Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Is it evidence that new editions don't need to be that different?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is what I hate about the "edition" model RPGs use and its planned obsolesence. I hate the fact that the same stuff gets sold again and again, and I hate the fact that new rules often invalidate (or greatly diminish the usefulness of) old products.

I wish that there would be one FINAL edition of an RPG and then the rest of the products (for all time) are support products (like adventures and sourcebooks). Make the core rules "evergreen" and stop the roller coaster.

But, no, we're stuck with the edition model, making products we buy for one edition much less usable (if not obsolete) with a new edition.

As to the original question, we don't really *need* new editions at all (ask Diaglo if he needs one), but since 1E and 2E are so similar, and 3.0 and 3.5 are so similar, no, you do not need editions to be that different to sell them.

What do you think would be done to achieve that goal? Because so far, it just doesn't seem to work out. I don't know many games that manage to have a strong support and don't get a new edition. What is done "wrong"?

Do the design teams need to be exchanged after a few years, because they need fresh ideas to keep the interest or generate new ideas? What is it that can make this model work?

Or will it always be a dream - the "perfect" RPG that can be sustained with new supplements and adventures infinitely, never with a shrinking audience (though quite possibly with a changing audience). Or maybe does this game already exist? It just doesn't have the audience that D&D has, and is not possible to retain that audience without new editions?

 

[Jack99]

"It's just 3.5 with houserules" is to Paizo what "It's video gamey" is to 4e.

LOL.. That was actually funny. Almost XP-worthy.

I wish that there would be one FINAL edition of an RPG and then the rest of the products (for all time) are support products (like adventures and sourcebooks). Make the core rules "evergreen" and stop the roller coaster.

I agree. Problem is that the edition I am willing to stick with the rest of my life isn't here yet - and I am sure others feel like that.

 

[DaveMage]

What do you think would be done to achieve that goal? Because so far, it just doesn't seem to work out. I don't know many games that manage to have a strong support and don't get a new edition. What is done "wrong"?

Do the design teams need to be exchanged after a few years, because they need fresh ideas to keep the interest or generate new ideas? What is it that can make this model work?

Or will it always be a dream - the "perfect" RPG that can be sustained with new supplements and adventures infinitely, never with a shrinking audience (though quite possibly with a changing audience). Or maybe does this game already exist? It just doesn't have the audience that D&D has, and is not possible to retain that audience without new editions?

Well, it kind of already exists. There are those who *still* play each edition. The problem (now more than ever) is that, for D&D at least, the editions are now competing with each other! If there was only one D&D, this would not be an issue. (What would be interesting to know is a count of how many people know *how* to play each edition.)

Here are some of the problems I see with D&D:

1. Too aggressive a release schedule

Too many rules products come out too fast. The volume of rules material available quickly becomes overwhelming. Adventures and sourcebooks should also come out at a slower pace.

2. The need to make the line super-profitable to justify the large writing/editorial staff

This ties in with #1. If the release schedule is not as aggressive, then you don't need as large a staff. Freelancers may help in this area.

However, you are right that this is most likely a dream.

 

[ggroy]

I wish that there would be one FINAL edition of an RPG

There's one way this can happen: D&D is taken off the market permanently as a tabletop pnp rpg game, and shelved.

In such a scenario, D&D will probably live on as the online 3.5E SRD document assuming it still exists several centuries from now.

 

[DaveMage]

I agree. Problem is that the edition I am willing to stick with the rest of my life isn't here yet - and I am sure others feel like that.

If I were running the brand (and not at WotC, which would likely never allow this), I would make the next version "The Definitive Edition" and it would be the last edition made. It would take the best features from all editions, while being modular - allowing you to play, for example, with or without minis, and it would provide guidance to converting older edition materials.

 

[billd91]

I wish that there would be one FINAL edition of an RPG and then the rest of the products (for all time) are support products (like adventures and sourcebooks). Make the core rules "evergreen" and stop the roller coaster.

Well, that's the challenge, isn't it? Trouble is, people keep coming up with new ideas they like to incorporate into their games. I suppose they could just come out with them in supplementary form, but that raises the difficulties of players trying to get in and up to speed on all of the latest changes if they have to get the core rules and then a series of supplements all too soon out of print. Or you have one increasingly fat supplement companion to the core rules that includes all of the changes, that might as well have been incorporated into the main rules for convenience.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, it kind of already exists. There are those who *still* play each edition. The problem (now more than ever) is that, for D&D at least, the editions are now competing with each other! If there was only one D&D, this would not be an issue. (What would be interesting to know is a count of how many people know *how* to play each edition.)

Here are some of the problems I see with D&D:

1. Too aggressive a release schedule

Too many rules products come out too fast. The volume of rules material available quickly becomes overwhelming. Adventures and sourcebooks should also come out at a slower pace.

2. The need to make the line super-profitable to justify the large writing/editorial staff

This ties in with #1. If the release schedule is not as aggressive, then you don't need as large a staff. Freelancers may help in this area.

However, you are right that this is most likely a dream.

Well, maybe it is possible under those limitations. But... It means I don't get a steady supply of supplements each month.

It means the company is a lot smaller.

It seems if it works, it is just not the best one for a company to follow. It especially doesn't seem to be a good idea for any company handling D&D. The D&D market seemed to have been able to sustain the release schedule of WotC. Why should they want to sell less?

You could also see it in another way. You already got your wish. That company existed for 8 years, but it gave you material that might least for 24 years. So, why worry about edition treadmills? Where is the harm? Do you worry you lose players? Remember that this 8 years of 3E also achieved the number of players it did for those 8 years. If you stretch the release schedule, is there a reason to assume those players will not also be stretched over those 24 years? Or play only 1/3 of what they did play, simply because there wasn't all that much new material to keep them wanting to play more and try out new rules, or new adventures for their DMs to run?

 

[billd91]

I agree. Problem is that the edition I am willing to stick with the rest of my life isn't here yet - and I am sure others feel like that.

Probably true, but it's also true that there are others who do feel reasonably content with one edition. For me, I'm willing to check out new editions and changes, but really I don't feel like the edition I want isn't here yet. The way you phrased it makes it sound like you're on a quest or something. I'm not. I'd be content to play the same edition the rest of my life if nothing I liked better came along.

 

[Jack99]

Probably true, but it's also true that there are others who do feel reasonably content with one edition. For me, I'm willing to check out new editions and changes, but really I don't feel like the edition I want isn't here yet. The way you phrased it makes it sound like you're on a quest or something. I'm not. I'd be content to play the same edition the rest of my life if nothing I liked better came along.

Not on a quest. Just hoping that WotC releases a version of D&D that will keep my players and I happy and interested for more than 15 years

 

[ggroy]

1. Too aggressive a release schedule

Too many rules products come out too fast. The volume of rules material available quickly becomes overwhelming. Adventures and sourcebooks should also come out at a slower pace.

There's some games where supplements have been released on a much slower pace, such as the Palladium fantasy rpg.

- The original core rulebook was released in 1983.
- The first supplement book was released in 1984. (Old Ones)
- The second supplement book was released in 1987. (Adventures on the High seas)
- The third supplement book was released in 1989. (Adventures in the Northern Wilderness)
- The fourth supplement book was released in 1990. (Further Adventures in the Northern Wilderness).