TheRPGSite

After seeing RPG's with multiple editions I am beginning to start to wonder how many it takes to get a system "right".


 In my opinion I can only see 2 or 3 editions at the most. But this naturally assumes effort was made to have a solid, well thought out system to begin with...

I think that every game will go two editions. There are things that come up when many people are playing a game that playtesting could never catch. And for a lot of small press games the 1st edition is basically a playtesting release anyway.

The only reasons I can see for going beyond 2 or 3 editions would be:

1 - Fundamentally changing the system of the game. i.e. a "redesign". This can be done for the hell of it, or for any of the following reasons:

2 - Core, or highly used parts of the 1st edition were broken, or gave wonky results, which lead to reason #1.

3 - Great setting idea, but the system is made of ass. Which also leads to reason #1.

  So how many editions do you think a game would take before it is declared well and truly finished...


.

Ideally two editions.

Gygax actually did outline a vision for his own 2nd ed AD&D, in several Dragon magazine articles back in those days.  This was before he was ousted from the company.

Really? And what was Gary's 2e like?

RPGPundit

The very idea that it takes a certain quantity of editions to get a system right is so wrong I've got no words to express it. New editions are not published to improve the game (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, it's pure casuality), but to reboot it, that is, everybody and your mother knows that corebooks are the best sellers in a game line. What do you do when your customers have bought all the corebooks they intend to buy? Easy, you release a new edition they don't have, and voilà, you start selling again. And that's it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;314458Really? And what was Gary's 2e like?

Page 8 in Dragon Magazine issue #103.

From the article, Gygax mentions:

- the bard being made into a class that one can start off at level 1
- new classes:  mystic (sub-cleric), savant (sub-magic user), jester (sub-bard)
- removing psionics completely
- elemental planes added to the DMG
- packing all the 1E stuff at the time (1985) into four books only:  PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, and Legends & Lore

Quote from: Claudius;314460The very idea that it takes a certain quantity of editions to get a system right is so wrong I've got no words to express it. New editions are not published to improve the game (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, it's pure casuality), but to reboot it, that is, everybody and your mother knows that corebooks are the best sellers in a game line. What do you do when your customers have bought all the corebooks they intend to buy? Easy, you release a new edition they don't have, and voilà, you start selling again. And that's it.

 Maybe I should revise my original post and add another reason:

4 - To make more money! (Which usually leads us back to reason #1).

 But that still doesn't invalidate my first post. Yes, someone could write a system that required no revisions from the get go, but that is highly unlikely.

  So purely from a system perspective it does take a few editions to get things "right".

  The whole reboot for $$$$ aspect of our hobby is a totally different discussion.

And just for the record: No, my mother does not know.

Quote from: Jaeger;314472The whole reboot for $$$$ aspect of our hobby is a totally different discussion.

Except that's the reason for new editions; your complaint about games taking too long to get it "right" is invalid because the new editions aren't trying to get it right, often they are just trying to make it different.


Of course, Chaosium games usually seem to get slightly improved with each new edition (but only slightly).

Also, if a new Savage Worlds edition doesn't come out, then that game would fit perfectly into your three-edition-tops-for-improvement model.

Quote from: islan;314475Except that's the reason for new editions; your complaint about games taking too long to get it "right" is invalid because the new editions aren't trying to get it right, often they are just trying to make it different.
.

  In what way was my post a complaint? Maybe you are not understanding what I was 'Thinking out loud' about. All you and Claudius arguments against what I posted are for reasons I have basically already laid out as causes for a game going beyond 2-3 editions...

Both your posts are: "But, but, they aren't trying to make it right...."

When my post is: "If you were to try and make it right, what would it take???"

 Your saying I'm wrong to a question I never asked.

.

I think it's perfectly OK for a game to 2 or maybe 3 editions to refine the system and such. By releasing the game to hordes of avid gamers and reading your forums, you have the best playtest ever. After that, I would begin to wonder... Of course everyone wants something different, so... But at some point, it's just : "Let's make something else out of this game! Let's rebuild the system to see what happens!". To me, D&D goes like this :

OD&D : New rules and then, some refinements with different versions...
AD&D : Refine
AD&D 2nd : Refine and stabilize (AD&D is, to me, a very good system that expands and learns from its predecessors)
D&D 3rd : Rebuild and then refine with 3.5 (Easy to recognize, but too much changes)
D&D 4th : Rebuild

I'm aware that AD&D 2nd is probably not the most popular version of D&D, but I think of it as the peak of the "old" D&D. Same system but simplified and polished.

This is, of course, highly subjective, as someone could consider 3rd Ed. the peak of the D&D evolution, but I think the introduced to much changes. The play experience isn't just the same. Characters made from 3rd are not compatible with older editions, but 2nd is, to some extent, easy to mesh with older incarnations of D&D.

This rambling got me thinking : Does a new version of a system have to be compatible (to some extent) with its predecessor in order to be a "valid" new version and not a complete rebuild?

Also, do you prefer changes brought inside the same edition (like a sourcebook that would uptade some table and say : "this is the new official way to do things") or a new edition altogether?

Quote from: Scaredy Squirrel;314480I think it's perfectly OK for a game to 2 or maybe 3 editions to refine the system and such. By releasing the game to hordes of avid gamers and reading your forums, you have the best playtest ever.

Exactly.

Quote from: Scaredy Squirrel;314480This rambling got me thinking : Does a new version of a system have to be compatible (to some extent) with its predecessor in order to be a "valid" new version and not a complete rebuild?

I think it should compatible if what you are going for is system refinement. A rebulid throws those things out of the window.

Quote from: Scaredy Squirrel;314480Also, do you prefer changes brought inside the same edition (like a sourcebook that would uptade some table and say : "this is the new official way to do things") or a new edition altogether?

 I would prefer to wait and have all the refinements incorperated into a new edition. Eratta & print runs take care of small issues.

.

Assuming you didn't get it right the first time, two editions is enough. Afterwards, you either aren't that good a designer or you're pushing it for the cash.

Quote from: Benoist;314485Assuming you didn't get it right the first time, two editions is enough. Afterwards, you either aren't that good a designer or you're pushing it for the cash.

Are you assuming there is only one designer working on all the editions?

This whole discussion also seems to centre on there being some optimal endpoint for the design of a game. That doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from: Benoist;314485Assuming you didn't get it right the first time, two editions is enough. Afterwards, you either aren't that good a designer or you're pushing it for the cash.

This, pretty much. It's the only tendency I think has any regularity. Though first editions are frequently halting, after that whether subsequent editions are better or worse is often a crap-shoot.

