D&D 5E Is there any hope for a evolutionary vs revolutionary Next?

[MacMathan]

The more I read on WotC and hear about type 5 or whatever it will be called the more I feel like we are headed to an attempt at an revolutionary jump.

To me 1e to 2e was evolutionary. 2e to 3e revolutionary. 3e to 3.5 evolutionary as the numbering indicated. 3.5e to 4e revolutionary.

I guess I am hoping for the pattern to continue and for the next wave to be evolutionary of the concepts in 4e and Essentials. I would hate to see the progress in RPG developments since 2008 tossed onto the fire in the name of nostalgia.

 

[Lanefan]

The more I read on WotC and here about type 5 or whatever it will be called the more I feel like we are headed to an attempt at an revolutionary jump.

To me 1e to 2e was evolutionary. 2e to 3e revolutionary. 3e to 3.5 evolutionary as the numbering indicated. 3.5e to 4e revolutionary.

I guess I am hoping for the pattern to continue and for the next wave to be evolutionary of the concepts in 4e and Essentials. I would hate to see the progress in RPG developments since 2008 tossed onto the fire in the name of nostalgia.

Well, aside from your definition of "progress in RPG developments" about equating to my definition of something quite different, I think it's already quite obvious that 5e is intended to be a big jump away from 4e.

The jury remains firmly out on whether it'll end up being an evolution from one or more previous editions, or something entirely new built out of pieces of them all.

Lan-"Pathfinder is a direct evolution of the 3.x series, does it count as progress?"-efan

 

[GreyICE]

Regression is an option.

 

[Yora]

If the breakaway from tradition and the new creation of 4th Edition was a good idea, they wouldn't discontinue that edition after just 3 years. If they feel a need to get a new edition so soon, they probably want to get away from 4th Edition as much as they can.

 

[Sunseeker]

It would be fair, following your breakdown, to say 4e to Essentials was our las evolutionary step, and that according to your breakdown, 5e being Revolutionary would be appropriate.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Descriptive words aside (revolutionary vs. evolutionary), this is the same argument we've had since day one.

Those who like 4E see the game as an improvement, and don't want to have the game changed away from the version they like.

Those who dislike 4E see the game as a mistake in direction, and want the game to back up and go a different way.

Are we done here now?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm hoping for 'vevolutionary'... where every adventure is accompanied by a music video on YouTube.

 

[the Jester]

If the breakaway from tradition and the new creation of 4th Edition was a good idea, they wouldn't discontinue that edition after just 3 years.

If you're going to shake the "short edition lifespan stick" at 4e, at least get the number of years right.

4e came out in 2008 and isn't discontinued yet.

 

[Yora]

As I see it, announcing a new edition is effectively canceling the old one. It's not quite dead yet, but already got the poison cup.

 

[avin]

If you're going to shake the "short edition lifespan stick" at 4e, at least get the number of years right.

4e came out in 2008 and isn't discontinued yet.

Nope, but I don't remember a new edition announced so soon, which make me believe Wotc thinks that most 4E was a mistake (not bashing 4E here, just pointing what I think they think) not because of the ruleset, but because it split even more player base.

In fact, I think bad PR killed 4E... I could envision it as an alternative grid-combat-focused version of D&D, leaving along any other edition. I still think that, with proper PR, selling it as a "dungeon delve side version" of D&D it could live for years and years...