Why Did They Switch Editions?

[Zeta Kai]

Caveat
Alright, so this not intended to disparage/praise any particular edition of any particular game. I am seeking genuine insight into an issue which has recently affected the gaming community at large, in order to put the whole thing in context. As we all know, of course, Wizards of the Coast decided to create a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, releasing 4th Edition (AKA 4E). My opinions on the subject are probably common knowledge, & as such need not be repeated here.

Query & Sub-Queries
My question is this: Why did the developers of a particular game switch to a new edition? Why did 3E give way to 4E? Why did 2E give way to 3E? Why did 1E give way to 2E? Why did Mutants & Masterminds 2nd Edition come out? Why did the Old World of Darkness end & the New World of Darkness begin? Why did these changes take place when the did?

Expansion & Explanation
I realize that change is inevitable, & I'm fine with that. I just want to know how these changes have come about & why they happened when the did. I am honestly not trying to troll or otherwise stir up bad sentiments by this question. I believe it to be a legitimate issue that should be understood by gamers. An answer of "Those people at that company just wanted more of my money" doesn't really solve anything, is partially-untrue, & is partially-irrelevant. I'm looking for the cultural/social/mechanical shifts that occurred for each edition switch, & what caused them.

[monty]

See, when they release a new edition, everybody has to buy new books (well, most people do, anyway). This means they get more money. And they like money.

[Tengu_temp]

The major reasons behind making new editions of RPGs are:
1. Fixes to what was wrong in the previous edition, or at least attempted fixes.
2. New edition = new books for fans to buy = more money!

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm no expert, but I'd say that part of it is that eventually making little tweaks to the old system gets too complicated and it's easier to basically push the reset button.

The only incarnations of D&D I really got to know before 4e rolled around were 3e and 3.5e. The reason they just made 3.5 instead of tweaking 3e was that they felt the changes were too extensive and complex to just add to the system as is, and made a new system that incorporated the changes to save time and energy both on the part of the players and the developers.

3.5e had a lot, and I mean a LOT of extra material. There were the Core Books, the Core Books II (and even more in the case of the Monster Manual), the Complete series and many more. The Forgotten Realms and Eberron campaign settings could be considered a seperate game with the number of books released for them. And near the end, they released the Rules Compendium, a collection of all the minor tweaks and changes they felt were needed. That they needed a whole book just for errata shows just what a bloated, stagnant beast 3.5e had become, just laboring for breath with each sourcebook. Besides that, some books, like Tome of Battle, introduced very radical changes, which were much more effective than the original stuff in the corebooks.

So by the time the Rules Compendium came out, it was clear that 3.5e was running out of steam and would simply be too complex to modify further, so they started building a newer, more well-balanced game from the bottom up, incorporating what worked well in 3.5 and eliminating things that didn't work so well (I'm looking at you, skill-points!).

I'm certain that this isn't all there is to it, and I may be outright wrong, but I feel a certain sense of refreshment with 4e starting fresh.

[celestialkin]

I have thought a lot about this. Especially since I was very against the switch to 4.0 (some of the Wizards forums refugees might remember that...).

Here are the main reasons I believe caused the switch:

1. Money. Plain and simple. Whatever you think of WotC, money obviously was the biggest part of that decision. I have heard people say that they needed to do it because 3.x was supposedly getting them in the negatives, and I have also heard others like me claim they are just greedy like any business with executives making all the decisions and not fans, but either way it doesn't matter.
   
2. I believe each edition reaches a point where there is simply no new material to invent, or at this point redo/copy over. I realized this while reading about those girls in the Book of Exalted Deeds which can transform into swans. They were originally introduced in an older edition, then I believe were published again before being redone again into 3rd edition. Most/a large amount of the stuff you find in the large number of 3.x books already existed in older editions, and was either converted over (example the Tarrasque, the Neogi, ship combat, the drow, all core races and classes, the planes, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc), or if new material did not exist word-for-word in an older edition odds are you can find something very similar in an old 1.0 or 2.0 book if you look hard enough.
   
   This is one of my problems with 4.0. I have only been playing for around two and a half years, and I had just finished amassing a collection of books I was content with when the big news about 4.0 was released. I do not feel like rebuying all those books (which I financially can't right now) just to find most of the same material I already have in 3.x. I already lost a ton on the miniatures games, but that is another issues.
   
