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

[Zardnaar]

LotR and the Hobbit are popular, but they're not D&D, and D&D doesn't try to be them.

BG3 is popular but I think CR may have the sheer weight at the moment just due to age


Look, if we want to be all in Tolkein stuff, D&D is bad at emulating Tolkein and has ever since day 1. Emulating Tolkein is going to mean Wizards are first on the chopping block, after all, and right up next are going to be Clerics. Getting rid of two of the original 4 classes doesn't sound great for emulation.

Other race options outside of the original 5 have been in this game longer than I've been alive. If they weren't popular, they wouldn't keep surviving edition after edition and being highly requested. The forerunners of Dragonborn are Draconians which have been playable since 2E, after all.

What book for playable Draconians in 2E?

 

[Lanefan]

That was not my claim. "Insular groups" specifically refers to game groups that do not change participants in campaigns over long periods (as in over multiple years). You can have some rotation and still have it be among friends. At one time I was a member of a group of about 25 people that rotated from group to group across sessions, let alone campaigns, and some people rotated in and out of the group on occasion; but I'd still describe most of them as friends.

I still would say that most of the play in the hobby is within that type of group. Organized play always has an outsized voice in comparison to the number of participants, and playing with previously-unknown people over the internet - while growing - is I think still a minority thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We could do worse - and we have.

And I say we are doing worse--because we are constraining ourselves so.

We have the entire field of human imagination. We instead choose to play in only one, tiny part of it. Tolkien himself would be disappointed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Call me harsh, but if someone moves away that tells me they're leaving their current life - including their current friends - behind.

See ya.

You do realize that, for many, many people, they literally don't physically live where their friends live now, right?

To abandon digital tools would be the very thing you describe.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes.

False. Tolkien himself would have said as much:

I will not treat your dusty path and flat, ​

denoting this and that by this and that,
your world immutable wherein no part
the little maker has with maker's art.
I bow not yet before the Iron Crown,
nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.​

Maybe not just five - there's room for more - but save categories that are based on the type of effect to be saved against make loads of sense.

Except they all too often didn't. Which was exactly the problem. Why were certain effects from wands actually death saves, or whatever? There was no logic to it. Maybe if the effects had actually been consistent and well-defined, but they never were.

Sure, why not?

Because it is patently ridiculous. +N bonuses somehow subtract. Some penalties are listed as -N. Some as +N. Lower is better, but higher attack numbers are better, but lower saves are (sometimes) better, but...

There is a reason unified mechanics have won out, not just in D&D, but in the TTRPG sphere in general. "Lower is better" is just inherently less intuitive. Pedagogical research tells us that much.

 

[Mecheon]

What book for playable Draconians in 2E?

Can't remember which and unfortunately the one website actually listing "This is what all what was playable in 2E" is down, but it was a later one post those books about draconians setting out on their own. May have been early 3E instead?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can't remember which and unfortunately the one website actually listing "This is what all what was playable in 2E" is down, but it was a later one post those books about draconians setting out on their own. May have been early 3E instead?

The earliest I remember was 3e, and just baaz and kapak.

 

[payn]

I still would say that most of the play in the hobby is within that type of group. Organized play always has an outsized voice in comparison to the number of participants, and playing with previously-unknown people over the internet - while growing - is I think still a minority thing.

What are you basing this on?

 

[Minigiant]

D&D really could grow out its scaled races officially.

1. Dragonborn
2. Draconians
3. Kobolds
4. Lizardfolk
5. Tortle
6. Dinosaur People
7. Snakepeople (possible offshot of actually Yaunti)
8. Medusafolk
9. Chameleon people

And old DM of mine had a whole continent of scaledfolk which he borrowed heavily from Warhammer. And I stole from him for one of my setting.

But overall, the addition of new humaniod races for both sides helped fun by adding new tactical options.

• Dragonborn troops discourage bunching and AOE spells.
• Draconian troops discourage melee finishing and encouraged range
• Orcs (4e/5e) troops could charge and enter melee faster
• Dwarven troops had strong heavy frontliner
• Elven troops had squishy but dangerous backlines

 

[haakon1]

When 6e happens, 6e will likely be more liked than 5e by adding stuff 5e wanted and were houserulng as kludges. Even the designers admit 5e has pain points.

How many editions were more popular than their predecessor, comparing saying 1-2 years in for each (long enough for people to get past the Gee Whiz new phase):

I think Yes: Basic & AD&D (both versus OD&D), 3e, 5e

I think No: 2e, 3.5e, 4e

So, not clear 6e will be more liked than 5e. 5e set a very high bar. And it was smart to CUT rather than add as it’s basic “less is more, bloat doesn’t work” approach.