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

[Velderan]

Clearly
Obviously
Objectively

Q. What are three words no one uses correctly, Alex?

Wait, are you trying to tell me objectively doesn't actually mean "things I like" and subjectively doesn't mean "things I'd like to dismiss"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was implying that I don't believe there is one. Descending AC arose from a foolish way of viewing how defenses worked, trying to use ordinal data where cardinal data is clearly required. (You don't do calculations with ordinal data! It's literally not for that!) THAC0 arose as a kludge to avoid needing to do table lookups (or to memorize said tables) in order to continue supporting the ridiculous use of ordinals in calculations.

The game is objectively better for not using ordinal data for something that literally isn't ordinal.

Not a math guy, so I really don't know what you mean by ordinal and cardinal. All I can say is that I personally didn't have an issue with Thac0; it made sense to me. I like ascending AC too, but have no problem subtracting to see if I hit a number.

My biggest problem with AC is simply a preference for Damage Reduction.

 

[mamba]

Clearly
Obviously
Objectively

Q. What are three words no one uses correctly, Alex?

you forgot Literally

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not a math guy, so I really don't know what you mean by ordinal and cardinal. All I can say is that I personally didn't have an issue with Thac0; it made sense to me. I like ascending AC too, but have no problem subtracting to see if I hit a number.

My biggest problem with AC is simply a preference for Damage Reduction.

TL;DR since I doubt you're here for a math lesson, I'll keep it brief:

Does it make sense to add a +10 to someone's speed and say that they are now, guaranteed, second place rather than twelfth place? Or to add +1 Education to someone, so they now guaranteed go from (say) bachelor's degree to master's? I hope you would agree the answer is "no." Education and where you place in a race have a clear, ranked order (A>B>C>D etc.), but don't describe the distance between ranks. That's the issue.

Gygax took "Armor Class" too literally. He wanted "first-class armor" (AC1), "second-class armor" (AC2), etc. But you can't add some "+2 armored-ness" amount to fourth-class armor in order to make it identical to second-class armor! That's patently ridiculous, purely in terms of what information "fourth-class armor" tells you.

Instead, it's very clearly a numbered scale, like a thermometer, where we can't say that AC20 is twice as good as AC10, but we can say that it is ten "armor units" better. That's how we're able to do plus/minus math, but not times/divide.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Clearly
Obviously
Objectively

Q. What are three words no one uses correctly, Alex?

Wait, are you trying to tell me objectively doesn't actually mean "things I like" and subjectively doesn't mean "things I'd like to dismiss"?

you forgot Literally

Using ordinal numbers ("first-class armor") and yet expecting people to do sums and differences with them is straight-up contradicting the process of math. There is no productive defense of descending AC as it was articulated in early D&D. Even the mathematically easiest form of d20 calculation--what is known as "Target 20"--does not use descending AC. I, personally, don't care for Target 20 (it requires either alienating the player from direct knowledge of their success, or explicitly stating every creature's AC, something I prefer not to do), but I can recognize that it is objectively the easiest and most intuitive calculation proper, all else being equal.

 

[Distracted DM]

Need? No. I could still run great games using the AD&D Rules.

Benefit from? Yes. 5E is a far superior game to AD&D. That is due to evolution. However, not every change is an improvement, and each generation allows them to fix errors made in a prior generation. Further, as technology evolves, and access to new gaming tools exists, new editions allow them to better rely upon the technology and resources of the day.

I could play 5E until my dying day and be content. It is my hope that the next edition will be truly compatible with it and include refinements that allow us to fix a few of the elements that would benefit from a tweak - but until we see the edition, we will not know if that is the case.

For things to be compatible, they can't deviate very far from the origin source- if everything had stayed compatible with AD&D, we wouldn't have arrived at 5e.

