Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 8317201" data-attributes="member: 3400">I definitely agree with this as a motive for some edition changes. Another good example is the Villains and Vigilantes game. Version 1 was relatively primitive compared to version 2 - the edition that was the main workhorse of the game line.It's not necessarily surprising for games that are new to need a revision relatively soon - there are simply things that are missed in the original design, issues that looked OK to design and playtest that were troublesome in the public, lots of things like that. I'd even argue D&amp;D's evolution from the initial booklets and box through the Holmes edition and to either the AD&amp;D line or the D&amp;D line fits this mold too. LOTS of stuff was being revised and added to the big, new, shiny game. Same with Champions.I think this is an issue for more mature game lines. Eventually, the sales will slump and/or the system has had about as much accreted to it as it can handle and it's showing its age. At that point, I don't necessarily have a problem with a new edition but this is also a moment of substantial risk - are they going to review, revise, and incorporate the stuff that accreted but leave the system working mostly the same (like Call of Cthulhu or AD&amp;D 1e to 2e), or are they going to redesign the whole thing and go in a substantially different direction (like 3e to 4e, MegaTraveller to Traveller: New Era, Top Secret to Top Secret SI).Paizo may have gone in a substantially new direction for Pathfinder 2, but at least they ran the clock out on Pathfinder 1 for a pretty good run.Totally agree. The last thing a new edition of anything needs is lack of examples of what can be done with it or lack of a tool for new GMs/players to interact with as soon as they can.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 8317201, member: 3400"] I definitely agree with this as a motive for some edition changes. Another good example is the Villains and Vigilantes game. Version 1 was relatively primitive compared to version 2 - the edition that was the main workhorse of the game line. It's not necessarily surprising for games that are new to need a revision relatively soon - there are simply things that are missed in the original design, issues that looked OK to design and playtest that were troublesome in the public, lots of things like that. I'd even argue D&D's evolution from the initial booklets and box through the Holmes edition and to either the AD&D line or the D&D line fits this mold too. LOTS of stuff was being revised and added to the big, new, shiny game. Same with Champions. I think this is an issue for more mature game lines. Eventually, the sales will slump and/or the system has had about as much accreted to it as it can handle and it's showing its age. At that point, I don't necessarily have a problem with a new edition but this is also a moment of substantial risk - are they going to review, revise, and incorporate the stuff that accreted but leave the system working mostly the same (like Call of Cthulhu or AD&D 1e to 2e), or are they going to redesign the whole thing and go in a substantially different direction (like 3e to 4e, MegaTraveller to Traveller: New Era, Top Secret to Top Secret SI). Paizo may have gone in a substantially new direction for Pathfinder 2, but at least they ran the clock out on Pathfinder 1 for a pretty good run. Totally agree. The last thing a new edition of anything needs is lack of examples of what can be done with it or lack of a tool for new GMs/players to interact with as soon as they can. [/QUOTE]

Verification