|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:28AM
#21
|
|
|
5 years is kind of on track, not many editions have outlasted 5 years. The 1st edition (white box) lasted just 3 years! 2nd AD&D edition lasted 6 before it was replaced with 2nd edition revised and that then lasted 5 years. 3rd edition lasted 3 years, 3.5 lasted 5 years. The 'basic' D&D fork (Blue-Magenta-Red-Cyclopedia) lasted from 1977 to 2000 but went through 4 itterations in that time averaging out to about 6 years each. 1st edition AD&D lasted the longest at 8 years. 4e was the shortest at 2 years, then essentials at 2+ years so far.
This is not really true. AD&D 2e and AD&D 2e revised are not different editions as you claim. I know this because I still GM AD&D and we used both books interchangably (TSR2101 and TSR2159). The text is identical. The pictures are different but everything else is the same.
Although the whole 5 years for each edition thing is a nice theory, if you actually played the game you wouldn't think this.
The 5 years per edition theory is a convenient theory to explain why 4e is being ditched with such a quickness. But it is far from the truth. 4e isn't being replaced "because it was due". 4e is being replaced because most people have stopped playing it to play pathfinder (which is amazing btw.) See Here.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:34AM
#22
|
|
|
Then do not buy the books. Problem solved. D&D is a highly customizable game. If you want to play the same edition forever, you can. Not only are there multitudes of player-produced material floating about for every edition, for free in fact, but also you can create an infinite number of things (limited only by your imagination) for your game. The game---or the edition---never ends, if you do not wish it to do so.
Complaining that WotC releases new editions is pointless and fruitless. WotC has to continue to sell books in order to keep the business running. Otherwise, if they did not want to continue making money, they could create one edition, one product, and then just stop there. Anyone in business, anyone who understands economics to even the most basic degree recognizes that every product, no matter how spectacular, has a life-cycle of profitability. The primary way to maintain profits is to either create new products or revitalize old ones (e.g. through new itinerations; the Slinky has been sold in a million different boxes, for example, over its long lifetime). Complaining about this is essentially complaining that economics works the way that it does, or rather, complaining about this is essentially complaining about the realities of life. There is no point; you are wasting your time. Time which you could be spending creating more products for whichever edition you prefer to keep playing, for example.
@ emperor matthaues. Some good points but why should I invest in a system that may not even be complete (I argue that 4e isnt complete yet) and abandoned in the next five years. Its not sustainable.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:41AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
This is not really true. AD&D 2e and AD&D 2e revised are not different editions as you claim.
They are as different as 3/3.5 and 4/Essentials - interchangeable with differences. They can be used at the same table with errata I guess but the addition of point-buy in 'revised' alone makes the two different editions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:41AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
@ emperor matthaues. Some good points but why should I invest in a system that may not even be complete (I argue that 4e isnt complete yet) and abandoned in the next five years. Its not sustainable.
Out of curiousity. Which expansions are missing in 4ed. I never played it, but I would like to know.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:42AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2008
|
+1 @ spqr202
In fact, that me elaborate a little more on 5Efan provided chart. D&D 0e started in 1974 but it lasted longer than three years and was reprinted multiple times. 1e Monster Manual came out in December 1977 it wasn't until June 1978 1e Player's Handbook was released. Therefore, there was considerable overlap between 0e and 1e. One could argue that 1e didn't really start until 1e DMG was released in Aug 1979. In fact, it took considerable support from Dragon Magazine during this period to play AD&D until the DMG was released. So, I could say that 0e lasted from 1974-1979, 1e from 1979-1989, 2e from 1989-2000. Of course, I consider 0e-2e, one big mega-edition which now the basis of the OSR.
Why? Deep down it is same game from 1974-2000!!! The first revolutionary change instead of evolutionary came in 2000 with 3e and then WOTC in their infinite wisdom decided to do again in 2008 with 4e. Now, D&D Next is just possible one big backtrack to what has come before.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:46AM
#26
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
5efan, those dates are exceptionally dubious.
1e went form 1977 to 1989. Unearthed Arcana is not a new edition. It's just a sourcebook with new classes, like barbarian and cavalier. It didn't change the basic game engine in any way. If you brought your 1977 PHB to a game played in 1988, you'd have no problem. I know. That's what I did. Unearthed Arcana is about as changing as Essentials was to 4e. If you don't count Essentials as an edition change (and I wouldn't) neither is Unaerthed Arcana.
2e's revision in 1995 was just incorporating errata. Again, if you brought your 1989 PHB to a game played in 1999, you'd have no problems whatsoever. The 2e revision was barely noticeable to most players and is certainly less jarring than the Essentials releases or 1e's Unearthed Arcana.
3e's half-edition in 2003 is trickier and it's very debateable whether that should count as a new edition. There was a conversion guide, but that's a bit stronger than mere errata. I'm inclined to agree that was an edition change in that bringing your 2000 PHB to a 3.5 game in 2007 would have been difficult.
1e ran from 1977 to 1989: 12 years.
2e ran from 1989 to 2000: 11 years.
3e ran from 2000 to 2003: 3 years
3.5e ran from 2003 to 2008: 5 years
4e ran from 2008 to 2012: 4 years (Although it is still the current edition, notwithstanding the open playtest, no further releases containing mechanics are scheduled after this month)
That's 35 years, or 7 years per release. None of Wizards' releases have managed to hit that median. It may be more accurate to say that 4e was on schedule, as that schedule has been set by Wizards. But it's not an average for the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:48AM
#27
|
|
|
This is not really true. AD&D 2e and AD&D 2e revised are not different editions as you claim.
They are as different as 3/3.5 and 4/Essentials - interchangeable with differences. They can be used at the same table with errata I guess but the addition of point-buy in 'revised' alone makes the two different editions.
No. You are wrong. They can be used at the same table because they are the same book. I know this because I use both at the same table, literally. We have 4 player handbooks on the table, some of them are TSR2101 and some of them are TSR2159 (original and revised.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:51AM
#28
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
They are as different as 3/3.5 and 4/Essentials - interchangeable with differences.
Which means it's not a new edition. If you measure 4e and Essentials as separate editions, then 4e only lasted from 2008 to 2010! Essentials lasted 2, 3.5 lasted 5, 3.0 lasted 3, 2e2 lasted 5, 2e1 lasted 6, Unearthed Arcana lasted 4, and 1e lasted 8. That's 8 changes in 35 years, or 4.375 years per change. 4e and Essentials combned failed to hit that mark, and individually, they were the shortest versions of D&D on the market.
If you don't deem these "interchangeable with difference" as new editions, then 4e lasted 4 years, 3e lasted 8, 2e lasted 11, and 1e lasted 12. An average of 8.75 years. 4e didn't even make the halfway point.
Look, I loved 4e. My favorite edition to date. But it flopped.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:53AM
#29
|
|
|
@ emperor matthaues. Some good points but why should I invest in a system that may not even be complete (I argue that 4e isnt complete yet) and abandoned in the next five years. Its not sustainable.
I cannot answer that for you. You would have to decide for yourself whether investing a new system which may not, in your own definition, be "completed", would be a worthwhile endeavor. Your personal life and finances and whatnot would also determine, for you, whether such purchases would be sustainable. For me, personally, it would be sustainable; I for my part buy and collect every D&D product, except for pre-made campaign settings, which I do not care about. So, it is just up to you and your own finances/desires.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:54AM
#30
|
|
|
Why? Deep down it is same game from 1974-2000!!!
This is true. The game went through a series of micro evolutions, rather than the unleashing of entirely new editions that redid the last edition. If you take AD&D 2e and add in combat and tactics, you're not that far from 3e.
|
|
|
