Editions: A Fallacy?

[Kobold Catgirl]

So, this may become a very 'IBTL' sort of thread. This is not meant to be a discussion over 5e. It's inspired by 5e, and will probably involve 5e, but this is a talk about all editions.
So, let's take two examples: Monopoly, and Pathfinder.

Say somebody puts out a new edition to Monopoly. 'Plantations' are added, along with the ability to earn 'resources' based off land. Taxes are introduced, as is the option to bribe government officials to decrease taxes. Dollars are replaced with points, and the names of half of the properties are changed.
This is a different game.

Then there's Pathfinder, Second Edition. Pathfinder removes the Bard and the Ranger (to be reintroduced in a later supplement), replaces Spells Per Day with Spell Points, gets rid of the '20th Level Power' and introduces second-level Save Or Die spells. Hit points are increased, as is the level advancement speed. Feats are abolished. Goblins are made a core race, and halflings are removed. Kobolds, orcs and hobgoblins are made to be Neutral races. Bugbears are made Chaotic Good pranksters.
This is a different game.

Nobody pretends that, say, 3.0 and 2.0 are really the same game. Not to my knowledge.
I realize that 'edition' is the best term to describe it. But doesn't it explain why so many people will say "X edition isn't true D&D"?

Really, it hasn't been true D&D for over thirty years. We've been playing a different game nearly every edition.

And edition changes are becoming more frequent. It's been five years since 4.0, and they're planning 5.0.

Thoughts?

[Wolfthulhu]

Well, for one thing, it's been 3 1/2 years.

Other than that, I'm not sure I understand your point.

[ValmarTheMad]

I'm thinking we've got more redundant 5e threads than we have solid info on 5e.

[Kobold Catgirl]

That's not saying much, Valmar. :P

Wolfthulhu wrote:

Well, for one thing, it's been 3 1/2 years.

Other than that, I'm not sure I understand your point.

I don't really have a point. But we're effectively getting a new idea of D&D every few years. I'm not saying that's a bad thing--I'm very fond of 3.5--but I was hoping it'd be food for thought. :)

[Shadowborn]

ValmarTheMad wrote:

I'm thinking we've got more redundant 5e threads than we have solid info on 5e.

With the NDAs that have to be signed in order to participate in the playtest, we won't be getting much solid info either.

[Chuck Wright]

NDAs for an open beta playtest? Where did you hear such a thing?

I'm signed up for it and subscribed to get information for it as well and there's been no mention by WotC of the need to sign an NDA.

[Scott Betts]

Shadowborn wrote:

ValmarTheMad wrote:

I'm thinking we've got more redundant 5e threads than we have solid info on 5e.

With the NDAs that have to be signed in order to participate in the playtest, we won't be getting much solid info either.

NDAs need to be signed by those participating in the current phase of the testing - the "Friends & Family" stage. Once the playtest becomes open, NDAs become largely pointless, and I doubt they'll require you to adhere to one during an open test.

[Shadowborn]

Scott Betts wrote:

Shadowborn wrote:

ValmarTheMad wrote:

I'm thinking we've got more redundant 5e threads than we have solid info on 5e.

With the NDAs that have to be signed in order to participate in the playtest, we won't be getting much solid info either.

NDAs need to be signed by those participating in the current phase of the testing - the "Friends & Family" stage. Once the playtest becomes open, NDAs become largely pointless, and I doubt they'll require you to adhere to one during an open test.

What he said. I suppose I should have clarified with the words "at this stage" after "playtest."

[Nukruh]

Even with a few changes it would still be considered another edition/version of the original Monopoly as long as it was released by the owners of the product and bearing the name Monopoly (Dungeons and Dragons). The thing is that what owner/creators and buyers consider to be "proper" in this case are usually two completely different things. So as long as the owner produces it with the licensed name it has to be considered what they say it is. For example, if WoTC wanted to drop the whole PnP aspect of the IP and change it into porn that is filled with dragon tattooed people in a bondage dungeon, we would still have to accept the fact that it is technically Dungeons and Dragons.

Definition of EDITION

1a: the form or version in which a text is published

1b: the whole number of copies published at one time

2a: one of the forms in which something is presented

2b: the whole number of articles of one style put out at one time

3: copy, version

Definition of VERSION

3: a form or variant of a type or original

[Terquem]

It can be argued that the choice of the word "edition" was, perhaps, not the best choice. After all, I own both a first and second edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook, from the first 'edition' ( - iteration?) of this game.

But I would argue that it is not, regardles of iteration, a different game.

When some people play Monopoly they put a $500 bill under Free Parking and the first player to land there gits the money. This is not in the rules.

From a purely semantic viewpoint, every game of Dungeons and Dragons is a 'different' game. Even if two groups of the same number of players play identically created characters in identical scenarios, at two different tables at a convention, assuming the incredible impossibility of both groups speaking the same words at the same time and rolling the same numbers for each game consequence resolved, the fact that they are playing at different tables means, by definition, that they are not the same “Game”.

But what do you mean by game? Do you mean the collection of instruction for conducting the session? Or do you mean the experience itself?
I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for thirty-five years, and even when I ran the same module, with the same players, using the same rules, we had a different experience.

It is my opinion that iterations or variations of the rules, as provided by the manufactured (which was something that was done all of the time in the pages of Dragon, and Different Worlds Magazines in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s) should not be a source for consternation. What has, in my opinion, caused ill feelings and frustration is that, at some point, the idea that the simplicity at the core of the game could, and should, remain constant, and variation and player choice should grow from there, was abandoned in favor of a business model that implies that the fundamental rules for the game “cannot” be defined and this means that a new fundamental rule books need to be introduced every few years.

