Editor in Chief Bill | 19 Sep 2011 5:44 p.m. PST |
In your opinion, what percentage of the time is a second edition of a ruleset an actual improvement over the original edition? |
Waterloo | 19 Sep 2011 5:50 p.m. PST |
20%, usually they don't work as well as the first rdition. |
Lentulus | 19 Sep 2011 6:04 p.m. PST |
|
DinOfBattle2 | 19 Sep 2011 6:10 p.m. PST |
Of the rulesets that I have 2nd editions for, I would say 100%. |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 19 Sep 2011 6:11 p.m. PST |
100%, for a given value of "improvement." I think it is very subjective. |
Pictors Studio | 19 Sep 2011 6:20 p.m. PST |
I think there are times when a 2nd edition fixes a number of problems that weren't noticed by the author in play testing because they understand how that is supposed to work. Overall it is rare that they are a big improvement in the actual rules but they may make things more clear. |
doc mcb | 19 Sep 2011 7:20 p.m. PST |
Well, I'm 80% through with 2nd edition of PRIDE OF LIONS, and it will be a lot better. Mainly, as Pictors notes, in just clarifying things. But there's some more depth in several places, too, and I think the photos and illustrations will be significantly more useful, as well as pretty. |
Rich Bliss | 19 Sep 2011 7:39 p.m. PST |
|
Sundance | 19 Sep 2011 7:57 p.m. PST |
If the second edition is used to clarify and correct, then they hit the mark. If the second edition is used to rewrite the established and understood rules (and make them less clear, rather than more) then there's no point to them unless they are a real improvement over the first edition. But then, if the first edition was that bad, I wouldn't buy the second edition. |
CorpCommander | 19 Sep 2011 8:03 p.m. PST |
How about 6th+ editions? I'm looking at you 40K, WRG, Command Decision, etc. |
21eRegt | 19 Sep 2011 8:18 p.m. PST |
75% for second editions. Apply the Law of Diminishing Returns to subsequent editions. |
dilettante | 19 Sep 2011 9:34 p.m. PST |
I'll go with 75%. SuperSystem improved with its 2nd ed. Haven't read the 3rd ed. yet:) |
Sane Max | 20 Sep 2011 1:48 a.m. PST |
2nd edition WAB was awful, but all-time winner for 'difficult 2nd edition' is AK47 – the first one was a little gem, the second one, not so much. Pat |
Griefbringer | 20 Sep 2011 2:12 a.m. PST |
How about 6th+ editions? I'm looking at you 40K, WRG, Command Decision, etc. As far as I am aware, WH40K is currently only at the 5th edition. And my understanding is that Command Decision is currently around 4th edition or so. |
Stealth1000 | 20 Sep 2011 3:03 a.m. PST |
2nd editions are oftan better but if you need a 3rd or 4th. Mmmm I think you might just think about starting over cos your system might not be all that good after all.. You should have got it right by the 2nd edition. Just my 2 pence worth. |
John D Salt | 20 Sep 2011 3:34 a.m. PST |
This violates the standard engineering convention that thinks start working really well about the Mark Three state. Pz III, M3 Light tank, medium tank and half-track, SMLE no.III, Churchil III, Centurion 3, Lightning F3, conicidence or magic? All the best, John. |
Griefbringer | 20 Sep 2011 4:25 a.m. PST |
M3 "Grease gun" SMG? I think I might prefer a Thompson. |
stenicplus | 20 Sep 2011 4:54 a.m. PST |
but all-time winner for 'difficult 2nd edition' is AK47 – the first one was a little gem, the second one, not so much. As demonstrated to some extent although not an official poll as it's yet to be selected if at all: TMP link But then HOTT v2.0 is a vast improvement, so much so people are worried by the prospect PB tinkering and making HOTT 3.0 So, 50%
|
TodCreasey | 20 Sep 2011 5:24 a.m. PST |
POW Napoleonics 2nd edition was a train wreck. DBMM 2.0 is much better than 1.0 but other than that the changes are usually pretty neutral. I expect the next edition of IABSM to be pretty good. |
PapaSync | 20 Sep 2011 6:01 a.m. PST |
Space Hulk falls into the not needed category. Almost everyone I know that enjoys this game would still rather play First Ed. Second and Third (not counting expansion set) didn't really bring that much to the game. The expansion were great. Even though many would debate the Genestealer expansion and the use of psychic abilities. 8) |
richarDISNEY | 20 Sep 2011 7:57 a.m. PST |
Griefbringer, they are working on 6th for 40k already. As for the OP, 50/50
Now if we are talking past 2nd eds, they usually go WAY down hill FAST! 40k 3rd+, Deadlands Reloaded, Shadowrun, D&D 4th ed
On the upside, D&D 3.5 was great IMO.