3. A lot of people felt that 3.x had to be "fixed".
   
   In my personal opinion, I believe you can never make an edition where everyone will be pleased, so the edition "reboot" will go on until pen-and-paper RPGs finally die out (which I feel 4.0 is helping, but again another issue).
   
4. I also believe that overwhelming amount of material makes it so things can be easily munchkined/optimized and completely broken. This I think adds on to the above train of thought that the edition needs to be "fixed", and I also feel this is why supposedly WotC is not going to do any splatbooks for 4.0 and just do two/three books for each setting (do you guys know if this was confirmed?).
   
   Honestly, I feel this is only an issue if you let it be. In my houserules I clearly state that all non-core material needs to be passed by me, and that I can refuse anything, even if it is core material. Heck, I love 3rd party stuff, and I encourage it to players, yet I believe I have done well so far with not getting overwhelmed.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

True. Very true. Part of the reason my parents aren't complaining about me sinking money into 4e is that there are less books than in 3.5e, so I don't spend so much.

And 4e finally gave paladins the overhaul they so desperately needed.

[celestialkin]

True. Very true. Part of the reason my parents aren't complaining about me sinking money into 4e is that there are less books than in 3.5e, so I don't spend so much.

Huh? Which part?

If it's the less/no splatbook part, that is still debatable. I saw something about three separate Draconomicon (three if they do the gems, which I highly doubt), so the no splatbooks part seems very unlikely to me. Plus, the more books you makes means the more money you make, so no big business like WotC can refuse that, at least not for long.

And 4e finally gave paladins the overhaul they so desperately needed.

That is debatable. Again, what you like is obviously very different than what I like for pen-and-paper RPGs, as with everybody, so odds are you and others like you might end up being "bitter" "holdouts" like myself when 4.5 or 5.0 comes around. Just a friendly warning.

[celestialkin]

Oh, and the fact that Draconomicon even exists (see link below) is proof that there will be splatbooks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconomicon

[JadedDM]

Haha. I remember when 3E came out, people kept saying one of it's selling points was there were only three books. Nothing else!

It seems terribly laughable now, doesn't it?

[celestialkin]

Haha. I remember when 3E came out, people kept saying one of it's selling points was there were only three books. Nothing else!

It seems terribly laughable now, doesn't it?

Haha.

I have heard that from old-timers. Oh, I can't wait to see the disappointment in the 4.0 kids faces in a few years when history repeats itself, and I can say "Called it!".

[JadedDM]

Indeed. I felt the same way when 3E came out. "One day you'll get yours!" I shouted, but they all laughed. Who's laughing now?

Wow, we're awfully bitter about this, aren't we?

[celestialkin]

Indeed. I felt the same way when 3E came out. "One day you'll get yours!" I shouted, but they all laughed. Who's laughing now?

Wow, we're awfully bitter about this, aren't we?

Yeah, perhaps, but after dumping so much money into our preferred systems I feel we have a right to be.

But at least now you gave me proof that I have something to look forward to!


But then again, that means I am the ones you laughed at/get revenge on? Huh, oh well, I guess we are all on the same crossed-by-WotC boat now, so it's all cool.

I wonder if there will be room left when the 4.0 guys want to come aboard....

[Behold_the_Void]

To be fair, businesses exist to make money. If you run a business based around producing a product, you're going to want to keep producing more of said product to make a living to support yourself. And if that product isn't profitable enough, you're going to want to make more of it.

The level of streamlining is a pretty clear indication as to what they wanted to do. They were trying to make the game a lot simpler and fix the balance issues that plagued 3e, as well as finally divorcing themselves from old "sacred cows" that can often be the death knell of enjoyment. As was stated, with all these changes, a full reboot was much easier than tweaking the existing system into incomprehensibility.

[KKL]

I have heard that from old-timers. Oh, I can't wait to see the disappointment in the 4.0 kids faces in a few years when history repeats itself, and I can say "Called it!".

Of course history's going to repeat itself. WotC needs to make money, so they'll make splats. It's inevitable, and anyone who believes elsewise is a fool.

