"New Edition" gaming culture, what do you think of it? Options

[sunnyside]

When I first got into RPGs the general feeling (and that espoused by some of the game store people selling them) was that here was a thing where you could buy it and you'd be using it indefinitly. Unlike, say, a video game where you play it and then it's time to buy the next in the series.

D&D had a second edition out and maybe some others. But usually that was viewed as upgrading from the neonatal garage production quality of the origional rules (i.e. stuff that looked like the white box).

However now in everything from RPGs to Wargames new editions is just part of the business model. While you could of course play old rules indefinitly in maybe an average between the various systems of five years there will be a new edition and your pile of books is going to need replacing.

I'm not sure what to think of that. On one hand in theory the new editions should be "better". And also new editions coming out seems to charge the game community. I believe there was a role playing surge that came along with D&D 3rd edition at least and their promotion blitz. But on the other it kinda sucks having a pile of books nearly invalidated.

I know it's made me rather more finiky since I look at books as temporary investments. I've also found myself evaluating things based on how old the current edition is. Especially crunch type books. I'll almost always get a crunch book released in the first year or two of a new edition, but I become more reluctant as it gets closer to when I now expect a new edition to drop and invalidate them.

[HeavyMetalYeti]

I'm still trying to get the boss to let me invest in the 4E.

"You got a pile of books in the garage you never use."

"Hon, those are all outdated second edition."

"Well you never use them. What makes you think that you will use the new ones."

"...."

[DocTaotsu]

I'm... I dunno. Everytime a game system comes out there are all kinds of bugs and problems with it and the community picks it apart pointing out all the geehaw that's busted and retarded. A couple years later the game designers congeal all those concerns into a spiffy new edition and release it to three basic groups of gamers:
1. The Old Version Was Best, Stop Raping My Childhood!
2. Oh Thank God, They Finally Fixed X So I Can Stop House Ruling It
3. Newbies

They typically take this time to advance or expand the basic world plot which is of the most concern for the first 2 groups (usually the first).

Some games do this well (I happen to like 4th ed SR, although I wouldn't be opposed to playing 3rd at some point). And others... not to my tastes.

4th Ed D&D has zero interest to me because:
A. There wasn't really a "metaplot" to speak of and we've homebrewed settings and plot from the beginning.
B. The basic game mechanics don't appeal to me.

A lot that has to do with the fact that I just don't like D&D in general anymore. The game system is restrictive and arcane, the setting materials... generally pretty lame. I maintain a 3.5 ed library out of nostalgia and backwards compatibility.


Now as to the whole "Game Industry Model". Game designers have to release new editions, I just don't see this being a very profitable industry for them if they don't. The whole promotion thing is vital towards getting new players involved and maintaining their market share (After all, all those old players don't necessarily transition towards the new gear). They only make money as long as they sell books and the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if those books ever get used or not. I'm not really sure what the alternative would be... released supplements? Supplements are typically aimed at their existing audience and of that only those that are interested in whatever that supplement is about. I don't really care about hacking so I haven't bought Unwired, I have a pretty decent interest in setting material so I'd definitely pick up Shadows of South America (if that ever gets released).

I wrote a whole micro economic example of why game companies need to keep releasing new versions but it was boring and probably a little off. In my mind it boils down to this:
RPG making has a lot in common with the book publishing industry. High overhead costs, high initial costs, and rather low profit margins. That's why things like lulu and eBooks are such an important part of the future of RPG publishing, they cut out those costs and let designers focus on enhancing current products rather than re-inventing the wheel every 3 years just so they can justify their continued existence. Under the current dead-tree model publishers rely upon new editions for revenue because:
1. The old player base repurchases their "new" product to stay current.
2. New players see something shiny and new on the racks and pick it up to try it out.

A new release has built in advertising, even if WotC hadn't dumped big money into promoting 4th ed, the buzz in the RPG community would have generated lots of free advertising dollars for them. A much bigger buzz than if they'd released a supplement or "rules expansion".


Okay, that kinda rambled but let see if I can sum this up.

New editions are the life blood of the industry (by industry I'm mostly taking about WotC). There are things in the works that might change that but for now they obey the dead-tree publishing laws that stipulate that selling less than <Large number> means you get almost zero profits given your massive initial outlay. Imagine if book publishing companies only published a handful of books, and never updated their catalog. Unless they're publishing the bible they'd be pretty screwed in short order. I'd imagine game publishers find themselves in the same fix, they need new editions to keep the revenues flowing so they don't have to get real jobs.

