Iteration.
- Thread starter Evenglare
- Start date
delericho
Legend
That's fair, but...
Back in 2008, The Rouse indicated that he felt 8 years was about right for an edition cycle. I happened to agree with him, but it obviously hasn't worked out quite like that. The only way I see this being the last edition is if it does poorly enough that Hasbro decide to cancel D&D.
Besides, occasional edition updates are actually a good thing. Even if the core of 5e is rock-solid, so that they never want to change it, there will still be innovations in supplements that they want to bring in to the core, revisions and errata to apply, and (probably) elements that they want to eventually remove from the game entirely.
The cumulative effect of all of that is that a new edition is a really good thing, resetting everything to a "clean slate", and giving a new starting point to build on. Of course, that new edition could look a lot more like the 1st -> 2nd, or even the 3.0 -> 3.5 transitions than the recent "big bang" approaches.
... which is because what's about right for players (8 years about long enough that almost no one will be upset with a new edition just for being a new edition) is not what's right for publishers (especially if you're WotC, and so your major follow-on projects are rules supplements). I've said before and will say again that WotC's basic problem with D&D is that there's about two or three years worth of supplements that will sell reasonably well in a new edition of the game, and after that they end up looking for new business models and/or trying to catch lightning in a bottle with something a little out there. Neither of these ever works, so then we get a new edition.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
I think they have a deeper problem than what you suggest. I think they rely so heavily on their current and former brand IP that they are more ready to exploit the brands they have than they are brave enough to create new brands. And it isn't working out for them, at least not well enough by their own standards of success if the shortening of edition cycles and reports from some former employees is anything by which to judge.
If they had simply created a new card-based post-apoc game and marketed it toward the modern gaming crowd rather than vitually creating a whole new game and slapping the Gamma World brand on it, they might have leveraged their muscles as an industry leader to make it very successful, or at least as successful as it turned out to be. But, those in control of that brand/IP didn't seem to understand that the brand name that really only had cache with traditional gamers who mostly found the new game so unlike the original that the brand name really only served to disappoint most of those who saw the name and had expectations in that regard.
So, too, I wonder if they mustered their resources to simply making a whole new roleplaying game in the vein of D&D but left off the D&D branding, perhaps only going so far as to put it forth as "From the makers of D&D" if it wouldn't serve their ends as well without burning their bridges with much of the customer base. If they could manage to cycle four brands, some perhaps stronger than others but building on their reputation as supportive of of the brands they have without trampling on customer expectations, developing those four brands every eight years in two year intervals, they might not have the PR problems they keep having.
Savage Wombat
Hero
They could call it EXTREME D&D. Then it would be both lame and dated.
the Jester
Legend
I'll requote your earlier post, to which I was responding, and I'll even bold the bit I'm taking issue with:
Yora said:
No matter how you look at it, saying that they cancelled 4E after just 3 years is completely and utterly factually wrong.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
They still have a full schedule of 4E book releases in the pipeline due out on 2012, don't they?
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
They need "Iteration"!
"Innovation" and "Modularity" needed a third for their pick-up game with "Edition", "Change" and "Options".
"Innovation" and "Modularity" needed a third for their pick-up game with "Edition", "Change" and "Options".
the Jester
Legend
Some of this year's releases are going to be edition-neutral, but AFAIK 4e ain't done yet.
That's not even mentioning DDI stuff.
They're going a long way out of their way to avoid the term "5th Edition". Not only do they not use it, but their PR company requests people like me not to use it. I just use the term I think people will understand, though.
