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

[Melfast]

TSR crashed in part because it put out too many products that competed with each other. 3e and 4e put out a ton of products that could look intimidating to new players. It looks like a huge investment to get into the game, and it looks overwhelming to learn. 5e took a different path. Fewer rule books, and more adventures. To get into 5e, you still really only need the three core books. Xanathar's and Tasha's are good additions, but you don't need them. Compare that to 3e/4e/PF2, where there are new classes, feats, magic items, monsters, rules variants, etc., coming out almost every month. My son has a PF2 subscription, and the number of books they have put out is impressive, and they are good quality. However, I think a new player could easily be intimidated by the number of books with rules crunch, and bounce off it, especially as time goes by and more and more books come out. WOTC on the other hand, has had a lot of success growing their player base, while not cannibalizing parts of their business or having a huge stack of crunch books to deter new players. They are letting 3rd parties put out expansions.

Do companies need to put out new additions? I think a lot of the time the answer is yes. They are either losing popularity, or they are creaking under the weight of all their rule book and options. After a certain amount of time, your core books need to get updated with the best of what has come out and to account for things that don't work as well as originally thought. Finally, because of the strategy I mentioned above, DND does not need to come out with a 6e, they just need to polish and update 5e. People are still enjoying 5e, and the player base is strong. A new edition might upend this positive situation. An update or revision to the core books, using the same basic rules, and allowing your old content to still be playable seems like a good approach, and it allows them to improve the game after 10 years.

 

[GrandChefPanda]

I think of it this way, the first 4-5 editions of D&D were the development of a new complex way of gaming. Significant changes, that would not work in an incremental way just would not have been sufficient. 4E was a change in gaming paradigm that didn't work. Hopefully 5E is mature enough that it can just have minor changes for many decades to come. Of course, it may not have a sustainable business model.

3.5 is the golden age of D&D, not 5E, 5E is a decline like 4E. They should go back to 3.5

 

[Clint_L]

3.5 is the golden age of D&D, not 5E, 5E is a decline like 4E. They should go back to 3.5

The game's popularity strongly suggests that this is a terrible, terrible suggestion.

 

[Staffan]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the only time D&D was challenged for the number 1 spot when a competitor was running a previous edition of D&D?

Also for a brief time when TSR wasn't publishing anything for about half a year due to "a problem at the printer" (said problem being that TSR didn't have any money to pay them).

 

[mamba]

5e took a different path. Fewer rule books, and more adventures. To get into 5e, you still really only need the three core books. Xanathar's and Tasha's are good additions, but you don't need them. Compare that to 3e/4e/PF2, where there are new classes, feats, magic items, monsters, rules variants, etc., coming out almost every month.

new magic items and monsters are also in adventures. If you can make do with the three core books for 5e, then you can make do with the 3 or 4 core books of PF2 / 4e / 3e as well.

I agree that a release every month overwhelms the collectors who get everything. I am not sure how many of those there are however

Finally, because of the strategy I mentioned above, DND does not need to come out with a 6e, they just need to polish and update 5e. People are still enjoying 5e, and the player base is strong. A new edition might upend this positive situation.

I agree that now is not the right time for a 6e. I am not so sure that there won’t be one in the next 10 - 15 years however

 

[Staffan]

You need to reset to add

Subclasses

IIRC, the Companion rules (or maybe Expert) to BECMI D&D had proto-subclasses. As I recall, the default was that Fighters would settle down around 9th level and become Lords, but for those who kept a more active adventuring style there were Paladins, Knights, and Avengers. I also believe the Druid was an alternate career path for high level clerics.

Warlocks
Sorcerer
Dragonborn

Warlocks and Sorcerers are just new classes, and Dragonborn are just a new race. Things like that get added all the time without needing a reset. I think 3.5e was up to at least 45 classes at the end, only counting official WOTC material.

 

[Staffan]

It didn't have skills that where tied to the system.

And "bolt on feats" would be raw obvious power creep. Neither 1e nor 2e had nothing to bolt into. There's no feat/ASI slot.

2e did quite a lot of things with weapon proficiency slots, starting with the Complete Fighter's Handbook and even more in the later Combat & Tactics.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I take a slightly more nuanced view than yes/no.

Real changes—things that stick—come about with new editions. Little tweaks like 3.5 make people feel ripped off.

Go big or leave it alone. With 5e and what they propose for 5.5, I know where I stand on this one.

But to say edition changes are good for the game generally is not saying it invalidates your current game. Playing 1e to current day is just as legit if you enjoy it.

Looking back, I am glad I had the 3e ride and glad for what it left us. I am not going back to it but I am glad it happened and that I lived it.

 

[mamba]

3.5 is the golden age of D&D, not 5E, 5E is a decline like 4E. They should go back to 3.5

how are you defining the golden age? The only way I can see is ‘edition I personally liked best’

 

[Minigiant]

IIRC, the Companion rules (or maybe Expert) to BECMI D&D had proto-subclasses. As I recall, the default was that Fighters would settle down around 9th level and become Lords, but for those who kept a more active adventuring style there were Paladins, Knights, and Avengers. I also believe the Druid was an alternate career path for high level clerics.

People complained about waiting for 3rd level for subclasses.

+++++
The crux is what an individual may like is not enough to sell the #1 TTRPG and a 500M+ TTRPG.

Pre-5eD&D was too narrow in scope for player characters and monsters. 2 of those editions didn't even have feats and one didn't have skills. 3e didn't let a warrior move and make all their attacks and a broken magic system. 4e needed 3 PHBs 2MMs, 2 DMGs and 3+ Power books just to catch up. TSR or WOTC had to bloat 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e because financially those editions were just too narrow to not get even.

If you want to see how incremental looks at 4e:

1. Player's Handbook
2. Player's Handbook 2
3. Player's Handbook 3
4. Dungeon Master's Guide
5. Dungeon Master's Guide 2
6. Monster Manual
7. Monster Manual 2
8. Adventurer's Vault
9. Arcane Power
10. Divine Power
11. Martial Power
12. Primal Power
13. Psioinic Power

4e needed all those books to catch up to 3e. And I'm not even counting the setting books. Or the 2 Power books that would have been published. Or the theme books. And that's just getting to 2014 desires.

5e is close to being in a state where it could be incremental. But It's not there. Some stuff in the PHB, DMG,and MM were off and will remain off unless you are.willing to gut some much that you are practically creating a new edition. The fanbase doesn't want that as they don't want to lose their old books' function.

6e could be incremental. But it has to be designed near perfect and with holes to add new stuff. Especially if its al digital.