Quote from: Haffrung;1078581The theory that gamers hate change is shaky. The gaming genre that has seen its popularity grow the most in the last 10 years is hobby boardgaming, and at the hobby level it involves buying and learning 10+ new games a year. Most keen boardgame hobbyists rarely play a game older than two years, with many spending half their table time learning and playing new games.

RPGers are different, owing to the complexity of the games and to the fact that system is often subordinated to other appeals of the game. Nostalgia also plays a bigger part of the appeal of RPGs than with other tabletop hobbies. But RPGers  are not radically different from other gamers. If they can get a better experience for a newer edition with a system that is streamlined or more engaging, they'll make the transition.

As for the cost, most hobby gamers spend hundreds of dollars a year on their hobby. Replacing $150 worth of core books and maybe another $150 of support books every 8 or 9 years is hardly a show-stopping expense (and that's for the GM - players are only in for $50 each edition). RPGs may have a larger player-base of economically vulnerable players than the videogame, boardgame, or CCG hobbies do. But I'd guess that's still only a small fraction of the market. And it's pretty bad business to aim any hobby product at people who can't afford to spend even $150 every few years on their hobby.

The real resistance to change in RPGs is down to classic nerdfury. Some nerds form such an intense personal association with the object of their obsession that any alternative is seen as a personal attack on their identity. These sad folks have always been with us, but their numbers in the real world aren't anywhere near as large as their activity in social media would suggest. As is always the case with social media, the angriest 20 per cent of people account for 80 per cent of dialogue. And emerging channels to connect with the broader customer-base have given RPG publishers more confidence to discount the complaints of the loudest bleaters.

I think some aspect of the "real resistance" to change by RPG players is that, in general, RPGs are more likely to have the kinds of changes that people will be resistant to.  When you see quasi-professional output from other markets, you also get a similar, angry resistance to change.  When you see ill-considered changes, and lots of product churn, same thing.  There is still in RPGs a significant amount of running with an idea that is only half-understood, slapdash designed, and frequently only barely tested, if that. Do that in any field, you'll see a lot of resistance to change.  Moreover, since RPGs have been that way forever, players have learned to expect it.  So when you say "new edition", a lot of them hear "pull some more bad ideas out of my ass and try to sell it.  Again."

As a separate reasons, RPGs are also just a little bit like writing as a field.  That is, anyone that is sufficiently interested suspects, if only unconsciously, that they can do better, if they put the time in.  (This is one reason why book criticism is a little different than other arts.)  The nature of my earlier point reinforces this one.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078550Lets do a scientific experiment with Sports Fans then.  Science has proven that American Football causes brain damage so lets see how long it takes for the AVERAGE Sports fan to stop resisting changes that will prevent players getting brain damage.

Maybe we can compare that time with the AVERAGE DnD edition length?

Except in sports, being are fans of teams and players. That's the factor which is of most concern to them, and the factor that is the focus of their fandom.

However yeah, if you want to change the helmets for Football for example to reduce cuncussions, people will bitch that year, and then be done with it. Nobody will be so furious about it they start their own football league just because of the change. Nobody will still be raging about it 5 years later. Nobody will be saying, "That's it, this isn't real football anymore! No more football for me, I am switching to Basketball!" over it.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078580So if releasing a new edition of a game after 10 years is an "edition treadmill", what rate of moving to a new edition wouldn't be a treadmill? Every 15 years? 25?

Never.  Ever.  Otherwise it's a treadmill.

Quote from: Jaeger;1078612I would chalk it up to Different expectations from the players.

That's the explanation that makes most sense to me. FATE players probably come to the table wanting to play around with Aspects. But the GM has of course to remember many more Aspects to throw into play here.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078701Never.  Ever.  Otherwise it's a treadmill.

I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078709I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

If a company puts out a new edition "too soon" (whatever that works out to be) that changes "too much" (ditto), then the tolerance for the next edition after that goes down, no matter how well executed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078701Never.  Ever.  Otherwise it's a treadmill.

