Worlds of Design: To Move or Not to a New Edition?

When the RPG ruleset you use is replaced by a new edition, what do you do?


Many tabletop RPGs besides D&D have multiple editions. How many people stick with older editions rather than move to the new one?

newedition.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Flipping & Turning Through New Rules​

I was reading an issue of Flipping & Turning (an online magazine for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, free through DriveThruRPG). A contributor to that magazine mentioned that years ago he thought no one played AD&D (First Edition, 1E) anymore, not once the Second Edition (2E) was released, but discovered many years later that Old Schoolers often play 1E.

My own experience is that I moved to AD&D from the original booklets, ignored 2E, played 3E along with 1E, played but did not game master 4E, and appreciate many virtues in 5E but don’t play it, still playing 1E.

New Editions, Other Games​

Thinking about other kinds of tabletop games, I suspect everyone moves to each new edition (there have been many) of Magic: the Gathering, because of “organized play” tournaments and the annual replacement of cards with new ones.

When an expansion for a board game is published, most people play with the expansion(s) if they can. New editions of board games are uncommon. I cite my own Britannia. In the UK people played the original H.P. Gibsons (1986) edition, in the USA gamers played the slightly different and later Avalon Hill (AH) edition (1987). When I revised the game to fix some errors introduced by publishers, in 2006, it replaced the AH edition at the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC) tournament, though a few people still prefer the AH edition. The 2020 reissue of the game does not change the rules, but uses plastic pieces (and new board artwork). Many long-time players don’t like the idea of plastic figures, and I think we’ll see a mix of sets when WBC next meets. But because the rules haven’t changed, though the interface has, it’s not comparable to a new edition of an RPG where the rules do change.

The Pros & Cons of a New Edition​

If you stick with the old you don’t have to worry about official updates to the rules. Updates can vary in quality and reception; some provide new ways for players to get something in a way that seems "easier" to players, which can cause friction at the table when those players want to use the new rules, and the game master doesn't. This may not be a problem for strong personalities, but can be a problem for a GM who isn’t clearly the leader of the group. That GM will be constantly bombarded with requests to use new rules. Forty years ago I advised GMs to avoid letting players gain unearned advantages through new rules (I banned all additions to my 3E game); but that only applies to RPGs as games, not as storytelling mechanisms.

A new edition can fix problems, but can introduce new ones. I’m not sure where the advantage lies. Another consequence of staying with the old is that new players who have bought the new edition may prefer to play what they’ve bought.

By the time a new edition is released, there’s so much material available for the older edition (often free or quite cheap) that there may not be an obvious need to switch. Those sticking with older RPG editions may be more likely to make up their own material, and thus depend less on updates. Gamers sometimes accuse publishers of releasing a new edition simply to make more money rather than actually improve the game, but a company’s motivation can certainly be both (See The Dilemma of the Simple RPG).

Finally, there is the belief that new is always better, predicated on the notion that a new edition is always an improvement on the older one. That’s certainly how publishers position their new editions, but it’s not true for every player. It wasn’t true for me with D&D, but with an historian’s perspective I also see that new often isn’t better, it’s just new.

Your Turn: How many people stick with older editions of RPGs? After all, many tabletop role-playing games have multiple editions, not just D&D. So we have a poll!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
I started with 5E, so I haven't had to do this yet. However, I assume that if we are in the middle of a campaign and want to start including elements of the new edition, we will where it makes sense. After that, though, we'll probably just use the new edition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

overgeeked

B/X Known World
It all depends on what it does better than and worse than the current edition. If I like what it does well more than I dislike what it does poorly, I'll jump. If I think the previous edition does more of what I like the way I like it, I'll stick with it. Jumping to a new edition simply because it's the new shiny doesn't make sense to me.
 

pming

Legend
Hiya!

Try it most of the time. Then put it on the shelf, or start playing it over the old...but often just steal ideas from one edition to use for whatever mish-mash we are using at the time. I can only think of two games...and one of them not 100%... where I have jumped to the newer edition: SUPERS! (but it's only had 'two' versions, so not hard), and Call of Cthulhu...where we all believe that the d20 version was actually some sort of SAN reducing cosmic horror trick that the Old Ones managed to sneak into our world; so, all "real" versions of Call of Cthulhu we have dutifully upgraded to every time...except for The Edition That Shall Not Be Named Again In This Thread!

For D&D, no 2e, no 3e, no 4e; mostly 1e/Hackmaster 4th, BECMI/BX, and now 5th. And yeah, I consider Hackmaster 4th Edition to be "AD&D version 2.75" (mostly 1e, some 2e, some Basic, and some Skills & Powers Players Option).

Also, on last little thing that I don't know if it's just me and where I live, or if this is a universal thing... any person who immediately thinks "It's new! So it's BETTER!" has always, without fail, turned out to be an idiot. Just me, or is this more common?

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Slight tangent: I will never for the life of me understand the refusal to move from 1e to 2e. During it's run, 2e was an over-done, bloated mess but with the benefit of hindsight, it's a well done revision of the core AD&D mechanics. It fixes the initiative system from whatever they was in 1e, makes bards a playable class, adds some consistency to class design, gives options to priests and wizards for specialists, and adds the better parts of UA without the broken parts. That's not so say it didn't have it own quirks, but if you carefully curate the 2e splats, it's a far better and refined system than 1e.

Then again, we're discussing why someone would leave a 40 year old system for a 30 year old one; my guess is tradition and nostalgia play a much bigger role in system choice than innovation or refinement does.
Yeah, I never really got the resistance either, particularly since the compatibility is so high that any specific element preferred from 1e fits in with 2e reasonably well (ranger, I'm looking at you).

