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

[soviet]

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.

Can't wait for Goblins and Gazebos

 

[Corinnguard]

?

4e is universally accepted as an improvement

If 4e was universally accepted as an improvement, would there have been a split in the D&D community that led some fans to embrace Paizo's Pathfinder RPG series? Wouldn't 4e have become the most popular edition of D&D and not 5e?

 

[Minigiant]

Yes.

RPG design not refined enough to even get 50% of it right the first time for commercial sale.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

As you say, when you hit that point of "iterative saturation", my preferred move is to make a new game, with a new name and no legacy from previous games with the same name to live up to (or live down).

 

[Vaalingrade]

If 4e was universally accepted as an improvement, would there have been a split in the D&D community that led some fans to embrace Paizo's Pathfinder RPG series? Wouldn't 4e have become the most popular edition of D&D and not 5e?

1) Every edition has people who spin off to keep using the old one.

2) Every edition was the most popular despite people acting like it's a feat.

 

[mamba]

Whether or not a new mechanic is "better" than an older one is subjective. This assumption is IMO really twisting this discussion out of shape.

it’s not like we did not learn anything about TTRPG design in the last 50 years, so I’d say there is a lot that can be improved upon in OD&D and 1e, and even 5e. Which is where breaking compatibility every now and then helps

 

[LordEntrails]

What point of view are you looking at? I for one am not prioritizing supporting a mass casual market.

Well, it seems that growth of the product and market is not of interest for you. Which is fine. Myself, I would like the game to spread and grow. For a few reasons. The more money in the market, the more people who can make an actual living from it. It can truly become professional and not much more than a paid hobby. Too many creators can't make a living int he industry. Second, I believe their are great personal and social growth that can come from a good experience with RPGs. IMO the world is currently in a serious mental health crisis, having more people grow, learn and be healthy happy people is a good thing that I think RPGs can help with.

So yea, I want the RPG market to grow. Not for my direct personal benefit, but for the good of humanity.

It's because of edition change we lost gold for exp, racial level limits, 3d6 stats rolled on order, the commoner class, material components, d4 hit dice, and true Vancain casting. How much more lost can we stand???

Hopefully this is said in humor. If not, we also lost gender limits and penalties. And that's a good thing. Prove me wrong.

I disagree. Had any previous edition stumbled on to the convergence of lucky factors that has graced 5e, that edition would have become the mass-casual game at the time.

Maybe, maybe not. But it didn't happen so your view is only speculation. What we can say is that in this regard 5E has done what previous editions have not.

Never mind that 1e in fact was a big deal for a while, warts and all.

And? It wasn't as a big a deal as 5E is now. For it's time, sure, it was great, for those in the know. But 5E is no longer a cultural niche, it is at least known in a positive light by most of the mainstream. IMO, that is a good thing (see above).

 

[the Jester]

The regular elemental planes were already a mistake. The only way to make them adventure-capable is to remove that which actually makes them distinct and exciting. To adventure in the Plane of Fire, you have to either have it stop being, y'know, completely inhospitable nothing, or you have to make the complete inhospitability of the place irrelevant to the party.

That's part of what separates high level pcs from low level pcs. High level pcs can work out how to go into a burning coal mine for an adventure tracking down a belker lord. Lower level pcs will die from the environment.

And if it exists but you literally never go there and only ever hear about it second-hand (at best), what exactly is the point of having it, other than to satisfy that "mmm, symmetry..." reflex in the human soul, to tick a box in order that all the boxes be ticked?

The point is that it was established precedent and there's no good reason to overturn it. Put it this way- if the Elemental Plane of Fire is just a hot version of the Prime, what sets it apart? Having a "graduated" EPoF like in 5e is the best of both worlds and is a good example of integrating, rather than overwriting, old lore with the new.

 

[GMMichael]

As you say, when you hit that point of "iterative saturation", my preferred move is to make a new game, with a new name and no legacy from previous games with the same name to live up to (or live down).

I'd be much more excited about "a new RPG from WotC" than "a revised definitely not 6th edition D&D." @schneeland is right about the market preferences; a changing demographic means that your previously useful and interesting mechanisms are going to fail to be interesting after a while.

it’s not like we did not learn anything about TTRPG design in the last 50 years, so I’d say there is a lot that can be improved upon in OD&D and 1e, and even 5e. Which is where breaking compatibility every now and then helps

See above. I don't know that you can say DRPGs got objectively better, because that's an opinion. They sure did become objectively different.

I'd like to suggest that D&D could have kept its roots for the long run - no new editions needed - if it started off with modular rules-design. (Haven't the adventures always been called "modules?" )

 

[Minigiant]

I'd like to suggest that D&D could have kept its roots for the long run - no new editions needed - if it started off with modular rules-design. (Haven't the adventures always been called "modules?" )

You have to design the core to be modular and open with the math to know how the modules and variants mesh.

The problem was RPGs didn't have purposely designed mechanics or math way back when. They were heavily designed on what "felt right" to the designers.

That's why D&D and RPGs need edition resets. Design "by the Feels" is very likely to not be eternal. So you'll have to cut and swap things out with time.

Then "Ship of Theseus". If you replace almost everything, is it not a new edition?