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

Yes?

Yeah, the thing right now might be good, but what if the next thing is great?

I’ve always thought WOTC’s latest spiel of, “5E is the last edition” to be mostly nonsense because imagine being the D&D Lead in 2040 and being told, “yeah, so you actually aren’t allowed to change anything. We just think we really nailed it 30 years ago.”

I want the game to change, evolve, and grow. Sometimes it’ll be good. Sometimes it’ll be bad.

Either way, it’s better than stagnation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes?

Yeah, the thing right now might be good, but what if the next thing is great?

I’ve always thought WOTC’s latest spiel of, “5E is the last edition” to be mostly nonsense because imagine being the D&D Lead in 2040 and being told, “yeah, so you actually aren’t allowed to change anything. We just think we really nailed it 30 years ago.”

I want the game to change, evolve, and grow. Sometimes it’ll be good. Sometimes it’ll be bad.

Either way, it’s better than stagnation.
Well, I for one would prefer if D&D in 2040 remained completely compatible with material from the Teens. Vhange, sure, just like we are seeing with 2024. Bit gradual, compatible change is the way to progress.
 

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

I think under the scenario that any of us are generally proposing here, D&D would still look very different now than it's origins. For example, I suspect that we'd still have ascending AC and Saving Throws that are more about what you're doing to avoid the damage than about what sort of threat is coming at you. However, things would have iterated more slowly over the years to get there.

Heck, had the designers constantly faced only looking toward things that are often, widely, considered "problems", then we may have had both simple and complex versions of each of the classes, and a lesser disparity between martials and spellcasters, for a (likely contentious) example.

I don't think it's as impossible as some do (most, probably) to have the game support a wide variety of play styles, and still be clear and concise.
 
Last edited:

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)

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?
This got me thinking. If you wanted to adapt the Magic model to D&D, with continual innovation but maintaining the structure, you should probably look to the other thing Magic does: shift setting.

Magic sets shift from plane to plane, and changes the things that are available. Some things are constant, while others change, or at least take different tacks on the same concepts. The most pure expression of this would probably have been the Jakandor setting from late 2e, with the expectation that you'd do another similar-sized thing each year (or maybe every other year).

For those who don't know, Jakandor was a setting that had three books done for it: Jakandor, Island of War; Jakandor, Isle of Destiny; and Jakandor, Land of Legend. The setting was an island – I think roughly Great Britain-sized, but I could be misremembering that – with a primary conflict that was summed up as "barbarians vs wizards." The island was home to two different cultures, one emphasizing spirituality and martial prowess and the other magic and rediscovering lost lore. One of the books focused on the "barbarians", another the "wizards", and the third had some lore unknown to either side plus a bunch of adventure seeds. Each of the cultures had a number of "kits" specific to it – basically what 5e would call subclasses. It was a pretty cool setting, but definitely didn't have the depth of something like the Realms or Dark Sun. But I could totally see them doing something like that each year, or every few years, to provide something for those of us who like new things without resetting everything at the same time.

I think the closest we get to something like that in the modern era are Paizo's adventure paths, each (more or less) of which is set in a new location and has a different focus. But they're generally more permissive than what I'm thinking of, and generally relies more on very mild suggestions regarding external material than actual reshaping. The Player's Guides provide some nudges regarding useful choices but generally won't have any restrictions in them.

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.
Generally speaking, two things will increase the longer an edition goes on. One is the system mastery of its designers. They will learn what kinds of things work and what doesn't, and what unintended things are going on with the game system and how to either embrace them or counter them. So the technical level of later products will generally be better than that of earlier products. The other is the level of experimentation. The low-hanging fruit is done first. Start with the basics in the core books, then expand to known concepts that didn't fit in, and then you start getting weird. The 3.5e monster books were good examples of both: the MM monsters had the old standbys (ten dragons, six giants, a bunch of demons and devils, orcs, gnolls, kobolds, goblinoids, etc.) but they generally weren't all that well designed, while later MMs had monsters that were better mechanical designs but attached to weirder concepts because all the classic concepts were used up.

