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

[Minigiant]

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 think what was said, if I may put words in @mamba 's mouth, is that D&D was so in its infancy that the choices of disunified mechanics were not good ones and had no chance to be.

Not that having several different mechanics is bad. Just the ones chosen were not good or arbitrary or different for no reason/logic.

 

[Parmandur]

I think what was said, if I may put words in @mamba 's mouth, is that D&D was so in its infancy that the choices of disunified mechanics were not good ones and had no chance to be.

Not that having several different mechanics is bad. Just the ones chosen were not good or arbitrary or different for no reason/logic.

Well, no, there were reasona, grounded in Gygax's background in insurance

Different formulas apy for simulating different spreadsheet of probability. For a game, what we have with 5E is probsvly better, but...there were reasons. And plenty of people still play with those rules.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, no, there were reasona, grounded in Gygax's background in insurance

Different formulas apy for simulating different spreadsheet of probability. For a game, what we have with 5E is probsvly better, but...there were reasons. And plenty of people still play with those rules.

I didn't say none of them has reasons. I used "or"

But that's the issue A forever RPG has to be open and clear about its design goals for everything AND be designed with gaps or knobs to be added to.

1e wasn't designed to be a forever RPG. It wasthe first. RPG design didn't exist.

So designing a commercial successful forever RPG that would never need a reset would be impossible back then and even a few decades later.

Maybe...just maybe... RPG design is old enough to make a forever edition for a big static IP

But its 50 years and D&D is still working out knots and kinks.

 

[Lanefan]

Can't wait for Goblins and Gazebos

After which will come Heroes and Hellspawn...

 

[Lanefan]

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

I'd rather the math not be as prominent.

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.

Yes, and since then the math has become more and more narrow and finely tuned, IMO to the game's detriment.

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?

That depends, I think, on how clearly the roots can still be seen. One could argue that 2e is really more like 1.75, given that its 1e roots can still be clearly seen.

 

[Minigiant]

That depends, I think, on how clearly the roots can still be seen. One could argue that 2e is really more like 1.75, given that its 1e roots can still be clearly seen.

Sure. But AD&D 3e could still be created as an evolution of AD&D 2e.
Then AD&D4e.
And then AD&D5e. Which would not just be 1.9e.
They change something else. And something else. Borrowing from the successes of other RPGs and avoiding the mistakes of other RPGs.

It would eventually evolve into a new reset edition.
Because 1e wasn't 90% perfectly designed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I welcome your defense of THAC0.

No, you really don't. I had no problem with THAC0.

 

[Distracted DM]

Does it need edition resets? No.

Do I like new, completely iterative editions that aren't compatible with previous editions? Yes, because that has always resulted in something different and, in some ways, better than the last- and the last edition is still there.

An edition is born, it lives, it gets support, and then eventually support drops off.
But the game never dies.

This isn't a live service video game or an MMO. If it stops getting support, you can still play it. People still play old editions.

 

[GMMichael]

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

Sure, but the idea behind modular design is that the fundamentals, whatever they might be, generally don't change or some change while the majority stay the same. A ship isn't the best simile for this. It's more like a castle that gets built with A) the same plot of land, B) the same curtain wall, C) the same nobles in charge, D) the same dungeon where rock was mined, or some combination of these. The rest of the game/castle gets built on these parts. Maybe not the best example, but I think this is sort of how GURPS works.

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.

I'm refuting that edition changes are necessary. Mostly in light of modular design. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

D&D has the elements needed for an actual core rulebook or modules. The problem is that the rules are intertwined, so it can't really be broken out into discrete 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

Ideally, you don't put clunky parts in your major modules. But even if that happens, modular design means you can swap that out with some new rules/module without breaking the rest of the game - or dare I say it - the compatibility.

 

[haakon1]

My question is if that is in-fact a good thing? Does D&D need a clean slate ever-so-often

I think it’s a bad thing.

I think D&D should be a public trust, owned by players and creators, run for the good of the game rather than attempting to maximize income.

Like the Green Bay Packers, not like Hasbro.

My understanding is that smaller gaming companies, while not owned by their audience, are at least run by people who care about their games.