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

[mamba]

Remember the evolution analogy. The key with incremental changes is not that they can’t lead to a large departure in the end, but that you never have so many of them at once that there’s a clean break.

that works with evolution, but not with a design that has maintaining compatibility as its goal.

To me the OP’s question is, could BX (or 1e) have survived, basically unaltered, until this day.

If your question is whether we make essentially the same changes either with editions every 10 years, with slightly altered rulebooks every other year (same changes over 10 years, but in increments), or over a much longer timeframe, then that is a very different question.

Race/class split? Both Labyrinth Lord and OSE already did this in their “advanced” rules, without changing the underlying BX chassis.

just like AD&D, this is not exactly new, but it does break compatibility somewhat

Removing level limits and unified XP progression? I feel like there’s at least one retro-clone that does that already.

definitely breaks compatibility

As I said, the question was not could BX have gradually evolved into that, but could it have stayed basically the same and still get to 5e market share and player numbers today. To me the answer is ‘no’

 

[Staffan]

I would also argue that there are at least two levels of compatibility: PC compatibility and adventure compatibility.

To me, "adventure compatibility" means that I can take an adventure made from an earlier version and use it pretty much as is and still have it make sense, even if the balance might be off. You might have to extrapolate some things but only to a minimal degree (e.g. if using a 3.0 adventure with the Pathfinder rules you need to add CMB/CMD to the monsters). You generally have adventure compatibility between revisions (1e/2e, 3e/3.5/PF1, likely 5e/5.5), but not between resets.

PC compatibility on the other hand means that the rules for making PCs stay more or less the same and that you can freely use player-focused material made for one version with another. This is more rare. For example, in 3e and 3.5e, barbarians get a certain number of activations per day of their Rage ability, with each activation lasting for a number of rounds. But in Pathfinder, barbarians instead get a certain number of rounds of rage per day which they can use selectively. This means that any ability that works off of rage activations (e.g. "You get 1 extra rage per day" or "You can spend a rage activation for X" would need redesign.

 

[Minigiant]

I would also argue that there are at least two levels of compatibility: PC compatibility and adventure compatibility.

At least 5

1. PC Compatibility- Compatibility with the Player Book
2. NPC/Monster Compatibility- Compatibility with the Monster Book
3. Challenge Compatibility-Compatibility with the DM Book
4. Adventure Compatibility- Compatibility with the Adventure Books
5. Setting Compatibility- Compatibility with the Setting Book

For example a new class might causes compatibility with the Player stuff and Setting stuff from before.
But a making a monster a higher level threat might make incompatible with everything but the DM books.

 

[Micah Sweet]

that works with evolution, but not with a design that has maintaining compatibility as its goal.

To me the OP’s question is, could BX (or 1e) have survived, basically unaltered, until this day.

If your question is whether we make essentially the same changes either with editions every 10 years, with slightly altered rulebooks every other year (same changes over 10 years, but in increments), or over a much longer timeframe, then that is a very different question.


just like AD&D, this is not exactly new, but it does break compatibility somewhat


definitely breaks compatibility

As I said, the question was not could BX have gradually evolved into that, but could it have stayed basically the same and still get to 5e market share and player numbers today. To me the answer is ‘no’

Again, the OP did not mention market share, players numbers, or indeed any business-related matters in their post. Did they add these concerns in a later post, or is it just not possible to talk about gaming anymore without bringing in popularity and profit?

 

[mamba]

Again, the OP did not mention market share, players numbers, or indeed any business-related matters in their post. Did they add these concerns in a later post, or is it just not possible to talk about gaming anymore without bringing in popularity and profit?

if you do not consider popularity the answer becomes trivially ‘yes, you can’, making the whole discussion moot. So no, in this case you cannot separate the two.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Anyone play Everquest recently???

 

[R_J_K75]

YES!!!!!! Otherwise, the game will stagnate and devolve. The game needs to evolve, 5(20).x1.1(24) is not the way to go. Mild updates, just rearranging the layout etc is not what the doctor ordered IMO. I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this, but D&D needs to move away from the d20 system and classes need to go. 6E would most likely pique more interest than whatever they are planning on releasing 2024. If I had to pick one thing that needs a significant rework it's the magic system. I really believe they could do a lot if they focused on spell effects rather than spell descriptions. But that is a tale for another time.

P.S. Happy Boxing Day

 

[Mecheon]

I don’t think D&D actually “needs” any of those things. I like the bard and simple relationship of ability scores to modifiers, which both came from 3e innovation. I tolerate the sorcerer, also from 3e, but I don’t think it added much to the game. The rest, I don’t even like.

Just going back to this, they'd absolutely be re-invented by the game over time. Not even that the seeds for all three mentioned races were laid in the very next edition, they're just wide, popular archetypes

Dragonborn are the playable dragon-people, which have existed since AD&D in the form of Draconians. Dragonborn is just a generic version of that archetype rather than having all of the weight and setting requirements of draconians
Tabaxi? Cat-people. I honestly don't need to say anything further than that.
Goliaths are half-giants with the psionics stripped off and replaced by survival skills, letting them have a wider impact (and without the dumb 'you wake up and you're a different alignment' thing, I love Dark Sun and all but there's parts like that which are absolutely dumb)
Sorcerers, who have natural magic coming from their body rather than studying books, is a massive archetype and well known outside of the D&D space.
Warlock? Pretty much the same. Especially given 1E split Assassin into its own thing even back then, there'd absolutely be people splitting stuff off for different flavours oof spellcaster because the D&D wizard is just The D&D Wizard and isn't very good at capturing other wizardly archetypes

 

[Minigiant]

if you do not consider popularity the answer becomes trivially ‘yes, you can’, making the whole discussion moot. So no, in this case you cannot separate the two.

Exactly.

Of course you can make an incrementally designed RPG. It of itself is not hard.

The question is whether it would be considered a success by the IP holder and the community.

4e was designed well to be an incremental RPG. It makes record numbers of money but not enough for WOTC and didn't do what many fans wanted. But it was exactly as what an incremental design RPG would be.

1. Clear slots for new elements
   1. New races
   2. New Classes
   3. New Monsters
   4. New traps
   5. New powers and power sources
   6. New feats
2. Clear formulas that the designers and fans can tweak.
3. The ability to insert new structures that work with old ones (AKA Essentials)
4. Mechanical flexibility to work with old and new settings with different assumptions (no divines no problem)

The fans were just split and WOTC wanted twice the profit.

 

[mamba]

YES!!!!!! Otherwise, the game will stagnate and devolve. The game needs to evolve, 5(20).x1.1(24) is not the way to go. Mild updates, just rearranging the layout etc is not what the doctor ordered IMO.

given the position 5e is currently in, any really new edition was out of the question. I wish they would have stuck to their more ‘radical’ ideas from the early playtests however. That they did not is certainly reducing my interest.

I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this, but D&D needs to move away from the d20 system and classes need to go.

ha, no half measures for you… I do not expect to see them move away from either during my lifetime, nor do I want them to