D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Mistwell]

A fair bit. If you want numbers (in whatever abstract, analogic sense these numbers apply), I'm talking solid plurality to slim majority. 45% to 55%, with no other individual factor being as impactful.

There is no objective basis for this conclusion. If you believe there is, let's see it.

People hating on grappling rules in most editions, for example, or the solid majority opinion that descending AC was unwise and THAC0 was outright bad, or the whole XP=GP thing shaping player psychology etc. Many of the ways edition matters are in the style of that third thing, e.g. the way 3e handled magic and buffs meant supportive teamwork was actually really inferior to just doing things yourself and thus cooperation was significantly discouraged despite that actually being the opposite of the design intent.

I don't think any of those things are all that important though.

Depends. Are you casting aspersions and treating "a big fuss" as people throwing a tantrum simply because you disagree with their motives? Or are you saying people are taking a legitimate issue and blowing it somewhat out of proportion?

The later

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is no objective basis for this conclusion. If you believe there is, let's see it.

There isn't one you would ever accept, because this is the Internet and data standards are never equitable.

I don't think any of those things are all that important though.

"There is no objective basis for this conclusion. If you believe there is, let's see it."

Goose, gander, etc.

The later

Alright. To what degree? You recognize the fundamental legitimacy of (at least a significant chunk of) the concerns. I assume you further recognize that a lot of these concerns are quite old, older than the Internet at least. I assume you further grant that, with the exception of 4e, these concerns have often been left unaddressed by the designers and ridiculed by other fans. Ridiculed, I would note, in ways that look rather strikingly like your own descriptions. That it's a "big fuss," as you said. That it's complaining solely for the sake of complaint, purely disconnected from anything meaningful due to "exaggerat[ion from] people who enjoy creating systems or people who enjoy discussing systems because of that enjoyment rather than because systems are really that important."

In other words, fundamentally rejecting the idea that system could ever really be "important" in the first place, and dismissing anyone who thinks it could be important as merely projecting.

Hence why I found what you said to sound rather more like the folks dismissing it as a tantrum rather than ones who recognize a real and serious issue but put somewhat lower priority on solving it.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I feel like most folks who've been posting in this thread play 5E. But I think most, if not all, of us have played D&D far longer than 5E has been about.

So why are we playing 5E?

I run a houseruled AD&D. I've run about two sessions of 5e, and played none. Not for the lack of trying, mind you, as a player.

Why do I participate in these discussions? In an effort to learn more about 5e and what aspects I would adopt into my rules. I've run and played all previous editions of D&D and I am trying to learn what insights I can from other people's perspective on the game. It makes it a little difficult when I get into it with other posters in that some of our underlying assumptions rules-wise are different.

 

[beancounter]

One thing that concerns me about not having an addition is that there is no consistent place to "draw a line in the sand" from a rules perspective.

For example, let's assume it's 2029, and they've done away with editions since 2024 and periodically update the rules over over time.

Now let's say you want to get a game together with new people. At session zero, you find a person who plays with the rules released in 2024, another who plays with the rules updated in 2026, another who plays with the rules as they were updated in 2028, and you want to run the game with the rules updated in 2029.....

Sure, you could get everyone to agree to the 2029 update, but there will be a lot of confusion and frustration as people want to do something, and you say you can't because the 2029 update did away with it...Or they accidentally build a PC from the 2027 update, etc, etc.

With editions, you can say, these are the set of rules, and here's the book with those rules.

If WoTC starts updating rules like a stream of consciousness, without any "markers" as to the changes, we could really experience a scenario like I mentioned above.

 

[Campbell]

System does not matter to those who are well served by the dominant paradigms of play in the same way that money does not matter to people who have it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I run a houseruled AD&D. I've run about two sessions of 5e, and played none. Not for the lack of trying, mind you, as a player.

Why do I participate in these discussions? In an effort to learn more about 5e and what aspects I would adopt into my rules. I've run and played all previous editions of D&D and I am trying to learn what insights I can from other people's perspective on the game. It makes it a little difficult when I get into it with other posters in that some of our underlying assumptions rules-wise are different.

