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

[Lanefan]

I am not hung up on it being the same, only on incremental changes not changing as much as new editions could. If they did, then there is no reasonable difference between the two, as I said repeatedly by now.

Your argument seems to be 'we can do all the changes without calling it a new edition', which just means you make zero distinction between the two.

The distinction is that a reset makes all the big changes in one fell swoop where interation spreads them out over a number of years and brings them in one at a time.

The end result, ten years later, could be pretty much the same.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ah, but if you instead look at AC as something being compared to a "par" value, it can work exactly like golf.

I think that might have been part of what inspired the THAC0 mechanic: par was set at AC 0 and the mechanics compared your to-hit against the par value modified by the target's AC variance from that par value.

This would only work if AC0 were in fact a par value.

It isn't.

Because you can have infinitely scaling AC in either direction. Hell, in Baldur's Gate 2, I was hitting like -3 AC even before what we would now call "epic" levels. I'm pretty sure I've seen double-digit negative AC.

The par idea is the basis of a descending system, sure. D&D effectively never was such a thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The distinction is that a reset makes all the big changes in one fell swoop where interation spreads them out over a number of years and brings them in one at a time.

The end result, ten years later, could be pretty much the same.

Again: not if there are changes that cannot be made iteratively. I gave examples of mechanics from 3e that can't be replaced iteratively. To give another: The excess scaling of spells by both spell level and caster level. So long as CL-based spells are still in the game, they will be used, and no one in their right mind would intentionally not use such spells, especially when their replacements are by intent less powerful than the CL-based ones.

You have to make a clean break to cut out that rot. Nothing less will do. But that is impossible with iterative steps. You must end the old spells all at once, and thereafter only provide the new spells.

The only way for both reset and iteration to produce the same result is if there is nothing in a ruleset like that. No systemic problems that will persist so long as any amount of old stuff remains on the docket. And there are things in 5e like that.

 

[Lanefan]

This would only work if AC0 were in fact a par value.

It isn't.

Because you can have infinitely scaling AC in either direction. Hell, in Baldur's Gate 2, I was hitting like -3 AC even before what we would now call "epic" levels. I'm pretty sure I've seen double-digit negative AC.

Can't speak for 2e, but by RAW armour class in 1e hard-capped at +10 and -10.

 

[Lanefan]

Again: not if there are changes that cannot be made iteratively. I gave examples of mechanics from 3e that can't be replaced iteratively. To give another: The excess scaling of spells by both spell level and caster level. So long as CL-based spells are still in the game, they will be used, and no one in their right mind would intentionally not use such spells, especially when their replacements are by intent less powerful than the CL-based ones.

You have to make a clean break to cut out that rot. Nothing less will do. But that is impossible with iterative steps. You must end the old spells all at once, and thereafter only provide the new spells.

Nah - a ruling here, a tweak there, an errata somewhere else; and within five or ten years you've rewritten the whole spell list.

Say he, who has done just that.

 

[Minigiant]

The distinction is that a reset makes all the big changes in one fell swoop where interation spreads them out over a number of years and brings them in one at a time.

The end result, ten years later, could be pretty much the same.

I don't think you can get to the same end point or in the same time frame.

That's the issue.

Let's say there are 10 major changes between editions from5e 2024 to 6e.

SITUATION 1
WOTC publishes the 50th anniversary edition of D&D as updated 5e in 2024
WOTC releases 6e in 2034 with 10 changes to the core game.

SITUATION 2
WOTC publishes the 50th anniversary edition of D&D as updated 5e.
WOTC add Varaint 1 that changes Rule 1 to 5e in 2025
WOTC add Varaint 2 that changes Rule 2 to 5e in 2026
WOTC add Varaint 3 that changes Rule 3 to 5e in 2027
WOTC add Varaint 4 that changes Rule 4 to 5e in 2028
WOTC add Varaint 5 that changes Rule 5 to 5e in 2029
WOTC add Varaint 6 that changes Rule 6 to 5e in 2030
WOTC add Varaint 7 that changes Rule 7 to 5e in 2031
WOTC add Varaint 8 that changes Rule 8 to 5e in 2032
WOTC add Varaint 9 that changes Rule 9 to 5e in 2033
WOTC add Varaint 10 that changes Rule 10 to 5e in 2034
WOTC releases a collection of the 10 changes in 2034

SITUATION3
WOTC publishes the 50th anniversary edition of D&D as updated 5e.
WOTC add Varaint 1 that changes Rule 1 to 5e in 2025
WOTC add Varaint 2 that changes Rule 2 to 5e in 2028
WOTC add Varaint 3 that changes Rule 3 to 5e in 2031
WOTC add Varaint 4 that changes Rule 4 to 5e in 2034
WOTC add Varaint 5 that changes Rule 5 to 5e in 2037
WOTC add Varaint 6 that changes Rule 6 to 5e in 2040
WOTC add Varaint 7 that changes Rule 7 to 5e in 2043
WOTC add Varaint 8 that changes Rule 8 to 5e in 2047
WOTC add Varaint 9 that changes Rule 9 to 5e in 2050
WOTC add Varaint 10 that changes Rule 10 to 5e in 2053
WOTC releases a collection of the 10 changes in 2057

The thread proposes that Situation 2 could be superior and could happen. But I doubt it. incremental change will be slower that an edition change. Designers rework games slowly. Incremental change would be more like Situation 3, 13 years behind Situation 1. See 3.5e, 4e Essentials, PF2e Rework, and now 2024 5e. I was being kind with Situation 3 being only 13 years slower,it would be more like 20-30 years behind.

An incremental progression would lag behind an edition change in design by decades.

 

[Minigiant]

Nah - a ruling here, a tweak there, an errata somewhere else; and within five or ten years you've rewritten the whole spell list.

Say he, who has done just that.

that's an edition change

 

[mamba]

1 and 2 are incremental.

4 is an open question; 1e added cantrips in UA (incremental) but they weren't anything like the cantrips in 5e (not incremental).

3 and 6 could be either incremental or not, depending how they were introduced; the question then becomes one of whether they are necessary to the game.

5 is incremental in itself but has knock-on effects elsewhere that have to be sorted.

many of these have so many knock on effects that I do not consider them incremental, as you lose compatibility with the prior version. I'd say 2 is incremental, 3 and 4 probably depend on the implementation, the others are beyond incremental

 

[mamba]

The distinction is that a reset makes all the big changes in one fell swoop where interation spreads them out over a number of years and brings them in one at a time.

The end result, ten years later, could be pretty much the same.

not if you want to maintain compatibility, which I understood to be the main issue here. The question to me was could BX have gone the CoC route instead and still maintained its market share.

If you consider the main difference just one of when changes are being introduced (all at once vs a few every other year) then the whole discussion to me is pointless. I still consider resets better then, as otherwise the game is in constant churn however

 

[Zardnaar]

Can't speak for 2e, but by RAW armour class in 1e hard-capped at +10 and -10.

Wasn't hardcapped at those numbers but may as well have been. Very few exceptions.