I also suspect it's not just tradition and nostalgia. There were some elements that seemed to take 2e as an insult to Gygax and took a great deal of affront at it.
As someone who had those conversations in real time back in the day, it came down to comfort and money. We already had the AD&D books in hand. We already house ruled AD&D to work the way we wanted it to. We only ever had to look up weird edge cases and the exact wording of a spell to see if it could be used in some bizarre way. And because 2E was so close to AD&D, we didn't see any reason, mechanically, to jump.

Some of the new rules were exactly how we were already playing it and some of the new rules we didn't like. So we'd have to start from scratch and relearn a new system that was really close to what we were already playing and work up a new set of house rules to make that new system play the way we wanted it to...i.e. make it play how we were already playing with the books we already had. We'd have to deal with sorting through which rules were actually in the book vs which rules we were remembering from our house rules. Rebuy all the main books and deal with the bizarre loose-leaf MM.

There was literally no reason to switch. Though using those tasty, tasty settings would have been amazing. For the new rules we did like from 2E, we just house ruled them into our AD&D game. The group I'm talking about started playing in 1978 with a mix of the Holmes Basic set and the Monster Manual. When AD&D dropped the PHB and DMG, they still collected the various Basic boxes, but they played AD&D from '78-'79 on. By the time 2E came out, they'd already been playing AD&D for a decade and house ruled things to work the way they wanted to. I joined them in 1984. I'd already been playing AD&D for five years by the time 2E came out. None of us saw any reason to switch. We already had the books. We already house ruled the game to work how we liked. Why spend more money on a slightly different version of the game we were already playing and had already collected multiple copies of all the books.

Bottom line: it would be more work and more money to switch than to stay. So we stayed.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Out with the old, in with the new. I might drag my feet switching - I missed most of 3e and joined at the tail end just before 3.5 came out, took a year or so to start playing 4e, although we switched to 5e right away.

Then again, I have no problems with the idea that my books become obsolete. It happens. I got the enjoyment I wanted from the books I bought. It's not like I go back and reread books all the time anyway. Too many new things and new ideas to stay fixated on the old.

Yes, I have the attention span of a gerbil on speed. Why do you ask?
 

Out with the old, in with the new. I might drag my feet switching - I missed most of 3e and joined at the tail end just before 3.5 came out, took a year or so to start playing 4e, although we switched to 5e right away.

Then again, I have no problems with the idea that my books become obsolete. It happens. I got the enjoyment I wanted from the books I bought. It's not like I go back and reread books all the time anyway. Too many new things and new ideas to stay fixated on the old.

Yes, I have the attention span of a gerbil on speed. Why do you ask?
Plus, you can still use the old books to fill in the gaps on your new campaigns. I bought 2E, 3E, and 4E materials for my 5E game.
 

MGibster

Legend
I typically adopt the new edition of the game. In 1989-1990 I started purchasing AD&D 2nd edition because those were the books that were most available and I actually had a little bit of purchasing power as a teen. I switched to D&D 3.0 in 2000 because I thought it was a better system but I skipped 3.5 because I didn't feel they made enough improvements to warrant purchasing the core books again. I did not care one bit for 4.0 so I didn't make the plunge.

The only game I can recall having regret over purchasing the new edition was Legend of the Five Rings 2nd edition. And, honestly, it's been so long that I can't remember specifically what I found disappointing but I just stuck with 1st edition.

I remember switching to WEG's 2nd edition of Star Wars even though I had plenty of 1st edition books and had no big problems with the rules. I don't consider WotC's d20 Star Wars to be a different edition of the game. It's a totally different game even if it's based off the same source material.

There's a good chance I'll buy 6th edition D&D and I'd rather it was released sooner than later. I would like all the books to reflect the changes they've made to ability score increases, race/lingeage, or whatever.
 

ccs

41st lv DM
Sometimes stay, sometimes move, sometimes play both, sometimes move & then move back, sometimes play mostly one version & occasionally some other.
Depends upon the edition and, to an extent, the group.
 

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
I sold my GURPS 3e books, and thought I would shift to 4e. But then our group died, and I now have all those 3e sourcbooks and 4e rule books. Boo.
 

ccs

41st lv DM
Slight tangent: I will never for the life of me understand the refusal to move from 1e to 2e. During it's run, 2e was an over-done, bloated mess but with the benefit of hindsight, it's a well done revision of the core AD&D mechanics. It fixes the initiative system from whatever they was in 1e, makes bards a playable class, adds some consistency to class design, gives options to priests and wizards for specialists, and adds the better parts of UA without the broken parts. That's not so say it didn't have it own quirks, but if you carefully curate the 2e splats, it's a far better and refined system than 1e.
Well, one of the things I've always liked about 1e is it's arcane clunkiness. I liked it as a kid, I liked it as a teen, I liked it once 2e had arrived, & I still like it.... I largely lose that in 2e+. :(
Wether a new edition is technically better isn't enough. I also have to like it.
I also dislike the art & layout in most of 2e to varying degrees. And I HATE the the Monstrous Compendium binder style pages. And let's not discuss the abomination that's the Player Option series.

This is not to say I haven't & won't play 2e. I have. And I'm sure someday I might again depending upon the group. And I have a fair bit of it on my shelves.
2e for me is one of those editions that I largely moved to & then moved back from. All I played D&D wise between '95/96 - mid-'06 was 1e.
My choices of edition as the DM (in order of age) are: 1e, PF1 & 5e.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top