I think this is a big part of why the editions matter. Each has done some different things, and our familiarity or exposure to an edition will inform our expectations on another. So for someone who is familiar with (and enjoys) the inventory management and exploration elements of earlier D&D would find the absence of such in 5E to be a bit jarring. However, if someone played early D&D and didn't bother worrying about encumbrance and inventory and exploration turns, then 5E may not be jarring at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One thing that concerns me about not having an addition is that there is no consistent place to "draw a line in the sand" from a rules perspective.

For example, let's assume it's 2029, and they've done away with editions since 2024 and periodically update the rules over over time.

Now let's say you want to get a game together with new people. At session zero, you find a person who plays with the rules released in 2024, another who plays with the rules updated in 2026, another who plays with the rules as they were updated in 2028, and you want to run the game with the rules updated in 2029.....

Sure, you could get everyone to agree to the 2029 update, but there will be a lot of confusion and frustration as people want to do something, and you say you can't because the 2029 update did away with it...Or they accidentally build a PC from the 2027 update, etc, etc.

With editions, you can say, these are the set of rules, and here's the book with those rules.

If WoTC starts updating rules like a stream of consciousness, without any "markers" as to the changes, we could really experience a scenario like I mentioned above.

Truth. This a big part of why I wanted 6e. They could make something that actually does what they want, and make a clean break with 5e. It would be much kinder to 3pp as well.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So inconclusion, to paraphrase a slightly more evil than usual d4:

D&D is an illusion. Your game is a hologram. Buy Supplements! Buy Supplements!

 

[Imaro]

One thing that concerns me about not having an addition is that there is no consistent place to "draw a line in the sand" from a rules perspective.

For example, let's assume it's 2029, and they've done away with editions since 2024 and periodically update the rules over over time.

Now let's say you want to get a game together with new people. At session zero, you find a person who plays with the rules released in 2024, another who plays with the rules updated in 2026, another who plays with the rules as they were updated in 2028, and you want to run the game with the rules updated in 2029.....

Sure, you could get everyone to agree to the 2029 update, but there will be a lot of confusion and frustration as people want to do something, and you say you can't because the 2029 update did away with it...Or they accidentally build a PC from the 2027 update, etc, etc.

With editions, you can say, these are the set of rules, and here's the book with those rules.

If WoTC starts updating rules like a stream of consciousness, without any "markers" as to the changes, we could really experience a scenario like I mentioned above.

Haven't they been updating the rues since 5e was published? There are minor differences, corrections, errata, etc with each printing...

Also... why can't you just state your game is only using 2029 core rulebooks. How is that in practice any different than saying edition 6 or 7.

 

[Imaro]

Truth. This a big part of why I wanted 6e. They could make something that actually does what they want, and make a clean break with 5e. It would be much kinder to 3pp as well.

If they are able to keep the rules compatible (and right now I'm thinking it will be compatible in the same way 4e and 4e essentials were) why make a break from 5e's player base, risk market share losses, alienation of some of the fanbase and causing 3pp stock to suddenly become invalid... especially if its base engine is what you want to use and someone using the 5e books for all intents in purposes can move their character into a 2024 game and vice versa?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If they are able to keep the rules compatible (and right now I'm thinking it will be compatible in the same way 4e and 4e essentials were) why make a break from 5e's player base, risk market share losses, alienation of some of the fanbase and causing 3pp stock to suddenly become invalid... especially if its base engine is what you want to use and someone using the 5e books for all intents in purposes can move their character into a 2024 game and vice versa?

3pp is going to become borderline invalid anyway, because player-facing options are changing enough to mess with compatibility. My way, they are still compatible with 5e.

 

[Imaro]

3pp is going to become borderline invalid anyway, because player-facing options are changing enough to mess with compatibility. My way, they are still compatible with 5e.

Could you give an example of this type of change? I'm curious because that hasn't been my take at all so far.

 

[beancounter]

Also... why can't you just state your game is only using 2029 core rulebooks. How is that in practice any different than saying edition 6 or 7.

From what I gather, they won't be using/releasing rulebooks with any sort of time stamp. If they did that, they might as well stick with editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Could you give an example of this type of change? I'm curious because that hasn't been my take at all so far.