I mean, I know every journey begins with a single step, but a single step does not really count as walking you know. Much less excersising on a treadmill

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078709I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

  I don't know if it's the frequency (aside from the 3.5 transition) so much as it is the whole "fire the fans of the immediately preceding edition (often with sneering and mockery), while holding up 1E AD&D as the Golden Age" approach of their design and marketing every time an edition change comes around.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1078745I don't know if it's the frequency (aside from the 3.5 transition) so much as it is the whole "fire the fans of the immediately preceding edition (often with sneering and mockery), while holding up 1E AD&D as the Golden Age" approach of their design and marketing every time an edition change comes around.

Every claim of all the fans of the prior edition being fired with mockery has been false exageratted butthurt from snowflake RPGers who once again prove how much they hate change.

That silly kerfluffle over the gnome for example was recockulous. Some gamers have a really hard time taking a joke about their edition, and think "joke = mockery" even if they joke entirely lacks any contempt and is genuinely intended as light hearted fun.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078709I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

Think people would be fine with an unambitious 6ed that mostly tweaked stuff if it came out a decade after 5ed. D&D needs a bit of a breather before another big change and 5ed basically works even if it is bland.

Just mostly stick with things that there is a consensus about like nerfing the stupid lucky feat, presenting things more clearly, change/erase hit dice, spruce up the spell list, simple stuff like that...

That sounds more like a 5.5 than a 6.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078149I mean it sure is strange how you never see a Boardgamer complaining about different editions of Board games when they are on a Roleplaying forum, the only reason that explains it must be because Roleplaying Gamers dont like change.

Actually we have now and then. Just not often. Few board games have tried to gouge the fans with edition treadmills. FFG recently got on that kick and Privateer has as well and both have met with resistance. Alot of resistance.

Why?

Because the game was changed too much and in MonPoc's case, partially incompatible minis that are no longer pre-painted and assembled. Now its a "hobby game". And the rules dumbed down while jacking the price tag to absurd levels for what you get.

In other cases another contributor is a new edition comes out too soon after the first. And there may be more resistance if it leaves the prior edition unfinished in some manner.

As noted before. It is not that gamers dont like change. They dont like too much change and they sure as hell dont like too soon change.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078580So if releasing a new edition of a game after 10 years is an "edition treadmill", what rate of moving to a new edition wouldn't be a treadmill? Every 15 years? 25?

In this case it may be the momentum of that 10 years. It kinda puts the lie to any claims that the game "needs" to see a new edition when its been chugging along just fine for a decade. Here is where you get the type 2 edition treadmill resistance. Why change something that has been working for so long.

Part of that is by this time you have a well established fanbase who are probably very used to the system.

Dragon Storm ran into this full tilt when they tried to do a 2nd Ed that shared very little with the original. Which had up till then been going for close to twenty years. It was not that fans hated change. They just did not want this sort of drastic change after the game had been going for so long.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1078823That sounds more like a 5.5 than a 6.

It sounds like an edition, rather than a different game with the same name. How TSR D&D stayed loosely compatible from one edition to the next worked fine. I remember having a Rules Cyclopedia, a 1ed DMG, and a 2ed PHB and running things with no real issues.

Quote from: Daztur;1078837It sounds like an edition, rather than a different game with the same name. How TSR D&D stayed loosely compatible from one edition to the next worked fine. I remember having a Rules Cyclopedia, a 1ed DMG, and a 2ed PHB and running things with no real issues.

Yeah D&D really set a weird standard for "what an edition is". Like Savage Worlds has been out for 16 years and is arguably on it's 4th or 5th edition, but it's still all compatible with one another.

It's weird how few "long" running RPGs are still around that didn't radically change their game several times like WotC D&D. Fate, Savage Worlds, and idk if I count GURPS 4e (somehow both alive and dead).