RPG Evolution: The Half-Edition Shuffle

The next edition of Dungeons & Dragons is finally on the horizon, but it's not here just yet. So when do publishers makes the shift?

A Historical Model​

D&D has been through several editions in recent memory, but few match the recent transition between two compatible editions. Although backwards compatibility is often promised, it's rarely delivered. And there's also the consideration of the thousands of small press publishers created through the Open Game License movement, which didn't exist before Third Edition. Of all the edition shifts, the 3.0 to 3.5 transition seems closest to what D&D is going through right now, so it's a good place to start this thought experiment.

Compatible, Sort Of​

Fifth Edition's transition to Sixth involves tweaks to the game. Those tweaks seemed largely cosmetic, at first. With the release of Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, it's clear that the spellcasting section of monsters is going to be significantly changed. In short, while players may find their characters compatible with the latest edition of D&D, DMs may find their monsters aren't. And that's a problem for publishers. But mechanically, all of these issues can be addressed. What really matters is what customers think. And that's often shaped by branding.

What a Half-Edition Means​

The transition between Third Edition and 3.5 was more significant than many publishers were expecting. You can see a list on RPG Stack Exchange, which shows just how much the new edition changed the game.

This did not go unnoticed by consumers. The OGL movement was still developing but it caught many publishers by surprise, including the company I wrote for at the time, Monkeygod Publishing (they're no longer in business). When we released my hardcover book Frost & Fur, the only identifier was the D20 System logo. Little did we know that it was imperative to identify the book as 3.5-compatible (which it was), because stores wouldn't carry it and consumers wouldn't buy it if it wasn't.

There wasn't nearly as much communication from WIzards of the Coast back then as to how to prepare for the edition change, much less columns from the company explaining their strategy. More communication about the upcoming edition may mitigate its impact on third-party publishers.

Between the DM's Guild and DriveThruRPG, there is now an ecosystem that can more readily update itself without taking up shelf space or clogging up inventory. Digital products can be changed, covers can be rebranded, and newsletters can announce the update. Wizards of the Coast has also given considerable lead time on the coming changes by announcing the edition well in advance and updating books piecemeal so developers can see what changed. But there's still one important piece of the puzzle.

What Do Consumers Think?​

One of the ongoing concerns for supporting publishers of Third Edition was how the Open Game License would be updated and, at least as important, how to identify that compatibility.

Updating the OGL enables publishers to ensure their products are compatible. The OGL doesn't specify stat block structure, so it may not even be necessary to update the license much if at all.

Identifying compatibility will be even more critical. At some point, publishers will start identifying their products as Sixth Edition compatible. And that will happen when consumers shift their spending habits.

The Changeover​

But first, WOTC has to declare that Sixth Edition has officially arrived. Wizards was hesitant to put a number on Fifth Edition, preferring instead to indicate it was simply D&D to potentially head off edition controversy. Failure to do that in a timely fashion (or worse, failure to recognize a new edition at all and continue calling it Fifth Edition) will cause potential confusion in the marketplace, with both consumers and publishers.

At some point the tide will turn and consumers will expect compatibility with the new edition. That change is complicated by the fact that Sixth Edition should be largely compatible with Fifth Edition. But only consumers can decide that for sure; if they don't feel it is, there will be a sharp drop off in Fifth Edition buying habits. For smaller publishers, they'll stay close to the market to determine when that shift is happening and how to transition smoothly without harming their business model.

Getting it right can be lucrative. Getting it wrong can sink a company. The market convulsed massively when 3.5 came out, wiping out publishers and game store stock that were unprepared for the change. Here's hoping with enough foresight and planning, we don't have a repeat of the 3.0 transition.

 

[FrogReaver]

And the presentation is essential for an RPG. If you can sneak in modern game design and pass it as old school, it is gold (as proven by 5e).

Unless you are just referencing the overall push to simplification, I’m not really sure what mechanics in 5e point to a modern design?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Unless you are just referencing the overall push to simplification, I’m not really sure what mechanics in 5e point to a modern design?

D20 mechanics, unified progression. If you mean that with simplification, then yes. Exactly that.

Around year 2000, board games had rules that were so complex that it took hours to just explain them.
2020, you can have a similar game experience with a lot simpler rule system.

 

[FrogReaver]

D20 mechanics, unified progression. If you mean that with simplification, then yes. Exactly that.

Around year 2000, board games had rules that were so complex that it took hours to just explain them.
2020, you can have a similar game experiwnce with a lot simpler rule system.

D20 mechanics and unified progression apply to 3e as well (outside a few notable exceptions).

Or am I mistaken?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

D20 mechanics and unified progression apply to 3e as well (outside a few notable exceptions).

Or am I mistaken?

