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

[Charlaquin]

I am going to disagree here.

Design should have a purpose- and if it's for a commercial product, you probably want it to appeal to ... you know, consumers.

If designers create something to make it "revolutionary" and "ideological," then they might design something that sucks. Or, they might design something awesome that very few people will want.

There is nothing wrong with designing for an ideological or revolutionary purpose, but generally, those products are commercial failures.

I think we may be using those terms in different ways. A game’s design can be revolutionary in a way that appeals to a large audience. I would argue that was very true of the original D&D. And a change that is not driven by ideology is driven by… what? The pursuit of profit? Miss me with that. I’m on the side of art.

 

[mamba]

And one can argue the opposite.

oh definitely, just a matter of preference. What one cannot argue imo is that no one sees any improvements, which is what the post I replied to did

“Good for corporate sales, perhaps, but that's the only benefit to anyone that I can see.”

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think we may be using those terms in different ways. A game’s design can be revolutionary in a way that appeals to a large audience. I would argue that was very true of the original D&D. And a change that is not driven by ideology is driven by… what? The pursuit of profit? Miss me with that. I’m on the side of art.

Obviously, OD&D wasn't a new edition. Cue Bobby Brown.

Changes can be driven by all sorts of reasons. But for "editions" (such as D&D, as we are talking about) the primary driver is, in fact, money.

Which means that the primary goal when designing for a new edition of D&D is to make the game broadly appealing. Making a design that takes a side (driven by ideology) is usually not a great idea. Making a design that is revolutionary (in the sense that it will be unfamiliar or off-putting to many people who were playing the prior edition) is also not a great idea.

If you want to design an awesome ideological and revolutionary game, then you should probably release it yourself. It's probably best not to do that as a new edition of D&D.

(Also, when you're designing for D&D, you're not designing art, or advancing the ethos of yourself or design in general. You're advancing the interests of a corporation and one of their flagship brands.)

 

[soviet]

I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.
-Pauline Kael

This is nowhere near long enough to be a post by the real Snarf Zagyg. Mods! There's been a hijack!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is nowhere near long enough to be a post by the real Snarf Zagyg. Mods! There's been a hijack!

Less wordy than Pauline Kael.
-Snarf's Epitaph.

 

[Parmandur]

?

4e is universally accepted as an improvement

...

What?

 

[Charlaquin]

Obviously, OD&D wasn't a new edition. Cue Bobby Brown.

Changes can be driven by all sorts of reasons. But for "editions" (such as D&D, as we are talking about) the primary driver is, in fact, money.

Which means that the primary goal when designing for a new edition of D&D is to make the game broadly appealing. Making a design that takes a side (driven by ideology) is usually not a great idea. Making a design that is revolutionary (in the sense that it will be unfamiliar or off-putting to many people who were playing the prior edition) is also not a great idea.

If you want to design an awesome ideological and revolutionary game, then you should probably release it yourself. It's probably best not to do that as a new edition of D&D.

(Also, when you're designing for D&D, you're not designing art, or advancing the ethos of yourself or design in general. You're advancing the interests of a corporation and one of their flagship brands.)

Sure, D&D is a product made by a giant corporation and its decision-making is primarily profit driven.

The question was, “do RPGs need editions resets,” and my answer is that without occasional resets, a game cannot incorporate improvements in design technology and philosophy that occur after its initial design. So while, no, edition changes aren’t strictly needed, their lack can hold a game back from being the best it can be.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, D&D is a product made by a giant corporation and its decision-making is primarily profit driven.

The question was, “do RPGs need editions resets,” and my answer is that without occasional resets, a game cannot incorporate improvements in design technology and philosophy that occur after its initial design. So while, no, edition changes aren’t strictly needed, their lack can hold a game back from being the best it can be.

I agree.

I just think that the changes to games (such as D&D) shouldn't be revolutionary or ideological.

Instead, they should try and incorporate changes gradually. And only the best and most popular changes. In other words, it is never going to be necessary or sufficient to change something just because the new thing is "better."

Again, we aren't talking about new games that can design anything they want from whole cloth. When we are talking about new editions to pre-existing commercial games, the people that make the games have to be aware that they are designing not from scratch, but with the existing playerbase in mind.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree.

I just think that the changes to games (such as D&D) shouldn't be revolutionary or ideological.

Instead, they should try and incorporate changes gradually. And only the best and most popular changes. In other words, it is never going to be necessary or sufficient to change something just because the new thing is "better."

Again, we aren't talking about new games that can design anything they want from whole cloth. When we are talking about new editions to pre-existing commercial games, the people that make the games have to be aware that they are designing not from scratch, but with the existing playerbase in mind.

Eh, incremental change can be good or bad, and revolutionary change can also be good or bad. It’s only no change at all that will always, eventually, be bad.

 

[schneeland]

As others have already mentioned: for the most part, new editions are a good way to bring up sales again. And you gotta sell people something if you want to stay in business. In theory, you could also sell them adventures (5e had more success with this than I expected) or setting books, but, based on what I hear from publishers, people mostly love to buy books with new rules. So that's then your best option for good sales.

Now regarding the question whether it really needs full resets, that's becoming more tricky. I think, just like video games (and software in general), roleplaying games benefit from multiple iterations in which an existing design is polished. And in that regard, I think D&D would often have had room for more iterations of the same design.

However, eventually you will hit a point where improving the game is becoming harder and harder within the existing design constraints. And at that point a new edition really benefits from rethinking a game based on a new framework. Add to that the fact that preferences of the target audience might chance over time (more or less crunchy, more or less heroic, etc.). I think a publisher unwilling to reflect that will see their game become stale and slowly fading into obsolescence.

Now I personally would prefer if, instead of revamping the game under the name D&D, there would be a new game E&E (maybe Estates & Efreeti) that makes those changes and the old game would be untouched. I'm afraid that's not the way people with popular brands operate, though.