Why successive editions?

[Cubs]

Quite frankly I don't think so, please bear with me.

All valid points, but none that explain why editions need to be released so quickly on the tails of the previous one, except the 'to make more money' bit.

Good business sense (and discussion regarding the differing opinions of whether GW's business model is good or bad, is to be found on the GW thread) sometimes sticks in the craw.

Getting published is easier now than it's ever been and perhaps a big part of that is the publisher's realisation that a minimal effort on their part for a first edition actually results in higher profits because they can then make money off successive revised editions that correct the mistakes of the previous ones.

[Arlequín]

Before this discussion descends into a GW-bashing thread, I would like to mention that WRG Ancient Rules did sort of set the trend for frequent revision, with 8 editions (okay seven and one 'amended' version of the last one -'69, '69, '71, '73, '76, '80, '86 and '87)  before one of the writers decided he did not like them anyway and started another game-mode entirely.

Whether any of them improved things over previous editions is a cause for even greater debate amongst the hobby grognards than the young folks and their 'GW - good or bad' argument.

[Conquistador]

Before this discussion descends into a GW-bashing thread, I would like to mention that WRG Ancient Rules did sort of set the trend for frequent revision, with 8 editions (okay seven and one 'amended' version of the last one -'69, '69, '71, '73, '76, '80, '86 and '87)  before one of the writers decided he did not like them anyway and started another game-mode entirely.

Whether any of them improved things over previous editions is a cause for even greater debate amongst the hobby grognards than the young folks and their 'GW - good or bad' argument.

Valid point.  "Better" or "Improved" is very much a subjective thing.  I liked SuperSystem better in Edition 2 than 3 but it did solve some "problems" many players felt made the game unbalanced (did that mean they 'lost' or was unbalanced towards "shooters' as was proclaimed by some?  I don't really know.)  SS 3rd plays well too, it just has a completely different "feel" in the game play.  It might a s well be another game title because of the changes, which isn't a criticism just a comment.

Gracias,

Glenn

Trying to avoid the dreaded lock down from any moderators...

[Conquistador]

<snip> WRG Ancient Rules did sort of set the trend for frequent revision, with 8 editions (okay seven and one 'amended' version of the last one -'69, '69, '71, '73, '76, '80, '86 and '87)  before one of the writers decided he did not like them anyway and started another game-mode entirely.

<snip>

Some times I felt that these were different games because of the changes that deserved different title to differentiate them...

Partly because a million modifiers/components in any system or device causes the Law of Unintended Consequences to exert itself on steroids...

Gracias,

Glenn

who thought "bows, lances, javelins, and melee" weapons was reminiscent of AD&D (which came later, I just realized - temporal anomaly.)

[axabrax]

+1

It's basic business practice that you need to have constant sales and constant growth to sustain your business. Try printing one edition of rules and making any profit once everybody who's interested has their copy. This is why the profitable game companies produce multiple editions of the rules. Hopefully they add something interesting to every edition to make it worth it for we consumers. Anyone who grumbles about this should try starting their own wargaming company and making it profitable.

Money.

[Arlequín]

Not only that, but if you say produced an 'improved edition', which was widely disliked or ragged by your customer base, you would logically be inclined to do something about it before your game and possibly your business too, went down the pan. So you would produce a further edition quite soon after. Obviously then you are damned in the eyes of some for having done so.

Having said that, if your chosen game-maker chooses to produce edition after edition and you and your fellow gamers keep buying into it, surely you must bear some of the blame for them continuing to do so. Just sayin...

[Cubs]

Anyone who grumbles about this should try starting their own wargaming company and making it profitable.

Which is presumably why the bigger wargaming companies tend to have a line miniatures too, to keep the cash rolling in without them having to launch a new set of books every couple of years.

There's more money in mins than in print, and if your new edition can conveniently introduce a new range of models that you can release, well ... happy days.