A smart gamer should recognize this and realize that nothing (save for convention play, another tricky tool of the oppressive gaming industry *cough cough eye roll*) is forcing them to buy new editions. If you're happy with what you have, to hell with the new stuff. Sure the guys who made that great game 10 years ago are trying to make a buck and keep making games but hey! The old ways still work! New editions are a necessary financial "evil" (aside from the fact the settings and mechanics might need updating)

Or something.

[DocTaotsu]

One other thing, I think the reason we see a new edition game culture is because we have game designers who are trying to do this for a living. I respect that, I wish I had the balls to jump in feet first to do something I love but is kinda obscure. They gotta get fed, and they gotta make at least as much money as they would working at a legit job.

I get the impression that most game designers are not exactly driving Lamborghini's and living in the Hollywood hills. So I certainly cut them more slack than your average internet nerd.

[apollo124]

SR, at least, while updated for 4th ed is still basically the same game it was when 1st ed came out. The street shaman I created for my first game could easily be recreated today and still be just as bad-ass now as he was then. Sure, new tricks and details have been added, some game mechanics tweaked, the setting advanced a few years, and of course the SOTA marches on. But the essentials of the game remain the same.

Not so for D+D. 4th ed seems to be a radical change from what was to something I don't even hardly recognize. Maybe I'm just getting to be a crotchety old kook, but I don't like it at all. I don't even like Neverwinter Nights 2. I think the design choices in that game are pretty similar to what they did with the pen and paper version, according to what I've read.

I don't think there's much left to say about it, since Doctatsuo seems to have covered most of the bases. I'm willing to shell out some new money once in a while to get the new rules, as long as I think it's worthwhile. None of this V3.5 crap.

[BullZeye]

Some of the games get better on new versions while others get worse what I've seen. Some games what I think went to worse might be from just my point of view, but at least one went totally busted on the last version. That game what I'm talking about is Cyberpunk. That was the first game I ever GMed and I still like the system and world a lot. When the new V3 came out, I bought it right away as I thought it was same, but better. How wrong was I... The book is just a total piece of ...carp. Amount of typos, the barbie-doll pictures and everything in the book sucks. Nowadays when a player needs to be punished or is asking a question they could find out themselves, it's enough to say "look from the book" and point to the V3 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

I have only browsed a bit on SR3 books (tho the supplements I've read bit more) so I can't comment is SR4 better or worse.

On a general level it appears that the rules are usually more refined in the new versions vs. the old and original ones. Sometimes they manage to get the same feel for the game but with new and improved rules while sometimes the whole feel of the game changes. The new feel might be for some better than the old one while to others the change of feel causes the "they ruined it!" reaction. And then there are games where the rules stay exactly the same but the game is changed totally but the name is still same (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Xiaan]

As far as ShadowRun is concerned I'd have to say that fourth edition is what got me back into gaming. It'd been about four and a half years or so since I'd picked up my mechanical pencil and filled in some stats. I played Second and Third editions back when I was a young young man (not that I'm all that old now) but a little while before the Year of the Comet I had gone on and forgotten the wonders of rolling the dice. I wasn't reintroduced to SR until I was searching Amazon for a D&D 3.5 set for a comrade of mine that I found out that the world of ShadowRun had advanced along with RL. At the time I was deployed and was looking for a little distraction so I picked up the core book and gave it a look over. I was surprised at how much had changed, in the mechanics department, but it was all for the better. I never could get the handle of matrix runs back with third edition and tended to just fudge over it while GMing, not that the players I gamed with minded... they were the run and gun type anyways. But with the streamlined rules it was a whole lot easier to introduce a few more people to the world and start up a game. The various incarnations of games might get a little redundant... lord knows now that I'm back into it I wish that knee high stack of second and third edition source material was more than just useful for setting and history reference, but that shiny new book did get me to come back to the roots and have a damn good time at it.
Now as with D&D... never was really much of a fan... I liked the FASA settings alot and it seemed that if I wanted to play a game not set in the near future I'd just pick up my copy of Earthdawn and beat down some Cadavermen and Gobberogs. I guess I was just I lazy GM and liked not having to take up a week just to devise a setting. Long and short I don't even think i'll look at the fourth of D&D... just personal preference I guess.

