D&D 5E A viable game and the vicious edition cycle

[Tony Vargas]

Bloat is inevitable in D&D, because of the way it handled things like character abilities, magic items, monsters and the like: with lists. Long lists of spells, feats, features, maneuvers, skills, items, conditions, special abilities, and so forth. Whenever you add anything to the game, you add to those lists, and each entry in each list potentially (or automatically, even) contains what amount to new mechanics and new sub-systems.

There's a whole class of such 'list based' games - probably the majority of RPGs fall into it, really.

A bloat-free alternative is freestyle RP, which does away with rules - and thus lists containing lots of rules - entirely. And, of course, with less extreme approaches that have a few broad-stroke guidelines/rules that are adapted on the fly to cover everything.

Another alternative is the effects-based system, where the mechanics model the end result of the ability, item use, monster attack, danger, or whatever, and resolve that, without little or no regard to what brought it about. These games are fewer, the best example being how Hero System handles superpowers (and gear, and magic items, and monsters, and spells, and just about everything except skills). (4e D&D, BTW, is arguably a hybrid of effects, because of how it handles class, item & monster 'powers,' - but very much list-based in how it presents them, and also tends toward bloat because of the way every 'exception' of it's Exception Based Design philosophy adds to the mechanics of the game rules).


5e, OTOH, seems poised to be hybrid freestyle/list-based, with Rulings not Rules giving the DM license to purge the game of any potential bloat he finds offensive by sheer fiat (the 'banhammer,' as they say), or run the game arbitrarily 'rules lite' by ignoring, overriding, adding or changing rules on the fly.

 

[Werebat]

5e, OTOH, seems poised to be hybrid freestyle/list-based, with Rulings not Rules giving the DM license to purge the game of any potential bloat he finds offensive by sheer fiat (the 'banhammer,' as they say), or run the game arbitrarily 'rules lite' by ignoring, overriding, adding or changing rules on the fly.

Interesting. I suspect DMs will quickly find the nettles in a less rules-based system as instead of dealing with headaches brought on by min/maxing powergamers they will have to deal with headaches brought on by wheedling and argumentative powergamers. BTDT. To a degree it will probably depend on the personalities in the group (I'm thinking of two people I know in particular, and it would be interesting to see the shift in relative character power between them with a shift in focus from PF to 5th).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Why exactly is it an issue again if the game is overhauled and rebooted every few years? I can't think of any industry or market (not even RPGs, with the sole and singular exception of D&D) where reinvention and rebooting every few years isn't the norm; and it's not just for the sake of selling something new. It's because the new stuff is (generally) better. The arc of progress is long, but it generally points upwards. You can't objectively compare the cars we drive or the computers we use with those in the 90s and say that somewhere we went wrong. That's not to say every iteration is perfect, or even better than the last (look at how every even version of Windows, or odd Stark Trek movie, is terrible).

You are never going to get a game that isn't rebooted. It's not because they need to sell the new shiny. It's because they want to make a better game.

I find it hard to express just how strongly I disagree with this idea. I said a lot of my arguments against this mindset when 4e came out.

WotC used to act as if the *business* needed edition churn to be profitable. Splatbook power creep leading to system collapse and reboot.
The *hobby* needs no such thing. Chess, cribbage, gin, softball, bowling, golf, and hundreds of other games and sports are very successful with rulesets that are basically unchanged over at least decades, if not centuries. A hobby suffers from having the ruleset periodically reinvented, as that splinters the base. Games and hobbies are more like music or art than like technology. New is no guarantee or even likelihood of being better, any more than 1978 music was better than 1968 music.

Slower rule churn will help the hobby, by allowing the game to be more casual. So 2014 gamers can pick up the dice in 2020 without being turned off by the need to buy a dozen splatbooks to be competitive, or a new PHB to learn a radically different ruleset. That's a huge factor behind OSR, the 1980s gamers picking it up without a huge time investment to learn a new system. I don't think the hobby needs more splintering.

