I don't want 5E, I want a definitive D&D (the Monopoly model)

[Orius]

I understand what the OP is saying, or at least trying to say. I tried running a 3.5 game recently and felt frustrated with how optional stuff from 3.0 was rereleased in 3.5 across a number of new splats. My books are 3.0, and while I can use the SRD with no problem for the core rules, using optional material from splats was more difficult, because there were places where stuff had been changed just a little bit. They're not big huge changes, but it's enough to affact game mechanics just a little bit.

Then there's the moderately extensive 2e library I have. A lot of material there, but it's not all immediately portable to 3e because of edition changes. A good deal of the stuff did get converted to 3e over the years, but the stuff is scattered throughout many different rulebooks, and in some cases, the 3.0/3.5 split raises its ugly head once again. It doesn't help that I like a lot of the 2e flavor but prefer the structure of 3e's rules.

But I agree with what other have already said in this thread about a One True Edition: it' not going happen. You got the 4e crowd and the 3.x/PF crowd who hate each other's games. You got the old-school crowd who hates anything that's newer than AD&D. You got the Basic crowd that doesn't want to mess with the more complicated stuff. And finally there's diaglo. Unfortunately, these splits were built into D&D long ago when the Basic and AD&D lines were allowed to evolve independantly of each other. WotC didn't make things any better with the releases of 3.5 and 4e either (some gamers seeing 3.5 as nothing but a money grab, and 4e's promotion alienating some hardcore 3.5 fans).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I sympathise, but no one is stopping anyone from playing older editions, or retroclones of those older editions, some of which are free online.

I started using a retroclone this year because I knew 90% of the rules already, and I knew it would provide the broadest possible baseline for new and returning players. The experienced players adjust quickly to whatever small changes have been made (like ascending AC) and the new players don't care ... they just want a game they can quickly pick up, get a character generated and then go kill things and take their stuff.

Oh and the planned obsolescence curve is even faster with video & console games. Tabletop RPGS are a model of stability compared to them.

I don't think it is simply a matter of people wanting to buy used editions on-line (i think want to play something that is actively supported and generally popular enough that it is easy to get a game off the ground). But I have to say I agree with the OP's sentiments. Most other RPGs I play don't change this much from edition to edition (and D&D didn't change this drastically between editions). I think the problem, for me as a consumer, is the whole approach wizards has been taking to the game is just like the OP says lacking in stability. The problem with radical changes each edition is it totally misreads what customers want. Customers don't buy your product because it is constantly being redesigned. They buy because they like the current version. I am personally not interested in what a company's designers can do to wow me with their innovations. If I find a system I like, I'd pretty much like it to stay the way it is with minor adjustments for broken mechanics or unforseen problems.

 

[BryonD]

There is one big difference in the Football / Monopoly comparison.

Everyone agrees that Football is a sport but no version of Football has ever been confused for Baseball or called Baseball. Every tweak of Football has remained unquestionably not just still "a sport" but distinctly "football".

And every change to Monopoly has remained a board game, but never a board game that would be confused for Chutes and Ladders or even one that would not be readily recognized as Monopoly.

There are a lot of different sports and a lot of different board games. But individual examples within each remain distinct, even with perpetual tweaks.

There are also a lot of RPGs. GURPS and 1E D&D are as different as baseball and football. Yes, they are both obviously RPGs just as football and baseball are obviously sports. And yet in neither case would the two be confused for one another.

And 3E and 4E are also just as different. The problem is they have the same freaking name. You don't repackage Chutes and Ladders in a Monopoly Box and call it the new version of Monopoly.

And if you did and found yourself having trouble trying to figure out how to go forward, trying to find a unified Monopoly/Chutes and Ladders game would be among the worst of possible solutions.

And this exact same issue was true when 3E replaced 2E. I think there were other factors that made this issue vastly less relevant that time, but no less true.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And 3E and 4E are also just as different. The problem is they have the same freaking name. You don't repackage Chutes and Ladders in a Monopoly Box and call it the new version of Monopoly.

Actually... 3E and 4E are NOT as different from each other as GURPS and 4E. Not even close.

