Will there ever be new editions of the major systems?

[Blue]

And we're slowly get new versions of everything. New artificer this month!

I'm excited about the things coming out. But the fact that they are republishing everything and expecting us to rebuy it, as opposed to just errata-ing like they had for close to a decade, supports the point that 2014!5e was not evergreen.

Evergreen and repurchase the same material for the new [fill in the blank] seem like incompatible.

BTW, I'm not putting WotC down, I've happy purchased every new edition of D&D, including 3ed to 3.5 and their hardcover-of-the-month. Just saying that it's not evergreen.

 

[djotaku]

I'm excited about the things coming out. But the fact that they are republishing everything and expecting us to rebuy it, as opposed to just errata-ing like they had for close to a decade, supports the point that 2014!5e was not evergreen.

Evergreen and repurchase the same material for the new [fill in the blank] seem like incompatible.

BTW, I'm not putting WotC down, I've happy purchased every new edition of D&D, including 3ed to 3.5 and their hardcover-of-the-month. Just saying that it's not evergreen.

TBH, if I compare the "big two": Paizo is constantly putting out adventure paths (and doesn't even make you pay for the rules). D&D barely puts out books in comparison. I think they re-release the rules every few years no matter what to make money. Maybe they coudl have just updated 2014 with some new subclasses or something, but then "everyone" wouldn't have re-bought the books.

 

[Blue]

TBH, if I compare the "big two": Paizo is constantly putting out adventure paths (and doesn't even make you pay for the rules). D&D barely puts out books in comparison. I think they re-release the rules every few years no matter what to make money. Maybe they coudl have just updated 2014 with some new subclasses or something, but then "everyone" wouldn't have re-bought the books.

Sure.

Remember that the question that is being addressed is "Is 2014 D&D evergreen?". If you need to re-buy things, it's pretty clear it isn't an evergreen edition.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure.

Remember that the question that is being addressed is "Is 2014 D&D evergreen?". If you need to re-buy things, it's pretty clear it isn't an evergreen edition.

They say it's an evergreen tree, but it turns out that you have to still buy a new Christmas tree each year.

 

[Faolyn]

2E was not a "dramatic departure" from 1E. 3.5 was not a "dramatic departure" from 3E. Pendragon 6th edition is not a "dramatic departure" from Pendragon 5th edition. The current Call of Cthulhu was not a "dramatic departure" from the previous one.

@Soloist didn't say that 2e was a dramatic departure from 1e, and 3.5 was a half edition. If AD&D was being published today, I'm pretty sure people would be calling 2e a half-edition. Also, what Pendragon and CoC do isn't what D&D has historically done and so is irrelevant. Especially since you can point out other games where different editions are very different, like WoD games.

Questions:

(1) Who decided that a new edition had to be a "dramatic departure"? You?
(2) Where does "dramatic departure" appear in the definition of the word "edition"?
(3) Who gets to define "dramatic"? You?

I think we can consider having a nearly completely different ruleset to be suitably dramatic. 3e isn't compatible with 2e. 4e isn't compatible with 3e or 2e. 5e isn't compatible with 4e, 3e, or 2e.

But that's not the point. @Blue was suggesting that 5e isn't actually "evergreen" like it's supposed to be because there are differences between 5.14 and 5.24. However, for the most part, the two games are compatible with each other. You can't build a character where you take the race from 3e and the class from 4e. That's what @Soloist was saying. You can do that with a 5.14 race and a 5.24 class, though. Whether that character is balanced is another thing entirely, but it's possible because the rules are mostly similar.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll have to take your word for it (not familiar with Runequest, or M&M 2e, although the latter seems similar enough that a bunch of folks online do conversions without too much trouble apparently).

"Conversions" and "reverse compatible" are not the same from what I've always seen it used. Most editions can have conversions done if you're familiar with both editions. "Reverse compatible" games can be cross-used on the fly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Conversions" and "reverse compatible" are not the same from what I've always seen it used. Most editions can have conversions done if you're familiar with both editions. "Reverse compatible" games can be cross-used on the fly.

Fair enough. Do you know if either game claimed backwards compatibility?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough. Do you know if either game claimed backwards compatibility?

I don't recall many games of that period claiming that, even ones it was largely true of, like Champions.

 

[Morrus]

@Soloist didn't say that 2e was a dramatic departure from 1e,

Correct.

and 3.5 was a half edition.

There is no such thing.

Also, what Pendragon and CoC do isn't what D&D has historically done and so is irrelevant.

Incorrect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't recall many games of that period claiming that, even ones it was largely true of, like Champions.

If they used language like "cleaned up", "minor fixes", or "addressed known issues" they probably intended backwards compatibility.