Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8001743" data-attributes="member: 59082">I didn't realize that we were engaged in legal proceedings ;-).  And yes, I too am talking about 50th anniversary core books. But I remain unconvinced by your argument, which I think hasn't negated my view on this. Ultimately I don't know--none of us knows. I am merely presenting what I think makes most sense. This may diverge to varying degrees to what I think they'll actually do and what I'd like them to do.Historical Context: With 5E we're in uncharted territory. Not only is the game thriving in an unprecedented way--or at least since the early 80s--but they're also taking a very different approach to product, with quality-over-quantity or "less is more" approach. Couple that with the increased role of the internet and the cultural-societal context, and it is a very different ball-game. Part of that is uncertainty: bigger issues (beyond RPGs) aside, we don't know how long this period will last, whether it is a bubble that will eventually burst, or if it is a rising tide. At some point there will be a slowing down, but we don't know if it will be followed with a crash or a plateauing. With that, we also don't know if WotC has plans to maintain the 4-books-a-year approach, go back to 3, or up to 5, even with possible other products, new game lines, etc. It is all speculative, and should be fun. With that in mind, let's look at history...4E: You keep mentioning this as if it means anything. It doesn't, or very little, for a variety of reasons. For one, the community response to 4E was far more negative. Secondly, the edition cycle was very short: less than four years, with really only three years of extensive support. To compare revisions within the first 2-3 years of 4E to a 10-year core ruleset isn't very useful. 4E was a different game, the community response was different, the product support was different (remember one hardcover a month?). Edition Cycles: OD&D came out in 1974, with the game splitting into Basic and Advanced starting in 1977. The edition format started with AD&D, that's core rulebooks were complete by 1979. The two lines saw the following edition cycles, with new editions in bold, and major revisions/expansions in regular, and re-packaging in parentheses.Basic.x: 1977, 1981, 1983-85, 1991, (1995).AD&D: 1977-79, 1985*, 1989, 1995.D&D: 2000, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2014, ???*I don't really consider Unearthed Arcana a revision, but some do as it did expand the core game somewhat, which is why I include "revisions/expansions" as the same category. Similarly for the minor-to-moderate adjustments of the Basic line.So from that, we can ascertain a couple things:1. Every edition has received some kind of revision or expansion, with the possible exception of 1E, depending upon how you consider UA.2. The revisions or expansions within a 2-6 year timeframe of the new edition. 3. The time between major editions is 10, 11, and 6 years.Given all of that, the historical precedent clearly supports at least the possibility of a 50th anniversary revision, to whatever degree. But it is worth pointing out again that we've never seen a revision after 10 years--it has always been within 6 years, and in the last two editions, 2-3 years.But again, historical precedents have limited value. We are in uncharted waters. As I've said several times, I highly doubt that WotC will do a true revision (5.5) in 2024, or even a moderate revision (5.3-5.4). I see three likely scenarios:1. They put out 50th anniversary versions of the core rulebooks with fancy new covers and maybe a foreword of some kind commemorating the history of the game ("5.0 reskinned").2. As above, but they add a few new bells and whistles and a few minor tweaks ("5.1").3. As above, but more bells and whistles and tweaks ("5.2").Anything beyond that would be unlikely. They will almost certainly make sure it is fully backwards compatible, and that people don't "need" to buy the books to continue playing 5E. But they will also do enough that people will want to.</blockquote>

Verification