And some games never get it "right". Or perfect, or bestest, or whatever. Very often, I find myself hybridizining things from different edition of a game because the some of the designers' supposed "improvements", aren't.

2nd ed?  Ickpoo.  They broke stuff that didn't need fixing and didn't fix anything that needed it.

Quote from: Scaredy Squirrel;314480I think it's perfectly OK for a game to 2 or maybe 3 editions to refine the system and such. By releasing the game to hordes of avid gamers and reading your forums, you have the best playtest ever. After that, I would begin to wonder... Of course everyone wants something different, so... But at some point, it's just : "Let's make something else out of this game! Let's rebuild the system to see what happens!". To me, D&D goes like this :

OD&D : New rules and then, some refinements with different versions...
AD&D : Refine
AD&D 2nd : Refine and stabilize (AD&D is, to me, a very good system that expands and learns from its predecessors)
D&D 3rd : Rebuild and then refine with 3.5 (Easy to recognize, but too much changes)
D&D 4th : Rebuild

I'm aware that AD&D 2nd is probably not the most popular version of D&D, but I think of it as the peak of the "old" D&D. Same system but simplified and polished.

This is, of course, highly subjective, as someone could consider 3rd Ed. the peak of the D&D evolution, but I think the introduced to much changes. The play experience isn't just the same. Characters made from 3rd are not compatible with older editions, but 2nd is, to some extent, easy to mesh with older incarnations of D&D.

This rambling got me thinking : Does a new version of a system have to be compatible (to some extent) with its predecessor in order to be a "valid" new version and not a complete rebuild?

Also, do you prefer changes brought inside the same edition (like a sourcebook that would uptade some table and say : "this is the new official way to do things") or a new edition altogether?

Quote from: Fifth Element;314486Are you assuming there is only one designer working on all the editions?

Yup.

Quote from: Fifth Element;314486This whole discussion also seems to centre on there being some optimal endpoint for the design of a game. That doesn't make sense to me.

Can't speak for the others, but I sure assume there is an optimal point after which any further design basically jumps the shark on the game concepts. I used to believe like you do, but the more I think about it, the more I believe there's a point after which you should just leave a game alone and let it stand on its own merits.

Rebooting a game, overhauling the design, blah blah blah... in the end, it's just trying to make a buck for a buck.

I agree with Gygax on removing psionics, its the only element of DND (in whatever incarnation) I dont use.

What determines the number of editions is not whether one was "right", but whether it was popular. Nobody will make a 2nd edition of a flop, and a 1st edition that comes out one year will be forgotten by all but collectors unless there is a 2nd edition within the next decade.

Going on John Kim's list of rpgs, up till the end of 2006 there were 987 rpgs published in the English language in print as 1st editions. 988 if you count Chainmail.

The following are approximate figures only, as I've not gone through the whole list, just done a sort in a spreadsheet, and some editions are given confusing names like "full edition" or "which you love edition".

There are also some uncertainties of how to count editions, particularly with D&D; plainly Basic/Expert are a different edition to AD&D, but should they count as 2nd and 3rd editions separately, or just a sort of mixed-up 2nd edition? And of course we can argue whether Munchkin is an rpg, or whether Fudge 1st ed was ever "in print", and so on.

I'm not willing to go exhaustively through the list and argue these points just for a forum post, maybe if someone pays me ;) But the figures give us a rough idea.

After 998 rpgs with a 1st edition,
153 rpgs saw a 2nd edition.
38 a 3rd
19 a 4th
9 a 5th
4 a 6th
2 with a 7th (Ysgarth and Tunnels & Trolls)

So if you release an rpg, there's about a 1/6 chance of it seeing a 2nd edition, a 1/24 chance of a 3rd edition, and it halves after that.

Bear in mind that systems need time to get multiple editions; whatever people think of the Maid rpg, since it was published in 2005 it hasn't had much time for multiple editions, whereas Dragonraid published in 1984 has.

In theory it's as Claudius says - they should get a system right in the first place. In practice, to get it right you have to playtest it. But many systems are only playtested by the designers' game groups, so after the 1st edition goes out, either it's a big flop and they get discouraged and never publish anything again, or else it does well and gets a lot of feedback, so they go for a 2nd edition.

The following list of 2nd edition rpgs (excluding D&D) supports this idea, these are mostly ones a regular rpg forum visitor will have heard of, so they had some popular (if not commercial) success and got some feedback. It's worthwhile noting that no rpg more than ten years old is both still in print and in its first edition. If it's popular, it gets a 2nd edition.

