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

[delericho]

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.

In the first instance, I'll expect a smallish conversion guide, probably in eDragon or similar, mostly just to tide people over.

When they do revisit a setting for the new edition, I would expect the full hardcover treatment, though. Simply because every edition is someone's first edition - if they assume people have the older materials then they are limiting the audience for their new book. And with settings already being of limited appeal, any further limit probably makes it not worth printing the book.

But my point wasn't just about "big fat hardcovers" representing bloat - instead, it's just about the sheer number of options. Even if all WotC do is publish conversions of things, that's still a huge number of options (just the few I 'need', plus the few you 'need', plus that guy, and that guy, and...). If they convert enough then it will bloat the game; if they don't convert enough then it will feel limited.

What I think WotC can maybe try to do is to very publicly drop the "everything is core" mantra from 4e, and instead actively encourage groups to pick and choose. And then work to avoid crossing the streams - keep the Eberron-specific stuff in Eberron-specific books, the Dragonlance-specific stuff in Dragonlance-specific books, and so on. That way, I can buy the "big three" plus the Eberron campaign setting; I don't have to buy MM2 for Shifters and MM3 for Changelings, and "Arcane Secrets IV" for Dragonmarks, and... and it also means that in the books I do buy, I'm not also getting a bunch of stuff I can never use because it's for some other, radically different, setting.

That won't cut the number of options, or the total bloat of the game (especially if Morningstar follows the DDI model of including everything in a subscription), but it does at least let people pick and choose what they want, and do so in a fairly clear way. And at least that way, people who buy everything and then complain about the bloat have largely brought it on themselves.

 

[trancejeremy]

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.

Chaosium actually broke that tradition with the 7th Edition of Call of Cthulhu

 

[wedgeski]

I applaud WotC's stated direction and I think if anyone has proved that content over rules makes for a successful business, it's Paizo.

My only concern is that we've heard this before. Every edition, there's some kind of background narrative about how the mistakes that caused the failure of the previous edition will be avoided. And every time, those same mistakes are made.

This time around though, WotC seems to be a leaner beast: fewer first-party people working in the office (by all accounts) and much more out-sourcing. The first standalone adventure products were farmed out to Kobold Press, the miniatures line is at WizKids, the digital tools seem, from what we've been shown, to be in good hands. This is all evidence of a WotC product team retreating to their strengths.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

First off, to the people saying you will never get a game that needs to be rebooted every few years. Monopoly. Been new variations but the classic game has remained the same. Also chess. So that completely destroys that argument.

Ummh, I do see a bit of a difference between D&D and Monopoly, don't you? And even with board games you can see development of the games: Ticket to Ride has been released as multiple sets and additions, which add new sub-systems. Dominion consists not only of different additions but also different basic sets. The rules for peasant scoring in Caracassonne have seen multiple revisions in 15 years. And Magic...?

Other boardgames go through different editions as well, most notable with American offerings: Twilight Imperium, Britannia, and so on.

So no, the argument survives.

 

[Evenglare]

Ummh, I do see a bit of a difference between D&D and Monopoly, don't you? And even with board games you can see development of the games: Ticket to Ride has been released as multiple sets and additions, which add new sub-systems. Dominion consists not only of different additions but also different basic sets. The rules for peasant scoring in Caracassonne have seen multiple revisions in 15 years. And Magic...?

Other boardgames go through different editions as well, most notable with American offerings: Twilight Imperium, Britannia, and so on.

So no, the argument survives.

Noob dragon said " 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."

I provided a clear and concise example of 2 games that have not been "innovated" in a very very long time. Proof by contradiction. So yes, I completely destroyed that statement.

And I have plenty more, let's see, skip bo, uno, playing cards, checkers. There's tons of games out on the market that haven't been innovated in several years. I'm not saying D&D is like that, im simply stating against the original claim that NO market or industry goes without re innovating every couple of years. I think those calling out my claims that it isn't like D&D are flawed because I never said they were. I was simply proving by contradiction. Learned it when I took my modern math class and started doing proofs. You only need one to prove something wrong.

 

[Raith5]

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.

I have absolutely no doubt that any war on bloat will fail largely because the logic of the artisans will be completely out gunned by the logic of the mechants in WOTC/Hasbro. But thing about 5e is that idea of modularity may be able to allow the bloat of products to managed from the perspective of the gamer. There will be the products you like but you will be able to ignore the products you dont. I meant in two years time they could create a whole 4e like layer of products - complex monsters, the grid, heavy mechanics for every class - and the Basic player could just let them drift on by.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I provided a clear and concise example of 2 games that have not been "innovated" in a very very long time. Proof by contradiction. So yes, I completely destroyed that statement.

