Remathilis
Legend
So I've been ruminating on something...
D&D has had (depending on how you define them) five to seven different editions that are effectively different games. This count doesn't even begin to consider print runs, half-editions, or repackages. And yes, some editions of D&D are compatible with others (or more compatible than with others) but effectively speaking, the rules change every decade or so in such a way that the previous version is rendered obsolete. Because of this, a large selection of a RPG's run life is selling updated versions of the same material. Updated versions of settings, updated versions of supplemental rules (psionics for example). Fluff may or may not be cross edition, but rules almost never are. The psionics handbook I bought in the 90's is useless in 2023 unless I'm running 2nd edition AD&D as well. RPGs effectively reset themselves every so many years and rarely have the rules been compatible enough that material from one version carries over to the next.
Compare that to a game like Magic: the Gathering where the rules have evolved greatly since its inception but every card in the game is still playable (barring some exceptions) and you can play a deck using only 1994 cards against a deck made of only 2023 cards and the game accommodate both. (Balance issues notwithstanding). New sets are effectively additive*, whereas new editions of D&D are replacing older ones. (* Magic, of course, has formats that range from rotating [old cards leave, new cards enter] and eternal [all cards within a threshold are playable]. YMMV depending on your format. Playing standard requires constant replacement, while playing Commander is purely additive)
My question is if that is in-fact a good thing? Does D&D need a clean slate ever-so-often to reset the board and introduce new ideas and build things from the ground up, or would it be better if there was a way to keep the rules from older editions usable so that every few years, we aren't repeating the Manual of the Planes or the Psionics Handbook or Big Book of Scary Dragons again? On the one hand, it does make large swaths of our collections outdated and balkanizes the player base into people who only play X edition, but on the other, keeping D&D compatible with older editions would require a lot of innovations made over the years to be lost or reduced to keep it compatible. (AC scaling being an example). If D&D was compatible across editions though, we wouldn't necessarily be waiting for the new edition to do a Planescape update book, we'd be looking at yet another expansion into the Planescape line that covers something we hadn't seen (or summarizes elements from different places).
Is there a way D&D could have been made additive rather than replacing itself every edition? I guess that's what 2024 is opting for. Or is RPGs one of those things that benefit from a good reset ever so often?
D&D has had (depending on how you define them) five to seven different editions that are effectively different games. This count doesn't even begin to consider print runs, half-editions, or repackages. And yes, some editions of D&D are compatible with others (or more compatible than with others) but effectively speaking, the rules change every decade or so in such a way that the previous version is rendered obsolete. Because of this, a large selection of a RPG's run life is selling updated versions of the same material. Updated versions of settings, updated versions of supplemental rules (psionics for example). Fluff may or may not be cross edition, but rules almost never are. The psionics handbook I bought in the 90's is useless in 2023 unless I'm running 2nd edition AD&D as well. RPGs effectively reset themselves every so many years and rarely have the rules been compatible enough that material from one version carries over to the next.
Compare that to a game like Magic: the Gathering where the rules have evolved greatly since its inception but every card in the game is still playable (barring some exceptions) and you can play a deck using only 1994 cards against a deck made of only 2023 cards and the game accommodate both. (Balance issues notwithstanding). New sets are effectively additive*, whereas new editions of D&D are replacing older ones. (* Magic, of course, has formats that range from rotating [old cards leave, new cards enter] and eternal [all cards within a threshold are playable]. YMMV depending on your format. Playing standard requires constant replacement, while playing Commander is purely additive)
My question is if that is in-fact a good thing? Does D&D need a clean slate ever-so-often to reset the board and introduce new ideas and build things from the ground up, or would it be better if there was a way to keep the rules from older editions usable so that every few years, we aren't repeating the Manual of the Planes or the Psionics Handbook or Big Book of Scary Dragons again? On the one hand, it does make large swaths of our collections outdated and balkanizes the player base into people who only play X edition, but on the other, keeping D&D compatible with older editions would require a lot of innovations made over the years to be lost or reduced to keep it compatible. (AC scaling being an example). If D&D was compatible across editions though, we wouldn't necessarily be waiting for the new edition to do a Planescape update book, we'd be looking at yet another expansion into the Planescape line that covers something we hadn't seen (or summarizes elements from different places).
Is there a way D&D could have been made additive rather than replacing itself every edition? I guess that's what 2024 is opting for. Or is RPGs one of those things that benefit from a good reset ever so often?