And your analogy breaks down when we point out that there have been dozens upon dozens of Trivial Pursuit games... almost all of which have the same name but are different because of the the different categories. Clue and Clue: Master Detective have the same base name but are different both in board and add-ons to the game. There are over a dozen different Risk games, all of which have different maps, different playing pieces, and different strategies. You take a Magic: The Gathering deck from the '90s and compare it to decks from today, and you'll see different powers and rules and you'll think to yourself "what the hell is all this"? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do all of these games have the same basic structure to each other? Sure. But 3E and 4E both have the same basic structure to each other as well (6 abilities scores grant modifiers that you add to a d20 roll and try to surpass a target number given by the DM. And these numbers can be modified by feats and character features selected by the player, or by enviromental aspects in the game world. That's it.

Are there a lot of other things layered on top of this that separate 3E and 4E? Sure. But at the barest minimum, as DM you tell a player sitting at the table when to roll a d20 and point to a couple things on his character sheet to add to that die roll... he'll be able to play 3E and 4E pretty well both ways.

 

[Bullgrit]

I, too, would love for there to be a "Definitive D&D," but the possibility of it has long since died, was cremated, and its ashes scattered. Gygax intended AD&D1 to be the "Definitive D&D." And it was already technically the third edition of the game, (without counting all the supplemental material for OD&D). It was far from perfect, even for its own purpose and style, and so it was constantly, even from the very beginning, getting tweaked and changed from its definitiveness. (Hell, even Gygax, himself, didn't play by his definitive rules.)

D&D, as a genre, is just too big and variable. People use it to play in so many different, (and even sometimes contradictory), styles. Comparing it to the game of football, it's like if every high school played only within themselves and had their own hacked version of football -- some may look and be very close to the core football game, but others use bases, or hurdles, or live ammunition.

Basically, it comes down to the truth that you can't create and maintain a definitive game rule system for "let's pretend."

Bullgrit

 

[BryonD]

Actually... 3E and 4E are NOT as different from each other as GURPS and 4E. Not even close.

There are fans of both football and baseball who are equally happy playing either. That doesn't make them the same.

In my personal opinion, GURPS and 3E are CLOSER to each other than 4E is to either.

And your analogy breaks down when we point out that there have been dozens upon dozens of Trivial Pursuit games... almost all of which have the same name but are different because of the the different categories.

Um, no.

Every edition of trivial pursuit works by moving around the board to land on spaces to answer questions in order to collect pie wedges.
Yes, the FLAVOR of the game changes, but the game itself is identical.

Going from 3E to Arcana Unearthed would be equivalent to using a different theme of questions.

Clue and Clue: Master Detective have the same base name but are different both in board and add-ons to the game. There are over a dozen different Risk games, all of which have different maps, different playing pieces, and different strategies.

And they all have distinctly different names. I'm not familiar with Clue:Master Detective. But I note it is not called "Clue 2nd Edition". It isn't a new edition, it is a different game in the same thematic family.

There is no confusion over Dungeons and Dragons Wrath of Ashardalon being confused with or expected to be "Dungeons and Dragons" despite those words being right there in the name.

None of the examples are presented as replacements or new version of the original game.

You take a Magic: The Gathering deck from the '90s and compare it to decks from today, and you'll see different powers and rules and you'll think to yourself "what the hell is all this"? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

No, it really isn't even close to the tip of anything.

I could make a 3X character using splat books from late in the edition and the differences would be just as big as the differences between 1990s MTG and modern MTG. Maybe slightly less just because of the amount of time involved. But in both cases you are talking about a core game system that was designed with evolving modular details anticipated from day 1. But that core game system persists. MTG is still recognizable as MTG and no player will ever confuse it for Pokeman. And if WotC announced that Rather than expansion X they were going to Edition 2, and using a new core system, that would be the same thing.

Do all of these games have the same basic structure to each other? Sure. But 3E and 4E both have the same basic structure to each other as well (6 abilities scores grant modifiers that you add to a d20 roll and try to surpass a target number given by the DM. And these numbers can be modified by feats and character features selected by the player, or by enviromental aspects in the game world. That's it.

That comes so far from actually describing the differences in the games it isn't even close to reasonable.

Both football and baseball are the same because they involve a team of guys using a ball on a grassy field to try to score more points. WRONG

Are there a lot of other things layered on top of this that separate 3E and 4E? Sure. But at the barest minimum, as DM you tell a player sitting at the table when to roll a d20 and point to a couple things on his character sheet to add to that die roll... he'll be able to play 3E and 4E pretty well both ways.

I'm not talking about "able to play".

The experience is VASTLY different and 3E vs. 4E is (A) WAY covered elsewhere and (B) way outside of the topic of this thread. But if you are still stuck in the no difference mindset you would be better off revisiting those threads first.