 

[TerraDave]

That would sound a lot more like a good idea if it wasn't exactly what they tried with Essentials in 2010. It, too, was a simpler, lower-entry-cost, re-boot of the game followed by a slower pace of releases.

Well, and if there was more indications that 5e had been successfully designed to appeal to new players rather than to merely consolidate long-time and possibly returning ones in the wake of the edition war. Honestly, I get the impression that it was designed not so much to appeal to a new player, today, as to have hypothetical appeal to longtime players when they were new.

One reason I can't help but think that is that it does so successfully remind me of my early D&D experiences.

They did?

Extensively play test a tight set of core rules and carefully market those?

Oh wait, they did none of those things. Essentials was a .5, a confused reboot (with a starter set that was filled with errors), part of 4Es massive bloat...

I could go on and on. I have. Whole threads I have started. But I have sworn off edition civil warring.

If you set the bar that low, the 5E has already flown right over it.

 

[Kinak]

I'm not sure how much of the problem is honestly in the speed of edition changes as it is in the magnitude of those changes. Call of Cthulhu, for example, could release a new edition every year and it wouldn't matter because the old material could be used without noticeable changes.

I'd certainly be annoyed if every time I upgrade my OS I had to get all new programs. But it's usually a great deal smoother than that.

I do think that the Adventure Path model is a good one, but long-lasting editions aren't the only way to prevent edition-based drama.

Beyond that, I don't think Paizo's success with the Adventure Paths can be separated from their subscription model. There's a world of difference between convincing someone to come back next month to buy again and convincing someone to not cancel their subscription.

It's even more important in sequential works like APs where the target audience of the second volume is the people who bought the first volume... and the target of the third is the people who bought the first two. That feedback gets really scary, really fast.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can't think of any industry or market (not even RPGs, with the sole and singular exception of D&D) where reinvention and rebooting every few years isn't the norm; and it's not just for the sake of selling something new. It's because the new stuff is (generally) better.

Depends on what you mean by "reinvention" and "rebooting," I guess. Was the Christopher Nolan Batman a reboot or was it just yet another telling of the same story we've been telling since Zeus tamed the primordial chaos? In one light, it's new, in another, it's a continuity stretching back aeons. Was it better? I mean, these things are pretty incomparable. Better for you, maybe not for yer grandad.

Tabletop RPGs have another hiccup in that the technology is explicitly pretty low-tech. Pencils, paper, some plastic dice, and all to use a set of opt-in rules for pretending to be an elf. The biggest change to that has probably been computers, and though there's been gains there, even that has been not a clear improvement in a lot of ways (ie, their social element is limited in certain ways), and it hasn't been a clear win for the industry.

Most industries are happy to grind the same axe and make modest improvements rather than looking to innovate. Innovation is disruptive. Reinvention costs shareholders money. Better just greenlight another batman movie.

 

[Ceylin]

It feels like they really want to focus on making a solid game this time around, and let the merchandising (instead of additional rule books) be the economic driver of the edition. On that note - did 4E even license itself to any video games? I felt like that version, of any, was best suited to be used as the mechanics in some solo RPGs on the computer. Anyway, with 5E they've already started outsourcing to other companies like Trapdoor Technologies and Kobold Press. I'm expecting they'll branch out even further.

 

[Mercurius]

So many interesting posts to reply to, will have to focus on just a few.

Generally liked what you had to say, but I'll quibble with one thing here: Yes, 2e produced a lot of settings - and it was successful in doing so, it sold a lot of setting books and there are still fans out their pining for the return of their favorite 2e setting! Admittedly, settings were bigger in the 90s than they are now, but it's still a viable way to sell books that don't have to bloat the game for everyone.

But 2e didn't go belly-up because it was big on settings. Rather, TSR bet heavily on selling novels, a CCG, and a collectible dice game - all of which went very badly for it. They got in financial trouble and were bought out by WotC. 2e's setting focus wasn't - as far as mere outsiders can tell based on what's been reported - what got them in trouble.

