Quote from: Bobloblah;591329While I hope WotC gets the message, I do hope lots of people on the intertubes and elsewhere keep experimenting. Things like ICONS and ACKS are both the result of tinkering with what came before, and, to me, are fantastic. While not all change is good, without trying things out and sometimes (read: often) blowing it, you'll never get the good stuff. After all, what was OD&D but some messing around with the perfectly fine Chainmail?

Absolutely; development in no way should have stagnated at OD&D, B/X or AD&D.  Judging by the Unearthed Arcana, Uncle Gary's 2nd Edition would have been perhaps somewhat less of a change from 1st than the actual 2nd Edition, but there would have been changes.  A similar streamlining and re-organizing, probably more spells, classes, magic items and monsters.  Some kind of skill system might have found its way in there, but probably not quite as structured as NWPs.  There were certainly changes on the horizon for AD&D, whether Uncle Gary was at the helm or not.

That being said...

Quote from: CRKrueger;591365True, however, there's a difference between that and
"D&D's "problem" for a wildly successful 30-some years has been a lack of coherence."
or
"You know, a strictly defined Narrative Structure is what WFRP needs that was really lacking the last 20 years."

It's not a coincidence that both licenses are now going on the life support of reprints of older editions.

...3.x was a pretty radical departure from 2nd and earlier.  Still recognizable, sure, but you had to kind of squint a fair bit.  It was a pretty massive overhaul of the whole system: classes and levels don't work the same; skills/feats are now front and centre; combat can hardly be called the same game anymore; magic items are practically a necessity.

Sure, 3.0 went gangbusters for moving product, but within a very few years, the rules needed 'fixing', boards were rife with all manner of complaints and even back then, Paizo was cashing in on the ever growing dissatisfaction with rules churn and bloat (not that Pathfinder is particularly svelte).

Rules can be improved, cleaned up, streamlined, re-organized and so on.  It's really a matter of finding out what your players want, though, and not just the ones on your own message boards.  Maybe these re-prints will re-kindle some interest in the earlier rules, and Next might just get nudged in that direction, even more than it appears to already be.

Looks to me like they're making a lot of D&D fans very happy with the reprints.
Cracking idea. Good on them.

Not my cup of tea, but maybe it is possible to please all the people and still have a current ongoing edition?

Will you all be more kindly disposed to D&D5 because WOTC have been offering the previous editions as well?

I'd be tempted by a D&D Cyclopaedia just for nostalgia since B/X was the second rpg I owned.

Quote from: tzunder;591575Will you all be more kindly disposed to D&D5 because WOTC have been offering the previous editions as well?

D&D 5E is its own product and will sink or swim on its own merits. If I like it then I will buy it. Even if it isn't for me, then I will still buy the reprints that are of interest.

Perhaps WOTC is learning that not every potential customer will be attracted to the same products and that it is smart to offer variety.

Quote from: StormBringer;591484...3.x was a pretty radical departure from 2nd and earlier.  Still recognizable, sure, but you had to kind of squint a fair bit.  It was a pretty massive overhaul of the whole system: classes and levels don't work the same; skills/feats are now front and centre; combat can hardly be called the same game anymore; magic items are practically a necessity.

I can more or less agree with most of this, except for the comment about magic items. That simply isn't the case, any more than it was for earlier editions of the game. Their relationship with CRs creates the illusion of their necessity.

Quote from: StormBringer;591484Sure, 3.0 went gangbusters for moving product, but within a very few years, the rules needed 'fixing', boards were rife with all manner of complaints and even back then, Paizo was cashing in on the ever growing dissatisfaction with rules churn and bloat (not that Pathfinder is particularly svelte).

The rules didn't need fixing - Hasborg needed a cash injection from new, incompatible core books. The game could've continued on with no more than minor tweaks and errata between printings. Moreover, many of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 have the appearance of being little more than a sort of planned obsolesence for existing products, as they don't actually fix anything. I can certainly agree that there was a problem with product churn, specifically products containing new rules (i.e. feats, races, and PrCs, oh my!), but that's wrapped up in a larger conversation around how WotC can move enough product to make Hasborg happy (short answer: they probably can't).

Quote from: StormBringer;591484Rules can be improved, cleaned up, streamlined, re-organized and so on.  It's really a matter of finding out what your players want, though, and not just the ones on your own message boards.  Maybe these re-prints will re-kindle some interest in the earlier rules, and Next might just get nudged in that direction, even more than it appears to already be.

