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

[Thomas Shey]

I want a classless D&D system is my oint

You do at least have to ask what that would even mean. I think there was an attempt at a classless (or at least build-a-class) Pathfinder at one point (I want to say Wayfinder?) but it never really seemed to take off.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMHO, Classless RPGs aren't able to fulfill the mechanics of strong tropes. Tropes are watered down to balance the classlessness.

D&D is a game of bundled tropes. Classless D&D is only for people who don't care about PC accuracy.

Archetypes have come knocking and seem to disagree with your assertion.

 

[Velderan]

You do at least have to ask what that would even mean. I think there was an attempt at a classless (or at least build-a-class) Pathfinder at one point (I want to say Wayfinder?) but it never really seemed to take off.

Jason Bulmahn released a hack of PF2e called Hopefinder that's a class-less zombie apocalypse survival game. It's not the same genre, but provides some insight into how you might run a class-less PF style game.

I haven't run it yet, but so no idea how it actually plays.

 

[Remathilis]

(Remember, while in the AD&D 1e days Gygax liked to maintain strict control over what was “official,” even TSR’s own magazines would publish a vast array of new classes, races, spells, magic items, and even optional system bolt-ons. The thief, paladin, ranger, druid, and illusionist all started as magazine contributions before becoming mainstream D&D. Heck, the Rolemaster RPG started as a set of plug-in replacement combat and magic rules for (A)D&D. If that ecosystem and the general ethos of “tweak the system to fit your table, we sure did” is allowed to persist alongside the incrementally developing BX, that changes things considerably.)

D&D up to 3e ran heavily on this. Good ideas were percolated in supplements and Dragon Magazine, then the best found its way into the base game rules. I mean, even the Thief was added to OD&D and became staple in Basic.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And to many, a classless D&D would not be D&D.

A lot of D&D isn't D&D to people who have no actual bearing on what is D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

They asked if it was a good thing. You and others interpreted that to mean, "a good thing for sales". I'm not going to assume that unless they come back and clarify.

So I guess I would say there are three factors I was considering when I wrote this.

1.) Good for Sales: Is it more beneficial for WotC to resell updated "Core" material (a new PHB, a new Planar book, a new Eberron campaign guide) than it is to sell augment material (a supplemental book of PC options, a deep dive into a specific plane, an adventure set in Xen'drik)
2.) Good for Bloat: Does resetting the game effectively kill bloat by replacing "outdated" versions of stuff with newer versions? Is it in players and DMs interest to no longer have to worry about balancing and updating things like psionics, incarnum, or other rules like that when upgrading to the next version? In essence, to wipe the board clean from all the supplemental chaff and start fresh?
3. Good for the Game: Does making monumental changes that invalidate the game ultimately make the game better or worse? There is no reason for a 5e player to seek out Complete Arcane; there is at best limited value in acquiring a copy of Tales from the Lance Boxset or The Village of Hommlet module. On the one hand, it keeps 5e players focused on what is available now rather than seeking out OOP books. On the other, it makes collected volumes of older material of limited or no value (barring a tremendous amount of work for conversion or just as inspiration).

To ansswer my own questions: I think one is important to WotC as there is a law of diminishing returns on the sale of esoteric items. I think two serves a useful function of pruning deadweight, but I also think three should be more important than it's been treated, despite the fact it clashes against 1 and 2. Because I would have loved to buy additional Eberron material that expanded the world over the past few years rather than rebuy the Eberron Core setting book (because I need the edition specific versions of the rules) over and over again.

 

[Minigiant]

It's a problem because it seems every game design conversation is dominated (not includes, is dominated) by questions of popularity and profit, such that it is clearly considered by this community to be the most important factor in game design.

Game design that doesn't sell doesn't get to make incremental additions forever.

Archetypes have come knocking and seem to disagree with your assertion.

New archetypes are easier to make in a class system than a classless one as you can opt to avoid other classes completely as a new class or integrate directly as a subclass.

But in classless, everything touches everything else.

 

[haakon1]

I see this (5e) as the second golden age, this time mostly based on popularity, not so much on innovation

Well, 2nd or 3rd Golden Age, I agree i’s the popularity and broad mainstream appeal that defines it.

Whether the need to squeeze ever more money out of D&D will have a negative effect is tbd. I am not seeing it grow forever or even keep the current level, that is the nature of the game, but what will cause the downturn is wide open.

Fair. I assume Hasbro will continue to causes crises for D&D and burn the brand, one way or another, until it’s about as dead as 2e in 1997. But it’s an assumption, and currently looks far away.

Did Hasbro execs read and absorb Ben Rigg’s “Slaying the Dragon”, explaining how TSR went bankrupt? Signs point to no.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you compare like to like, that is it's kodules to chapters of 5E books...then 5E fairs extremely well, IMO. Even weaker campaign books have Chapteras that as modules stand toe to toe eith the best of the 80's...and some like Tomb of Annhilation are chock full of bangers.

But since overall flourishing is more important to adjudication a Golden Age than oreferwnce, it is worth noting that the 5E Adventures have had rather shocking success.

Eh there's around 3 maybe 4 good 5E adventures.
Sales yes but there's less innovation in 5E than pretty much every other edition.

81-85 the type of adventures more variety and they invented multiple types of adventures. Dungeon hacks to hex crawls to I6 Ravenloft.
.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maximum profit is not the most important factor, but some level of financial health is necessary unless we're talking about one-and-done games.

For one thing, I prefer my game designers to be professional. I don't want them to be making games* as a hobby. I want them to do it as a full-time job – ideally as employees with a steady paycheck, but if not at least as full-time freelancers. Professionals generally make better stuff, because they get a lot of practice. And if they have real employment, that offers a sense of stability that lets them focus on their job instead of wondering if they can line up a new gig once this one is done. Professional game designers also means you'll be able to get a steady output of material, rather than having part-time game designers getting really busy with their day jobs or getting sick or stuff like that. I don't want to wait two years after the core book and the first adventure is released for the next adventure to be published.

And to have that sort of organization, you need to be able to pay those designers, as well as the overhead associated with having actual staff. And in order to do that, you need to sell stuff.

* I include the whole gamut of product here: core rules, supplemental rules, setting sourcebooks, adventures, whatever.

I never said profit wasn't important, but the propensity of every discussion of this kind to revolve around it tells me that making as much money as possible (not merely enough to keep going at a fair standard of living, but pushing for the most you can get) is considered the most important factor in design.