When it comes to rules expansions, being experimental can be both good and bad. Sometimes you get awesome things like the Book of Nine Swords. Other times you get Incarnum, which was weird enough that players generally didn't bother with it and designers didn't have anything to properly balance it against.
 

Either way, it’s better than stagnation.
I don't think anyone is advocating for stagnation. I know I'm not.

As a tangent, this is something I deal with quite a bit as a Comic & Game Store owner. We often get accused of being "resistant to change" when we reject proposed changes. The truth is, we're rejecting TERRIBLE changes, and the changes we've been clamoring for (often for 40 years or more) are ignored.

This is similar to that. Just because we (those of us who agree on this) think that they shouldn't overhaul the game regularly, does NOT mean that we think that it should stay the same forever!

And before we get into an argument about how what's "good" and what's "bad" is subjective - I don't entirely agree with that (beyond its obvious truisms). If I were "in charge" of D&D, I'd take a good hard look at ANYTHING that is criticized about the game (ignoring obvious lunatics) and target how to make that thing "better". Would my solution always work? Of course not, but then we'd look at the game as a whole again, and tweak it again. It would have to be an ongoing effort.
 
Last edited:

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.
Are you a fan of 4e? Because I'm given to understand that the latter bit of 3.5 had a lot of 4e "testbed" stuff, so if you like 4e that might affect your opinion.
 

Yes?

Yeah, the thing right now might be good, but what if the next thing is great?

I’ve always thought WOTC’s latest spiel of, “5E is the last edition” to be mostly nonsense because imagine being the D&D Lead in 2040 and being told, “yeah, so you actually aren’t allowed to change anything. We just think we really nailed it 30 years ago.”

I want the game to change, evolve, and grow. Sometimes it’ll be good. Sometimes it’ll be bad.

Either way, it’s better than stagnation.
I wouldn't take it as a truism that bad evolution is better than stagnation, especially given WotC's oversized influence on the industry and the community. Their ideas tend to "matter" more than others, unfortunately.
 

Are you a fan of 4e? Because I'm given to understand that the latter bit of 3.5 had a lot of 4e "testbed" stuff, so if you like 4e that might affect your opinion.
3.5's Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. Elements from this book were used in 4e according to Wikipedia. I don't know if any other 3.5 books had 'testbed' material for 4e.

I wonder if this book's maneuvers and stances were used as inspiration for Level Up's Combat Traditions.
 


Like Zardnaar said on page 1 the economics encourage edition changes all on their own. There is another reason however that I believe substantial edition changes are necessary to D&D specifically. That reason is what I'd call the funnel. The thing that makes other rpgs that have a more iterative design work is that they cater to a specific fanbase that groks what they are doing. D&D is deferent, it's overwhelmingly the first, and often the last, TTRPG someone plays. There are so many different ways that you might get interested into TTRPGs - from books, to board games, to t.v. shows, to video games as diverse as Baldur's Gate, Elden Ring, Disco Elysium, The Legend of Zelda, and Final Fantasy 14. All those possible entry points funnel down to the current edition of D&D. This results in a in a pool of players forming a very diverse amorphous blob that pulls, pushes, and stretches itself in countless and often contradictory ways. That metaphorical blob does occasionally form consistent patterns over time though, as the tastes of the nebulous 'overall TTRPG' community changes. This is why I think D&D specifically does need to periodically change fundamentally. Sometimes the tastes of that blob just gets too far out of step with the game that exists.

Now you might say that the problem is the funnel itself, and there's some truth to that. The thing is that many players have difficulty learning a new system, or even learning their first. Having a go to game also greatly increases the chances that there is a game locally that you could join. Finally, Hasbro definitely likes the funnel and has every possible motivation to keep it going. So I think the funnel complication is something D&D is just going to live with for many years and even decades to come.
 

Remove ads

Top