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

[EzekielRaiden]

I see what you mean, but I am not sure the trajectory would have been all that different if they had only had one game and not the D&D / AD&D split. The two were largely compatible and you could play the adventure of either. The same is still true for 2e as well

I think the idea is, rather than successful horizontal market segmentation (that is, where "D&D" and "AD&D" actually court different customers), it merely took the same singular pool of customers and split them into smaller groups that were speaking similar languages but not the same language.

 

[Lanefan]

That is literally what Gygax meant by armor class. "First-class armor," "second-class armor," etc. That is very literally why AC1 was better than AC2. It was ordinal. That's the entire reason why AC used descending values rather than ascending ones.

Which sounds fine until you hit "zero-class armour" or better yet "negative-class armour", which makes that description style seem a bit farcical.

No. Just use them as arithmetical numbers where lower is better. Problem solved.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, but the customer base already split and being confused actively.

I am not saying it would have necessarily been steady growth...but a lot more commercially stable over time, maybe even enough to have prevented TSR dying.

The split between BX/BECMI/RC and 1e isn't what killed TSR. I'm not sure it even caused that deep of a wound.

Mismanagement on a fairly grand scale, first by Gygax then by each of his successors in turn, killed TSR. And it put up a surprisingly resilient fight for far longer than it had any real right to, lasting just long enough for WotC to come to the rescue.

 

[Parmandur]

The split between BX/BECMI/RC and 1e isn't what killed TSR. I'm not sure it even caused that deep of a wound.

Mismanagement on a fairly grand scale, first by Gygax then by each of his successors in turn, killed TSR. And it put up a surprisingly resilient fight for far longer than it had any real right to, lasting just long enough for WotC to come to the rescue.

Oh, there were lots of reasons the house of cards fell apart: I'm just saying that a more Call of Cthulu like approach may have been enough to keep it going.

 

[mamba]

I think the idea is, rather than successful horizontal market segmentation (that is, where "D&D" and "AD&D" actually court different customers), it merely took the same singular pool of customers and split them into smaller groups that were speaking similar languages but not the same language.

yes, that is clearly what @Parmandur meant. I am still not convinced that would have changed the trajectory much, or to put it the other way around, I doubt that this split was the cause for that trajectory.

Could they have kept going? Maybe with better management. Would they be anywhere near 5e levels of success today? Not even close.

 

[haakon1]

1e doesn't have feats, dragonborn, tabaxi, goliaths, warlocks, sorcerers, the rage based or cultural versions of the barbarian, giants, runes, maneuvers, musical bards, or even proper skills... or ability mods for every ability...

I don’t think D&D actually “needs” any of those things. I like the bard and simple relationship of ability scores to modifiers, which both came from 3e innovation. I tolerate the sorcerer, also from 3e, but I don’t think it added much to the game. The rest, I don’t even like.

I'm saying if TSR stays in business and makes a 3e that is an adjusted 2e.... could it withstand a competitor with feats and skills and ability mods?

Yes. Because the competitor wouldn’t be D&D. You underestimate the power of having the brand synonymous with the product type - hello Google, Kleenex, and Coke.

 

[haakon1]

Another example of such additions would be kits, from the 2e Complete Guide books. One of these contained all the rules for psionics, an entire new type of abilities.

AD&D 1e had psionics. You rolled for it.

But presumably a different version in the 2e splatbook.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which sounds fine until you hit "zero-class armour" or better yet "negative-class armour", which makes that description style seem a bit farcical.

No. Just use them as arithmetical numbers where lower is better. Problem solved.

There...there isn't such a thing. Mathematically, "arithmetical numbers" go up when you combine them. That's how we define the concepts of "number" and "adding."

 

[haakon1]

who knows maybe folks are right and 5E is broken garbage and folks will eventually come around. I dont think so though.

My preferred system is 3.5e. I’ve “spawned” two new DM’s in 2023 alone, who also prefer and run 3.5e - one who started with AD&D, the other younger than 5e. We’ve all played 5e and think “it’s fine”. My point is, even people who aren’t 5e fans like it well enough to play it if that’s what’s on offer from a DM, and many DM’s offer it because it’s the obvious popular choice - like a restaurant choosing to offer Coke.

”Many people tolerate it, many people love it, most players joined during it and are at best only faintly aware other versions even exist” is a great place for 5e. It’s surely the right place to stay with 2024. Radical change of a dominant product isn’t good business.

 

[haakon1]

Every product must either be a work of sheer, unmitigated genius with nary a blemish and thus axiomatically will sell like hotcakes

Larian did this with BG3. It can be done. But someone somewhere is no doubt complaining about it.