Yeah, I hear that. I'd like to think you're right that the settings had little to nothing to do with it, but I think as others have said it contributed to TSR spreading themselves a bit too thin. I mean, think of how many man-hours went into Jakandor or Spelljammer or even Birthright, and how much did they get back?

On the other hand, I dislike the conservative approach they've been taking of only re-hashing old settings. I'd like to see them be bold and create something new, even if it is only developing Nerath. I definitely think D&D needs a fresh world to explore.

I do think there is a plan:

to sale a lot of PHBs. To make a lot of money from that. And to keep selling them.

Mearls has hinted at this, a lot. That their is a steady stream of new players to tap. That you want to support the game, but not overwhelm it. Over the years, others have noted time and time again is what really sales is the RPGs main core book.

So you make a really good one. Charge a lot for it. And do enough around it to keep it viable, but that does not overwhelm new players or undermine or outdate the core book.

I'm sure that is part of the plan, but certainly not the whole plan or even the biggest part of it. I mean, there's no way around the law of diminishing returns with regards to core rulebooks. Even if D&D taps into a whole new generation of players, I don't see PHB sales carrying the game indefinitely.

Also, the price point on the PHB makes me think they are focusing on serious gamers, trying to please the "bird in hand" with a great PHB. You have to be pretty into it to want to spend $50.

Why exactly is it an issue again if the game is overhauled and rebooted every few years? ...

You are never going to get a game that isn't rebooted. It's not because they need to sell the new shiny. It's because they want to make a better game.

Well I agree and that's part of the point of my original post. If nothing else, rebooting is necessary creatively. I mean, Roger Moore was looking pretty gnarly towards the end. It is hard to believe but even Daniel Craig will wear out his tenure and we'll need a "2020s Bond." Things change, although I suppose the definition of a "grognard" could be someone who resists change and sets up camp at a certain place and won't budge.

Here's the thing: my setting of choice is Eberron. That means that I want conversions for Warforged, Kalashtar, Changelings, Shifters, Artificers, and the Dragonmarks as soon as possible. (I don't actually need the setting updated - just the mechanics for those things. And, I suppose, some monsters and magic items. (Seriously, I haven't even finished reading Basic and already the lack of those things is off-putting. Though not enough to stop me buying the "big three" when they're out. )

But, equally, other players will want Dark Sun available (Muls, Thri-kreen, etc etc), others will want Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Birthright, Spelljammer... Then there's all the monsters that inevitably won't fit in the MM, each of which is no doubt somebody's particular favourite.

So people want all these things, and WotC will want to supply those things. After all, they'd be pretty crazy not to.

But while i only want a few things, and you only want a few (different) things, and that guy over there wants another few (different) things, the cumulative result of all of these together is bloat.

But here's a question: Should WotC create a big fat hardcover edition update for every setting? Why not just create a smaller "conversion guide" - like a $20 96-page softcover? Or even just free conversions online? Or this could be where they license out older settings and let some other company do it. I'd just hate to see them spend their limited setting resources on re-inventing the wheel again and again.

I certainly hope 5e can do what no edition of D&D has done this millennium and last a full decade. I think it has a stronger chance than the previous two editions, as the system seems less complex and more stable than before. Bloat is inevitable but hopefully there's less emphasis from WotC on extreme levels of crunch and more on settings and APs.

A decade is a long time, but passes quickly these days (or maybe I'm just getting old). But I agree that 5E has a better chance. On the other hand, asking game designers not to innovate for ten years is awfully difficult. It is inevitable that new ideas come up. I'm pretty sure Mearls has a folder in his cloud called "6E ideas" or somesuch.

I like 5e but it is not perfect, I want them to eventually make my perfect D&D so I would love a 4-5 year life cycle for 5e and look forward to what can happen with a 6e already.

I started lurking at this site back when it was the best news source for 3e info, Eric's black pages how they bring back fond memories, anyway I enjoy the whole process of new editions.

I understand why some people want whatever the current edition is or their favorite edition to never end but I find the excitement of a new edition invigorates my interest in D&D.