[shadowfire]

I always felt that you shouldn't fix it if there was nothing wrong with it (Which is why i will not be changing to 4th edition Shadowrun). Now this could not be said for D&D. I didn't care for 2nd edition, 3rd edition fixed the problems that 2nd had but just came with its own baggage, and 4th is trash. If anything 2nd was the best- but i have to say that they improved 2nd with hackmaster from everything i have seen and heard. But even with that in mind its not my type of game anyway.
I have only been playing for the last 10 years since high school. And my first exposure, unlike most people, was not D&D but palladium fantasy. Palladium has its own problems. i don't believe they need a new edition to fix these problems, just to print a revised edition that has the fixed problems within and rules for things that the game does not have as of now... The other problems would be rifts, but thats a whole other can of worms (too unbalanced).
have never played any of the earthdawn editions so i couldn't say whether or not the new edition was needed. But i have to say that i have noticed that every time there is a new edition to a game it seems like they are trying to make so that the players have to put less thought to the game. Is not thinking part of role playing? I always enjoyed role playing more when i had to stretched my brain a bit further than normal. which is one of the reasons shadowrun is one of my favorite games. i think this would be my main problem with new editions.

[Eugene]

Generally I think that the motivation is largely financial or because a new company takes ownership and wants to make its own stamp. Sometimes it's legitimately because it's felt that a reorganization/upgrade is really warranted.

The real shame is that a lot of the material from old editions is suddenly perceived as worth less just because it's old. So, for example, FanPro editions of "Street Magic" were being sold off at half price by Studio 2 at Origins because Catalyst had another set printed with minor corrections and their label. That's even the same edition! What was the perceived value-difference there?

[deek]

I'm torn, because part of me harkens back to the days of 2nd edition, pre-internet. I had no idea there was "errata" or any other kind of errors in a published book. We bought them, played them and had a lot of fun...

Having just gotten back into running and playing DnD and SR (I took a hiatus from about 1999 - 2005), I'm disappointed by how quickly every mistake is pointed out and the amount of errata that has to be put out. I mean, part of me thinks there were just as many errors "back in the day", its just they didn't filter down so quickly... I mean, nowadays, I can see errata pop up every couple weeks and things change a whole heck of a lot...even in game systems that seem very stable...

My DnD 4.0 book has about 8 pages of errata wedged in it, and I've only had them for a couple months... My SR4 campaign, I had to tote around about 20 pages of houserules/interpretations to make parts of it balanced and playable...

Are there really that many more mistakes these days?

[Eugene]

No, but I think there's a demand for "official" answers now. Back in the day, you'd look at a rule and, if it didn't work for you, you'd come up with an alternative and move on. Today entitled Internet rage demands FAQs and errata. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[shadowfire]

I can believe that there are more mistakes now a days than there was before. For one, a lot of people do tend to allow the computer to check for mistakes for them. The only problem with that is that it will not point out mistakes like "the" instead of "them" and will have the irritating habit of not recognizing other words.

Plus, like it was said before- its more about money now a days. Today it is generally assumed that Wotc will put out a 4.5 book because of mistakes- the sad part of that is that many people will pay for it. In other industries, if something was not built right the first time- the buyers are given the chance to exchange for the the new "fixed" version. I don't see Wotc doing this.. I wouldn't fit into their marketing plans (one of the many reasons i do not buy their crap).

[tete]

No, but I think there's a demand for "official" answers now. Back in the day, you'd look at a rule and, if it didn't work for you, you'd come up with an alternative and move on. Today entitled Internet rage demands FAQs and errata. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

I think thats because in the old days we expected the rules to be quirky and not make any sense.

[DocTaotsu]

Wow... we are like >this< close to whining about how we gamed (and it was awesome) before it was mainstream.

I agree with the camp that says people demand an official answer while acknowledging that publishers have stepped up the release tempo. Quicker turn around on books is what most consumers scream for but it does mean more errors may be introduced.

I also think it's very easy to fantasize that "back in the day" it wasn't about the money. It's always been about the money, otherwise gaming would still be about a bunch of creepy guys with a photocopier (whereas now "indie" gaming is about a bunch of creepy people, lulu, or pdf releases). I think we as gamers, tend not to have an appreciation for what a monstrous undertaking getting a dead tree book costs, both in time and in money. At the end of the day the only reason D&D got past it's first edition was because a bunch of guys thought, "Holy crap, people actually care about this shit. We can make... A LIVING doing this." which is about the greatest thing any hobbyist can hope for.