|
Repiqueone | 20 Sep 2011 8:41 a.m. PST |
Most 2nd editions are an improvement as they often clean up typos, errors, and make adjustments based on a much larger gamer pool than the initial playtest group. However, most of the heavy lifting in concepts and initial premises is done by the first set, which must garner some support before a 2nd edition would ever be done. The danger of 2nd editions is that a huge amount of chrome is added, which may, or may not, improve the game. Seldom are substantial gains made in mechanics or concepts, and the added chrome may simply weigh down a good design. The usual gains are in physical quality, since more can be invested in that area as the design has proved itself and is less of a risk, and in add-ons, such as army lists, etc. Ocaasionally the second edition can be a true improvement, but this generally implies a substantial rewrite, or revision of some mechanics-most 2nd editions are extensions, that merely elaborate on established ideas. Very rarely a designer may have an epiphany about the rules which leads to some aspect of the already published rules being substantially re-done providing some true innovations in the gameplay. Since this often means making a previous version immediately obsolescent there are many financial pressures to not do a major mechanic revision regardless of its superiority. So, I would say that most 2nd editions that are merely clean-ups, elaborations and extensions with added photos are a 20-30% gain. Certainly, if the rules are good, a worth-while gain. Some 2nd editions that offer a substantial revision to the core mechanics may be a 50% gain, if that revision does, indeed, offer better gameplay. Sometimes such revisions merely make the game more cumbersome and ungainly, or less interesting and colorless, in which there is no gain, but a loss. I agree with Mr. Salt that, all things being equal, many designed products see a gain through the 3rd edition, which can be the pinnacle, but after that point a very definite law of diminishing returns occurs, usually caused by an excess of chrome, a loss of design integrity, and a loss of substance replaced by an exponential increase in filler and fluff. |
miniMo | 20 Sep 2011 8:50 a.m. PST |
97.5% If the authors are taking in player feedback, they have a lot more info on wording and mechanical problems to correct than they could ever get out of their initial playtesting. So that's 95% likely. When authors just crank out a new edition more or less blind, then it's a crap shoot. So that's the additional 2.5% ^,^ |
Omemin | 20 Sep 2011 9:39 a.m. PST |
Depends on what sort of "improvement" is made. A better-tweaked set that keeps much of the original feel and flow usually is good, but a total rewrite usually flops heinously. The last versions of Empire and Stars N Bars come to mind as the latter category, while the versions of Command Decision tend to fit the first. Expanding a set can be problematic, with some 30-50% being a mistake. |
haywire | 20 Sep 2011 11:20 a.m. PST |
I agree with Omemin, it depends on the amount of change and how far they update. Usually, after the second change you are not improving anything and fall under re-write. |
raylev3 | 20 Sep 2011 2:30 p.m. PST |
If they clear up ambiguities or other rules issues, great. OTOH, if there are so many changes it's essentially a new game
then I'd say it's not a second edition. |
Howler | 20 Sep 2011 5:45 p.m. PST |
I tend to wait for 2nd edition rules now instead of buying 1st edition. Examples are many of the THW rules, Song of Arthur and Merlin. |
Spreewaldgurken | 20 Sep 2011 6:00 p.m. PST |
"I tend to wait for 2nd edition rules now instead of buying 1st edition." That's why I don't do 2nd editions. I don't want to send a message to my customers that I'm making them pay to be play testers. |
Repiqueone | 21 Sep 2011 8:54 a.m. PST |