I hope you realize that they'll never make your "perfect D&D." Or if on the off chance that they do, it won't be someone else's perfect D&D, so they'll eventually have to reboot again after that. So they'll move on from your perfect D&D...and how will you feel then? Will you still love a 4-5 year life cycle?

It reminds me of the band U2. I'm not a fan, although I appreciate much of their work. Anyhow, from what I gather they really perfected their early sound with the 1987 album Joshua Tree. But rather than try to re-create it ad infinitum, they took a break and came back with a very different sound and the controversial 1991 album Achtung Baby. They did something that very few huge acts pull off successfully: they remade themselves. But a lot of the old-time fans hated it, while at the same time they acquired a new fan base and, today, are one of the classic rock bands of all time.

So when people say this or that edition sucked, I say "Hey, at least they tried something different." Sort of like Achtung Baby.

 

[Henry]

Why exactly is it an issue again if the game is overhauled and rebooted every few years? I can't think of any industry or market (not even RPGs, with the sole and singular exception of D&D) where reinvention and rebooting every few years isn't the norm; and it's not just for the sake of selling something new. It's because the new stuff is (generally) better. The arc of progress is long, but it generally points upwards. You can't objectively compare the cars we drive or the computers we use with those in the 90s and say that somewhere we went wrong. That's not to say every iteration is perfect, or even better than the last (look at how every even version of Windows, or odd Stark Trek movie, is terrible).

You are never going to get a game that isn't rebooted. It's not because they need to sell the new shiny. It's because they want to make a better game.

The biggest argument against this is that RPGs are as much art form as product. We've had music artists change genres in real life, and their new sounds aren't necessarily objectively better than what they were doing before. Same with RPGs -- they don't change to be objectively "improved" so much as to better fit the needs of their prospective audience. It's like preferring an artist's early work with realism over the later period when he switched to impressionism. That's why so much vehemence - we're pissed that we won't be able to buy new Jackson Pollocks in the same style any more -- but wait! There's a newer younger painter over in the next town who's painting his own portraits but in the same style you like!

That's the edition wars for you.

 

[Mercurius]

The biggest argument against this is that RPGs are as much art form as product. We've had music artists change genres in real life, and their new sounds aren't necessarily objectively better than what they were doing before. Same with RPGs -- they don't change to be objectively "improved" so much as to better fit the needs of their prospective audience. It's like preferring an artist's early work with realism over the later period when he switched to impressionism. That's why so much vehemence - we're pissed that we won't be able to buy new Jackson Pollocks in the same style any more -- but wait! There's a newer younger painter over in the next town who's painting his own portraits but in the same style you like!

That's the edition wars for you.

n00bdragon took one extreme--RPGs as a developing technology--and you took it to another--RPGs as art. I'll take the middle ground and say that it is a combination of both, or somewhere between the two extremes. Some development has occured; we can see, for instance, the development from the 1E combat charts to THAC0 to Basic Attack Bonus, etc. There's a clear development from clunky and over-complicated to more streamlined. Certain mechanical aspects of the game certainly did improve, especially from 2E to 3E, which seemed to be the largest jump (and that is largely because D&D in 1999 was clunky and anachronistic compared to the last decade of game design innovations).

But this doesn't mean that the more recent the "better." Certain things are lost. We can look at the early art of Erol Otus, Jeff Dee, Roslof, etc. Relatively crude and simple, but brimming with character and spirit. Later art, by and large, become far more technically proficient but lost some of the charm.

But another way that I don't think the artist analogy really flies is that an artist is, well, an individual. A lot of musicians, artists, and creative types do their best stuff early on - it is the stuff that is just dying to come out, the early creative urge. Sometimes the well runs dry. Some artists meet that by trying something new, while others just rehash the old. But many artists experience a gradual creative decline. D&D, on the other hand, is the work of many - think how many people have had input over the years, and the fact that no one working on it today was working on it in the 1970s. It is like the Beatles still being around but without any of the original members.