Also what's with the use of the word kid?

[celestialkin]

Of course history's going to repeat itself. WotC needs to make money, so they'll make splats. It's inevitable, and anyone who believes elsewise is a fool.

Also what's with the use of the word kid?

Well, it is no secret that WotC is targeting the younger crowd with 4.0. From the oversimplification to make it "simpler" and "easier" for younger and undevoted players, to the whole WoW in paper thing, to the art, to the fact that it is much harder to ever die, to the changing the tieflings fluff, etc.

Sure there will be older people playing, but that is not the targeted crowd.

[turkishproverb]

Haha.

I have heard that from old-timers. Oh, I can't wait to see the disappointment in the 4.0 kids faces in a few years when history repeats itself, and I can say "Called it!".

Already happened, expanded definition of core anyone?

[celestialkin]

Already happened, expanded definition of core anyone?

Say what?

Please explain.

[KKL]

Well, it is no secret that WotC is targeting the younger crowd with 4.0. From the oversimplification to make it "simpler" and "easier" for younger and undevoted players, to the whole WoW in paper thing, to the art, to the fact that it is much harder to ever die, to the changing the tieflings fluff, etc.

Sure there will be older people playing, but that is not the targeted crowd.

{Scrubbed}

2.) Dying in 4e is actually rather easy. You just have to screw up, or have the opponent get lucky, unlike the previous edition where save or dies existed, which is pretty much the antithesis of remotely good design.

3.) Tiefling fluff? {Scrubbed} Fluff in D&D has always been not great to begin with.

4.) Nobody enjoys an overcomplex mishmash of crap rules. Not even the "older and more hardcore" players, as you'd like to put it.

[celestialkin]

[QUOTE=KKL;5310309]{Scrubbed}

3.) Tiefling fluff?{Scrubbed} Fluff in D&D has always been not great to begin with.

{Scrubbed}

4.) Nobody enjoys an overcomplex mishmash of crap rules. Not even the "older and more hardcore" players, as you'd like to put it.

Really? That is so odd. I was actually sure that I enjoyed the mechanics of my 3.0/3.5 collection. I was also sure that I enjoyed the mechanics of my small (but growing) 2.0 books. Damn, I guess I really didn't since you clearly said so...

[chronoplasm]

I love the changes for 4E personally.
Chargen in 3.5 sucked. It was like doing taxes and it took hours. With 4E, it only took my group a half an hour to create their characters whereas it would take an entire evening for the previous edition.
You also get a lot more options for creating your characters without having to dig through mountains of splat books. Just the PHB for 4E is a mountain of information with powers and whatnot.
Powers are a great idea and the Fighter is vastly improved because of it. I remember playing a Fighter in 3.5. That really blowed. {Scrubbed} Oh, I'm sorry, was it because I was just playing the game wrong? Well I seem to be playing the game pretty right with 4E, and I am having a lot of fun doing it!

[Xefas]

New editions come along when there's nothing left to add to old editions. I'm sure adding new splats to 3.5 would have been easier than making a whole new edition (and a book in either edition would still make money), but the fact is there was very little left to cover without simply retreading old ground (Neutral Gem Dragons?).

So, they went in a different direction. Overall, I'm on the fence as to which one is better, because both are great fun for entirely different reasons. It's a shame that I can't find many people who agree with me on this, though. Anyone on my college campus that plays one edition has only snide comments and mean looks for me because I like both.

You'd think we were discussing the pros and cons of racial genocide instead of the hobbies we choose to spend time having fun with.

I sort of wonder if every hobby has divides like this. "Only children build 17th century ships in bottles. 16th century ships are where it's really at. Everything else is just a WoW clone."

[KKL]

Look at me, I'm so utterly correct because I said so and he isn't kissing ass!

Whatever you say, chief.

PS: I'm not an interent tough guy.

You'd think we were discussing the pros and cons of racial genocide instead of the hobbies we choose to spend time having fun with.

Roleplaying games are serious business. If possible, a giant chunk of 3.5e and 4e's fanbase would spontaneously begin manifesting psionic abilities and begin tearing at each other violently.

