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

[mamba]

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.

If you insist on answering a different question than was asked, I see why there is misunderstanding

The question is not whether we like 5e or want it to change, the question basically is, how well would BX do in today's market, if they never made these radical changes with editions and only some minor tweaks the way CoC did / does.

 

[payn]

If you insist on answering a different question than was asked, I see why there is misunderstanding

The question is not whether we like 5e or want it to change, the question basically is, how well would BX do in today's market, if they never made these radical changes with editions and only some minor tweaks the way CoC did / does.

No, this is a general discussion on the possibility of incremental change retiring the idea of edition changes. You are hung up on the specific BX example. Also, an odd notion that it would be exactly the same today without any changes.

 

[Parmandur]

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)

That is the point in contention: I don't think that's true.

Consider the best selling board games on the planet: Chess and Monopoly.

 

[payn]

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.

5E's retro design is the best seller of all time, and its not even close.

 

[Parmandur]

If you insist on answering a different question than was asked, I see why there is misunderstanding

The question is not whether we like 5e or want it to change, the question basically is, how well would BX do in today's market, if they never made these radical changes with editions and only some minor tweaks the way CoC did / does.

The question was a bit more open than that, but...

Yes, an iterated B/X would still be dominating the RPG industry today, IMO.

 

[Parmandur]

5E's retro design is the best seller of all time, and its not even close.

And some of the most successful other games on the market are literally iterations on B/X (and specifically B/X).

 

[Minigiant]

5E's retro design is the best seller of all time, and its not even close.

The retroness is not the biggest selling point.

It's the ease from the new mechanics: advantage disadvantage, subclasses, and wacky races.

 

[payn]

The retroness is not the biggest selling point.

It's the ease from the new mechanics: advantage disadvantage

Which they didn't invent.

 

[Minigiant]

Which they didn't invent.

Buddy buddy
That's the point.

If you don't reset, you can't steal other RPG's good ideas.

 

[Minigiant]

That is the point in contention: I don't think that's true.

Consider the best selling board games on the planet: Chess and Monopoly.

Which are board games.
One a pure strategy game.
Another a rigged trash that causes fights and heartbreak.

And even so. They make money by selling to people once. Or if they lose their old copy.

When Chess and Monopoly attempt to have continuous customers, they create versions with whole new rules... New editions if you will.