(1977) Tunnels and Trolls - 2nd ed
(1978) Realm of Yolmi - 2nd ed (1978)
(1979) Boot Hill - 2nd ed (1979)
(1979) RuneQuest - 2nd ed (1979)
(1979) Adventures in Fantasy - 2nd ed (1979) Adventure Games Incorporated
(1980) Ysgarth - 2nd ed (1980)
(1980) The Morrow Project - 2nd ed (1980)
(1981) Melanda: Land of Mystery - 2nd ed (1981)
(1981) Arduin Adventure - 2nd ed (1981) Dragon Tree Press
(1981) Bushido - 2nd ed (1981) FGU
(1981) High Fantasy - 2nd ed (1981) Reston Publishing Company Inc.
(1982) Bunnies and Burrows - 2nd ed (1982)
(1982) Champions - 2nd ed (1982)
(1982) KABAL - 2nd ed (1982)
(1982) Star Patrol - 2nd ed (1982)
(1982) Villians and Vigilantes - 2nd ed (1982)
(1982) Universe - 2nd ed (1982) SPI / Bantam Books
(1983) Chivalry and Sorcery - 2nd ed (1983)
(1983) Heroes of Olympus - 2nd ed (1983)
(1983) To Challenge Tomorrow - 2nd ed (1983)
(1983) Wizard's Realm - 2nd ed (1983)
(1983) Empire of the Petal Throne - 2nd ed (1983) Gamescience
(1984) Bureau 13: Stalking the Night Fantastic - 2nd ed (1984)
(1984) Element Masters - 2nd ed (1984)
(1984) Fringeworthy - 2nd ed (1984)
(1984) Rolemaster - 2nd ed (1984)
(1984) Thieves Guild - 2nd ed (1984)
(1985) FTL:2448 - 2nd ed (1985)
(1985) The Mechanoid Invasion - 2nd ed (1985)
(1985) Victorian Adventure - 2nd ed (1985)
(1985) Stormbringer - 2nd ed (1985) Chaosium
(1985) Swordbearer - 2nd ed (1985) FGU
(1985) Behind Enemy Lines - 2nd ed (1985) The Companions
(1986) Skyrealms of Jorune - 2nd ed (1986)
(1987) GURPS - 2nd ed (1987)
(1987) Paranoia - 2nd ed (1987)
(1987) Phoenix Command - 2nd ed (1987)
(1988) Living Steel - 2nd ed (1988)
(1988) Marvel Superheroes - 2nd ed (1988)
(1988) Space Master - 2nd ed (1988)
(1989) Ars Magica - 2nd ed (1989)
(1989) Crimson Cutlass - 2nd ed (1989)
(1989) Elfquest - 2nd ed (1989)
(1989) Ironhedge - 2nd ed (1989)
(1989) Talislanta - 2nd ed (1989)
(1989) Teenagers From Outer Space - 2nd ed (1989)
(1989) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - 2nd ed (1989)
(1989) Other Suns - 2nd ed (1989) shareware
(1989) Mutant - 2nd ed (1989) Target Games
(1989) Holmes & Company - 2nd ed (1989) Universal Editrice
(1990) Genesis RPG - 2nd ed (1990)
(1990) Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game - 2nd ed (1990)
(1990) Twilight 2000 - 2nd ed (1990)
(1991) Battlelords of the 23rd Century - 2nd ed (1991)
(1991) Mutazoids - 2nd ed (1991)
(1991) NightLife - 2nd ed (1991)
(1992) Shadowrun - 2nd ed (1992)
(1992) Vampire: The Masquerade - 2nd ed (1992)
(1992) Lost Souls - 2nd ed (1992) Sage Lore Productions, Inc. Marquee Press
(1993) Middle Earth Role Playing - 2nd ed (1993)
(1993) Millenium's End - 2nd ed (1993)
(1993) Webs Basic Gaming System - 2nd ed (1993)
(1993) Albedo - 2nd ed (1993) Chessex
(1993) Legendary Lives - 2nd ed (1993) Marquee Press
(1993) Manhunter - 2nd ed (1993) Myrmidon
(1993) World of Synnibarr - 2nd ed (1993) Wonderworld
(1994) Legend Quest - 2nd ed (1994)
(1994) Machineguns and Magic - 2nd ed (1994)
(1994) Werewolf: The Apocalypse - 2nd ed (1994)
(2000) FUDGE - 2nd ed (1994)
(1994) Fanhunter - 2nd ed (1994) Devir Iberia Devir Iberia Gusa Comics Inc
(1994) Whispering Vault - 2nd ed (1994) Pariah Press Ronin
(1994) HOL: Human Occupied Landfill - 2nd ed (1994) White Wolf
(1995) Berlin XVIII - 2nd ed (1995)
(1995) CORPS - 2nd ed (1995)
(1995) Cybergeneration - 2nd ed (1995)
(1995) Mage: The Ascension - 2nd ed (1995)
(1996) Wraith: The Oblivion - 2nd ed (1996)
(1996) Adventure Maximum - 2nd ed (1996)
(1996) Gatecrasher - 2nd ed (1996)
(1996) Mutant Chronicles - 2nd ed (1996)
(1997) Don't Look Back: Terror is Never Far Behind - 2nd ed (1997)
(1997) Heavy Gear - 2nd ed (1997)
(1997) Kult - 2nd ed (1997)
(1997) Over the Edge - 2nd ed (1997)
(1997) Raven Star - 2nd ed (1997)
(1997) Space Gothic - 2nd ed (1997)
(1998) QCCS - Quick Charakter Creating System - 2nd ed (1998)
(1998) The World of Barador RPG - 2nd ed (1998)
(1998) Tales of Gargentihr - 2nd ed (1998) Digital Animations Mind Ventures
(1998) Dark Conspiracy - 2nd ed (1998) Dynasty
(1998) Lace and Steel - 2nd ed (1998) Plainlabel / Pharos
(1998) Throwing Stones - 2nd ed (1998) Prism Games
(1999) Fading Suns - 2nd ed (1999)
(1999) Immortal: The Invisible War - 2nd ed (1999)
(1999) Neotech - 2nd ed (1999)
(1999) Feng Shui - 2nd ed (1999) Atlas Games
(1999) Zero - 2nd ed (1999) Dynasty
(1999) Witchcraft - 2nd ed (1999) Eden Studios
(1999) Stuperpowers - 2nd ed (1999) Evil Twin Comics
(2000) Aquelarre - 2nd ed (2000)
(2000) Elish - 2nd ed (2000)
(2000) Eon - 2nd ed (2000)
(2000) Heroes Unlimited - 2nd ed (2000)
(2000) Multiverser - 2nd ed (2000)
(2000) Og: The Role-Playing Game - 2nd ed (2000)
(2000) Sovereign Stone - 2nd ed (2000)
(2000) Blue Planet - 2nd ed (2000) Fantasy Flight Games
(2000) Champions: The New Millenium - 2nd ed (2000) R Talsorian
(2001) Blade of Arcana - 2nd ed (2001)
(2001) Michael T. Desing's Army Ants: The Roleplaying Game - 2nd ed (2001)
(2001) Obsidian: The Age of Judgement - 2nd ed (2001)
(2001) Heaven and Earth - 2nd ed (2001) Guardians of Order
(2001) Providence RPG - 2nd ed (2001) Hubris
(2001) Earthdawn - 2nd ed (2001) Living Room Games
(2002) Unknown Armies - 2nd ed (2002)
(2002) Fvlminata: Armed with Lightning - 2nd ed (2002)
(2002) Red Shift - 2nd ed (2002)
(2002) Nobilis - 2nd ed (2002) Hogshead Games
(2004) Crimson Empire - 2nd ed (2004)
(2004) Dark Realms - 2nd ed (2004) Guild of Blades
(2005) Beyond the Supernatural - 2nd ed (2005) Palladium Books
(2006) Babylon 5: Roleplaying Game and Fact Book - 2nd ed (2006)
(2006) Conspiracy X - 2.0 ed by David F. Chapman
(2006) Ninja Burger: The Role-playing Game - 2nd ed (2006)
(1992) Star Wars - 2nd ed by Bill Smith (1992)
(1991) Mechwarrior - 2nd ed by Brian Nystul, Lester W. Smith (1991)
(2004) Cursed Empire - 2nd ed by Chris Loizou (2004) Spartans Unleashed
(2000) SLA Industries - 2nd ed by Dave Allsop, Tim Dedopulos, Jared Earle, Anne Boylan, Morton T. Smith (2000) Hogshead Games
(1989) Dungeons and Dragons, Advanced - 2nd ed by David Cook (1989)
(2000) Big Eyes, Small Mouth - 2nd ed by David L. Pulver, Mark MacKinnon (2000)
(1990) Chill - 2nd ed by David Ladyman, Jeff R. Leason, Louis J. Prosperi (1990) Mayfair Games
(1986) Recon - 2nd ed by Erick Wujcik (1986) Palladium Books
(2005) Pixie - 2nd ed by Geoff Tuffli (2005) Jubal Online Games, Inc.
(1981) Dragonquest - 2nd ed by Gerard Klug (1981)
(1997) Changeling: The Dreaming - 2nd ed by Ian Lemke (1997)
(1983) Gamma World - 2nd ed by James M. Ward, James Ritchie, Gary Jaquet (1983)
(1982) Supergame - 2nd ed by Jay Hartlove, Aimee Hartlove (1982)
(1983) Star Frontiers - 2nd ed by Lawrence Schick, David Cook (1983)
(2005) Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game - 2nd ed by Mike Johnstone, Andrew Bates, Luke Johnson (2005) Sword and Sorcery Studios
(2005) World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game - 2nd ed by Mike Johnstone, Andrew Bates, Luke Johnson (2005) Sword and Sorcery Studios
(2003) Deathstalkers: The Fantasy Horror Role-Playing Game - 2nd ed by Mike Whitehead, Joe Meyers (2003)
(2004) The World of Bloodshadows - 2nd ed by Nikola Vrtis (2004) West End Games
(1989) Batman RPG - 2nd ed by Ray Winninger (1989)
(1989) DC Heroes - 2nd ed by Ray Winninger, Thomas Cook, Dan Greenberg (1989)
(2000) Legend of the Five Rings - 2nd ed by Ree Soesbee (2000) Alderac Entertainment Group Wizards of the Coast
(2001) Pokéthulhu - 2nd ed by S. John Ross (2001) Dork Storm Press
(2001) Hong Kong Action Theatre! - 2nd ed by Scott Kessler, Nicole Lindroos, Jeff Mackintosh, Chris Pramas, Lucien Soulban (2001) Guardians of Order
(2005) Savage Worlds - 2nd ed by Shane Lacy Hensley (2005) Great White Games
(1983) Superworld - 2nd ed by Steve Perrin (1983) Chaosium
(1983) Star Trek - 2nd ed by Wm John Wheeler (1983)
(1997) In Nomine - 2st [English] ed by Derek Pearcy (1997) Steve Jackson Games


