D&D General Some Thoughts on Historical Edition Changes, and What that Portends for OneD&D

[Vaalingrade]

Almost certainly, given everything they've said thus far. But will it be closer to 3e -> 3.5e (which wasn't as compatible as claimed), or 4e -> Essentials (which was)?

People keep yelling at me that Essentials wasn't a .5 despite vacating a large part of the design ethos and presenting what was essentially a new set of PH's.

 

[Jack Daniel]

3.5 to 3.0 was the exception though, more like AD&D to B/X.

I've heard 3.0 to 3.5 compared to AD&D 1e to 2e, since that's actually kind of a fair comparison. Nobody ever really talks about "AD&D to B/X," though, because B/X wasn't based on AD&D, it was based on Holmes Basic and the white box (and Greyhawk).

The incompatible differences between B/X and BECMI or RC are that thieves skills advance slower (there might be specific other differences like xp charts or whatever, but I never checked and used material from BECMI and RC era basic in my AD&D games as I had B/X stuff). I would expect to use a Merchant Prince or shaman class from the later Gazetteer series directly in a B/X game without mechanical conversion issues.

There are a bunch of little differences in the attack roll tables, saving throw tables, XP tables for certain classes (thief comes to mind), spell tables (cleric and elf), and of course the vaunted thief skill progressions. But it's hard to call them an "incompatible difference" when the changes to thief skills were made after the 1983 printing of the Mentzer Expert Set, which conforms to the to the thief skill table in the 1982 Cook Expert Set. The thief skills weren't stretched out until after the Companion Set was published, and then the Expert Set was updated to match in 1984.

In short, if B/X and BECMI are different and incompatible editions because of the thief skills table, then the 1983 Mentzer Basic and Expert Sets are part of the B/X edition and not the BECMI edition. (I think the more defensible position is that Classic D&D is one game that was gradually changed in small, piecewise increments between its debut in 1981 and its twilight in 1996.)

 

[Voadam]

I've heard 3.0 to 3.5 compared to AD&D 1e to 2e, since that's actually kind of a fair comparison. Nobody ever really talks about "AD&D to B/X," though, because B/X wasn't based on AD&D, it was based on Holmes Basic and the white box (and Greyhawk).

I have talked about B/X to AD&D as a comparison for my experiences in using material from 3.0 in 3.5. Multiple times.

I used the 3.0 Crypt of St. Bethesda module as the lead off to a Pathfinder campaign using the Pathfinder 1e rules. It felt the same to me as when I used the Basic D&D B1 In Search of the Unknown as the lead off to a 1e AD&D campaign using AD&D 1e rules.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is funny because D&D used to only be that diegetic, randomized play...which is exactly what the OSR and NSR crowds are trying to recapture. The last edition of D&D to have any kind of focused opinion or specific goal/drive was 4E. And it think that's the last time WotC will ever do that. Focused games tend to not have big-tent audiences WotC wants. What I'm seeing is a return to overblown rules which will shrink the audience.

Well, I think WotC is aware that character building and character options are what sell, but if you dip into that well too many times the product gets diluted and the audience burns out. They seem to be navigating that treacherous middle pretty well so far, but we are at the 8+ year mark now, so it's tough to say how it will go.

It also seems fairly obvious from the "Mother may I" comment that there's a design trend towards codification and away from rules improvisation; how that will land in the vastly changed market from 10 or 20 years is an open question.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, I think WotC is aware that character building and character options are what sell, but if you dip into that well too many times the product gets diluted and the audience burns out.

I think they're fully aware of the first and have basically no conception of the second. That's why there are character options in almost every single book they've put out for 5E. Because character options sell books. With the exception of the MM, are there any books that don't have character options? Even the DMG does. Every module does. Every supplement does. Even if it's something as simple as a background or feat.

They seem to be navigating that treacherous middle pretty well so far, but we are at the 8+ year mark now, so it's tough to say how it will go.

I disagree. They're selling to the players and hoping that referees can simply deal with it. I don't think it's the players who're burning out, it's the referees who have to keep up. The players want more and more options. They always will. It'll only become a problem of burn out for the players if we get back to 3X and 4E levels of product churn. This is especially true now that you have things like D&D Beyond where players can simply buy the character options from a book for a few bucks instead of buying the whole book at full price.

It also seems fairly obvious from the "Mother may I" comment that there's a design trend towards codification and away from rules improvisation; how that will land in the vastly changed market from 10 or 20 years is an open question.

Unfortunately, yeah. The pendulum is swinging back to a locked down, rule-for-everything mode. I think that's going to backfire. The killer app of RPGs is the referee being able to make calls. Closed systems are stifling and less fun to play and run. The trouble with 5E is that it relied overmuch on referees being able to do basic design work for the game instead of making on-the-spot rulings to cover the occasional gap or shenanigans the players get up to.

 

[GreyLord]

The only constant is change. Accept it. Change is neither good nor bad, it just is.

It's a good thing the WotC commando squads don't have my address so can't come to my house and take my old books.

Oh, we have our ways...but with several million copies out there it is going to take a while to get to you...please hold....

 

[Clint_L]

I refer you to about 1:25 where Chris Perkins explains why they are no longer doing editions and are keeping the 5e ruleset.

 

[Zardnaar]

I refer you to about 1:25 where Chris Perkins explains why they are no longer doing editions and are keeping the 5e ruleset.

That's what they're claiming it's PR spin.

It's either a new edition a .5 edition or they're charging you for errata take your pick.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's what they're claiming it's PR spin.