And we, as consumers, can’t agree upon what it is we want.
One HUGE player’s guide, with fifty –seven “core” races and seventy-five “class-paths”?

Or a slim player’s guide, with eight core races and eleven classes?
But wait, maybe not.

Let me tell you that when the first edition of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player’s Handbook was released I complained.

I had a player who was playing a Basic D&D human fighter. He wore leather armor, carried a long bow and a rapier –dagger combo for in close work. The player liked camping, in real life, and was a serious outdoorsman who brought a huge element of “nature” as an obstacle to survival to our game.

He was “role-playing” a ranger, and he didn’t even know it.

Why? I asked, did I need a set of rules for what should be, in my opinion, a role-playing choice.

Shouldn’t players create a character that is a neutral (true, good, or evil) Cleric and select only spells that are nature based, and role-play the part of a Druid? Why do I need special rules for a Druid? And if I do need special rules for a Druid, then I certainly need special rules for, (insert huge list of character “arch-types” here).

How is this ever going to be resolved?

What do we want?

I want a game that has a few races, a few classes, some rules for fighting and casting spells. I want a game that has a simple level progression system that rewards players with new abilities and can be ‘formula-rized” for my ease of selecting challenges based upon where the players are in this progression. I want a game that I can introduce new races and new classes to, IF I WANT TO, but I don’t have to. I want a game that gives my players the ability to roll initiative every round, like Basic D&D. I want a game that doesn’t pinball (- this is a term I introduce all my players to, it is the idea that numerical aspect of game attributes, spell and weapon damage, and hit points DO NOT need to keep getting larger to create the illusion that something is more awesome than it was before – Let my imagination provide the awesomeness, keep the numbers manageable, after all if left unchecked, in a while first level character’s will have 11,500 hit points, but a magic missile will do 2,000 to 5,000 points of damage get it?). I want a game that I can set in my own campaign setting, or use the one everyone else is using, IF I WANT TO. I want to play Dungeons and Dragons, and I am sorry that after this long rant I have to state the obvious here, but, I am already playing Dungeons and Dragons, MY WAY, and intend to keep doing that until the day I die, regardless of what the future of “Editions” might hold.

[doctor_wu]

Here is another way edition gets used with math textbooks in particular they change the problems around so you have to buy a whole new textbook when the new edition comes out if you are taking it for a course. Shouldn't you also have a problem with this version of edition. Yes I realize the text of how to do the problem will be the same but what about when you need to do homework.

[deinol]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Say somebody puts out a new edition to Monopoly. 'Plantations' are added, along with the ability to earn 'resources' based off land. Taxes are introduced, as is the option to bribe government officials to decrease taxes. Dollars are replaced with points, and the names of half of the properties are changed.

This is a different game.

I know. Puerto Rico is a far better game than Monopoly.

When it comes to RPGs, people have been tinkering with them trying to improve them since the beginning. Some ideas stick. Other ideas don't. The game evolves with the community. I'm not sure I see a problem here.

[Scott Betts]

Nukruh wrote:

For example, if WoTC wanted to drop the whole PnP aspect of the IP and change it into porn that is filled with dragon tattooed people in a bondage dungeon,

It would take some adjustment, but I could see this becoming my favorite edition of D&D.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Scott Betts wrote:

Nukruh wrote:

For example, if WoTC wanted to drop the whole PnP aspect of the IP and change it into porn that is filled with dragon tattooed people in a bondage dungeon,
It would take some adjustment, but I could see this becoming my favorite edition of D&D.

Why, Scott, this seems a new side of you....

[cfalcon]

Because you can coherently convert a 1ed fighter to pathfinder fighter. Many of his statistics are unchanged or similar, and he has gained new things.

I would say that 4ed is different, but there were useful conversion guides for previous versions. Fireball does 1d6 damage per level, capped at 10d6 (previous to 4th), for instance. That's why it's editions, not different games.

[DigitalMage]

cfalcon wrote:

Because you can coherently convert a 1ed fighter to pathfinder fighter. Many of his statistics are unchanged or similar, and he has gained new things.

A bit of a tangent but alas this forum has no Private Messages, so apologies...

I am curious, I only really got into D&D with 3.5. Could you post a link or a sample 1ed Fighter so I can see how little things have changed? And by 1ed do you mean AD&D 1st Ed?

Thanks in advance!

[AHalflingNotAHobbit]

DigitalMage wrote:

cfalcon wrote:

Because you can coherently convert a 1ed fighter to pathfinder fighter. Many of his statistics are unchanged or similar, and he has gained new things.

A bit of a tangent but alas this forum has no Private Messages, so apologies...

I am curious, I only really got into D&D with 3.5. Could you post a link or a sample 1ed Fighter so I can see how little things have changed? And by 1ed do you mean AD&D 1st Ed?

Thanks in advance!

Like this?

[Maeve Steel: Priestess of Arden]

DigitalMage wrote:

I am curious, I only really got into D&D with 3.5. Could you post a link or a sample 1ed Fighter so I can see how little things have changed? And by 1ed do you mean AD&D 1st Ed?

If you'll accept a cleric substitute, then you can click on the profile for this alias to see what is essentially a full character sheet for a 0e cleric.