Those with a 3rd or later edition are those which were quite successful commercially (like Cthulhu) or at least virally (like Fudge).

(2005) FUDGE - 3rd
(1979) Tunnels and Trolls - 3rd ed (1979)
(1982) Ysgarth - 3rd ed (1982)
(1983) Call of Cthulhu - 3rd ed (1983)
(1983) The Morrow Project - 3rd ed (1983) Timeline, Inc. Abacus Dimensions
(1984) Champions - 3rd ed (1984)
(1986) Gamma World - 3rd ed (1986)
(1987) Stormbringer - 3rd ed (1987)
(1988) GURPS - 3rd ed (1988)
(1989) Phoenix Command - 3rd ed (1989)
(1989) Dragonquest - 3rd ed (1989) TSR
(1990) Bureau 13: Stalking the Night Fantastic - 3rd ed (1990)
(1990) Fringeworthy - 3rd ed (1990)
(1990) FTL:2448 - 3rd ed (1990)
(1990) Pendragon - 3rd ed (1990) Chaosium
(1992) Battlelords of the 23rd Century - 3rd ed (1992)
(1992) NightLife - 3rd ed (1992)
(1992) To Challenge Tomorrow - 3rd ed (1992)
(1992) Skyrealms of Jorune - 3rd ed (1992) Chessex
(1994) Macho Women With Guns - 3rd ed (1994) BTRC
(1995) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - 3rd ed (1995) Hogshead Games
(1998) Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game - 3rd ed (1998)
(1998) Shadowrun - 3rd ed (1998)
(2003) HârnMaster - 3rd ed (2003) Columbia Games
(2003) Comandos de Guerra - 3rd ed (2003) Ediciones Sombra
(2004) Heavy Gear - 3rd ed (2004)
(2006) Michael T. Desing's Army Ants: The Roleplaying Game - 3rd ed
(1999) Mechwarrior - 3rd ed by Brian Nystul (1999)
(1993) DC Heroes - 3rd ed by Bryan Nystul (1993)
(1996) Chivalry and Sorcery - 3rd ed by Ed Simbalist, G.W. Thompson (1996) Highlander Designs
(2000) Dungeons and Dragons - 3rd ed by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams (2000) Wizards of the Coast
(1992) Ars Magica - 3rd ed by Ken Cliffe, Mark Rein•Hagen (1992) White Wolf
(2004) Heaven and Earth - 3rd ed by Lee Foster, Michelle Lyons, James Maliszewski, John R. Phythyon, Jr., Lucien Soulban (2004) Abstract Nova Entertainment
(1997) Teenagers From Outer Space - 3rd ed by Mike Pondsmith, Greg Costikyan (1997)
(2004) Eon - 3rd ed by Petter Nallo (2004)
(2005) Legend of the Five Rings - 3rd ed by Rich Wulf, Shawn Carman, Brian Yoon, Seth Mason, Fred Wan (2005) Alderac Entertainment Group
(1990) Gangbusters - 3rd ed by Scott Haring (1990)
(1992) Talislanta - 3rd ed by Stephan Michael Sechi, Jonathan Tweet (1992) Wizards of the Coast
(1984) RuneQuest - 3rd ed by Steve Perrin, Greg Stafford, Steve Henderson, Lynn Willis (1984) Avalon Hill
(1990) Boot Hill - 3rd ed by Steve Winter (1990)
 

So it seems to be that if your rpg is popular at all, it sees a 2nd edition. Editions after that are a mark of the game designers doing it as a full-time job, with all the good and bad things that entails (good things like better art and editing, bad things like endless splatbooks and price rises).

QuoteI'm not willing to go exhaustively through the list and argue these points just for a forum post, maybe if someone pays me  But the figures give us a rough idea.

After 998 rpgs with a 1st edition,
153 rpgs saw a 2nd edition.
38 a 3rd
19 a 4th
9 a 5th
4 a 6th
2 with a 7th (Ysgarth and Tunnels & Trolls)

So if you release an rpg, there's about a 1/6 chance of it seeing a 2nd edition, a 1/24 chance of a 3rd edition, and it halves after that.

Wonder how these numbers would change if one removes all the TSR/WotC and White Wolf produced games.

It should be noted that T&T 5th ed is ©1979 (So says my 5th ed book)
5.5 came out in 2005, adding material previously web released with copyright dates of 2003. Ken noted the editions came as fast as they sold out of rulebooks... and that 5th was a significant overhaul "over a year in editing", putting 4th no later than 78.