[celestialkin]

Roleplaying games are serious business. If possible, a giant chunk of 3.5e and 4e's fanbase would spontaneously begin manifesting psionic abilities and begin tearing at each other violently.

As much as I dislike agreeing with people like him, he has a valid point here.

Anything people feel passionate about in large numbers will potentially cause conflict, especially when there is a divide in said group.

It's instinctual I guess. For example, I saw a documentary on the "dark side" of chimps. When a group/family divides, the two sides will fight in well organized raids against each other, and when they catch a now "enemy" they abuse and torture it to death, and repeat this until only one side remains.

Look at human history for what happens when nations separate, or when religions break from each other. But then time goes on, and eventually you end up with a new group/problem and the old enemies now side together (has the 3.x crowd ever been on such good terms with the older edition guys/gals?).

[pjackson]

And 4e finally gave paladins the overhaul they so desperately needed.

They were gutted of everything that made them special, distinct and interesting leaving a very bleah class that does not deserve the name and does not come close to fulfilling the original role of the class - allowing you to play a character like the protagonist of Three Hearts and Three Lions.

The level of streamlining is a pretty clear indication as to what they wanted to do. They were trying to make the game a lot simpler and fix the balance issues that plagued 3e,

That was their aim, but it was a bad one. In all editions including 4e balance has to be sorted out by the players and the DM. How the players play has more effect than the rules. Sure the martial classes needed a bit of a boost and magic needed toning down a little, but making the martial classes much more complex whilst gutting the magic ones so that they all come out about the same was not a good result.

I love the changes for 4E personally.
Chargen in 3.5 sucked. It was like doing taxes and it took hours. With 4E, it only took my group a half an hour to create their characters whereas it would take an entire evening for the previous edition.

"Chargen" in 3.5 was fun. The 4e PHB makes all the classes unappealing and makes it hard to envisage interesting characters. It took me several evenings to come up with an idea for one I might be willing to play.

You also get a lot more options for creating your characters without having to dig through mountains of splat books. Just the PHB for 4E is a mountain of information with powers and whatnot.

The 3e mountain is bigger than the 4e mountain, but 4e is growing fast. But it is designed into 4e that characters be much less varied for the sake of balance. Non combatants such as a face character or a specialist healer are outside what is trying to do. As is the illusionist whose spells do not do damage but are very flexible and can trick opponents. Or the conjurer who summons creatures.

Powers are a great idea

For a super hero game.
Having magic and melee use the same system takes away the mystery of magic.
Encounter and daily powers/exploits do not feel right for a fighter.
(By the way, the best way to fight a beholder was with long range archery and in 3.5 fighters were one of the best classes for that).

[Evil DM Mark3]

The following (to greater or lesser extent) are at the heart of edition changes in EVERYTHING.

1. Money.
2. Repairing/improving the system.
3. Refocusing the system to meet new expectations.
4. Revitialise the system by removing a lot of dead wood and overlapping mechanics.
5. An inability to further develop the system.
6. Implamentation of new and better mechanics.

[Flame of Anor]

This thread is totally heading for infractions and lockage. Calm down.

Edit: Not referring to you, EvilDMMk3 or PJackson.
Edit: @V: I am referring to you, though, KKL! Cool it!

[KKL]

In all editions including 4e balance has to be sorted out by the players and the DM.

Yes houserules are good, but to quote a good friend of mine, "The ability to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." In this regard, 4e pulls ahead more than 3.5e.

[celestialkin]

Yes houserules are good, but to quote a good friend of mine, "The ability to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." In this regard, 4e pulls ahead more than 3.5e.

Some of us feel just the opposite.

I respect people who prefer 4.0's opinion, but you seem to have the mentality that your point of view is the only right one period.

[KKL]

I respect people who prefer 4.0's opinion, but you seem to have the mentality that your point of view is the only right one period.

My mentality is that I am correct and you are wrong, and I feel that way because _______, not that my view is the only correct one and you should feel ashamed for thinking elsewise.

There's a marked difference.

[celestialkin]

My mentality is that I am correct and you are wrong, and I feel that way because _______, not that my view is the only correct one and you should feel ashamed for thinking elsewise.

There's a marked difference.

Like telling someone they are an "idiot", or that they "need a backbone" for thinking otherwise than your opinion?