Maybe. But I don't think cleaning and streamlining are the only viable avenues for moving forward. Don't get me arong, I'm not under the delusion that all change is progress. Moreover, I believe there's value in the idea of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" but that shouldn't preclude trying new things.

Frankly, I think one of 4E's biggest problems was that, instead of trying something new (i.e. not calling it D&D), they tried fixing things that weren't broken (large portions of D&D3.x). The irony is that the same can no doubt be argued about earlier editions and 3.x

Quote from: tzunder;591575Looks to me like they're making a lot of D&D fans very happy with the reprints.

The reprints are the only products WotC has produced in years that are relevant to my gaming.  So, yeah.

QuoteNot my cup of tea, but maybe it is possible to please all the people and still have a current ongoing edition?

Sure; I see no reason they couldn't.  Different product lines that appeal to different market segments makes perfect sense to me.

QuoteWill you all be more kindly disposed to D&D5 because WOTC have been offering the previous editions as well?

I wouldn't say that my disposition to D&D5 is either kind or unkind; I look at D&D5 just like any other new game that is released.  I guess I don't see that the reprints have anything to do with what I think about D&D5.

I suppose you could say I'm more positive about WotC, in general, though.  They're offering some D&D products that I'd buy, so they're relevant to me in a way they weren't, previously.  That's a good thing.

Quote from: Bobloblah;591606Maybe. But I don't think cleaning and streamlining are the only viable avenues for moving forward. Don't get me arong, I'm not under the delusion that all change is progress. Moreover, I believe there's value in the idea of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" but that shouldn't preclude trying new things.

The problem, pre-OGL, is that the only way forward was whatever D&D owner thought was the way forward. It didn't better how talented the designer are at some point they were bound to fail because they are only human.

With the OGL we have a multiplicity of different approaches. And thanks to the d20 SRD readily adaptable to produce retro-clone of older editions the number of D&D variants that people can play with has grown by an order of magnitudes.

The result is that D&D's fate and development is no longer tied to the fortunes of a single company. It may be the next Pathfinder may be something that looks a lot like Moldavy/Cook D&D, or may just be a D&D 3.5 reskinned with new mix of classes, spells, and monsters. Or it may become an evergreen game like monopoly, chess or checkers.

My bet is that we will see a handful of evergreen games come out. One based on an older edition basic D&D as a fast and easy intro. And another an "Advanced D&D" with more options.

If there is favorable development with print on demand then it may be that we will see the entire back catalog available for purchase in print as well as PDF. In which case the foremention "evergreen" editions will be used for NEW products only.

Quote from: estar;591615The problem, pre-OGL, is that the only way forward was whatever D&D owner thought was the way forward. It didn't better how talented the designer are at some point they were bound to fail because they are only human.

This is true, but the difference was that all TSR editions had basically compatible source material. The Monster Manual for AD&D could be (and was) used by people playing multiple versions of TSR (A)D&D.

Quote from: estar;591615With the OGL we have a multiplicity of different approaches. And thanks to the d20 SRD readily adaptable to produce retro-clone of older editions the number of D&D variants that people can play with has grown by an order of magnitudes.

Very true, and certainly nothing to this extent would've been possible before the OGL. It's the biggest gift RPG'ers will likely ever get.

Quote from: estar;591615The result is that D&D's fate and development is no longer tied to the fortunes of a single company. It may be the next Pathfinder may be something that looks a lot like Moldavy/Cook D&D, or may just be a D&D 3.5 reskinned with new mix of classes, spells, and monsters. Or it may become an evergreen game like monopoly, chess or checkers.

My bet is that we will see a handful of evergreen games come out. One based on an older edition basic D&D as a fast and easy intro. And another an "Advanced D&D" with more options.

At this point I think having a couple distinct product lines would be WotC's best bet, too.

Quote from: estar;591615If there is favorable development with print on demand then it may be that we will see the entire back catalog available for purchase in print as well as PDF. In which case the foremention "evergreen" editions will be used for NEW products only.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

Quote from: Bobloblah;591606I can more or less agree with most of this, except for the comment about magic items. That simply isn't the case, any more than it was for earlier editions of the game. Their relationship with CRs creates the illusion of their necessity.

That's fine, I will so stipulate:  Using the CR system as intended necessitated dependance on magic items.  The CR system itself is a pretty major departure; that was left up to the DM to decide previously.

