So I've been ruminating on something...
D&D has had (depending on how you define them) five to seven different editions that are effectively different games. This count doesn't even begin to consider print runs, half-editions, or repackages. And yes, some editions of D&D are compatible with others (or more compatible than with others) but effectively speaking, the rules change every decade or so in such a way that the previous version is rendered obsolete. Because of this, a large selection of a RPG's run life is selling updated versions of the same material. Updated versions of settings, updated versions of supplemental rules (psionics for example). Fluff may or may not be cross edition, but rules almost never are. The psionics handbook I bought in the 90's is useless in 2023 unless I'm running 2nd edition AD&D as well. RPGs effectively reset themselves every so many years and rarely have the rules been compatible enough that material from one version carries over to the next.
Compare that to a game like Magic: the Gathering where the rules have evolved greatly since its inception but every card in the game is still playable (barring some exceptions) and you can play a deck using only 1994 cards against a deck made of only 2023 cards and the game accommodate both. (Balance issues notwithstanding). New sets are effectively additive*, whereas new editions of D&D are replacing older ones. (* Magic, of course, has formats that range from rotating [old cards leave, new cards enter] and eternal [all cards within a threshold are playable]. YMMV depending on your format. Playing standard requires constant replacement, while playing Commander is purely additive)
My question is if that is in-fact a good thing? Does D&D need a clean slate ever-so-often to reset the board and introduce new ideas and build things from the ground up, or would it be better if there was a way to keep the rules from older editions usable so that every few years, we aren't repeating the Manual of the Planes or the Psionics Handbook or Big Book of Scary Dragons again? On the one hand, it does make large swaths of our collections outdated and balkanizes the player base into people who only play X edition, but on the other, keeping D&D compatible with older editions would require a lot of innovations made over the years to be lost or reduced to keep it compatible. (AC scaling being an example). If D&D was compatible across editions though, we wouldn't necessarily be waiting for the new edition to do a Planescape update book, we'd be looking at yet another expansion into the Planescape line that covers something we hadn't seen (or summarizes elements from different places).
Is there a way D&D could have been made additive rather than replacing itself every edition? I guess that's what 2024 is opting for. Or is RPGs one of those things that benefit from a good reset ever so often?
I personally don't see the need for table top, when they have top quality video games now. I mean the reason for table top was because video games hadn't been invented and when they were they were subpar for these types of games. Baldur's Gate 3 broke the mold IMO. It is nearly everything D&D fans have been asking for since the first D&D video game came out.
But since the question isn't asking should the game be done away with, I will say that it is odd that there have been so many editions. Basic D&D went through through three rewrites with three different authors (Mentzer, Holmes and Moldov). AD&D went through only two with TSR. D&D has went through four (3.0, 3.5, 4.0 and 5.0). Now it is headed to a sixth that will probably be digital only. smh
Some people will defend the authors as "tweaking" the game to better fit the player's needs, hence so many editions. I personally think it is because of poor leadership in the company and worse, developers probably have never played any version of the game. My personal thought is that D&D from 3.0 to now, has been written to look like a video game you can play on paper. In fact, IIRC that was specifically mentioned in the book for Epic Heroes. So what should be done? The answer is probably not much. No matter what they do, no one will be happy. In the beginning (1970's), players were complaining in Dragon Magazine that Magic Users (called Wizards today) were too powerful and could kill things before other PC's got a chance. So in AD&D1e they limited MU's by putting rounds and segments on their castings, as well as the requirement for material components.
IMO using the table to hit "descending" AC was superior than the "ascending" AC when WotC took over. CR ratings don't make much sense. I think they should have stayed with HD being one measure of how powerful a monster is. Gods should not be omnipotent and unkillable. They weren't presented this way in mythology. The Greek Gods were unkillable, but they could be wounded and feel pain just the same, as was shown when Ares was stabbed through the heart and cried out in pain. He had to go to Zeus to heal him.
So the unkillable god things started with 2e, from which they claimed the gods depicted in the new Legends and Lore books were simply avatars of the real gods who are too mighty to have physical bodies or whatever.
Another thing that needs to go is things like sorcery points, spell slots and the more silly things long rest and short rest. I get that spell casters need to sleep to get their spells back the next day. No problem with that, but why the need for points and slots? What was wrong with the TSR system? Why do non-spell cast classes need to do any kind of rest at all? It's too video gamey. Ki points for a Monk? Why? What was wrong with the TSR's version anyway? The Monk was never meant to be like the fighter class, so it was understandable that whatever damage they do would be in bursts. Like stuns to get more attacks and Quivering Palm which more than makes up for what the Fighters do. Also in TSR the Monk's armor got better with every level now it's dependent on your Dex/Wis modifiers? Why? Why not make that the baseline and then have it get better with each level, as it was originally written?
Like I said, it doesn't matter what they do, people will still complain. BF3 is the best example of any D&D video game, and people still make hateful videos about it.