The Date listed for third Edition T&T is actually for 2nd Edition Monsters! Monsters! (©1976, ©1979, according to my copy) and was released as Liz was working on T&T 5. (so sayeth M!M! 2E, 2nd to last page.)

Further, 5th ed was in print the whole time, and 5.5 is still in print, as well as 7.5.

Quote from: ggroy;314550Wonder how these numbers would change if one removes all the TSR/WotC and White Wolf produced games.

From a glance down the list, the 1st eds drop by 50 or so, and the 2nd eds by a similar amount. The overall picture doesn't change much: 5/6 rpgs basically flop and nobody is interested enough in them even to bitch about them, 1/6 do alright and see multiple editions.

You get the original and the revision to get it right. After that, you need to start from scratch and make a new game.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;314562You get the original and the revision to get it right. After that, you need to start from scratch and make a new game.

Tunnels and Trolls took 4 years and 5 editions to get it right... then kept that product in print from 1979 to 2005. An addendum was added in 2005, and while the addendum is new material, the rest of the book is photo-set from 5.0... and 5.5 is STILL in print (and distribution) in 2009.

T&T 7.0 was that "redesign"... it ALSO was released in 2005 (albeit later in the year than 5.5), and was, late last year, replaced with 7.5, which has a few more deficiencies to correct... it's a better game than 5.5 at its core, but it still is missing some of the utility of T&T 5.5 due to materials which didn't make it across.

(T&T 6 was a pirate edition. The issuing company is now a licensee of Flying Buffalo, and produces supplements.)

I do hope, however, that they get Liz Danforth on board for 8.0... her hand was the magic tough for 5.0. One of the longest running (24 years without addendum, and 4 and climbing with addendum) core rulebook editions in the industry as a dead tree product.

New editions are just the gaming company throwing the dice and hoping they role well. Sometimes it works and other times it fails.

With D&D I think the best edition is 3.5. With Gamma World I think they hit the sweet spot with the 4th edition. With After the Bomb the second edition is superior, even if it is a Palladium game. :)

But the goal of those rerolls is to make more money. I just think many companies don't know when to stop. Like WotC.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;314518It's worthwhile noting that no rpg more than ten years old is both still in print and in its first edition. If it's popular, it gets a 2nd edition.

RIFTS.

RPGPundit

And Rifts has suffered the fate that systems that have no new editions suffer.  At some point everyone who gives a shit owns the older books, and the newer books get more and more anemic as you run out of interesting new ideas.  

I'd say that Rifts writing gave out around... I forget what it was called, Kingdoms of magic maybe?  It was about Tolkien and the surrounding areas, somewhere around World Book 15.

Quote from: RPGPundit;314698RIFTS.

RPGPundit

Rifts 2nd ed came out years ago. 1995, IIRC (and based upon a quick look at copyright dates on ABE, it looks that that might be 1994...)
Ultimate edition is 3rd, and is due out later this year.

so second lasted over a decade, but was labelled "First Edition Revised"

Palladium fantasy "1st Revised" ed lasted from 1986 or so to 1996.

What? Rifts Ultimate Edition was released years ago.

Then I misread the web page. I do know I didn't get 2nd ed rifts, but it as less than 10 years out. Palladium tries real hard to force upgrade buys.

Did they actually change the system?  Because my impression was that they'd only edited the text, and that Kevin Siembieda would fall on his own sword before making a single alteration to his baby.

2nd ed, ca 1995, made small changes in OCC's, clarified a few things. It did make some changes. The core mechanics, however, are the same as ever.

Sufficient for a buddy of mine, a real rifts nutter, to be able to tell 2E from 1E by the character.

Rifts editions are much like CoC editions.   There have been minor changes, but you can easily use any CoC 1e book with CoC 6e.   Much akin to Rifts.  

Rifts Ultimate is more fleshed out with clarifications more than what one would call "system changes".   Much akin to AD&D 1e & 2e rather than the full system startovers as in D&D 3e and 4e.

And if you think Rifts ran out of steam, you haven't seen Madhaven, their supplement for NYC.

Well, since the book I describe as being the end of my romance with Rifts was published at least a decade ago  I have not seen anything newer.  Maybe the NYC supplement is great, but I already owned fifteen setting books.  How was I ever going to use those all up?  I was awash in solid material, the new stuff was thin, so I jumped ship.  And now I've no idea why I'd ever buy a Rifts book.  The setting is in my head, and the system is trash.

The title of this thread should be made into a filk of the Indogo Girls song "Galileo"

The new chorus:
"How Mamy editions to get it right..."


- Ed C.


The song GURPSy Klingon referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTuSDNRJYmE

As per the original question:

I see either one or at most, two, revisions being "needed," but that is assuming the company has done their best to get the most perfect thing out the door in the first place, and there is where the problem generally lies.

Having said that, I do like when there is an ease of use between editions of things.

Quote from: Danger;314751Having said that, I do like when there is an ease of use between editions of things.

SJG printed an easy to use quick conversion for changing 3rd/e GURPS characters into GURPS 4/e.

Its one of the smoothest conversions around.


- Ed

"How Many Editions to Get it right...?"
- Gap -
 The resting soul of Gygax, KIng of game design...

Flashing Blades is still available from FGU directly; whether that qualifies as "in print" or not in this instance is I suppose a matter of interpretation.

In any case, there's never been a second edition, though there's been some talk of creating a fan-based compendium of new and advised rules on the Flashing Blades Yahoo group.

Quote from: counterspin;314721Did they actually change the system?  Because my impression was that they'd only edited the text,

That's my understanding as well. That it's not truly a '2nd edtion'. Just an errated/cleaned up 1e.
But I could have missed something.

Update: aaah -- I didn't think I was going crazy.

From Palladium's website

<
Not exactly a Second Edition, because most of the rules remain unchanged, >>

On the one hand, we have new editions which are not really new, for example Rifts. On the other hand, we have new editions which are so different, we might even call it a different game entirely, for example Basic/Expert D&D vs AD&D.

Thus on average over hundreds of games, a new edition is a new edition.

I'd more look at the term "edition" as a fluctuant thing in practice. Some are more like new printings with a few fixes and features shuffled around while others are complete reworks of the fundamentals of the game. It's impossible to know what one talks about by just catching the word "edition" in a discussion.

Certainly. But whether it's a genuinely new edition, a new game under the same brand name, or just an errataed new printing a year on, in all cases it only happens if the game has some popularity. The bad and/or niche games get just the one edition.

As I said, no rpg has remained in print for more than ten years without getting some kind of new edition.