QuoteThe rules didn't need fixing - Hasborg needed a cash injection from new, incompatible core books. The game could've continued on with no more than minor tweaks and errata between printings. Moreover, many of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 have the appearance of being little more than a sort of planned obsolesence for existing products, as they don't actually fix anything. I can certainly agree that there was a problem with product churn, specifically products containing new rules (i.e. feats, races, and PrCs, oh my!), but that's wrapped up in a larger conversation around how WotC can move enough product to make Hasborg happy (short answer: they probably can't).

Ok, that works too.  I guess it would be more accurate to say that WotC proposed the changes as 'fixes', leading to the perception that rules could be more or less objectively 'broken', instead of simply not applicable or not appropriate for all tables.  The reported problems with summoners or wildshaping Druids, for instance, wouldn't even cause a ripple at tables where those things are using sparingly for the big fights rather than spamming them several times per combat even when dealing with kobolds.

QuoteMaybe. But I don't think cleaning and streamlining are the only viable avenues for moving forward. Don't get me arong, I'm not under the delusion that all change is progress. Moreover, I believe there's value in the idea of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" but that shouldn't preclude trying new things.

No, there are more 'improvements' that can be made besides re-organizing, but that is usually the one that helps the most, because the tenets of technical writing don't seem to have a high level of saturation in the RPG world.  

Especially, as you say, when the rules are pretty stable to begin with.  The THAC0 charts in 2e weren't really an overhaul so much as a condensing of information that probably didn't need to be in tabular form across two or three pages.  Why it was universally reviled still puzzles me.  The results are really the same, and the six 20s in the 1st Edition charts didn't serve a purpose that wasn't there from just continuing the series.  Everything above the first 20 (optionally) needed to be a nat20 to hit, so whether there were five 20s or 21+ didn't really matter; you can still say it has to be a nat20 (plus bonuses).

Of course, they could have switched from d20 to 2d10, giving a bell curve instead of a linear curve.  That would have made 'crits' and 'fumbles' more rare, which is adds to the excitement of getting one, and it would have made hits somewhat more reliable, based on the level & AC.  So even a first level Fighter attacking an AC 10 opponent would hit pretty reliably.  At 10th level, hitting AC0 would have been as reliable, and AC10 is all but guaranteed. Which is what Fighters are supposed to do, right?  I think a Magic User at 10th level had something like a 15 THAC0, so they would still be whiffing it quite a bit.  You can still have 'fumbles' on a 2, which would come up 1% of the time instead of 5%, and the same with crits.

QuoteFrankly, I think one of 4E's biggest problems was that, instead of trying something new (i.e. not calling it D&D), they tried fixing things that weren't broken (large portions of D&D3.x). The irony is that the same can no doubt be argued about earlier editions and 3.x

I'm sure it could, but there was pretty much zero chance they would have released 4e as something other than D&D.  I understand what you are saying, but it wasn't gonna happen.  The days of producing anything that isn't D&D went out with TSR.  I don't see WotC putting out Star Frontiers or Boot Hill, absolutely not versions that aren't d20.  And who knows?  Maybe that is part of the 'problem', too.

Quote from: estar;591615The problem, pre-OGL, is that the only way forward was whatever D&D owner thought was the way forward. It didn't better how talented the designer are at some point they were bound to fail because they are only human.

With the OGL we have a multiplicity of different approaches. And thanks to the d20 SRD readily adaptable to produce retro-clone of older editions the number of D&D variants that people can play with has grown by an order of magnitudes.

The result is that D&D's fate and development is no longer tied to the fortunes of a single company. It may be the next Pathfinder may be something that looks a lot like Moldavy/Cook D&D, or may just be a D&D 3.5 reskinned with new mix of classes, spells, and monsters. Or it may become an evergreen game like monopoly, chess or checkers.

My bet is that we will see a handful of evergreen games come out. One based on an older edition basic D&D as a fast and easy intro. And another an "Advanced D&D" with more options.

If there is favorable development with print on demand then it may be that we will see the entire back catalog available for purchase in print as well as PDF. In which case the foremention "evergreen" editions will be used for NEW products only.

An interesting analysis; I find it probably too optimistic, but hey, I hope you're right.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;591952An interesting analysis; I find it probably too optimistic, but hey, I hope you're right.

RPGPundit

Well, you are privy to insider Wotc info, too bad you can't share...