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

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

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!

 

[Richards]

I started playing in the AD&D 1E days, switched to AD&D 2E when it came out, and then did likewise for 3.0/3.5. But when they came out with 4E there was really nothing I liked about it and since by that time I had amassed so many 3.X books that I literally have more material than I'll be able to use in the rest of my lifetime, I saw no need to switch from a system I liked to a system I did not. My players all agreed, so we've stuck with 3.5 since.

When 5E came out I gave it a look and its seemed like a step back in the right direction, but we still saw no need to abandon our 3.5 campaigns. So here we are. When 6E comes out I'll probably give it a look as well, either nod in approval or frown in dislike, and then go back to my 3.5 campaigns. Honestly, short of losing my current gaming group and not being able to find any new 3.5 players, I don't see myself moving on.

Johnathan

 

[MNblockhead]

I wonder who much you play factors into how you answer the poll. For me, I have so much material for 5e that I have not played yet, that I would see no point in buying a new system. This pertains to me being a DM. As a DM, I only have time for one campaign, about 8-10 hours per month and the rare one-shot. So I only buy 5e-compatible material or completely different systems for one-shots or mini-campaigns.

Now, as a PLAYER, I would buy the necessary player materials for whatever systems I've agreed to play in. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to play other than one shots, usually at on-line or local conventions. For those, I generally don't have to own anything as when I join a game to try a new system it is a more introductory game and the DM doesn't expect the players to own the materials for, or have experience with, the system.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Hmm.. never really had to answer this question. I never took up 1e or 2e. I thought about 2e but got put off by all the setting and splat books. Played Palladium and Warhammer instead with a bit of MERP/Rolemaster. Move to 3e near the end of its life before the introduction of 3.5 but I was never happy DM'ing 3.x. Switched to 4e immediately and loved but it fell out of favour with my players. Was casting about for an alternative (was thinking about Savage Worlds) when 5e started playtesting. Loved the new material and have not looked back since. At this point in time I would no see myself switching. I probably would not switch in the middle of an adventure path and might never if the new edition was too different.
I personally might prefer something lighter then the current ed if I was to be persuaded to switch.

 

[Li Shenron]

So far I have always tried the new edition but went back or went away half of the times.

I played BECMI in the 90s. Near the end of the decade after we had stopped, I got interested in AD&D but before I could run some games 3ed came. Bought it, loved it and played it for almost a decade. 1-0

When 3.5 came out, I switched immediately but used the SRD instead of buying new books. I DMed it for at least a year, during which the more we played the more it felt inferior to 3.0, so we eventually switched back. 1-1

Then 4ed: tried it using whatever preview was available, for maybe a month. Hated it with a passion, saw that it was becoming so mainstream as to be almost mandatory, and quit the hobby completely rather than complying. 1-2

Finally I noticed DnDNext almost by chance since I was normally staying away even from these forums. Got into playtesting from the 1st package, and here I am. 2-2

Honestly I think I am probably done with editions. I am not the kind of gamer that needs new rules or stuff to stay happy, I only need to PLAY MORE. There is practically nothing in 5e that bothers me (except Druids armor restrictions and Guidance, both already tamed anyway). I do not see how a new edition could improve the game for me, it can only make it worse or at best equal.

 

[jasper]

Slight tangent: I will never for the life of me understand the refusal to move from 1e to 2e. ....

BEEP BBEEEp It change just enough of the rules to be a bother. Think 10 mm socket being reduce to 9 mm.

 

[Alzrius]

I used to like moving from one edition to another, as it seemed like an exciting chance to see how a game was getting better. Nowadays, I take a markedly different view. Part of that is because I no longer see new editions as "better," so much as just "different," without any sort of qualitative judgment inherent therein.

A larger part, however, is that it's simply not economical for me to invest time, money, and energy to learn a new system that's pursuing the same goals as the previous edition. To my mind, if I was already playing the previous edition, then it was sufficiently successful in whatever goals it set for itself that it kept me coming back. The idea that a new edition will be (typically only slightly) more successful in reaching those goals doesn't justify the costs involved with learning it.

 

[Kurotowa]

Usually I make the jump to a new edition because usually a new edition is an iteration on the previous edition that attempts to address the problem areas the community has identified. Certainly, a new edition will have new flaws, but the thrill of discovery is nice and it's satisfying to have the old flaws that have been bugging me for years finally gone.

Note the disclaimer of "usually" there. It's possible for a new edition to lose my interest, either by trying to go in a different direction I don't care for or through poor design work producing a shoddy product. Like many people in this thread, D&D 4e is a prime example of the former for me. It's just not what I want out of my D&D. It's also the main example I can personally offer because I haven't stuck with most other systems long enough to hit multiple edition changes. Other systems I'll dip in and out, often based on word of mouth, so I probably naturally avoid the bad editions without even meaning to.

 

[Hussar]

Usually I make the jump to a new edition because usually a new edition is an iteration on the previous edition that attempts to address the problem areas the community has identified. Certainly, a new edition will have new flaws, but the thrill of discovery is nice and it's satisfying to have the old flaws that have been bugging me for years finally gone.

Note the disclaimer of "usually" there. It's possible for a new edition to lose my interest, either by trying to go in a different direction I don't care for or through poor design work producing a shoddy product. Like many people in this thread, D&D 4e is a prime example of the former for me. It's just not what I want out of my D&D. It's also the main example I can personally offer because I haven't stuck with most other systems long enough to hit multiple edition changes. Other systems I'll dip in and out, often based on word of mouth, so I probably naturally avoid the bad editions without even meaning to.

Y'know, I'd just like to hold this up as the right way to do this. You didn't feel the need to claim that the game was bad or wrong, just not to your taste. Kudos sir and edition warring would have been much less acrimonious if folks were more like this.

I keep having to bite my tongue when I see claims of 4e is a video game or 4e is teh suxxors or whatever folks feel the need to justify why they didn't like it. You sir, win the Internet today.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I always switch to the new one, usually as soon as I can (with playtest material) and I never go back, even if I don't like the new one as much as the old. Usually if that's the case (and it rarely is) I'd just more likely play something else entirely than drop back an edition. I'm not quite sure why I do it that way, but it's how I do.

 

[jeffh]

There isn't one simple answer to a question like this. It depends what I think of the changes. I picked the second, "sometimes new sometimes old" option but that's just the most common answer. I certainly don't have the need some people do to always be using the latest and ostensibly greatest (and very few people here seem to, or at least they aren't admitting it ).