Like, people use the change from 3e to 4e as an example of how bad and horrible huge overhauls are. But they seemingly forget that 3e itself was a massive departure from 2e, rendering most older books totally useless (as far as the actual mechanics go, anyway). You know, exactly what 4e did.

I think is a good example for a different reason...

Firstly, there was a big time gap between the major releases of AD&D and D&D 3e (and honestly, a lot of people had abandoned AD&D for other games... a big push early in the D&D 3e was the attempt to win people back to the game... the d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Call of Cthulhu games were just such efforts). D&D 3e was followed by the fairly rapid and minor revision between 3.0 and 3.5, different but not terribly so. D&D 4e seemed for come very hot on the heels of 3.5 and was a massive change in system to a game that still a fairly solid base audience. The fairly short perceived time between editions, combined with a fundamental change in direction and, seemingly, target audience, after a more incremental change, made the "edition shock" more extreme.

This is a very good analogy for the development of the 40K-RP line... each game within the 40K line can reasonable be seen as a different "edition" of the same rules set. We started with Dark Heresy and have seen minor, incremental changes every few years. That makes a massive change much harder for the established audience to accept.

I think is a good example for a different reason...

Firstly, there was a big time gap between the major releases of AD&D and D&D 3e (and honestly, a lot of people had abandoned AD&D for other games... a big push early in the D&D 3e was the attempt to win people back to the game... the d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Call of Cthulhu games were just such efforts).

The "big time gap" thing is deceptive, as TSR were pushing several different versions of what was mechanically the same game, and were pushing multiple campaign settings for the various versions of the system. I'd disagree with you, because they were in fact pushing lots of major releases.

Whether they lost a lot customers, I honestly don't know. I haven't seen the numbers, assuming numbers exist. That said, as a non-D&D player during that period my impression is that everyone who played RPGs played D&D and only a faction played anything else besides D&D.

D&D 3e was followed by the fairly rapid and minor revision between 3.0 and 3.5, different but not terribly so. D&D 4e seemed for come very hot on the heels of 3.5 and was a massive change in system to a game that still a fairly solid base audience. The fairly short perceived time between editions, combined with a fundamental change in direction and, seemingly, target audience, after a more incremental change, made the "edition shock" more extreme.

This is a very good analogy for the development of the 40K-RP line... each game within the 40K line can reasonable be seen as a different "edition" of the same rules set. We started with Dark Heresy and have seen minor, incremental changes every few years. That makes a massive change much harder for the established audience to accept.

3e came 9 years after the last major release of the system, and prior to it there had been only incremental changes to the more and less crunchy versions of the D&D system (AD&D and D&D). 3.5e followed another 3 years later, and again consisted of incremental changes only. 5 years later still - 8 years after the release of 3e - 4e was released. And like 3e, 4e was a major revision of the system.

What all this means, as an extension to your post, I guess would be that major revisions to products that are less than 9 years old cause system shock. And especially if we roll on the old AD&D tables, that makes it a very good thing FFG re-decided and are releasing nothing that haven't released before. Because system shock rolls in AD&D were pretty lethal, and dying from a revised RPG system would suck.

...

Tortured humour aside, I'd still rather have a single incrementally updated rulebook for all the lines than the current mess. And I still have more than enough issues with WFRP2.5e that I'd very much have liked to see the new edition of DH actually be a new edition - a major revision of the system, not just slight tweaks.

But I guess the playerbase has spoken... So I'll slink off back under the bed to resent you lot for it

The underlying design directive with D&D3E was 'make it like AD&D , but better: more colorful, smoother rules'; the directive with D&D4E was 'make it more like a video game'. I don't think it's a great mystery why 3E was popular and 4E was unpopular.

I suspect that the main reason FFG decided to scrap the first Beta was the fact that so many of its supporters on this Forum let slip that they absolutely hate DH1 . This branded them as an unknown; FFG has no sales numbers to track their spending habits- unlike the fans of DH1 , whom they have solid numbers on. Sticking with the established fanbase who have proven their willingness to spend their money on FFG products is a more logical business decision than gambling on a different audience who may or may not make regular purchases...

Hate is a strong word. I have a laundry list of complaints, but I'll readily concede that at its heart, WFRP2.x is a very simple, easily customisable, and highly transparent system. Coming from AD&D2e to WFRP1e was a pleasure, as was transitioning from WFRP1e to WFRP2e. But at the time I didn't know any better, and my playstyle was an entirely different beast from what it is now.

I wouldn't be surprised if FFG haven't pushed for any major innovation because their 40kRPG team is a shadow of what it used to be. I mean, every book in recent memory other than the cores has been pretty hugely flawed and imbalanced, and there plainly hasn't BEEN as many books as we used to get. The shoddy handling of this beta process (from as early as the internal tests if some posters are to be believed) is just more evidence. I think it's very much a case of 'Star Wars makes more money' here.

At this point I'm just crossing my fingers FFG drops the Aptitude mess for the vastly simpler and functionally identical Roles of DH2.3b

Saying new systems are a bad idea purely because you haven't liked a couple of new editions of games is pretty shaky reasoning, honestly. Under that sort of thinking, we'd all still be playing this

Good point - one shouldn't cast a general and absolute judgement regarding this. That being said, my own criticism was that it actually did not deviate far enough from the previous edition, making most of the controversial changes unnecessary by kind of "ruining the point" of having a full reset in the first place.

But needless to say, we're all bound to have highly individual opinions regarding such specifics.

Saying new systems are a bad idea purely because you haven't liked a couple of new editions of games is pretty shaky reasoning, honestly. Under that sort of thinking, we'd all still be playing this

Like, people use the change from 3e to 4e as an example of how bad and horrible huge overhauls are. But they seemingly forget that 3e itself was a massive departure from 2e, rendering most older books totally useless (as far as the actual mechanics go, anyway). You know, exactly what 4e did.

As I said, we tried to play the 3rd edition hard.

I wouldn't have done it, if I weren't interested how a new system works, would I?

That's the thing, we are talking about overhauls to Existing systems. That's the reason they are risky.

There is already a set base. Set base of rules and fans, and with overhauls you always try to bend to new players with new rules and old players with old rules. When you bend towards another, your backside is showing to the other. You cant please everybody. THAT is the problem with overhauls.

New systems, in new IPs.

After two afwul disasters with old IP's that I've tried... Those are the new systems that I'm looking forward to push the RPG-gaming forward.

Now, I'm pleased to hear one of my favorites is going strong with bow to the Old system.

PS.

Showing me a picture of Ye Olde D&D as a "slap"