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

[mamba]

Folks keep saying incremental changes is equivalent to nothing and that's not correct.

I understand that you can make some changes, to me they are limited in scope however. As I said earlier, either the changes you can make are limited compared to new editions, or I fail to see a meaningful distinction between the two.

I feel like those arguing that 'you can make incremental changes for this' are blurring that line and just have a new edition without calling it that.

So let's see what you consider incremental change to BX and what not

1) not having races as classes
2) removing racial class limits
3) adding skills and feats
4) adding cantrips to vancian casting
5) unified XP progression
6) subclasses

 

[Minigiant]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the only time D&D was challenged for the number 1 spot when a competitor was running a previous edition of D&D?

Well not until 4e got long in the tooth due to a design philosophy which ran them through 10 years of content in 3 years.

Then D&D updated to another edition and blew out their competitor.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the only time D&D was challenged for the number 1 spot when a competitor was running a previous edition of D&D?

And even then, the "challenge" only applied if you exclusively looked at metrics measuring brick-and-mortar sales.

During a time when one of the nation's largest booksellers went out of business, and book sales in general took something of a beating.

And when an actual subscription service was used, verifiably, by (IIRC) tens of thousands of people, because if you were a valid DDI subscriber and a WotC forum member, you would automatically be added to the DDI subscriber group, and automatically removed if your sub lapsed. Hence, this provided a floor (not all subscribed people were also forum members, and even if they were the accounts weren't necessarily linked) for how many DDI subs there were.

Creating your own competition, particularly one actively encouraging and benefitting from the edition war. Who'd've thunk that might lead to a base split?! The truth will shock you.

 

[payn]

Well not until 4e got long in the tooth due to a design philosophy which ran them through 10 years of content in 3 years.

Then D&D updated to another edition and blew out their competitor.

Would you say that update was innovative or more like a revision of the past?

 

[payn]

And even then, the "challenge" only applied if you exclusively looked at metrics measuring brick-and-mortar sales.

During a time when one of the nation's largest booksellers went out of business, and book sales in general took something of a beating.

And when an actual subscription service was used, verifiably, by (IIRC) tens of thousands of people, because if you were a valid DDI subscriber and a WotC forum member, you would automatically be added to the DDI subscriber group, and automatically removed if your sub lapsed. Hence, this provided a floor (not all subscribed people were also forum members, and even if they were the accounts weren't necessarily linked) for how many DDI subs there were.

Creating your own competition, particularly one actively encouraging and benefitting from the edition war. Who'd've thunk that might lead to a base split?! The truth will shock you.

Yes, well my point was D&D has never had a competitor for the number 1 spot that wasn't created by D&D itself.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Would you say that update was innovative or more like a revision of the past?

What does 'giving a name to a mechanic that competition invented, using it for everything, then being lauded as geniuses' count as?

 

[payn]

What does 'giving a name to a mechanic that competition invented, using it for everything, then being lauded as geniuses' count as?

Haha, yes its true. However, this just proves my point further. D&D can vulture ideas from smaller outfits for D&D and doesn't have to be the trailblazer itself. Innovation in the TTRPG space is for the indies.

 

[mamba]

However, this just proves my point further. D&D can vulture ideas from smaller outfits for D&D and doesn't have to be the trailblazer itself. Innovation in the TTRPG space is for the indies.

no one is arguing that point... of course D&D does not need to trailblaze, the question is how far can it afford to fall behind, and can it avoid doing so without revisions (imo no)

 

[payn]

no one is arguing that point... of course D&D does not need to trailblaze, the question is how far can it afford to fall behind, and can it avoid doing so without revisions (imo no)

Maybe im the outlier here, but when did TTRPGs become this lightning quick to innovate and change industry? I think folks are trying to make a convincing point for why they want D&D to change because they don't like it as is instead of just saying so.

 

[Minigiant]

Would you say that update was innovative or more like a revision of the past?

It was innovative and the best seller D&D at the time.

The problem is that the design of having every class have all their own power forcing more power books, WOTC's piss poor adventure design, and the GSL chasing 3PP away.

Greed killed 4e, not design.