Which Edition(s) do you regularly play?

[the Jester]

4e.

Your poll has a serious flaw; "4e Essentials" is the same exact game as "4e". Putting it up as a separate option is basically like having a "3.5 Complete Warrior" option.

 

[Agamon]

I'm running ACKS, which is B/X with the awesome dial turned up to 11.

 

[S'mon]

Interesting to see that young pretender from WoTC, 3.5e, threatening Paizo's venerable 900 lb gorilla Pathfinder for the status of most-played game...

 

[S'mon]

My main regular games are B/X (Labyrinth Lord clone), 4e D&D/4e Essentials, Pathfinder/Beginner Box, and about to restart my 1e AD&D online game.

 

[Reynard]

4e.

Your poll has a serious flaw; "4e Essentials" is the same exact game as "4e". Putting it up as a separate option is basically like having a "3.5 Complete Warrior" option.

I have to apologize. I am not super familiar with 4E. I played it monthly for about a year with the core set before giving up and didn't buy another thing for it until the Essentials monster box. I was under the impression that because they put out the "core" again that it was a 4.5.

 

[DaveMage]

Playing/Running Pathfinder - going through Slumbering Tsar. I won't need anything else for a long while...

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have to apologize. I am not super familiar with 4E. I played it monthly for about a year with the core set before giving up and didn't buy another thing for it until the Essentials monster box. I was under the impression that because they put out the "core" again that it was a 4.5.

Apparently there's some debate on the subject (recent example).

 

[Argyle King]

4e.

Your poll has a serious flaw; "4e Essentials" is the same exact game as "4e". Putting it up as a separate option is basically like having a "3.5 Complete Warrior" option.

It makes sense to me to separate 4E and Essentials if you're also separating 3.0 and 3.5.

 

[Reynard]

It makes sense to me to separate 4E and Essentials if you're also separating 3.0 and 3.5.

Interestingly, there is a close to even split between 4E and Essentials responses. This suggests to me that. Some groups acknowledge a difference. Taken together, the 4E players about equal the 3.5 payers, both of which slightly trail Pathfinder. Does that mean that WotC could take back the top spot if they spent the next 2 years prior to 5E dual statting or otherwise supporting both 3.5 and 4E.

 

[Argyle King]

Interestingly, there is a close to even split between 4E and Essentials responses. This suggests to me that. Some groups acknowledge a difference. Taken together, the 4E players about equal the 3.5 payers, both of which slightly trail Pathfinder. Does that mean that WotC could take back the top spot if they spent the next 2 years prior to 5E dual statting or otherwise supporting both 3.5 and 4E.

I don't think so. At this time, I have no concrete reason why I feel such. I simply have a gut feeling that releasing various pieces of their back catalog like they are currently doing will produce better results than trying to support two different games over a long haul.

I also suspect (as said elsewhere) that the decision to release older products is an attempt to get some idea of what is popular across editions so as to have an educated guess about what aspects should be in the 5th edition core.