Okay. Some kind. For instance Chaosium keeps publishing new "editions" of CoC, which are much closer to mere printings, in actuality.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;314761On the one hand, we have new editions which are not really new, for example Rifts. On the other hand, we have new editions which are so different, we might even call it a different game entirely, for example Basic/Expert D&D vs AD&D.

Thus on average over hundreds of games, a new edition is a new edition.

For Traveller, for example,

• CT -> MT, MGT mostly character compatible (slightly more skills)
• MT -> MGT mostly character compatible (slightly less skills)
• CT,MT,MGT -> TNE Character incompatible (Stats and skills scaled differently)
• CT,MT,MGT -> T4 Character somewhat incompatible (Stat effects different, ease of raising stats much different, skills scaled differently)
• TNE -> T4 Character semi-compatible (Stats scaled differently, but close enough, skills scaled slightly differently but close enough)
• CT,MT,TNE,T4,MGT->GT,GTIW Character incompatible (different fundamental assumptions about attributes and their values, and skills scope and values)
• CT,MT,TNE,T4->T20 Character incompatible (different fundamental assumptions about attributes and their values, and skills scope and values)
• GT,GTIW -> T20 Character incompatible (different fundamental assumptions about attributes and their values, and skills scope and values)

The level of compatibility between various editions has been legion

CT: stats 2d6 base, range 1-15, skills 1+, 3+ is rare, about 1.4 skills per term,
MT: stats 2d6 base, range 1-15, skills 1+ 5+ is rare, about 2.2 skills per term
MGT: stats 2d6 base, range 1-15, skills 1+, 4+ is rare, but 3 is not even uncommon, about 1.8 skills per term
TNE: Stats 2d6-1 base, range 1-15, hard to raise stats*, Skills range from 6 per term down to 1 per term, by longevity, averaging about 3 per term for most PC's. Skill 1 common, skill 5+ uncommon, skill 10+ possible but rare
T4: stats 2d6 base, range 1-15, skills range 1-8+, optional publisher errata affects common levels; RAW&R skill 2 common, skill 5+ rare; as patched, Skills to level 6 common, 7+ pretty much useless. about 4.9 skills per term. Stat easy to raise
T20: Stats 3d6 base, range 1-20+, raises automatic with level-up. Skills on d20 scaling, starting character levels range 1-10, average about level 4-6.
GT,GTIW: GURPS norms (atts 8-18, skills stat-3 to stat+4 typically)

A quick look shows that Traveller has issues...
at least if one is trying to convert characters.

Quote from: counterspin;314740Well, since the book I describe as being the end of my romance with Rifts was published at least a decade ago  I have not seen anything newer.  Maybe the NYC supplement is great, but I already owned fifteen setting books.  How was I ever going to use those all up?  I was awash in solid material, the new stuff was thin, so I jumped ship.  And now I've no idea why I'd ever buy a Rifts book.  The setting is in my head, and the system is trash.

The same can be said about pretty much any system.  How many 3E/3.5E D&D players and DMs actually use all those splatbooks released by WotC?

Quote from: aramis;314712Rifts 2nd ed came out years ago. 1995, IIRC (and based upon a quick look at copyright dates on ABE, it looks that that might be 1994...)
Ultimate edition is 3rd, and is due out later this year.

so second lasted over a decade, but was labelled "First Edition Revised"

Palladium fantasy "1st Revised" ed lasted from 1986 or so to 1996.

You're wrong.

There was the original RIFTS book. There was the Special Edition RIFTS book which was identical except for having a cool black hardcover exterior, and there was the "Ultimate Edition" which only came out in 2005, and again changed so little of the actual rules as to be utterly and completely interchangeable with prior books. There's no difference; I can take a book written pre-2005 and one written post-2005 and use either with either "edition". In fact, Kevin went out of his way to clarify that "Ultimate" was NOT a new edition of the game itself, only a re-organization of the material in the main book with a few slight changes and updates.

Granted, you can argue that for the purposes Kyle was citing, it counts, because economically speaking it served the purpose many "new editions" serve, to get people to buy a new copy of the core rulebook. However, even so, you're talking about a gap of 16 years between one edition and the next, which is far beyond what his statement posited for a "successful" game. And RIFTS was, and continues to be, an incredibly successful game, despite what some would wish.

Still, it does seem to be the exception to the rule in this case.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JollyRB;314759That's my understanding as well. That it's not truly a '2nd edtion'. Just an errated/cleaned up 1e.
But I could have missed something.

Update: aaah -- I didn't think I was going crazy.

From Palladium's website

<
Not exactly a Second Edition, because most of the rules remain unchanged, >>

There was no "2nd edition", I have no idea what Aramis is talking about. There were multiple (tons) of printings of the original rulebook, there was the "special collector's edition" with the fancy cover (and no other change) and there was "Ultimate Edition" which was STILL the same rules with a few things re-organized and some new setting material.

RPGPundit

So, the idea here is that consumers will never have changing tastes, that it is possible for a game to remain in print for decades with no changes, and that no one will ever discover ways to enhance a game after two editions no matter how many years have passed?

Seriously, does anything else in the world work that way?  Lucky Charms has had more than 2 "editions".  

Next I suppose some gamers will insist on only buying games that include a contract inside specifying they are legally bound to only release X supplements per year and never have more than Y editions...  :rolleyes:

I really can't decide if you're that dense, jgants, or you're trolling for the heck of it.
I suspect it's a bit of both.

Anyway, when you're a game publisher and your customers progressively change their tastes, you can still expand on existing games, or, if/when that is no longer effective (or prior), publish -surprise!- new games! Here's an idea! Cool, ain't it? Sooner or later, if your original products were any good, your customers, or other customers, will come back to it anyway. These things function in cycles, assuming of course your original product isn't generational, a flash in the pan that cannot stand on its own merits in different time frames. That too could be considered, you know, lame ass design.

I have three words for you to illustrate this concept: Call of Cthulhu.

I disagree with the concept that multiple editions "get it right" because "right" is so totally subjective.

I haven't found an edition of Traveller that beats CT/LBBs for what I want out of the game.  Same with Gamma World.   On the other hand, I like what T&T achieved in its 5th edition.  

For me, many times the magic within the original edition is lost in the next edition.  AD&D 1e to 2e and L5R 1e to 2e come to mind as my most frustrating examples.    

On the other hand, I feel Warhammer has consistently become a better game with new editions and the new Arkham Horror is much better than the original.

Quote from: jgants;314808So, the idea here is that consumers will never have changing tastes, that it is possible for a game to remain in print for decades with no changes, and that no one will ever discover ways to enhance a game after two editions no matter how many years have passed?

Seriously, does anything else in the world work that way?  Lucky Charms has had more than 2 "editions".  

