D&D General Does D&D (and RPGs in general) Need Edition Resets?

[Laurefindel]

You have to design the core to be modular and open with the math to know how the modules and variants mesh.

The problem was RPGs didn't have purposely designed mechanics or math way back when. They were heavily designed on what "felt right" to the designers.

That's why D&D and RPGs need edition resets. Design "by the Feels" is very likely to not be eternal. So you'll have to cut and swap things out with time.

Then "Ship of Theseus". If you replace almost everything, is it not a new edition?

I may be wrong, but I dont think anyone is refuting that edition changes and evolution of a game is necessary, but rather the hard reset «this is a whole new set of rules» type of reedition. D&D to AD&D to 2e AD&D are closer to natural evolution than the jumps to 3.x to 4e to 5e, for example.

 

[Minigiant]

I may be wrong, but I dont think anyone is refuting that edition changes and evolution of a game is necessary, but rather the hard reset «this is a whole new set of rules» type of reedition. D&D to AD&D to 2e AD&D are closer to natural evolution than the jumps to 3.x to 4e to 5e, for example.

My point is that the 1st edition of any RPG of the old days of early RPGs is rarely good enough that they got all enough of the rules right that you can get away with only slight revisions.

AKA TTRPGS is still too young a genre for 1st editions to good enough to not need a reset in a new edition. Especially TTRPGs from the earliest days.

AKA TTRPG first drafts will likely have a ton of stuff that needs to be fixed or completely changed,

 

[MerricB]

My point is that the 1st edition of any RPG of the old days of early RPGs is rarely good enough that they got all enough of the rules right that you can get away with only slight revisions.

AKA TTRPGS is still too young a genre for 1st editions to good enough to not need a reset in a new edition. Especially TTRPGs from the earliest days.

AKA TTRPG first drafts will likely have a ton of stuff that needs to be fixed or completely changed,

Indeed.

And AD&D 2E when it finished was about as they could take the system. It was, by that time, a mess of systems.

Consider these resolution systems:
Thieves' skills - d%, roll under skill
Non-Weapon Proficiencies - d20, roll under ability score with modifier
Attack rolls - roll high, based on calculation/table

The idea that a game can go forever certainly was challenged by Pathfinder (meaning the 3E reset of the rules went for a couple of decades), but eventually even it was no longer viable.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[mamba]

See above. I don't know that you can say DRPGs got objectively better,

well, I am saying it anyway, newer games have objectively better mechanics than 1e. There is still plenty of room for differences in flavor, but the mechanics of 1e are clearly bad by today’s standards.

because that's an opinion. They sure did become objectively different.

I’d like to see someone argue how the many disjunct pieces of 1e with roll high, roll low, roll d20, roll percentage (thief) is objectively better than a homogenized approach like the one in 3e / 5e

I'd like to suggest that D&D could have kept its roots for the long run - no new editions needed - if it started off with modular rules-design. (Haven't the adventures always been called "modules?" )

not sure that would work well, sounds more like you phase out the old parts with new ones without calling it an edition change - or you are stuck to the clunky parts forever and just pile onto them

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The point is that it was established precedent and there's no good reason to overturn it. Put it this way- if the Elemental Plane of Fire is just a hot version of the Prime, what sets it apart? Having a "graduated" EPoF like in 5e is the best of both worlds and is a good example of integrating, rather than overwriting, old lore with the new.

Plenty of good reason. You have literally condemned it worse than I have. If all it takes is a reliable spell or two to make it perfectly safe for adventure, it already is "a hot version of the Prime." It's just a hot version with "wizard explores Plane of Fire with ONE WEIRD TRICK (EFREET HATE HIM).”

 

[Micah Sweet]

well, I am saying it anyway, newer games have objectively better mechanics than 1e. There is still plenty of room for differences in flavor, but the mechanics of 1e are clearly bad by today’s standards.


I’d like to see someone argue how the many disjunct pieces of 1e with roll high, roll low, roll d20, roll percentage (thief) is objectively better than a homogenized approach like the one in 3e / 5e


not sure that would work well, sounds more like you phase out the old parts with new ones without calling it an edition change - or you are stuck to the clunky parts forever and just pile onto them

You realize your claim here is that anyone who doesn't think a universal mechanic like 3e-5e is better than what was done before (or anywhere else, for that matter) is objectively wrong? That's what you want to say here?

 

[Campbell]

I don't think they are needed beyond if you are going to pay designers to make supplements they are going to design stuff and eventually naturally want to address the base game. You could take a more design more games approach, but that can be a harder sell in terms of marketing.

I am thankful for it because it means I have so many different options. I like that I can choose to run Classic Vampire The Masquerade, VtM 5th Edition or Requiem Second Edition and deliver different experiences to players. The same for D&D 4e, Pathfinder Second Edition and B/X. I tend to view and approach different iterations of the same game as different games. I don't need to run or play what's current. A different take is just another option.

 

[MGibster]

I think there comes a point where there are so many "current" books that a new customer might be confused over which one they should buy.

 

[mamba]

You realize your claim here is that anyone who doesn't think a universal mechanic like 3e-5e is better than what was done before (or anywhere else, for that matter) is objectively wrong? That's what you want to say here?

for things that are basically the same, yes. No need to use d100 roll-under for one skill check and d20 roll-over for another, based on which skill it is

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You realize your claim here is that anyone who doesn't think a universal mechanic like 3e-5e is better than what was done before (or anywhere else, for that matter) is objectively wrong? That's what you want to say here?

I welcome your defense of THAC0.