Thoughts on the edition treadmill

[Plane Sailing]

I'd like to propose an additional dimension to the discussion.

Consider Call of Cthulhu. An RPG, it has been through what, six editions now? I bet that there has been negligible change in the mechanics during that time. Most of the changes are probably in layout, art and perhaps different or expanded guidance?

Do you think D&D would work with the CoC model of editions?

Cheers

 

[Jor-El]

I wish the RPG business was about designing a good, solid set of rules, with only occasional minor revisions, and a continuous development of new campaign settings every few years.

Not the slew of them we got slammed with during the 2E era, but a single new world/setting every few years, with plenty of time to explore and develop it, and with lots of well designed adventures.

 

[Sunseeker]

I wish the RPG business was about designing a good, solid set of rules, with only occasional minor revisions, and a continuous development of new campaign settings every few years.

They did. But you can't keep the game static. First there were fighters, paladins, rogues, and a few others. Then people said "well what about???" and more was added. New rules were made to balance these things and integrate them into the game. As holes were discovered in the rules, the rules were modified.

"the rules" aren't like the 10 commandments. They are not absolute and they never will be.

And campaign settings are unprofitable. Why? If I've got a PHB, a DMG, and a MM, then I have everything I need to make my own worlds. Why buy theirs?

 

[TerraDave]

I agree with your general premise: that RPGs don't need new editions all the time.

It might help to analyze what went into each D&D edition change.

The split of D&D into AD&D and BD&D was driven by differences between it's creators, Arneson wanted a rules set closer to his game (what became Basic D&D), and Gygax wanted wanted a game closer to AD&D, which is what he intended to be D&D Second edition. IIRC Arneson got few royalties for AD&D than he did for D&D.

Arneson was only involved in B/X when he was briefly brought back to the company with the DA series of modules. Original basic (Holmes) was advertised as a gateway into AD&D, by Moldvay it had become a paralel line. It is true that Arneson got royalties from D&D and not AD&D and saying there were different games was part of that.

AD&D 2e was driven by a desire to clean up AD&D. Gygax had been ousted by then.

Again, royalties where involved. It was a marginal "clean up" of the rules, but a major one for the BADD crowd. Fun Fact: the 1E PHB was such a strong seller it was kept in print for a while after releasing the 2E one.

D&D 3e was driven by a desire to make the brand profitable to it's new owners. The idea was to 1) include races, classes, and other elements that 2e had left out. Half-Orcs and Monks returned to the PHB. Wizards cleaned-up any legal problems there might have been using D&D instead of AD&D with Arneson.

I would say this was the real clean up. Very much driven by a desire to make AD&D work as a game even as the game was brought back to its roots...back in the dungeon.

 

[amerigoV]

As has been brought up before, the board game comparison is not a fair one. But I'd like to propose that it's not a fair comparison for a different reason - board games have a very specific objective: win.

P&P RPGs do not. They are open-ended, and the end objective of each game is up to the collaborative efforts of the GM and their players.

What!?!?!?! Its all about winning. Thats why they keep score (XP/Level/Loot).

Ignoring what its being compared to, Wizards is on a dangerous treadmill. They keep rehashing the same stuff over an over ("Look Orc 5.0! Next week, see Gnome 5.0!"). 3.x and 4 are both very solid systems. Not a thing wrong with them other than the eventual bloat. They need to start thinking about what kool stuff they can make in the future because just rollin' a d20 and adding different numbers is not going to get my $

I have no problem spending the coin, but I do want something for that coin. If I go buy $100 worth of D&D stuff, its pretty weak on new ideas (new crunch of old stuff). If I go spend $100 on Savage Worlds* - now I have some new ideas and concepts.

* It is a bit unfair to compare these at this stage. D&D is a beast and is supporting a significant business model. And what makes the big $ is player crunch. Savage Worlds does not have the scale, and likely most of the designers have other jobs. Since they are not going to make that much money anyway, they can make what they want, which generally are cool setting ideas. But, that is what is getting my gamer $ these days.

 

[Stumblewyk]

What!?!?!?! Its all about winning. Thats why they keep score (XP/Level/Loot).

That's not "winning." That's called progression.

When, at the end of an RPG session have you ever pumped your fist, looked at the other players around the table, and uttered the words, "I win!"? (Barring of course that you're playing a game that encourages player vs. player competition. It's my understanding and experience that most P&P RPGs do not.)

 

[eyebeams]

Uh, traditional boardgames get new editions all the lovin' time, both to get at a marketing niche (see the many gimmick versions of Monopoly) and yes, even to change the rules. In fact, Scrabble just had a big controversy over a rules change that would have allowed proper nouns. The reaction was so bad that Mattel "clarified" that it would be shunted to a variation of the game.

D&D is not so different. But it is notable that newer editions appear to have has less sustained success. People should by now realize that the strategy in 2000 never included any provision for long term sustainability.

 

[darjr]

I'd like to propose an additional dimension to the discussion.

Consider Call of Cthulhu. An RPG, it has been through what, six editions now? I bet that there has been negligible change in the mechanics during that time. Most of the changes are probably in layout, art and perhaps different or expanded guidance?

Do you think D&D would work with the CoC model of editions?

Cheers

There is a lot to like about this model. In part I think some in the older D&D edition camp are trying to do exactly this. From OD&D to 3.5.

 

[TerraDave]

Getting back to the OP, RPGs are a little different, for reasons touched on in a few of these threads. Ho so?

Relative newness: 30 years may not seem new, but things like sports, fishing--as noted--board games...have been around for a lot longer. Definately a process of figuring out both what can be done in an RPG and working out many kinks...these are both issues in part due to...

Complexity: Even when they were short, the rules for D&D were longer then just about any convoluted simulationist war game. The range of activities that can be in game and can be in rules and can interact with other things is just more and more involved. Especially in a broad appeal game like D&D, which is meant to allow a lot of different people to play a lot...

Replay and scope: You can play that D&D charecter for many, many hours. That campaign can go for years, that world for decades. Issues that may not exist at certain levels, in certain situations, in certain character combinations, can arise in others. And you may not find it out for a while.

The trick to this is, as wng&swrd said, is evolution. All of the above imply a fair amount of change until the game works out a lot of issues. Some of which are still being worked out. One implication of evolution is that you are tied to the past, legacy issues get carried around like vestigal organs. Another is mistakes. Like bad mutations, some changes might not work as hoped. Finally, there is the people who use the game, and specifically D&Ds ever aging fan base, who both desire a better game but also one that they are familiar with.

The “answer”? Lots of experimentation at the margin, but true edition reboots only when needed and with real value added that reflects both lessons learned and new stuff that actually works. I don’t think any edition has quite got there. Still too much group think, designer preference, and condescension towards the fans, and yes, the problem of “we need money so lets make core books cause they sell the best”. However I do think that the game has in general gotten better, inspite of all this. It has evolved.

 

[xechnao]

That's not "winning." That's called progression.

When, at the end of an RPG session have you ever pumped your fist, looked at the other players around the table, and uttered the words, "I win!"? (Barring of course that you're playing a game that encourages player vs. player competition. It's my understanding and experience that most P&P RPGs do not.)

Well it depends what you really mean. While D&D on surface is a cooperative game, every player wants shine and so, IMO, if you look deep, D&D is a competitive game indeed. Players want to progress, to become more powerful, gain new "awesome". It is through their own "awesome" they want to achieve this, not the "awesome" of any other player. There will be moments that they will want to be generous towards other players but in you look at the whole picture, from start to finish, you will understand that players hide some very existent egoism behind the curtain.