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]

There seems to be confusion about the difference between detailed mechanics and overall approach when it comes to editions. For my part, I don't think 5e is particularly closer at a low level to 3e or other previous editions than it is to 4e - and as this discussion has shown it's not easy to make this comparison anyway. I think on balance at that level 5e is its own thing, some similarities to previous editions, some new things.

But it's mistaken to talk about a '3e-style presentation' as if that was a superficial thing. The presentation of an RPG and the approach and play style it encourages is crucial. 5e deliberately abandoned that aspect of 4e's design and returned to what was (in my view) a presentation which often tries to obfuscate the fact that it is a game. Rules and mechanisms are submerged in text and described in real-world terms that the DM has to reinterpret at the table. Thus, talking about how one can sort of see 4e elements 'under the hood' is precisely the point: whereas 4e was explicit about how to play and how its elements interlocked (in a way that put some people off), 5e puts players into the position of having to work these things out for themselves.

I’ve never heard one person claim they would have liked 4e if not for the presentation. Have you?

Sometimes theories sound really good but are just not backed up by the available evidence.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm slowly falling into my handful of core systems, and I'll probably stay with that. Some weird sense of relief that I don't have to pursue new editions, etc. As I reach my mid 50's, it's more about getting time to play than it is new books and rules.

Yep. That sums it up nicely. When I was young, unmarried, no kids, and in school or in a much less demanding job, I was constantly buying new games. Jumping from one edition to another was no big deal as I was constantly jumping from one genre and system to another.

I just don't have that time any more and with my limited time I have far less interest in learning a new system. I have enough material to play in 5e to last me to retirement. As long as the players in my group are happy sticking with 5e, I don't see the need to change. If the new edition changes are minor tweaks, which most seem to be, I may get the books on DnD beyond if I can work changes I like into my game without having to make all my other content obsolete. If the new books are that AND improve the organization to make the books easier to use and are aesthetically interesting, I'll buy the physical books. But I feel no pressure to go buy a new edition.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. I have seen errata that were a lot more than generally swapping 1/short rest by prof bonus/long rest.
Actually we already see this in place in the goliath entry and the dragonborn entry. I'd wager that if you change second wind or action point to that new recharge timer, the fighter will still be roughly balanced.
Probably even if you just put a limit on prof bonus/long rest for shor rest recharges and leave it as is.
If you change nothing, it is not backwards compatible but just the same.

Imagine a level 20 battlemaster fighter with 12 uses of action surge per day and 6 superiority dice / short rest * 6 proficiency = 36 superiority dice to use per day under the new system. Compare that to the battlemaster fighter now who may get 4-6 uses of action surge and 12-18 superiority dice. All short rest abilities essentially double in uses at high level compared to where they are currently with this conversion. And that's also without considering the power gain from being able to front load all these abilities as desired vs having to spread them out over the day.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Imagine a level 20 battlemaster fighter with 12 uses of action surge per day and 6 superiority dice / short rest * 6 proficiency = 36 superiority dice to use per day under the new system. Compare that to the battlemaster fighter now who may get 4-6 uses of action surge and 12-18 superiority dice. All short rest abilities essentially double in uses at high level compared to where they are currently with this conversion. And that's also without considering the power gain from being able to front load all these abilities as desired vs having to spread them out over the day.

Where do you get 12-18 uses today from. Last time I checked, you could do about 18 short rests per day if you really wish...

And as I said, for x per short rest abilities, there may be a different conversion (like x uses, recharge them (prof bonus/2 rounded up or down) per long rest with a 1 to 60 min breather in between.
Still easily done.

 

[FrogReaver]

Where do you get 12-18 uses today from. Last time I checked, you could do about 18 short rests per day if you really wish...

to answer your question - that’s how many times he can use those abilities with a typical 1-2 short rest day.

Do you realize how outlandish and unreasonable this (18 short rests) comes across?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

to answer your question - that’s how many times he can use those abilities with a typical 1-2 short rest day.

Do you realize how outlandish and unreasonable this (18 short rests) comes across?

Yes. But if you decide to change to an optional rest method, it is not so unrealistic anymore.

It is also very unrealistic to say that any conversion makes it not backwards compatible.

Edit: And I bet that having recharges on a short rest could still be used in 50AE, with a hard limit of prof bonus per long rest without breaking anything.

 

[ctorus]

I’ve never heard one person claim they would have liked 4e if not for the presentation. Have you?

Sometimes theories sound really good but are just not backed up by the available evidence.

Right in this thread people were saying 5e was largely a 3e-style presentation of 4e, as an explanation for why it appealed to certain people.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you have to convert to the new thing, the new thing is not backwards compatible. To be backwards compatible, the changes have to be lateral, such that new characters D, E and F created under 5.5 are roughly equal to characters A, B and C from before the changes.

And they probably are.
And still if you can say: just take x from the old edition and divide it by 2 to get the value y for the next version, it is backwards compatible, because the function is easily applied even on the fly
(At least for most 4th graders... ).
If you played played a 3.0 adventure and they told you that 3/4 cover gives +7 AC now only gives +5 AC you deduct 2 and go on. Or if you are told to make a pick pocket check, you know that you now have to make a sleight of hand check. Or when you take your character that had chosen tough and skill focus, you can keep that character but now have to add level - 2 hp and 1 to the relevant skill check. Or if you have improved critical and a magic weapon that improves the critical range, you don't add it anymore.
You could also say, leave your character as is, it is roughly the same.
If that is not compatible for you, that is a pretty narrow definition. My opinion strongly differs from yours.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right in this thread people were saying 5e was largely a 3e-style presentation of 4e, as an explanation for why it appealed to certain people.

the claim was that people disliked 4e because of presentation.

there’s no evidence that if 4e had a 3e or 5e style presentation that anyone who disliked it would have liked it.

the fact that no one that disliked 4e is agreeing with you despite for years hearing the theories that their issue was presentation is strong evidence that their core issues go beyond presentation. If your theory held merit you’d have at least convinced some.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. But if you decide to change to an optional rest method, it is not so unrealistic anymore.

It is also very unrealistic to say that any conversion makes it not backwards compatible.

Edit: And I bet that having recharges on a short rest could still be used in 50AE, with a hard limit of prof bonus per long rest without breaking anything.

I’ve no idea what’s gotten you so enamored with proficiency bonus being important in balancing short rest and long rest abilities. It’s a terrible design choice as at high level the bonus becomes too high compared to the current system math. That’s true whether it’s prof bonus uses per day or prof bonus short rests per day. It’s just not backwards compatible design.

I could see a change giving you double or triple the number of short rest uses per long rest. But not proficiency bonus. More than likely that would not be a change but a variant rule.