Yes,you are:
BAB scales differently for different classes, Saving throws scale differntly than BAB, DC scales differently than saving throws, skill too. Different spellcasters had different progression (Sorcerer/Wizard), although here 5e has still some flaws (looking at you sorcerer and pact magic).

Prof bonus more or less unfies everything as half level did in 4e. One spelcasting chart works for all classes except warlocks by simply dividing level by 1, 2 or 3, which easily enables multiclassing.

If warlocks would fit in better and if subclasses would all give benefits at the same level, design would be even better. But I guess the intentionally didn´t do that, because 4e got so much flag because "every class was the same with different dress", and maybe also because at that time they were not sure what the right level is or did not have te right answer to which level subclass abilities make the most sense.
(My take: level 2/6/10/14 and 18, I would also make level 2 the "starting level").

 

[Voadam]

They did do that - it's called 5e. They just threw out even more than 13th age did. If they'd included a more tactical engine for the game the similarities would be more obvious but the core game for 5e has a lot more in common with the core of 4e than of any other edition prior to it. The presentation of 5e is much more like 3e - had they released 4e with a presentation format more like 5e it probably would have had less pushback (the math on the first MM and the GSL likely would have still killed a lot of interest IMO tho).

ducks and runs for cover

5e seems a lot more 3e than 4e to me.

Class design with vancian casting and different progressions for powers and subclass abilities seems more 3e than 4e AEDU or 4e unified add on points of paragon paths and epic destinies.

Classes without designing mechanics for specific combat roles seems more 3e than 4e.

PC HD and Hp seems straight out of 3e and not 4e.

Fewer PC and monster movement powers seem more 3e than 4e.

Multiclassing seems more 3e than 4e.

5e Saving throws seem closer in mechanics to 3e saves expanded out to all stats than to 4e set defences.

Hit Dice healing between combats with no integration into spells seems more like the optional 3.5 reserve points mechanic than 4e where healing surges were tightly bound up into magical/class power in combat major healing.

No explicit minion, elite, solo monster design seems more 3e than 4e. Legendary and lair actions start to come into 4e solo territory a little, but overall monsters seem more 3e to me.

Proficiency bonus on attacks instead of BAB and set save DC is debatable on whether it feels closer to 3e or 4e IMO.

Skills seem more 4e binary choices than 3e points.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes,you are:
BAB scales differently for different classes, Saving throws scale differntly than BAB, DC scales differently than saving throws, skill too. Different spellcasters had different progression (Sorcerer/Wizard), although here 5e has still some flaws (looking at you sorcerer and pact magic).

Prof bonus more or less unfies everything as half level did in 4e. One spelcasting chart works for all classes except warlocks by simply dividing level by 1, 2 or 3, which easily enables multiclassing.

If warlocks would fit in better and if subclasses would all give benefits at the same level, design would be even better. But I guess the intentionally didn´t do that, because 4e got so much flag because "every class was the same with different dress", and maybe also because at that time they were not sure what the right level is or did not have te right answer to which level subclass abilities make the most sense.
(My take: level 2/6/10/14 and 18, I would also make level 2 the "starting level").

BAB scaled almost identically for the following groupings: primary/secondary/non-fightery classes. to me that feels much more like an example of unified progression than not one.

sorcerer was specifically made to be an exception to how spell progression normally worked.

saving throws scaled differently than BAB but they were still mostly unified between greater and lesser saves.

I look at those mechanics and see a lot more unified progression than not.

5e has a bit more yes. But there was alotnof unified progression that happened in 3e and 3e doesn’t qualify under modern design principles IMO.

personally I think they’ve went a little to far in the unified progression direction. It can be overused IMO.

 

[Jer]

5e seems a lot more 3e than 4e to me.

It worked then - they were trying to package up their mechanics in a 3e framework to get people to reconsider the game.

But if you look from where Essentials had the game to where 5e did (instead of the 4e core rules) you see a lot more similarities than differences in how the class mechanics work EXCEPT in presentation. Essentials weakened the AEDU idea across classes and had classes that had only at-will/encounter powers.

A lot of the differences you indicate come from halving the power curve - the so-called "bounded accuracy" which means that the math for 5e works out to where a 20th level character in 5e has "roughly" the bonuses for a 10th level character in 4e. And actually that math isn't even quite correct because 1st level 5e characters start at a lower power level than 4e characters did. They also separated out AC defense and made them NOT improve directly with level. That changes the needs for things like minions because you don't need to explicitly call them out to get them - throw a squad of low AC 5 hp monsters at a 5th level party and you get minions. You needed explicit minion rules in 4e because of the power scale and because AC progressed at the same rate as attack bonuses. Untying AC from level means that you can throw a "level 1" monster (in 4e parlance) at a 5th level party and it will act like a minion - dying quickly but still potentially able to do some damage. A level 1 monster in 4e terms would be likely to miss their attacks every time, which is why you needed the scaled up minions with more attack bonus but not so much in the hp department. And the legendary and solo actions for monsters come squarely out of 4e monster design - one of the best parts of the 5e MM as a DM IMO.