[Argonor]

My remark was ultimately aimed at the mere fact that a new edition is coming out:

1) It was old news already
2) It won't make any impact on the gaming world, other that make the diehards cash out once more
3) I doesn't add anything to the topic which was originally a generic discusson about the reasons for buying more editions of the same game.

[Conquistador]

My remark was ultimately aimed at the mere fact that a new edition is coming out:

1) It was old news already
2) It won't make any impact on the gaming world, other that make the diehards cash out once more
3) I doesn't add anything to the topic which was originally a generic discusson about the reasons for buying more editions of the same game.

Point taken.   

Gracias,

Glenn

[joroas]

I think that many of the newer rule sets have remained as the sole edition because the authors actively encourage adapting and changing the rules, the key words being playability and the spirit of the game.

This was not so in the past, when the rules were the RULES and had to be followed to the letter.  Perhaps the word COMPETITION has seriously influenced the production of successive rule sets. The wargaming world is full of lawyers looking for loopholes to exploit or that beardy army list that beats all-comers.

[Archie]

The wargaming world is full of lawyers looking for loopholes to exploit or that beardy army list that beats all-comers.

And that is a sad thing. Fun before rules everytime I say. Regardless of edition!

[Arlequín]

The wargaming world is full of lawyers looking for loopholes to exploit or that beardy army list that beats all-comers.

And that is a sad thing. Fun before rules everytime I say. Regardless of edition!

For some though, that is the fun. It's not for me, but I would be loathe to criticise someone for thinking that way. I just would not play with them.

[joroas]

That was not a criticism, but perhaps rules are updated and rewritten to plug the gaps that this type of player exploits.

[Vermis]

For some though, that is the fun. It's not for me, but I would be loathe to criticise someone for thinking that way. I just would not play with them.

First off, sorry for this, I know this thread is trying to steer away from GW, but this reminds me of some discussions I've seen about Warhammer recently. There's a train of thought that the basic problem with the game's recent editions are people who take those beardy, WAAC, loophole armies, to the point of calling them rule-breakers and cheaters just for using the rules as written. Seems easier to use them as a scapegoat than to see them as a symptom of Warhammer's bloat, loopholes and exploitability that - counter to Joroas' post - edition patchovers only seem to increase.
E.g. The steadfast rule was said to balance 8th edition by making infantry blocks viable again, but what kind of battle game develops to a state where basic infantry needs a special rule to be of any use? And now it's being grumbled about as people use it to make unbreakable 'busses' and 'deathstars' of elite troops.

So to move this back to general gaming: I'd suggest that at least one reason some newer games stick to one edition is because they're simpler, relying more on a relative few, tactical mechanics and universal special rules rather than high granularity, lots of individual rules and power creep. They may encourage you to adapt and houserule stuff - GW themselves apparently do as much - but there are fewer, tighter rules, that hopefully means fewer problems that need that kind of houseruling and edition fixes.
Although I do agree about competition. Can't see many houserules happening outside the... house, or club, or anywhere else with friendly games. And I guess tourney-oriented games need a larger, more comprehensive ruleset, raising the likelihood of loopholes?

[Conquistador]

<snip> And I guess tourney-oriented games need a larger, more comprehensive ruleset, raising the likelihood of loopholes?

I don't think anything involving humans is ever really simple (because of... human nature...) and there is always a certain percentage if people who will be smart enough to see  way to use the rules in an unintended/unexpected manner (not necessarily "wrong' because it is the rules they are using,) and upset those who didn't see it coming.  Talking it out (and dice rolls) can settle a lot of differing understandings.  Maybe Diplomats should be required to understand die rolling... but I digress.

As a favorite game designer I buy from says on the website, "Jut Play The Game."  Having fun, comradeship, and maybe learning about history, (or creating faux history,) are the best goals in my mind.  YMMV and it probably should...

Competitive play is fine but I would, (I suspect,) take it too "seriously" if I went that route so, for the sake of others, I don't play in tournament situations.

Gracias,

Glenn