D&D General Some Thoughts on Historical Edition Changes, and What that Portends for OneD&D

[TwoSix]

I mean, I'm a major critic of 5e and that's exactly what I've said we should expect, other than the 4e-to-Essentials jump because, as I have to say every friggin' time, Essentials WAS NOT AN EDITION CHANGE. It was not a "revision." It was not, in any way whatsoever, different from just publishing a new splatbook that has new options for existing classes.

There is no "jump" between 4e and Essentials. 4e is Essentials. Essentials is 4e. If SCAG is 5e, then Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is 4e.

Yep. Or to try to make it as general as possible, a change in design philosophy does not constitute a rules revision. The PHB2 wasn't a rules revision because they switched to A-class only design from V-class. Likewise with Essentials when they moved away from strict AEDU structure. And likewise with 5e when they started publishing races without fixed stat bonuses. Now, when they explicitly change previously existing rules to conform to the new design philosophy, like they did later on with the stat bonus change, that's when a change in philosophy actually becomes a revision.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yep. Or to try to make it as general as possible, a change in design philosophy does not constitute a rules revision. The PHB2 wasn't a rules revision because they switched to A-class only design from V-class. Likewise with Essentials when they moved away from strict AEDU structure. And likewise with 5e when they started publishing races without fixed stat bonuses. Now, when they explicitly change previously existing rules to conform to the new design philosophy, like they did later on with the stat bonus change, that's when a change in philosophy actually becomes a revision.

Hmmm. So what you're saying is that late-edition changes in design philosophy can portend the rules changes in the next edition?

I like this theory!

 

[Charlaquin]

Almost certainly, given everything they've said thus far. But will it be closer to 3e -> 3.5e (which wasn't as compatible as claimed), or 4e -> Essentials (which was)?

It depends so much on what people think of when they hear “compatible.” For many, the changes we’re seeing in the playtest packets already break compatibility. On the other end of the spectrum, WotC has said that their compatibility goal is for adventures published prior to 2024 to still be playable with the post-2024 rules, and many will consider anything that meets that bar to be compatible.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, I'm a major critic of 5e and that's exactly what I've said we should expect, other than the 4e-to-Essentials jump because, as I have to say every friggin' time, Essentials WAS NOT AN EDITION CHANGE. It was not a "revision." It was not, in any way whatsoever, different from just publishing a new splatbook that has new options for existing classes.

There is no "jump" between 4e and Essentials. 4e is Essentials. Essentials is 4e. If SCAG is 5e, then Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is 4e.

I mean, Essentials was fully playable with vanilla 4e, but it did introduce a LOT of errata, and was obviously a significant change in design direction. I agree that it couldn’t accurately be described as another edition, but I think saying there was no transition is overstating the case a bit.

 

[Voadam]

Or will 5e to OneDnD be more comparable to the half editions? 2e to 2.5 (skills and powers et al.), 3.0 to 3.5, 4e to Essentials? B/X to BECMI to RC?

I mean, I'm a major critic of 5e and that's exactly what I've said we should expect, other than the 4e-to-Essentials jump because, as I have to say every friggin' time, Essentials WAS NOT AN EDITION CHANGE. It was not a "revision." It was not, in any way whatsoever, different from just publishing a new splatbook that has new options for existing classes.

There is no "jump" between 4e and Essentials. 4e is Essentials. Essentials is 4e. If SCAG is 5e, then Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is 4e.

Except for 3.5 all the "half editions" are not significant changes that create incompatible mechanics issues.

3.5 to 3.0 was the exception though, more like AD&D to B/X. You could mix and match elements (and I did in both sets) but it took some conversion. I used 3.0, 3.5, d20 modern, Arcana Evolved, and Pathfinder 1e stuff in my d20 games with minimal conversions. I used B/X stuff in my AD&D games similarly.

You can use classes from the 2e PH and classes designed by 2e skills and powers side by side though directly even though the S&P ones could be designed to be way more powerful. They were mechanically compatible.

The incompatible differences between B/X and BECMI or RC are that thieves skills advance slower (there might be specific other differences like xp charts or whatever, but I never checked and used material from BECMI and RC era basic in my AD&D games as I had B/X stuff). I would expect to use a Merchant Prince or shaman class from the later Gazetteer series directly in a B/X game without mechanical conversion issues.

Changing the AEDU power structure was a big deal for a lot of people, changing a fundamental aspect of 4e. For others not so much. In either case you could use the mechanics side by side without mechanical incompatibility issues.

 

[TwoSix]

Hmmm. So what you're saying is that late-edition changes in design philosophy can portend the rules changes in the next edition?

I like this theory!

Oh, I definitely agree with your theory. As a side note, you can also notice that each edition update, and the changes presaging them, are strongly influenced by the overall game trends within their greater game ecosystem. D&D edition changes seem more responsive, rather than trendsetting.

2e was influenced by the mid-to-late 80s trend towards greater narrative and the desire to see the game tell a story. 3e was influenced by the crunchier games in the 90s (most especially the White Wolf line) that gave more players more authority over character building. 4e was influenced by story game design that was brought forth by internet discussion in the early to mid 00s. And 5e was influenced by the OSR forces of the early 10s.

 

[overgeeked]

2e was influenced by the mid-to-late 80s trend towards greater narrative and the desire to see the game tell a story. 3e was influenced by the crunchier games in the 90s (most especially the White Wolf line) that gave more players more authority over character building. 4e was influenced by story game design that was brought forth by internet discussion in the early to mid 00s. And 5e was influenced by the OSR forces of the early 10s.

I hope that the next edition will be influenced by the FKR. I highly doubt that will happen though. What we're seeing of the "play test" so far is more indicative of the pendulum swinging back to a more closed, rule for everything style system. More's the pity.

 

[overgeeked]

So for One D&D, you should expect that it will carry forth the design decision from Tasha's forward- and this will be completely unsurprising.

The only constant is change. Accept it. Change is neither good nor bad, it just is.

It's a good thing the WotC commando squads don't have my address so can't come to my house and take my old books.

 

[TwoSix]

I hope that the next edition will be influenced by the FKR. I highly doubt that will happen though. What we're seeing of the "play test" so far is more indicative of the pendulum swinging back to a more closed, rule for everything style system. More's the pity.

Yea, I'm not really sure where the intellectual energy is focused on right now that D&D might copy. Most of the new stuff I see are focused, specific games on itch.io or NSR-type stuff with focus on diegetic, randomized play, neither of which really fit into what D&D does.

 

[overgeeked]

Yea, I'm not really sure where the intellectual energy is focused on right now that D&D might copy. Most of the new stuff I see are focused, specific games on itch.io or NSR-type stuff with focus on diegetic, randomized play, neither of which really fit into what D&D does.

Which is funny because D&D used to only be that diegetic, randomized play...which is exactly what the OSR and NSR crowds are trying to recapture. The last edition of D&D to have any kind of focused opinion or specific goal/drive was 4E. And it think that's the last time WotC will ever do that. Focused games tend to not have big-tent audiences WotC wants. What I'm seeing is a return to overblown rules which will shrink the audience.