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

[Remathilis]

I am going to guess that you're actually incorrect here.

If I went to my basement, pulled out the cards I haven't touched for... 20 years?..., and made a deck, and took it to my FLGS, I likely would not be able to play worth a good goshed darn because I wouldn't know enough about what my opponents were capable of doing. I could not make informed choices, and could not make sound plays as a result.

While my old cards might technically still function, my play is more than my cards. To play reasonably in the modern context, I would still need to become aware of that modern context.

The CARDS are still usable, which is my point. Your 20 year old cards aren't meta, many have text that is outdated (interrupt speed?) or designed with different assumptions, or just generally power-crept out, but they all WORK with the game and using Oracle text, you can play that deck.

You cannot, with, any number of workarounds, use The Complete Psionics Handbook with in 5e. The base game is too radically different. The game parts are no longer usable except to laugh at the art or as a paperweight. Which was the point of my comparison. My old Magic Cards, in the right context, work alongside my new cards. My old D&D books do not work alongside my new ones.

Which lead to my question if that was a good thing or not...

 

[TwoSix]

The why doesn't really matter why eventually sales go down.

I hit saturation point a year or two before I stopped buying but the decline in quality was noticed.

Something similar in 3.5 with books didn't buy and the ones I did being inferior to earlier ones eg Complete Psion/Mage vs Arcane/Divine.

Which is interesting, because I'd argue the opposite. The last few years of 3.5 were when the bulk of the best material was published, I feel.

I don't think it's a given that publishing quality will decline over a longer length of the production line.

 

[Parmandur]

The CARDS are still usable, which is my point. Your 20 year old cards aren't meta, many have text that is outdated (interrupt speed?) or designed with different assumptions, or just generally power-crept out, but they all WORK with the game and using Oracle text, you can play that deck.

You cannot, with, any number of workarounds, use The Complete Psionics Handbook with in 5e. The base game is too radically different. The game parts are no longer usable except to laugh at the art or as a paperweight. Which was the point of my comparison. My old Magic Cards, in the right context, work alongside my new cards. My old D&D books do not work alongside my new ones.

Which lead to my question if that was a good thing or not...

No, it was never a good idea.

Another point about taking older cards and playing then with new cards...moat players of Magic currently are completely unaware of "The Meta," and never set foot in an organized playspace. Most are just playing with cards put together at kitchen tables.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which is interesting, because I'd argue the opposite. The last few years of 3.5 were when the bulk of the best material was published, I feel.

I don't think it's a given that publishing quality will decline over a longer length of the production line.

The later stuff tends to get more experimental and niche detracting from what made the edition popular to begin with.

5E I would argue post Tashas hit that.

2E early complete handbooks vs players options.

3.5 was also stuff like weapons of legacy, races of dragon, book of 9 swords.

By 2006 already had something like 20-30 3.5 books as well.

For me to buy a 5E book it needs to hit it out of the park to compete with the 30 odd books I already own.

 

[TwoSix]

Tge later stuff tends to get more experimental and niche detracting from what made the edition popular to begin with.

Sure, but one's person "experimental and niche" is another person's necessary refresh.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whatever the downside of edition changes I am very happy WotC hasn't tried to maintain compatibility with an RPG from the 70's. D&D is more popular and accesable than ever before - I believe that is in large part because the designers were willing to let it evolve into the best version of the game possible.

That assumes that every new version of the game was straight-up better than the one before. I know you'll get pushback on that one.

 

[soviet]

That assumes that every new version of the game was straight-up better than the one before. I know you'll get pushback on that one.

Yeah, at a minimum, TSR D&D and WotC D&D are two completely different games.

 

[Laurefindel]

« Need to »? Probably not, but I’m glad D&D did reinvent itself every decade or so. I much prefer this edition to the first, and everything that has happen in between was (probably) necessary to evolve and grow into what it is today.

If it hadn’t, I probably wouldn’t be playing D&D but some other game with near identical themes but more modern rules. Now I play a different game with more modern rules called D&D 5e. They were smart enough to keep my money

 

[MerricB]

If Dungeons & Dragons was still in its original printing, then hardly anyone would be playing it today.

There may come a time when D&D reaches its final form, but I don't know if that day is today.

Call of Cthulhu gets away with its system mainly because it's far more about the story in its adventures than its mechanics. D&D cares a lot more about its mechanics. (Even Call of Cthulhu got some major overhauls to its systems in the last edition).

There are a lot of games that didn't do major updates to their systems as the years went on. They died.

How many role-playing games have lasted 30+ years unchanged?

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Parmandur]

How many role-playing games have lasted 30+ years unchanged?

The entire genre of game is still new. And nobody is saying "unchanged," but questioning if AD&D to 3E level changes as opposed to B/X to BECMI level changes are inherently necessary in the nature of RPGS. I would say "no", and think that '24 level changes are about all we may see from D&D ever again.