If there really was no meaningful difference, this thread would not exist in the first place.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

I'm curious how you reconcile this;

We all play the same game with about a 1% difference between the editions/spinoffs/clones in what the actual game is.

If we are all playing the same game with such minor differences haven't we reached your 'eternal edition' already?

That could have been stated better. The game always boils down to the same thing, heroes battling monsters, roleplaying, improvising and rolling a twenty-sided dice. So in that sense if you're playing 1E, PF or 4E we're all playing what is essentially the same game. In my eyes it doesn't matter if you're rolling a dexterity check or if your reflex defense is being attacked, you're still dodging a fireball. That common experience is more important than how you get there.

The rules are just different enough to make the games incompatible and require purchasing new materials. People shouldn't have to learn a new way to dodge a fireball every 10 years. For many the game is inherently nostalgic and they don't have the time or patience to relearn new rules. I think this pushes a lot of casual gamers away from the game. They figure out that the very complex rules they learned a decade ago have changed dramatically with a new 250 page rulebook that's totally incompatible with the one they grew up with. I just want to be in the dungeon dodging fireballs, I don't really care how I get there. Yeah, I do have preferences, but they tend to be influenced by which systems I've already spent money on and learned.

Sure we can all buy the old editions. The problem is that everyone has to agree on which edition to invest in and learn all the nuanced details of.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

And your analogy breaks down when we point out that there have been dozens upon dozens of Trivial Pursuit games... almost all of which have the same name but are different because of the the different categories. Clue and Clue: Master Detective have the same base name but are different both in board and add-ons to the game. There are over a dozen different Risk games, all of which have different maps, different playing pieces, and different strategies. You take a Magic: The Gathering deck from the '90s and compare it to decks from today, and you'll see different powers and rules and you'll think to yourself "what the hell is all this"? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Actually I think MTG is a great analogy - it's just about exactly what I want. I played between 1995 and 1998. When I bump into a player I still borrow a deck and pick it up and play. Sure there's a ton of new strategies and mechanics, and I'd be unable to make a tournament deck or use my old cards in competitive play. But that's fine, I can still pick up and play the game with any other player whose played MTG. Like D&D it's a complex and expensive game to learn, but once you get past that you don't have to spend a lot of money on new rulebooks or time learning nuanced new rules.

So when I'm sixty-five, if MTG is still played (and it very well may be), it would be nice to share that game with a grandson. However if he's onto the next thing (as reality would suggest), well, I'll be older and slower and unable to grasp a new complex game. He'll try to teach me 12th edition D&D, I won't master all the new rules, he won't want to take the time to learn my old game, and that just sucks.

My point is deep and complex games like D&D and Magic don't need to constantly alter their foundation. Magic is essentially the same game about mana and spells and summoning armies and innovative card combinations and it's still fresh, appeals to multiple age groups now that play together, and incredibly successful. All normal MTG cards are compatible with each other (yeah, their are some exceptions, but that's largely besides the point). Anyone that's ever learned Magic should be able to pick it up again and play casually with anyone else that's ever learned Magic, regardless of when they started with the game. The new mechanics are clearly explained on the cards in terms that should be understandable by anyone who understands the enduring foundation of the game.

It's all about barriers to entry to casual play. Once we've learned D&D we shouldn't have to relearn it, but we do. Changes to the foundation of Football, Magic, Trivial Pursuit, Monopoly, etc., are so small that they don't divide their respective communities, require significant financial and time commitments to learn. The foundation of D&D changes dramatically and constantly. You have to be very committed to stick with it.

 

[Nikosandros]

I think that D&D is somewhat unusual among RPG's in that it has vast differences in rules between editions. So, I can sort of see how one would like "stable" version that could ensure greater compatibility across groups and with the huge library of published material.

However, personally, I wouldn't bee too happy about such a situation. Despite the fact that AD&D is my favorite edition, I'm very glad for the existence of both 3.x/PF and 4e. Not only this means that I have more variety with two more different (and IMHO quite good) "variants" of D&D that I can play, but the "evolution" in design has given me plenty of ideas that I can port in some way or another when playing previous versions.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Have you ever played Monopoly? I used to think it was a great board game back when I didn't know any board games. Now I play board games that I like a lot better, like Goa, Agricola, etc.

Would the OP be fine with if D&D when with a Monopoly type business model, and it basis it used was the edition you hated the most?