I think you're saying that 5e is a good place for you- but you're also saying "this is good for me, thanks evolution you can stop now." I guess that's fine and dandy for you, but I'm sure there were folk that thought the same about each edition of D&D.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Using ordinal numbers ("first-class armor") and yet expecting people to do sums and differences with them is straight-up contradicting the process of math. There is no productive defense of descending AC as it was articulated in early D&D. Even the mathematically easiest form of d20 calculation--what is known as "Target 20"--does not use descending AC. I, personally, don't care for Target 20 (it requires either alienating the player from direct knowledge of their success, or explicitly stating every creature's AC, something I prefer not to do), but I can recognize that it is objectively the easiest and most intuitive calculation proper, all else being equal.

There are two proper uses of objective, neither of you used in the example sentence ("objectively better").

First, you can use in the sense of attempting to achieve neutrality- to try and view something in an unbiased way. A judge or a journalist might strive to be objective (not influenced by their own personal opinions). Whether they can achieve that is debatable, but it's a laudable goal.

The second use is when you can use an outside referent. For example, if you are measuring heat, you can say that Object A at 300 degrees kelvin is objectively hotter than Object B at 250 degrees kelvin.

Protip- if you're unable to come up with a common agreed-upon unit to measure the two things, you cannot compare them objectively. In addition, any use of the term with "better" or "worse" (objectively better or objectively worse) will always be incorrect.

If you can come up with an outside referent for you claim that something is "easiest" or "better" then you're welcome to it. Preferable in metric units.

You're welcome.

 

[Lanefan]

TL;DR since I doubt you're here for a math lesson, I'll keep it brief:

Does it make sense to add a +10 to someone's speed and say that they are now, guaranteed, second place rather than twelfth place? Or to add +1 Education to someone, so they now guaranteed go from (say) bachelor's degree to master's? I hope you would agree the answer is "no." Education and where you place in a race have a clear, ranked order (A>B>C>D etc.), but don't describe the distance between ranks. That's the issue.

Gygax took "Armor Class" too literally. He wanted "first-class armor" (AC1), "second-class armor" (AC2), etc. But you can't add some "+2 armored-ness" amount to fourth-class armor in order to make it identical to second-class armor! That's patently ridiculous, purely in terms of what information "fourth-class armor" tells you.

Instead, it's very clearly a numbered scale, like a thermometer, where we can't say that AC20 is twice as good as AC10, but we can say that it is ten "armor units" better. That's how we're able to do plus/minus math, but not times/divide.

That it's a numbered scale (no argument there) has no bearing on whether those numbers go up or down in order to represent improvement in one's defenses.

I can't remember ever having to multiply or divide armour units in any form. Plus and minus is all it needs.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't think RPGS need resets, but I do think allowing rules to evolve is important, and I think WotC is going in the right direction with their OneD&D project, which replaces hard resets with ongoing evolution.

The reason allowing RPGs to evolve is important is because these are social imagination games, and they need to be able to change with the times. They are also immensely complex, so allowing them to evolve will make them fitter, in terms of being able to adapt to their changing social environment and colonize more brains.

The "hard reset" model of D&D editions wasn't really driven by design imperatives. It was driven by a legal dispute over the ownership of the game, and then evolved into a way to periodically juice sales.

 

[Distracted DM]

I don't think RPGS need resets, but I do think allowing rules to evolve is important, and I think WotC is going in the right direction with their OneD&D project, which replaces hard resets with ongoing evolution.

The reason allowing RPGs to evolve is important is because these are social imagination games, and they need to be able to change with the times. They are also immensely complex, so allowing them to evolve will make them fitter, in terms of being able to adapt to their changing social environment and colonize more brains.

The "hard reset" model of D&D editions wasn't really driven by design imperatives. It was driven by a legal dispute over the ownership of the game, and then evolved into a way to periodically juice sales.

I'd love a reason to think otherwise, but isn't OneD&D's idea of "fifth edition forever" stifling further evolution and experimentation? They can add systems for things, like bastions etc, but for things to stay backwards-compatible that means no new design-challenging ideas.

Sure, one reason OD&D to AD&D happened because of IP rights.. but every new edition, even if it's to "juice sales," results in a very different game. 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e. That's how we got where we are, new editions. New ideas.