I also agree with Tete, back in the day when we were rolling around with 2nd ed D&D and GURPS we kinda expected rule to be... arcane, and that we'd be spending sometime debating what they "really" meant. I've had more than one gamer reveal that he enjoyed debating the rules almost as much as he enjoyed playing (I'm not one of those gamers and it shows in how play hard and fast with rules).

[Rasumichin]

The only bad thing i can say about edition changes is that besides them, there's very few change in the "mainstream" RPG sector.

In fact, i recently read that the best-selling RPG in this decade that wasn't a new edition of a previously existing game was Eden Studio's BtVS RPG.
That's kinda saddening.
Not because i dislike the BtVS RPG, it's really a great game, but because it shows how little success games outside of the niches carved out in the 80s and 90s tend to have.

There's nothing wrong with improving a tried-and-true system (i really appreciate the Pathfinder RPG, for that matter) or trying a new twist on an established design, as in SR4, but i'd love to see genuinely new products that shake up the market, add new ideas to our hobby and bring in new players from outside an established gamer scene.

Yeah, i know, there's all the indie stuff around and some of it works nicely, but somehow, those games tend to end up being played by a small subsection of people who already are into gaming, while new players still find their way into the hobby by picking up a copy of the current D&D or SR edition at their FLGS and not by downloading the rules for The Pool.

[DocTaotsu]

I think that's just the nature of the beast. RPG's are something of an acquired taste and save for D&D they get very little real advertisement outside of gaming mags and what not. The only way a newbie is going to be exposed to RPG's are by running into a shiny copy of whatever mainstream game makes it way into their local Borders or what not.

Or by their crazy friend who promises them beer and food to come throw some dice with the group.

Either way, RPG aren't exactly getting out there and carving out huge numbers of players (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[deek]

Good points...part of me says, why not just go digital. Release PDFs as needed. Obviously, the first release would be buggy and there would probably be a lot of versions in the first couple of months, but then the core rules settle in and the product is pretty stable. Akin to alpha and beta stages in software.

Then, as someone pointed out, there needs to be a book on the shelf to appease to the non-hardcore gamer. That is the point where you actually do a printed run. Now granted, it may be 6-12 months before it was actually released, but you know what? Who cares? The hardcore gamers are going to have earlier looks and the mainstream wouldn't even be wary that there were PDFs early on.

Maybe you charge a fee to get the PDFs and updates until the print version is released. I bet a ton of us would buy into that to get playing on a new version, give feedback and help make the system better.

The devs would get a much larger base to playtest and get all that errata knocked out early...

I don't know, I honestly don't think print sales would go down that much had there been PDF beta copies floating around for several months before. I mean, most of us are going to by the "official" book when it comes out...

[Adam]

deek, you may want to research what Paizo has been doing and is doing with Pathfinder, regarding the alpha/beta cycle of a game.

[deek]

I'm just talking in general and using software release cycles as a model (as those are what I am most familiar with). Couple that with my love of linux and open-source software, the model seems to server some purposes quite well. Also, from what was posted elsewhere on this site (I think in the "Rant" thread), someone mentioned a life cycle from WotC.

My point being, they are all somewhat similar and have a proven track record. You plan a product then develop it. Then pilot it to a small group (alpha stage). Get the feedback and so forth. Then you can open it to a larger pilot group (beta stage) for more thorough testing. Now in the linux world, you start seeing RC (release candidates) which really are open to anyone that wants to download a copy and kick the wheels...

Now during all these stages, you have yet to print a single copy. PDF would be a good distribution model, as its quick and easy to update and set out on a server. I realize, in a perfect world, you have plenty of time to test, receive feedback, rinse and recycle...but we all have deadlines and if CGL is anything like our business model, well, that release date is a pretty big gorilla. And we are expected to go out with "something", even if flawed, else the release was a failure. Granted, our model allows for 4 releases a year, so our userbase knows that version 4 is only going to last a few months before version 5 comes out...

I'll take a look at what Paizo has been doing, but I wouldn't think I'll find too many surprises to their model. I mean, no matter what you call it, no matter what the product, this kind of life cycle is used...plan, develop, test, release, maintain...its just a matter of how much time you want to spend on each phase.