They also hid the AEDU mechanics better in natural language text and put wizard superiority back into the game and that second part is a nod to 3e, but the classes are designed much in a daily/short-rest/at-will mechanic selection than folks think (in fact most of the pushback on short rest abilities tends to be because of how they kept hat format but changed the resting mechanics without considering what that meant for the rest of the game).

The various subclasses are designed for specific combat roles if you play with people who optimize - it's just not as noticable because they don't tell you outright how the classes are "supposed" to be played and so you have the 3e thrill of discovering an optimal build that the designers hid there instead of the 4e experience of having the designers not hide it in the first place. Also losing the tactical system means its less noticable that certain classes are playing certain roles (also the misguided attempt to create a "Controller" role for the wizard class was dropped - that role never made sense. The Wizard should have been a half Support/half Striker role but they hadn't gotten the idea of half roles when the edition dropped yet).

Saving throws just move back from fixed bonus to variable bonus and the math is scaled down to 5e levels. Mathematically there's not a real difference between having 10+1/4 level Fortitude Defense vs. rolling a d20 + 1/4 CON defense. It's swingier and might make for a more exciting game feel to make a save rather than have a defense but the explicit tying of your saving throws to the same bonus progression regardless of the type of save is absolutely a 4e thing, not a 3e thing where every save had its own progression. (Also you can see the effect of the changes of scale and the lower power level by the fact that they made it 8+prof bonus for saves instead of 10).

(Also to reveal my bias - IMO 5e saving throws are the single worst aspect to the entire game. Expanding from 3 saving throws to 6 saving throws was a bad move and then having skill checks as well as saving throws for many things makes for annoying rules calls. If anything were to lead me to ask for a 6th edition it would be to remove ability score saving throws from the game).

Everyone having the same attack bonus of +1/4 level +1 feels a lot more like 4e's +1/2 level attack bonus than 3e's variable bonsues across classes as well.

 

[Oofta]

They did do that - it's called 5e. They just threw out even more than 13th age did. If they'd included a more tactical engine for the game the similarities would be more obvious but the core game for 5e has a lot more in common with the core of 4e than of any other edition prior to it.

I agree with this...

The presentation of 5e is much more like 3e - had they released 4e with a presentation format more like 5e it probably would have had less pushback (the math on the first MM and the GSL likely would have still killed a lot of interest IMO tho).

ducks and runs for cover

But not this. Unless by "presentation" you mean not putting everyone in the same square hole of AEDU powers and had instead come out with something like essentials out of the gate. From what I've read they were given too short a deadline to do what they really wanted, AEDU was supposed to just be for a subset of classes, not everyone. We'll never know now of course.

 

[Jer]

I agree with this...


But not this. Unless by "presentation" you mean not putting everyone in the same square hole of AEDU powers and had instead come out with something like essentials out of the gate. From what I've read they were given too short a deadline to do what they really wanted, AEDU was supposed to just be for a subset of classes, not everyone. We'll never know now of course.

That's what I mean actually. If they'd hidden the mechanics better and thought carefully about the whole "daily power" issue and then presented the game without the green and red and black boxed powers (which aesthetically turned a lot of people off - I like the game and I don't like those color choices or that presentation style) I think it would have gone over much better. GSL still would have killed it IMO, and the higher power level of starting characters might have also driven enough people away to make them consider an early 5th edition release anyway.

A version of 4e where everyone has at-will and encounter powers by default but wizards have "daily" power that they use instead of encounter powers and where the language is cleaned up so that the word "power" is never used as a general term at all would have had more buy-in I think. It also would have looked a lot more like Essentials did.

(Also as I said above - they needed to do a serious redesign rethink on what a "Controller" class was. They eventually came up with something that worked, but having an ill-defined role for the Wizard - one of the more important classes in the game - was a really bad misstep for buy in as well).

 

[FrogReaver]

That's what I mean actually. If they'd hidden the mechanics better and thought carefully about the whole "daily power" issue and then presented the game without the green and red and black boxed powers (which aesthetically turned a lot of people off - I like the game and I don't like those color choices or that presentation style) I think it would have gone over much better. GSL still would have killed it IMO, and the higher power level of starting characters might have also driven enough people away to make them consider an early 5th edition release anyway.

A version of 4e where everyone has at-will and encounter powers by default but wizards have "daily" power that they use instead of encounter powers and where the language is cleaned up so that the word "power" is never used as a general term at all would have had more buy-in I think. It also would have looked a lot more like Essentials did.

IMO the issues such people had with 4e weren’t about presentation. Such assertions dismiss their actual stated issues.