The new bard, ranger and rogue are changed enough that existing subclasses are less compatible than they were (Bardic Inspiration being a reaction is an example). Several rules in the first UA, if implemented, affect player-facing option in 5e. The "no DM-side crits" rule is an example.

 

[Mistwell]

There isn't one you would ever accept, because this is the Internet and data standards are never equitable.

You gave an extremely specific answer in numerical percentages. Where did you get those from?

"There is no objective basis for this conclusion. If you believe there is, let's see it."

Goose, gander, etc.

I didn't give a specific numerical percentage like it came from some sort of hard data though, did I? All I said was I don't think they're that important. I didn't speak for anyone outside myself. I made it clear it was my subjective opinion and not some majority of players of the game.

Alright. To what degree?

You want me to put some specifics on my view when you previously stated a very specific appearing-objective number on a majority view like that and then tried to slide past being asked where it came from?

How about we resolve that important claim first before we move on. Because the answer hinges on whether we're having a legit conversation or not.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think this is a big part of why the editions matter. Each has done some different things, and our familiarity or exposure to an edition will inform our expectations on another. So for someone who is familiar with (and enjoys) the inventory management and exploration elements of earlier D&D would find the absence of such in 5E to be a bit jarring. However, if someone played early D&D and didn't bother worrying about encumbrance and inventory and exploration turns, then 5E may not be jarring at all.

Haven't they been updating the rues since 5e was published? There are minor differences, corrections, errata, etc with each printing...

Also... why can't you just state your game is only using 2029 core rulebooks. How is that in practice any different than saying edition 6 or 7.

Some major, some minor.

System doesn't matter when, like hawkeyefan mentioned, there are sub-systems that you use little if not ignore.
System matters when a sub-system changes significantly, and it is a sub-system that you decidedly use or is part of the core.
We've had two editions in a row where core mechanics have changed significantly. 4e had AEDU, 5e has bounded accuracy. The big change here is that attributes are just as important as level. Before they were more or less useful as "talent", but eventually the benefits from level, "skill", would outshine them.

Even so, "system matters" is a phrase I think is more applicable to wholly different systems. D&D vs WoD vs RQ, &c. Excepting 4e, it is relatively easy to convert materials from one edition to another. 4e's engine is sufficiently different that I think conversion is quite a bit trickier, and system may matter more in that case.

 

[Umbran]

So why are we playing 5E?

If edition doesn't matter, then why are we all playing the newest edition of the game and not just playing an older version? Why is anyone converting anything when they could just play AD&D or 3E or whatever?

I cannot speak for "we". But for myself.... I will play virtually any game, D&D or otherwise, given a good GM and players at the table. There is no version of D&D that is a flat no, for me. However...

2e and earlier are all kinda clunky, imho, largely because they date from before the world knew much about RPG design. 3e got a handle on design, but there are too many fiddly bits. 4e is a decent enough design, but still has a lot of fiddly bits, and some assumptions (about map use, f'rex) that I'm not on board with, and find it a lot of work to remove.

5e is using design principles carefully, with fewer fiddly bits and assumptions I'm not happy with. It hits a pretty cool sweet spot that I enjoy.

 

[Imaro]

From what I gather, they won't be using/releasing rulebooks with any sort of time stamp. If they did that, they might as well stick with editions.

Wait... what do you mean timestamp... it's the year it was released. I mean it's not like the books are stamped with their actual editions either.

 

[Imaro]

The new bard, ranger and rogue are changed enough that existing subclasses are less compatible than they were (Bardic Inspiration being a reaction is an example). Several rules in the first UA, if implemented, affect player-facing option in 5e. The "no DM-side crits" rule is an example.

Why would you use the new class with an old subclass? If you're using the original bard wouldn't it be common sense to use the subclasses it had. How does the DM not criting make a 3pp book invalid? I guess there's a chance that a creature could rely on DM crits in some way but then doesn't that just become a one off power on a 20. I'm not seeing how these things invalidate entire books.

 

[Umbran]

There isn't one you would ever accept, because this is the Internet and data standards are never equitable.

If you give numbers like that, and are asked to give their source, "you wouldn't accept the source" is not a constructive response.

Please give your source. If you don't have one, please admit it and move on.