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

[Minigiant]

Great. Let's get rid of all optional rules to avoid abuse. RAW or Die.

Hmmm... Maybe that's the beauty of the VTT...

Optional rules aren't bad.

But when you mess up one of the big rules or a larger set of references, you can't fix those errors without a reset. Because changing those rules fundamentally is creating a new edition.

Wildshape is messed up because WOTC designed beasts wrong and used the CR system for something it was not designed to do.

Fixing Wildshape would be should a big change it would be a new edition. Because you'd have to rewrite every beast under CR 7. And that's just druid.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's more a ship of Theseus - you eventually get from what looks like one edition to what looks like another but there's no specific point where anyone can say "That was when the change occurred." as it's been gradual all along.

5e now is quite different than 5e on initial release, even before 5.5e.

And yet in most ways it's also precisely the same.

The vast majority of spells are identical to what they were day 1. The classes have gained more options, but by and large are essentially the same--even in 5.5e, with a couple noteworthy exceptions. New monsters are designed, or presented, in somewhat different ways, but they use identical rules.

And it is very telling, for example, that in a decade run, 5e never got more classes beyond Artificer despite IIRC 3-4 attempts at psionic rules. It never got Dark Sun, or a host of other similar things. Rules for playing something like dragons (Council of Wyrms) never appeared. Etc.

For all the talk that iterative change makes a big difference, in many ways, it really hasn't with 5e.

Custom Lineage and selectable starting stats? Nothing new or interesting on either front.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet in most ways it's also precisely the same.

The vast majority of spells are identical to what they were day 1. The classes have gained more options, but by and large are essentially the same--even in 5.5e, with a couple noteworthy exceptions. New monsters are designed, or presented, in somewhat different ways, but they use identical rules.

And it is very telling, for example, that in a decade run, 5e never got more classes beyond Artificer despite IIRC 3-4 attempts at psionic rules. It never got Dark Sun, or a host of other similar things. Rules for playing something like dragons (Council of Wyrms) never appeared. Etc.

For all the talk that iterative change makes a big difference, in many ways, it really hasn't with 5e.

Custom Lineage and selectable starting stats? Nothing new or interesting on either front.

A lot of iterative changes (prestige classes, psionics, shared subclasses) got smothered in the crib never made it out of UA. The One D&D playtest reinforced that. I think it was telling that for all the calls for change and innovation, the D&D player base is hugely conservative and modest in its tolerance for change. I'm fairly sure if put up for a vote, custom lineage would have failed the UA test as well, if it wasn't corporate mandated.

 

[Minigiant]

And yet in most ways it's also precisely the same.

The vast majority of spells are identical to what they were day 1. The classes have gained more options, but by and large are essentially the same--even in 5.5e, with a couple noteworthy exceptions. New monsters are designed, or presented, in somewhat different ways, but they use identical rules.

And it is very telling, for example, that in a decade run, 5e never got more classes beyond Artificer despite IIRC 3-4 attempts at psionic rules. It never got Dark Sun, or a host of other similar things. Rules for playing something like dragons (Council of Wyrms) never appeared. Etc.

For all the talk that iterative change makes a big difference, in many ways, it really hasn't with 5e.

Custom Lineage and selectable starting stats? Nothing new or interesting on either front.

Forgot about Psionics.

Another thing 5e doesn't have because the community can't agree on jack squat and demands backwards compatibility.

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of iterative changes (prestige classes, psionics, shared subclasses) got smothered in the crib never made it out of UA. The One D&D playtest reinforced that. I think it was telling that for all the calls for change and innovation, the D&D player base is hugely conservative and modest in its tolerance for change. I'm fairly sure if put up for a vote, custom lineage would have failed the UA test as well, if it wasn't corporate mandated.

The D&D community isn't conservative.
They are frugal.

They only want to spend money things designed the way they want it. And once they buy it they want to use it forever.

They want new things but you cannot take away old things.

NO TAKE! Only throw.

That's why WOTC going digital is so big. They could go back and edit your purchased content without you needed to rebuy it

 

[Remathilis]

Forgot about Psionics.

Another thing 5e doesn't have because the community can't agree on jack squat and demands backwards compatibility.

Ironically, that has been my opinion of many of the classic TSR settings. Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft was a breath of fresh air.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To pick one, Goliaths. 5e would be #1 with or without them. No one would miss them if they were never put in D&D.

You sure about that? I saw a fair number of people pushing for half-giants a long time ago.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The D&D community isn't conservative.
They are frugal.

They only want to spend money things designed the way they want it. And once they buy it they want to use it forever.

They want new things but you cannot take away old things.

NO TAKE! Only throw.

That's why WOTC going digital is so big. They could go back and edit your purchased content without you needed to rebuy it

Yay? Is this supposed to be a good thing?

 

[Minigiant]

Yay? Is this supposed to be a good thing?

Depends.

Just saying that incremental D&D has no chance until D&D goes full digital and can do errata digitally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends.

Just saying that incremental D&D has no chance until D&D goes full digital and can do errata digitally.

Better to go full 3pp and sidestep the corporate monolith altogether, I say. Just play the game you want to play, and let WotC scheme about how they they're going to maximize profit this time. It doesn't really matter what they do to your table anyway, really.