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?