And as probably anyone will tell you, the maintenance phase is the most underrated one, yet most products spend the majority of their time in that phase...

[Rasumichin]

Paizo took a well-known base product (D&D3.5), put up a modified PDF alpha version for free, including open discussion on their forums, then published a beta version recently (in print and as a free PDF) and will, after an open playtest that lasts one more year, print a "D&D 3.75" rulebook taking into account all the suggestions of the people who participated in the whole process.

The end result will probably be the most bug-fixed D&D ever.

I'd love to see that for SR4.5.

[Snow_Fox]

My views on this hsould surprise no one but I think all too often it is used to revive coffers of the publishers rather than improve the game. forexample D&D and SR i don't think needed work overs. Earlier versions going from 1st to 2nd eds were needed to fix some problems with game play, but the only real change between SR 2 and 3 was a reworking of decking and since I didn't see 3rd ed as 'broken' the 4th ed seemed to be just an excuse to get people to shell out all over again for the core rule books like they did in earlier editions.

This has been done so often by gaming companies that I'm now suspicous of any new ed, is it needed or is it as money grab? all to often the answerris 'money grab.'

I mean some people really like 4th ed, good for them, but unlike the rigging rules for 2nd ed, no one was saying 3rd ed was broken, so why the need for a change? There is none, except to get gamers to buy all the core books, AGAIN!

the later ed's of D&D seem pretty much the same. no real need except the desire to trick people out of cash.

[Redjack]

I didn't see 3rd ed as 'broken' the 4th ed seemed to be just an excuse to get people to shell out all over again for the core rule books like they did in earlier editions.

I represent the opposite view of that. To me sr3 rules were irrevocably broken and I had stopped playing. sr4 rules brought me back to the game and made me excited about it again. In fact, my buddy who had played since first edition with me had a long discussion with me about the rigger rules specifically the week before we tried sr4. Those rules along made me try sr4, the rest, including the matrix rules, really won me over.

I know there are a number of people who love the sr3 rules. God love 'em. If that's what you love, play it. sr4 doesn't invalidate those rules. It does give another option for playing the genre though.

[VagabondStar]

Business Model.

Geek culture, and Gaming especially is a culture you have to buy your way into. Everyone needs to own a copy of the players handbook - per wizards of the coast in D&D 3 and 4. It's not just a suggestion to help things run smoothly, it's an implicit requirement: if you want you game- you have to buy our shit.

Ultimately, Catalyst is a business, and they want to make money. Hopefully they care about the game, and any changes they have made are in the spirit of improvement - but from a strictly financial sense, it's a great idea to completey rework the mechanic. Now those old books are all but unusable unless you want to take the time and effort to guess and work out conversions. Time to buy some new stuff.


I don't mean to sound like a hater, but I'm just pointing out what struck me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[deek]

I really don't see how a new mechanic in a new edition completely invalidates a prior edition. I can choose to play whatever edition I want.

While I do believe that new editions are more a business decision to make more money than anything else, I do believe that many inside the company believe that each edition is an improvement and/or something they can put their name on and make it their own. No one goes to work in a creative company to just carry on what the status quo is...they want to create something new and bring it out to the masses...

And on a slightly smaller note, sometimes a new edition is put out to just say "hey, i'm new, try me. And I'm different than what you remembered me being a decade ago." We need that as well. I know that for me, when I was getting back into SR, 4th edition just came out and given the option to try and pick up a library of 3rd edition books or get one 4th edition book, the choice was simple...get the new one and play.

[Wesley Street]

I represent the opposite view of that. To me sr3 rules were irrevocably broken and I had stopped playing. sr4 rules brought me back to the game and made me excited about it again.

Ditto to that.

I don't view new editions of RPGs as an attempt by publishers to fleece players of their hard-earned cash. For better or worse I do genuinely believe publishers are trying to put out a better game. What I do take offense to, however, is a lack of support for conversion tables on behalf of publishers. And they're all guilty of it. While I love 4th ed. I think it would have been better received if FanPro or Catalyst had published an official conversions guide for vehicles, critters, and weapons. I know the game mechanics are different but bringing over monsters and gear from older editions could have been devised with a relatively simple formula. And I think Arsenal, etc. would still have sold the same numbers it had.