No, you didn't. He said "industry or market". You provided two examples, one of them deeply faulty of games (neither of them really an industry or market) which you feel don't innovate/reboot.

Monopoly is a very weak/dubious example. If it didn't constantly put out themed editions, it'd have died decades ago. Further, they have actually changed the rules and appearance of the game a number of times. It's also had several add-ons/expansions, over the years. It doesn't reinvent it's rules, but it certainly works very hard to stay current enough to make grandparents with vague and wooly ideas about what their grandkids like buy it on the basis that "He likes Despicable Me 2, let's buy Despicable Me 2 Monopoly" (this is actually a thing that exists).

If anything, that's a strong COUNTER-example to your argument. There are tons of expansions/modifications around right now, like the Mega Edition (featuring a lot of extra/changed rules and so on), Electronic Banking (for realz), the Monopoly Empire Game, various Monopoly-based card games and so on.

So yeah, no, you don't get that one, imho.

Chess isn't an industry, market or product in a modern sense. It's an ancient traditional game which no-one owns.

So it's not really a counter-example either, imho.

Learned it when I took my modern math class and started doing proofs. You only need one to prove something wrong.

In math/pure logic, sure.

This isn't math/pure logic. This is an actual discussion about the real world. One counter-example is a drop in the ocean, and it's questionable that you've even provided that.

One might also point out that the eager student who just learned something and is now sure it applies to everything and keen to bend and warp it so it does is something of a cliche!

 

[Zardnaar]

No, you didn't. He said "industry or market". You provided two examples, one of them deeply faulty of games (neither of them really an industry or market) which you feel don't innovate/reboot.

Monopoly is a very weak/dubious example. If it didn't constantly put out themed editions, it'd have died decades ago. Further, they have actually changed the rules and appearance of the game a number of times. It's also had several add-ons/expansions, over the years. It doesn't reinvent it's rules, but it certainly works very hard to stay current enough to make grandparents with vague and wooly ideas about what their grandkids like buy it on the basis that "He likes Despicable Me 2, let's buy Despicable Me 2 Monopoly" (this is actually a thing that exists).

If anything, that's a strong COUNTER-example to your argument. There are tons of expansions/modifications around right now, like the Mega Edition (featuring a lot of extra/changed rules and so on), Electronic Banking (for realz), the Monopoly Empire Game, various Monopoly-based card games and so on.

So yeah, no, you don't get that one, imho.

Chess isn't an industry, market or product in a modern sense. It's an ancient traditional game which no-one owns.

So it's not really a counter-example either, imho.



In math/pure logic, sure.

This isn't math/pure logic. This is an actual discussion about the real world. One counter-example is a drop in the ocean, and it's questionable that you've even provided that.

One might also point out that the eager student who just learned something and is now sure it applies to everything and keen to bend and warp it so it does is something of a cliche!

They still make classic monopoly though and the monopoly variants usually use similar rules to classic monopoly. The monopoly variants are like D&D splat books or campaign settings. Same thing with magic the rules have barely changed since 2000 and that was a revision of the 1993 rules. They added more things like planeswalkers but the basic game is the same as 1993 rules. Turn cards sideways, use mana, cast spells and summon things.

 

[Kinak]

Chaosium actually broke that tradition with the 7th Edition of Call of Cthulhu

Interesting, I'll have to look it up. I should also pick up Achtung! Cthulhu at some point, on principle.

Still, after 33 years and seven editions, I'd find it hard to get worked up about changes unless they were comically bad. And I say that having spent more on CoC over the years than, say, 3rd Edition D&D.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[77IM]

Let's stop talking about monopoly and chess -- people are extremely satisfied with those rules. When 3.0 came out, if it had been largely compatible with 2e, it would have flopped. It took off like wild fire precisely because it was so different -- in a way that people wanted. But as a product of late '90s game design, it had its own issues. When 4e came out, it was an effort to rectify 3.5's major failings, and bring lapsed D&D players back into the fold. Had 4e been backwards compatible with 3.5 it would not have made the big splash that it did, with celebrity playing it and new blogs revolving around it. This is a huge dilemma for Wizards since they want every new edition release to be the huge money-maker that 3.0 was. Even 3.5 was released several years ahead of plan (source: Monte Cook) because Wizards was desperate for another big cash injection.

As for supplements and bloat, that's a lot easier for them to control. Just make every supplement a game changer, something that really substantially affects how the game is played. This makes it much easier for DMs to pick supplements based on the type of game they want to run. For example, both the PF APG and the 3.0 Oriental Adventures can be viewed as just big collections of classes, feats, spells, etc. But one of them is pure rules-bloat and hard to justify as in a inappropriate for your game, while the other is an option that could greatly enhance your game but is by no means required.