Actually, I believe that is a fair bargain. Surely, a new ruleset if it offers fresh ideas, new systems, or unique gameplay has provided first adopters with something new and often thought inspiring and well worth their investment. In return, the vastly larger number of gamers that are exposed to the concepts may very well spot areas that may be improved, errors and typos to be corrected, and offer some ideas as to further development of the concept, which the initial designer/publisher may use to improve the rules in a later edition. Rule writing is a LOT like software design, where a new product must establish its value, be immediately effective and attract users, BUT must be open to feedback, and will benefit from future development into version 2.0. Too many rules are treated as fixed, immutable, quasi-religious tracts, that daren't be fiddled with and are immune from any growth and revision. Their authors portrayed as oracles and gurus that posses the secret knowledge and adjudicate all interpretations of the sacred texts. They end up being closed systems and design dead ends. Far better that a rule set is, from the beginning, more of an interactive and reciprocal process, and seen as version 1.0, and a step on the road to 2.0. |
Repiqueone | 21 Sep 2011 9:11 a.m. PST |
PS- Those that wait for 2.0 miss the most exciting and creative stage in a new ruleset's development, where the ideas are fresh and the interactive input from new gamers is at its highest. They actually get invested in the new system in a manner that the later adopters never do. I have always been of the opinion that the great payoffs go to those that accept risk willingly, both in the original design of a game, and, among gamers, those that eagerly try a new idea. Those that wait for 2.0 may get a more mature design with fewer rough edges, but they miss a lot of creative process and the joy of being there at the beginning. The gamers that stay with one unchanging set for 20 years and never venture outside their "comfort zone" miss a great deal of fun and intellectual challenge. |
pphalen | 21 Sep 2011 11:23 a.m. PST |
It depends. I've seen 2nd editions that tinkered with things that didn't need tinkering, and yet still managed not to make much needed changes. Worse yet, is when they break things that weren't broken: "We've learned from our mistakes" "Now we are going to make a series of new ones
" |
Dasher | 22 Sep 2011 9:18 p.m. PST |
Rarely. I'll go with the 20% observation posted early on. |
Old Contemptibles | 02 Oct 2011 3:50 p.m. PST |
Rarely 20% about right. Most often it just makes the rules worst. Johnny Reb 3 didn't address any of the problems of JR2. It "fixed" what worked and it did not fix what didn't work. Huge disappointment. |
Weasel | 19 Oct 2011 11:16 a.m. PST |
Fifty fifty I'd say. Wargames tend to be better about it than RPG's I think. |
Grand Duke Natokina | 19 Oct 2011 12:02 p.m. PST |
If done right, the answer should be 100%. But that is not always the case. |
Dasher | 19 Oct 2011 3:26 p.m. PST |
Second Edition revisions are almost never an improvement. Most of the time they incorporate all manner of silly revisions to basically good rules dreamed up by whiners who felt something was too powerful/not powerful enough. |
20thmaine | 19 Oct 2011 3:36 p.m. PST |
Rarely – D&D to AD&D was a fantastic leap, but most second editions just tidy up a few typos, change the fuigures & photos and bob's your uncle. So, maybe 7.5 % |
RobH | 22 Oct 2011 4:01 a.m. PST |
If a game I bought needs a 2nd edition to make it playable it means I was sold a substandard product to begin with. If it does not need the 2nd edition to make it playable, there is no justification for producing one. If tweaks and explanations/clarifications are necessary they should be provided free to people who have already purchased the rules. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 22 Oct 2011 11:48 p.m. PST |
Absolutely Rob, I have my updates/amendments to Grand Manoeuvre posted on the same web page that they are available from and if it ever comes to a second edition (which would not be justified quite yet), then I would have existing owners sent copies of the new edition too. |