/tomes, and so on) but nothing that can't be adjusted for in a few seconds.

Chivalry and Sorcery has had some significant changes over the years especially with 3E, and so did 4E Shadowrun.


I suspect what drives large change in the smaller RPGs is a hope of retaining the base, while expanding and bringing in a new player pool.

The thing with WoD is that it tends to have a bit of the gothy-cliquish effect, and the setting baseline where it is perfectly normal to play a human (instead of starting as a werewolf or undead thing) expands the audience. The problem here is that it is still a horror game, and that still acts as a limit on its audience.


What drives change with D&D?

The pre/post from D&D to 1st AD&D was driven by the transition from a small game played by wargame hobbyists, to a huge audience of millions. And that stayed the same for basically 2 decades.

The changes made with 3E can at least be argued as something whose time had come, from a purely creative point of view. The game was getting stale, etc... I am trying to find a way of saying this without starting edition wars. I'll put it from my perspective. Inititally I liked at least some of the changes (and loathed others...being able to just "take a level of wizard" for example). But the more I got to know the game, the more I disliked it, most of all the galactic clusterfrag we call the Combat chapter (AoOs, turning rules, grapple rules, movement rules, etc ad nauseum).

The thing is, even though I didn't really like it, there were some things I DID like, and, at the very least, they had the balls to take some chances, take a risk and try to make the game better (and I think the 3E designers did in at least a few respects).

As a single instance, and with enough time for adjustment, I don't have any problem with it.



What I find troubling is that we are seeing so many different rules revisions, in such rapid succession.

For 4E D&D...the designers probably at least tell themselves they are trying to make a better game. 3.x D&D certainly isn't perfect, but I doubt the business side is deceiving themselves in this way.

4E is two things, well, one thing really: the RPG department at Hasbro is trying to justify their existence and continuing paychecks, and to do that they have to generate a revenue stream. This new edition really is all about money.

What is interesting is that for the first time ever, the survival of Dungeons and Dragons is at stake. Though this was arguably true during the late 90s-pre WotC era too, at the time I was convinced it was due to Lorraine Williams' moronic mismanagement, and I still see it that way. I was sure someone would buy it and revive it, though I never would have guessed WotC.

If the RPG department stays in the red for a significant continuous duration, don't be surprised if Hasbro fires the entire division and publishing ends completely.

For years, everytime a new wave of splats raised a chorus of outrage, people have said "Well, its a corporation, what do you expect?". Well, this is the blowback. If D&D ceases publication, you already know the answer. If you think some suit gives even a moment's thought to your love of your hobby, you're fooling yourself. He cares about his own advancement, his girlfriend/family, his salary and so on. D&D doesn't even merit a tiny link on their corporate history page, much less the front page.

If you want active development of D&D, the only language that speaks is money. And with what looks like a recession looming, well, good luck...especially when you can pick up the entire core library and many supplements for your edition of choice on eBay for a pittance.


Thats what I find interesting about this. D&D, and thus the entire hobby, is in uncharted waters. What happens if D&D goes away? So goes the hobby? Maybe? Probably? As another poster observed recently, if there is demand, it will be supplied by someone else, maybe a coalition of developers.

You know, SKR gave his whole "Oh so crunchy..." rant back with the Silver Marches, back in 01/02. Not long after: tadaa!! 3.5, and now 4E. Personally, I think its pretty simple: get used to shelling out for a new edition every five years (or less) to meet Hasbro's targets, or prepare to see D&D end.

Personally, I think its over. If I had money in the RPG market, I would be putting it on the end of active publication of D&D in roughly 2.5 years. And that is exactly what I will do. I am not going to spend a dollar on a system I believe will be defunct in a couple of years, especially since I already have plenty of stuff for defunct versions of D&D.

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

So thats basically 3 reasons.

Yeah, there will always be d20. That is consolation for some I am sure.




What I am interested in is how 4E is supposed to create value.

See, each edition has its adherents. You can play with mind flayers, and githyanki, and at that D&D goodness in any of the following ways:

Basic/Cyclopedia/OD&D - rules light and great for new learners
1st/2nd - Classic (and still my favorite with some importation of 3E rules)
3E - rules heavy audience

4E is...what?

This is what I am interested in. How does 4E add value? Why should anyone buy it? This is one reason there are major changes between the editions: to justify a new purchase so soon. The only thing I have seen that justifies 4E to me is the emphasis on using terrain, and providing some structure for that, but I don't need it.



I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. A while back I predicted Hasbro was preparing D&D for sale. I was wrong on the specifics, but it was clear something big was coming. I still find Wotbro bringing all settings in house a bit strange. Maybe it can be justified by the whole one setting per year plan, but I am not seeing it in terms of lost revenue...unless they want to renegotiate terms upward with 4E. Heh. Heheheh...good luck with that.

So maybe I will be wrong about this. We'll see.

 

[jdrakeh]

HERO 4th edition was also available separately, as a stand alone universal rules system.

Oh, you're right. I confused 3e and 4e earlier. My bad. My memory isn't what it once was, I'm afraid.

 

[jaerdaph]

They only seem more radical now because the edition changes occur at lesser intervals. And yes, I consider 3.5e to be an edition change, although it wasn't a radical change from 3e.

 

[Delta]

What drives change with D&D?

Very well written, sir!

 

[Richards]

The first and second editions of Gamma World were pretty interchangeable (I know we used to interchange them a lot, back in high school when we were playing it), but the third edition (from what I've heard) was vastly different, with character classes and such imported in, and then fourth edition (I think) used the Alternity rules system. The most recent edition uses d20 rules, and was very disappointing to a lot of old-school GW fans.

Johnathan