Re: [The Gamer] Dungeons & Dragons' 2024 Rules Won't Get Going Until 2026

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:17:36 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:41:02 +0200, Kyonshi wrote:

[...] a) this is 5.5e [...]

Really?  Weren't AD&D second edition (2nd ed, 2e) optional/revised rules
called 'optional'... en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons
says 'revised'... isn't this similar?  Maybe after D&D3.5e people started
calling AD&D 2e optional rules '2.5e'('backronym').  This seems similar:
D&D '5e' (not original/1991 but renumbered/2014) just has optional rules
again, but officially, that's what it is, not 5.5e... maybe in some years/
decades there will be 5.n (maybe starting with 5.1) editions then people
calling optional/revised 5e '5.5e', when actual 5.n may be forthcoming,
will have to change everything they said.  Call it what you want, just
until it's officially to 5.5 or beyond, I see no reason to say more.

<ramble mode on>
In some ways, the core AD&D 2nd Ed was an 'optional' upgrade. It was
largely a revision and clean-up of 1st Ed rules, after all. It read
better than Gygax's prose, added in various elements from Unearthed
Arcana, or the Survival Guides and the like, and tweaked certain
aspects of the game to make it easier to play (THAC0 was actually an
improvement! ;-). But you could pretty easily take a 1st Ed adventure
and use it in your 2nd Ed game without much difficulty. (Getting a 2nd
Ed game to run in 1st Ed was possible too, and only required a little
more effort).

    [Arguably, 2nd Ed was also written to 'get the Gygax' out
     of the game, thus giving TSR a newly re-written edition where
     they had sole control over the copyright. I think this argument
     has some truth to it, but I think limiting the revision to /just/
     that reason is inaccurate. 1st Ed AD&D was a very messy product
     and the 2nd Ed rewrite made it -at least in my opionon- a much
     more playable and expandable game.]

Things started to get more difficult once you added in all the various
splat-books (e.g., "Complete Fighters Handbook", "Complete Ninja
Handbook", or stuff like the Historical Reference accessories). You
could backport it all to 1st Ed, but it required increasing levels of
effort. In a sense, 2nd Ed + Splatbooks was a 2.25E.

In the mid-90s, TSR revamped 2nd Edition again, re-releasing revised
editions of the core books and adding the "Options" books", which
added significant changes to the game. As their names implied, these
rules were 'optional' but were seen as many as an effort by TSR to
unnecessarily change the game solely to sell new books, and were often
referred to as 2.5E. They weren't highly regarded and whether because
of player disdain or because of TSRs financial difficulties, didn't
really gain much traction. Still, some of the ideas were prototypes
for changes later made to 3E.

In this, I think there is some similarity to D&DOne (or whatever it's
called now): it's goal has less to do with improving the game and more
with selling books. It's not necessarily that anything in D&D6 is bad;
like the 2.5E options books, it probably has some good ideas. But D&D6
(and despite WOTC/Hasbro's revisionism, it seems clear that at the
start the game _was_ intended to be an entirely new edition) doesn't
feel _necessary_. It's change for the sake of change.

Was 2nd Ed necessary? Maybe not necessary but I think it was a welcome
change and added needed clarity and ability to expand. 2.5E was a
rushed and unpolished bunch of rules that seemed more about changing
the game to look more like its competitors rather than creating a
cohesive game; e.g., of benefit largely to the publisher, not the
people playing the game. 3.0E was a much needed revamp; 3.5E was 3E's
equivalent of 2nd Ed; clarifying and streamling things. 4E was
unnecessary and unwanted; it was WOTC chasing after the video-gamer
crowd. It was prompted by WOTC's profit-seeking, not because people
wanted it. Gamers were quite happy with the 3.5E/d20 system. 5E was a
return to what made D&D fun. People flocked back to D&D.

But 6E/One/whatever it's called today...? I don't see it. Unlike 1E
and 3E, the rules don't really need revision. They're good as they
are. What the game benefits most from is stability in its system. This
new edition feels like a chase after money rather than a needed
improvement.

But YMMV. I'm not big into the 5E ecosystem. Maybe there _are_ a lot
of complaints and issues with the rules that I'm just not aware of.
Maybe 6E/whatever is necessary. But I've seen no evidence of it. And
given this lack of evidence, I can only assume the drive for a new
edition by WOTC has more to do with profit-seeking than anything else.

And judging by the reactions I see online, I don't seem to be alone in
this.

</ramble mode off>