Next I suppose some gamers will insist on only buying games that include a contract inside specifying they are legally bound to only release X supplements per year and never have more than Y editions...  :rolleyes:

Certainly seems to have worked out alright for CoC.  They've had their problems over the years, but they're still going, and every new "edition" of the game is as little changed systemically as the different Rifts printings.  

I'm a firm believer in the idea that if one's tastes do not agree with something, it is best for all involved to find something they do agree with.  Trying to force something to be what it's not just because you've got some kind of fucking entitlement complex and everything must cater only to you is unbelievably arrogant and rude, and trying to pander to that sort of person just winds up with watered down, indecisive pap that satisfies neither fans nor newcomers in any appreciable volume.

It's how we wind up with one shitty Hollywood adaptation after another, "grown up versions" of silly old TV shows like GI JOE and BSG, the painfully bad anime/Matrix pastiche of Godzilla Final Wars, and all manner of other largely marketing induced horrors.

Quote from: Spinachcat;314820I disagree with the concept that multiple editions "get it right" because "right" is so totally subjective.

I haven't found an edition of Traveller that beats CT/LBBs for what I want out of the game.  Same with Gamma World.   On the other hand, I like what T&T achieved in its 5th edition.  

For me, many times the magic within the original edition is lost in the next edition.  AD&D 1e to 2e and L5R 1e to 2e come to mind as my most frustrating examples.    

On the other hand, I feel Warhammer has consistently become a better game with new editions and the new Arkham Horror is much better than the original.

This is exactly what I meant. I can think of a ton of examples of RPGs that got worse with every edition, and of RPGs that got better. Of course, according to my tastes.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;314713What? Rifts Ultimate Edition was released years ago.

I have a friend that has an autographed copy of the Ultimate. He says that KS is very nice in person. But that the game is just as flawed now as it was upon initial release. :)

Quote from: Jaeger;314472Maybe I should revise my original post and add another reason:

4 - To make more money! (Which usually leads us back to reason #1).

 But that still doesn't invalidate my first post. Yes, someone could write a system that required no revisions from the get go, but that is highly unlikely.

  So purely from a system perspective it does take a few editions to get things "right".

Yes, I get your question, but it's so hypothetical that it bears no resemblance to reality. It assumes that with every edition the game gets better, which is not necessarily true, and that improving a game is the main reason to publish a new edition, again not necessarily.

QuoteThe whole reboot for $$$$ aspect of our hobby is a totally different discussion.

But if you ignore the money aspect, then whatever conclusion we reach is irrelevant. It's like talking about why people go to work and ignoring the pay. The pay it's one of the main reasons why people go to work, you can't ignore it.

QuoteAnd just for the record: No, my mother does not know.

You should invite her to a game! ;)

Something else to toss into our mental salad to taste, eat, digest and then perhaps excrete in useful form. From the dragonsfoot Q&A thread with Tim Kask (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23223&start=225),

Quote from: kaskoid aka Tim KaskA word about supplements is in order here, as they were explained to me and came to be.

The first three books laid the groundwork for playing the game. They are all I used from GenCon ’74 until GC 75’ when I picked up GH.

Supplements did what the name implied: i.e., add more stuff; they also clarified and corrected inconsistencies and contradictions. (They also made a few contradictions and clouded a few things, too, but that’s another story.) You have to remember that D&D was a growing, evolving entity and it was through the supplements that this occurred. With the metamorphosis into Basic and Advanced, the first stage of growth was completed.

From this I think we can draw out another idea of what an "edition" is. Many of us have experienced saying something we think, and not knowing we thought that until we actually said it. Rather than forming the idea and then expressing it, the expression is part of the forming.

This happens a lot in these sorts of discussion threads, too - as we type, as people challenge what we're saying, we tidy up, review and change and refine our ideas.

Similarly with an rpg. It grows with feedback from others, and a system or setting which seemed complete when it was first published, after thousands of gamers have had their characters stomping about in it for a few years, well there are contradictions that show up, empty corners that need something put in there, and so on.

With that in mind, it's impossible to be complete in the first edition. Consider the long centuries of the evolution of chess until its current form: and chess is relatively simple, compared to an rpg. So I think that in expecting the first edition to be perfect, we're asking more of rpgs than we ask of any other new game.

Or as Kask puts it here (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23223&start=585),

Quote from: Tim KaskBITD, most boardgames inevitably ended up with Errata Sheets that addressed mistakes and made clarifiactions such as these. We were often asked why rules couldn't be written that were foolproof, eliminating the need for Errata Sheets. The answer always was that fools are too ingenious.

Quote from: Benoist;314815I really can't decide if you're that dense, jgants, or you're trolling for the heck of it.
I suspect it's a bit of both.

Or maybe I just find the conversation stock full of fan entitlement...

Here's my underlying question - why would there need to be an arbitrary limit on editions for RPGs?

Pretty much every other product you can think of - laundry detergent, cars, carpet, board games, houses, etc - has the concept of continual refinement.  We find something that works and continually refine it over time - to improve the product, to jump start sales, to accomodate the changing desires of consumers, etc.

Given that, why do we expect RPGs to be different?  And why do we care if RPGs come out with new editions later anyways?

The answers to that question tend to be fan entitlement.  Fans don't want to "have" to buy all new books again.  Fans want the game to stay the way they think is perfect forever (oddly, most people considered version X full of flaws right up until version X+1 came out, when it became perfect - kind of like how people tend to be remembered more fondly after they are dead).  Fans feel they were "cheated" because the designers didn't anticipate every possible issue with the rules prior to printing them.  Etc.

Quote from: Benoist;314815Anyway, when you're a game publisher and your customers progressively change their tastes, you can still expand on existing games, or, if/when that is no longer effective (or prior), publish -surprise!- new games!

If you keep expanding on games in supplements, it becomes a nightmare, much like the mess GURPS 3e started to become it its final days or the way Rifts got after a while.  All of a sudden key rule changes start coming out in random supplements.  And later supplements build off those rule changes.  And what you essentially end up with is a state of kind-of, sort-of compatibility.  At least a new edition is honest about the fact it is changing the rules.

As for coming out with a new game, I don't see the point.  If people liked most of X, but wish it addressed issue Y, does it make more sense to start all the way over at the drawing board, or just make changes to the existing game?  Starting over from scratch will take longer, cost more, and end up with rules that are almost guarenteed to be less robust.

I suppose you could make some changes but keep the majority of it, then release it as a new game with a different name, but why bother?  It's still going to be considered a new edition, just not named as such.  The only purpose it doing it that way is to try and soothe some nerdrage over "they changed it, now it's ruined!"