It's either a new edition a .5 edition or they're charging you for errata take your pick.

Heads I win, tails you lose!
-Kenny "I Only Gamble on Rotisserie Chicken" Rogers

 

[TwoSix]

I think they're fully aware of the first and have basically no conception of the second. That's why there are character options in almost every single book they've put out for 5E. Because character options sell books. With the exception of the MM, are there any books that don't have character options? Even the DMG does. Every module does. Every supplement does. Even if it's something as simple as a background or feat.

Yea, but most barely have anything. We've only really had 2.5 supplements that were really crunch oriented, in Xanathar's, Tasha's, and (sort of) SCAG, which got overwritten in large part anyway.

I mean, there's no comparison compared to the 3e and 4e days. It's hard to imagine them changing their publishing strategy to the degree they have without it being mindful.

 

[Clint_L]

Okay, so we're just going to start by rejecting the entire premise of OneD&D. Like what WotC is proposing is a logical impossibility. Seems productive.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well they're going with more complicated making feats non optional for example.

That's moving away from what made 5E successful in the first place. Times have changed though.

None of us can predict what's gonna be happen in terms of it's reception. Might be a big hit might crash and burn or anywhere in between.

Change doesn't mean it's automatically bad. Doesn't mean it's gonna be automatically good or successful either. Might even be good and well recieved online and crash and burn in the wild or vice versa.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I seriously doubt that the simplicity was the main part of the popularity instead of like, the tsunami of free advertising from other wildly popular things and the overall geek chic movement writ large.

 

[Zardnaar]

I seriously doubt that the simplicity was the main part of the popularity instead of like, the tsunami of free advertising from other wildly popular things and the overall geek chic movement writ large.

Notice two of the biggest selling D&D products of all time are also the simple ones? Starter set and Red box.

There's a reason for that (I prefer something a bit more complicated myself).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Notice two of the biggest selling D&D products of all time are also the simple ones? Starter set and Red box.

There's a reason for that (I prefer something a bit more complicated myself).

You... don't think the starter set of a high selling product wouldn't have sold highly otherwise?

Like how the second volume of the best selling trilogy sells more than the first one if it's better?

 

[overgeeked]

Yea, but most barely have anything. We've only really had 2.5 supplements that were really crunch oriented, in Xanathar's, Tasha's, and (sort of) SCAG, which got overwritten in large part anyway.

Eberron, Theros, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Fizban's, Monsters of the Multiverse, and the rest would like a word. Adding classes, races, feats, backgrounds, and subclasses are all crunch. Sure, there's more crunch for players in Xanathar's and Tasha's than MotM or Spelljammer or Fizban's, but that kinda proves the point. Every book WotC puts out has some crunch for players. Even the modules.

I mean, there's no comparison compared to the 3e and 4e days.

Right. And I said as much.

It's hard to imagine them changing their publishing strategy to the degree they have without it being mindful.

Yes, they're fully aware what sells books, that's why they put crunch for players in every book they publish...even when the book doesn't need it and the crunch is silly. Here's two backgrounds and a few trinkets. Gee, thanks.

 

[Zardnaar]

You... don't think the starter set of a high selling product wouldn't have sold highly otherwise?

Like how the second volume of the best selling trilogy sells more than the first one if it's better?

Well even the phb was less complicated relatively than 3E and 4E.

The new races, feats and classes are more complicated than the 2014.

That appeals to me but might nitvappeal to the casuals in the same numbers is all I'm saying. Feats are no longer optional.

Not a prediction but the risk is there is all I'm saying. Nuke my the -5/+10 feats is a good idea for example IMHO

BUT they're the bread and butter of a lot of builds on YouTube for example. That might blow up in their face.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, they're fully aware what sells books, that's why they put crunch for players in every book they publish...even when the book doesn't need it and the crunch is silly. Here's two backgrounds and a few trinkets. Gee, thanks.

I mean, it sounds like you're against. Personally, I'm pro-crunch, but I'm not going to buy a big adventure or setting book that only has like 2 races just for that. But it seems to work for some people! My personal preference would be a Tasha's type book every year or so, with a lot more experimental mechanics, but I know I'm not going to get that.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, it sounds like you're against.

Against crunch? Generally, yes. It gets in the way more than it's helpful. WotC's strategy of forcing crunch into every book regardless? Absolutely, yes. It makes for terrible design.

Personally, I'm pro-crunch, but I'm not going to buy a big adventure or setting book that only has like 2 races just for that.

Sure, and with D&D Beyond you don't need to. You can drop $2 for the character stuff and never look at the module. And people think microtransactions aren't already part of D&D. Ha.

But it seems to work for some people! My personal preference would be a Tasha's type book every year or so, with a lot more experimental mechanics, but I know I'm not going to get that.

Absolutely. Everyone has their own tastes and preferences. No one's right, no one's wrong. It's all pineapple.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I'm a major critic of 5e and that's exactly what I've said we should expect, other than the 4e-to-Essentials jump because, as I have to say every friggin' time, Essentials WAS NOT AN EDITION CHANGE. It was not a "revision." It was not, in any way whatsoever, different from just publishing a new splatbook that has new options for existing classes.

Which would be on-the-surface equivalent to what was in theory supposed to happen in 1e when Unearthed Arcana came out. It too was positioned as an add-on or expansion....and yet after its release 1e was never the same. What UA added (and in a few cases changed) made such a difference that, while everything was still completely on-paper compatible either way, in practice it might as well have been a ".5" edition.

It seems some see Essentials the same way - with "some" not including me as I've never looked at it.