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

[MichaelSomething]

So you're saying D&D should become a live service game???

Get a Beyond account so you can keep up with the latest patch!

 

[Remathilis]

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

1. Basic D&D had moved away from RaC towards the end of its run. First, by introducing variant classes (dwarf cleric, elf wizard) and then when lupin, rakasta and tortle were induced in the Princess Ark articles, they could take any human class (fighter, cleric, magic user or thief). I could easily see race and class separating and still allow elf class characters to be played.

2. The Rules Cyclopedia did this too. All three demihuman classes were given to advance to 36th level.

3. Players Options had a variety of abilities that mimiced feats that used weapon and nonweapon proficiencies. It's not as robust as 3e feats, but the option could have existed.

4. Complete Mage added feats that allowed you to use at will effects as long as you had a spell of a particular type prepared. For example, it dealt d4 fire damage based on the highest level fire spell you prepared and once you cast it, it dropped to the next lowest level fire spell.

5. This i think would be the first thing you could not do without larger rewriting. It might be possible to redo the classes to better balance them.

6. Subclasses are just another version of kits, paragon paths, prestige classes or archetype variants. All were able to be added.


Now, I'm not thinking that new editions never happen or nothing ever changes, but I do think it would have been better if more care was placed into what could be converted forward. A 1e cavalier can be played in 2e, but not in subsequent editions. A 3e spell works in 3.5 and Pathfinder, but not 4e or 5e. 4e made so many changes that conversion is practically impossible. What I'm asking is whether these hard breaks were actually in the games best interest or not.

 

[payn]

Now, I'm not thinking that new editions never happen or nothing ever changes, but I do think it would have been better if more care was placed into what could be converted forward. A 1e cavalier can be played in 2e, but not in subsequent editions. A 3e spell works in 3.5 and Pathfinder, but not 4e or 5e. 4e made so many changes that conversion is practically impossible. What I'm asking is whether these hard breaks were actually in the games best interest or not.

No, I do not believe hard breaks are in the best interest of the game. I think they helped learn some good lessons about designing a better base that can carry the game forward. Change should be incremental.

 

[mamba]

What I'm asking is whether these hard breaks were actually in the games best interest or not.

all of them, no, some clearly did not get the desired result. The same would be true with iterative changes however. If you knew then what you know now, you clearly would not have experimented as much. Since they did not know it, I believe experimenting and the resets that came with it were better than just tweaking what they started with for the next 40 years

 

[Minigiant]

No, I do not believe hard breaks are in the best interest of the game. I think they helped learn some good lessons about designing a better base that can carry the game forward. Change should be incremental.

A D&D that is incremental would have to be design to be.

Unfortunately the biggest obstacle to that is the D&D community. The community won't allow for th change need to create a base that could be incremental due to either loyalty to traditional sacred cows or unwillingness to give up their older edition books to pick up the new ones for the incremental D&D.

And the same goes for many other RPGs. Sunk Cost and Sacred Cows keep the community from making the correct base.

This mean TSR, WOTC, Paizo, KP, ENW, or whoever will never be able to keep up a viable business plan for an incremental RPG that keeps up with the current trends and population and isn't shoved off into a niche corner.

It's like rolling 18/00. Technically it's possible but it's extremely unlikely to be pulled off without cheating.

 

[payn]

A D&D that is incremental would have to be design to be.

Unfortunately the biggest obstacle to that is the D&D community. The community won't allow for th change need to create a base that could be incremental due to either loyalty to traditional sacred cows or unwillingness to give up their older edition books to pick up the new ones for the incremental D&D

And the same goes for many other RPGs. Sunk Cost and Sacred Cows keep the community from making the correct base.

This mean TSR, WOTC, Paizo, KP, ENW, or whoever will never be able to keep up a viable business plan for an incremental RPG that keeps up with the current trends and population and isn't shoved off into a niche corner.

It's like rolling 18/00. Technically it's possible but it's extremely unlikely to be pulled off without cheating.

This is what im talking about folks. This line of thinking is how you bring about a reset that sinks the ship.

 

[Minigiant]

This is what im talking about folks. This line of thinking is how you bring about a reset that sinks the ship.

It's not a line of thinking. It's reality.

3 times in D&D's history did the designers try to make new changes to D&D that came form the collective design mind and the community/playtesters kill them... not because they didn't want them... but because they didn't want old product to be replaced.

"I want X"
"Ok use the new version of Y that works with X"
"NO! I want to use the old Y from the books I brought and still use X"
"That'll break the game."
Ten minutes later
"X is broken. Why can''t you design good X?"

The problem is us. An incremental D&D would be ruined by us.

 

[payn]

The problem is us. An incremental D&D would be ruined by us.

Your ruined, is our saved.

 

[Lanefan]

that's an edition change

It's more a ship of Theseus - you eventually get from what looks like one edition to what looks like another but there's no specific point where anyone can say "That was when the change occurred." as it's been gradual all along.

5e now is quite different than 5e on initial release, even before 5.5e.

 

[Parmandur]

It's more a ship of Theseus - you eventually get from what looks like one edition to what looks like another but there's no specific point where anyone can say "That was when the change occurred." as it's been gradual all along.

5e now is quite different than 5e on initial release, even before 5.5e.

Yet Hoard of thenDragon Queen is still entirely playable, wild and rough as it is, even if all latter-daybiptions are being used.