Either way, the company will kill off the current edition, which will no doubt piss off the unpleasable fanbase anyways.  They aren't going to keep two competing games that do basically the same thing but with somewhat different mechanics (at least, they won't if they are smart).


For the sake of argument, let's take Gamma World.  Say back in the 80's, instead of creating Gamma World 3rd edition, they just called it "Cool Mutants and Shit" instead.  Would that have really been better?  Would it have really accomplished anything good at all?  Gamma World 2e would still be dead, after all.

Quote from: ggroy;314787The same can be said about pretty much any system.  How many 3E/3.5E D&D players and DMs actually use all those splatbooks released by WotC?

You are right, the same can be said for any system and can most certainly be said for 3.5, where the last few books were pretty much worthless.  In fact I posited it as a universal rule. Your post confuses me.

Quote from: jgants;314852Here's my underlying question - why would there need to be an arbitrary limit on editions for RPGs?

There doesn't.

Quote from: jgantsAnd why do we care if RPGs come out with new editions later anyways?

Why indeed?

Quote from: jgantsThe answers to that question tend to be fan entitlement.

So personal preference is now "fan entitlement?" We can no longer like what we like without being accused of whining?

Quote from: jgantsFans don't want to "have" to buy all new books again.

Some fans of a particular game or product line would like their collection to be what is currently supported because a new edition may make finding players for their game more difficult.

That doesn't strike me as "entitlement" so much as it is trying to avoid what can become a considerable logistical hurdle.

Quote from: jgantsFans feel they were "cheated" because the designers didn't anticipate every possible issue with the rules prior to printing them.

I'd like to say this is a strawman, but sadly I do have to agree with you here. It's a bizarre way of thinking that I don't even begin to understand.

Quote from: jgantsIf you keep expanding on games in supplements, it becomes a nightmare, much like the mess GURPS 3e started to become it its final days or the way Rifts got after a while.  All of a sudden key rule changes start coming out in random supplements.  And later supplements build off those rule changes.  And what you essentially end up with is a state of kind-of, sort-of compatibility.  At least a new edition is honest about the fact it is changing the rules.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I own a displacement ton of Traveller materials, and obvious variant rules aside (such as AHL's combat system), it is largely well integrated.

Quote from: jgantsAs for coming out with a new game, I don't see the point.  If people liked most of X, but wish it addressed issue Y, does it make more sense to start all the way over at the drawing board, or just make changes to the existing game?  Starting over from scratch will take longer, cost more, and end up with rules that are almost guarenteed to be less robust.

Or offer a variant in a supplement, like Unearthed Arcana or Snapshot.

Quote from: Jaeger;314450After seeing RPG's with multiple editions I am beginning to start to wonder how many it takes to get a system "right".


 In my opinion I can only see 2 or 3 editions at the most. But this naturally assumes effort was made to have a solid, well thought out system to begin with...

I think that every game will go two editions. There are things that come up when many people are playing a game that playtesting could never catch. And for a lot of small press games the 1st edition is basically a playtesting release anyway.

The only reasons I can see for going beyond 2 or 3 editions would be:

1 - Fundamentally changing the system of the game. i.e. a "redesign". This can be done for the hell of it, or for any of the following reasons:

2 - Core, or highly used parts of the 1st edition were broken, or gave wonky results, which lead to reason #1.

3 - Great setting idea, but the system is made of ass. Which also leads to reason #1.

  So how many editions do you think a game would take before it is declared well and truly finished...


.

New editions spring from the same place as building a new game console.

$$$$$$

And no, before someone comes in to tell me there is not a 1:1 correlation between a game console and RPG edition, I agree, its not a perfect analogy, except where making money is the root cause, not "getting it right".

You only get to sell one set of core books to most of your customers per edition cycle.

That's where the REAL money is made.

Eventually, its time to make that REAL money again.

Wizards tried a few different things in 3e to see if they could lengthen that cycle. They issued a 3.5 revision that was *just* different enough to nudge folks to upgrade without being a full-on new edition.

They also introduced a second PHB and a second DMG.

But eventually, it came to Revise, Reset and Resell.

I think how many editions depends on what kinds of editions we're talking about.

As I see it, there are three ways a game's rules can change:

1) Transition through supplements. Some editions of games include supplements that significantly change the rules from the baseline. I picked up Players Option: Skills and Powers at a church sale recently, and I think it'd qualify. Unearthed Arcana might also qualify.

2) Revisions. Mostly compatible editions with revised, clarified, or added rules. 1E and 2E weren't all that different.

3) Reboots. The rules bear little resemblance to those in the original game. I think 3e is a significant enough change, strictly rules-wise to qualify.

Generally speaking, you'll probably only need to revise a system once to get it as clear, complete, and easy to use as possible. Chances are you won't get all that right the first time around. Transitions, depending on how they are handled, can be a nice change of pace or can bloat an edition to the point of needing a reboot. Or conversely they may be indicative of designers tinkering with the ideas for the next edition (SW SAGA, Book of 9 Swords, Complete Mage's reserve feats).

@Jaeger:
Just to understand what--for you--would qualify as a new edition in the context of your question:

Is Call of Cthulhu still in its first edition, or its sixth?

I'd argue that CoC "got it right" from the get-go, and that all subsequent editions were just clarifications and new skins. But CoC nicely illustrates Kyle's point that games need graphical/editorial overhauls in order to stay in the news (and the minds of hearts of gamers) even when they don't change substantially.

Well, I don't know if they need them, but they certainly do get them.

In restaurants, when chefs put specials on, that's not only because of customer demand - it's so the chefs don't get bored making the same dozen or so things all the time.

I'm sure it must be the case that game designers get bored, too - and after a few years, even if the fans are all deliriously happy with the current edition, they still want to change some things just so they don't get bored.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;315221@Jaeger:
Just to understand what--for you--would qualify as a new edition in the context of your question:

Is Call of Cthulhu still in its first edition, or its sixth?

I'd argue that CoC "got it right" from the get-go, and that all subsequent editions were just clarifications and new skins. But CoC nicely illustrates Kyle's point that games need graphical/editorial overhauls in order to stay in the news (and the minds of hearts of gamers) even when they don't change substantially.

 As little refined as CoC is, I certainly would not call #'s 2-6 "editions" per se. More like a series of print runs that have incoperated errata.

  However, setting that aside....   Chaosium was very smart to 're-package' thier errata fixes as editions. And I think Kyle is right.

  While one may theoretically be able to get a system as good as it can get in 2-3 editions. The practicalities of the real world mean that in order to keep sales up over a longer period, one must be continually looking to re-introduce thier product to new fans. And get a certain amount of re-buying out of the old ones.


.