Is D&D caught in a cycle of radical reinvention?

[Alzrius]

Looking at the various threads about people discussing the virtues of major changes to D&D has made me really think about how the game has changed over the years since its creation.

The first few incarnations of D&D didn't seem to change so much as they "grew." Lightly-detailed systems blossomed into more complex systems, alongside clean-ups and expansions. Little was truly thrown out or out-and-out changed as we went through OD&D to BD&D to AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E.

That all changed with Third Edition.

3E was a fairly radical re-invention of the game rules. True, it still kept a lot of continuity in various areas, but for the first time the game really seemed to outright throw out a lot of the older ways of doing things and replace them with new mechanics.

Fourth edition continued this trend, and from what I'm reading here, a lot of people are expecting, or even advocating, that 5E do this as well.

Given that, I'm led to wonder...is this how it is for most other RPGs?

I'm not very well-versed in table-top RPGs besides D&D; I know things about them, but I've owned and played very few. From what little I do know, however, most RPGs don't change to the extent that D&D has been when they go to a new edition. Most of their edition updates are in the manner of pre-3E D&D - errors are fixed, areas of mechanics are grown/split/consolidated, but not entirely replaced. A new edition of the game was, in its rules, immediately recognizable as being the same as the previous edition with just some minor tweaking.

D&D seems to be caught in a cycle where it has to out-and-out reinvent itself with each new edition. I'm wondering just what the effects of this are, and if they're a good thing.

 

[foolish_mortals]

Hrm. The 2 old games I'm looking apparently haven't changed that much over the years. Pendragon being one. Call of Cthulhu supposedly is still pretty much the game it was 30 years ago. Given that I became used to the shock of changing dnd over the years that in turn was a shock to. It looks like those are plusses for those games in that cool stuff written way back then is still usable. I'm not sure what other games have kept themselves stable.

foolish_mortals

 

[Nivenus]

I don't know for sure because I've only played the Dawn of War games, but I think I've heard from veteran players that Warhammer 40,000 undergoes a similar process every few years. However, that's a wargame, not an RPG, so I'm not sure if it counts.

Saga Edition was also a pretty big change for the d20 SWRPG, though not as big as the one between 3e and 4e. And of course there was the transition from the WEG version to the d20 one, though that was more of a result of the license changing hands than anything else.

 

[foolish_mortals]

I've seen alot of people say that old west end game version of star wars was one of their favorite games. Not sure why though. That star wars thing has suffered the same fate as dnd.

foolish_mortals

 

[trancejeremy]

Call of Cthulhu is pretty much the same as it was 30 years ago. (And frankly, you could almost consider it OD&D house rules. No classes or levels, skill system uses 100% like the thief abilities, plus the sanity mechanic)

GURPS has had 4 editions - I don't own the 4th ed rulebook, but there doesn't really seem to be much different in the 4e sourcebooks vs the 3rd edition ones. (I hate GURPS but I like their sourcebooks)

Shadowrun has had 4 editions - the second edition used basically the mechanics of the first, but fixed a bit, then third and fourth were radically different. (I own every 1e/2e product and tried to jump to 3rd, but found it too different)

Vampire: The Masquerade was completely redone and became Vampire: The Requiem (at which point I stopped following it)

I think the closest parallel to D&D would be Traveller - it was very simple, then had a lot of unbalancing splatbooks, then had a fairly dramatic but still recognizable change to MegaTraveller, then moved to Traveller: The New Era which used a completely and radically different engine (and setting). Then they went out of business, though the designer who retained the rights licensed out the property
to several companies all with different systems. Kind of a mess.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Third Edition wasn't that radical a change. It rebuilt what existed on top of a more unified and granular mechanic. But it was still the same game.

4E was an attempt to build a better game on top of the 3E mechanic. And while it may seem like a radical change, mostly because of class design, moving from 3E to 4E is nothing like moving from 3E to World of Darkness, Shadowrun, or Savage Worlds.

D&D is caught in a difficult position. It was the first RPG, and remains the biggest. Because of that, it has a lot of sacred cows that, while still fun, hold it back in many ways. Change too much, it stops being D&D. Don't change enough, and it becomes an inferior game. D&D can never be Savage Worlds, which I think is the best game, mechanically, that the industry has to offer right now. So, D&D instead has to try to be the best D&D it can be.

 

[cyphus5]

Having played pretty much every game mentioned except for Traveller and Cthulu, D&D tends to try to reinvent in self more than other games with each new edition than most games. I believe wizards believes that its necessary in this age, but its not. I do tend to prefer the trend of Indies dogs though, like Burning Wheel and FATE. I myself feel that a drastic reinvention is necessary now though, because fourth edition feels more like a war game as opposed to a role playing game.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[WheresMyD20]

3E was a fairly radical re-invention of the game rules. True, it still kept a lot of continuity in various areas, but for the first time the game really seemed to outright throw out a lot of the older ways of doing things and replace them with new mechanics.

Fourth edition continued this trend, and from what I'm reading here, a lot of people are expecting, or even advocating, that 5E do this as well.

Looking at some of the quotes from the designers, they're saying things like wanting to take the best of all editions and trying to find the core of D&D.

This leads me to think that 5e might actually be taking D&D closer to its roots rather than aiming for another reinvention.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think the closest parallel to D&D would be Traveller - it was very simple, then had a lot of unbalancing splatbooks, then had a fairly dramatic but still recognizable change to MegaTraveller, then moved to Traveller: The New Era which used a completely and radically different engine (and setting). Then they went out of business, though the designer who retained the rights licensed out the property
to several companies all with different systems. Kind of a mess.

Traveller was totally a mess, and a fairly bitterly divided group over various editions. The most recent, however, tried to go back to what made the original game successful, just updated a bit (technologically, and also in terms of accessibility). There are still objectors that cling on to older editions, but by and large the transition to Mongoose's Traveller has been pretty successful and popular. As evidence by their continuous support and sales.

What I am saying is, it can be done.

 

[The Human Target]

I don't see the point in buying a new edition if its not fairly different from the previous ones.