|
Post by hamurai on Jul 27, 2021 22:57:12 GMT -6
Finarvyn had a very good thought in another thread: This might be fodder for a totally different thread, but I would love to have a discussion about importing 5E-isms into an OD&D rules system. I agree that it's fodder for another thread and I'd love to hear more about it! So here we go. From the other thread: (1) I'd like to figure out a "better" point-buy system, or at least one scaled more to OD&D stats. (2) I like the idea of the +1 attribute each 4 levels (assuming that stats aren't inflated at the onset) (3) I like the alternative of having OD&D-scaled feats. (4) I'm tempted to reward human choices by giving them the bonus feat at 1st level. I'm already using the (dis)advantage system from 5E in all my D&D games: roll 2d20 and use the better (advantage) or worse (disadvantage) result. Very easy to use, no additional mathematics, doesn't slow down the game. I've also adapted this rule for the damage of 2-handed weapons, they roll 2d6 and use the better result as damage. Similarly, when a character uses a weapon they "can't use" by class but by common sense (e.g. a wizard wielding a sword) they roll 2d6 and use the lower result as damage to reflect their lack of training. I really liked the idea of Passive Perception (based on Wisdom and the Perception skill to see what might be perceived without actively concentrating, e.g. traps), so I assign my traps a perception number and compare PCs' WIS score to that. Thieves (if used) add their level, which is a pretty good ability. If using feats, that might be a feat. Some feats have also been used in my OD&D game, some with some changes: For example, Shield Master allows a DEX check against projectiles if the character is aware of them (one per round of combat). I've also allowed Heavy Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, which in my OD&D allow to impose a negative attack modifier to your own attack but boost the damage by double that amount. Not from 5E, but addressing Fin's (4), taken from Swords & Wizardry Continual Light: Humans may raise one of their ability scores to 15. I'm only using this rule when rolling abilities as 3d6 in order, though. When allowing to assign scores, Humans get a +1 to two ability scores, which is what the "Human Variant" gets in 5E. What are you others using, or which 5E-isms would you like to try?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 28, 2021 4:34:34 GMT -6
Totally forgot about advantage/disadvantage. I like that, too.
I feel like 5E cantrips finally make magic use more fun. I had the idea of a "zap" spell decades ago which would be a magical attack roughly equivalent to throwing daggers, since all of my Magic-user characters kept a stockpile of daggers to throw and that always seemed so un-wizard-like. Some other spells like "read magic" and "light" could be downgraded from leveled spell to cantrip, since those are things that most apprentice spellslingers would be taught early on.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 28, 2021 7:17:26 GMT -6
I've grown increasingly fond of 5e rules over the years, but I use them in a very loose way, old-school you could say.
Advantage/Disadvantage: one of the best dice mechanics, perhaps ever. It is so satisfying to roll 2 dice and choose the higher for advantage. And dramatic to choose the lower with disadvantage. Conditions: simple and effective mechanic to assign a status to a character like Dazed, Exhausted, Prone, Blinded, etc. I like having these on cards to hand to the player for quick reference.
The various Checks; Contests: basically opposed checks, highest roll wins. Passive Checks: as noted above, keeps the game running smoothly. Working Together: adding +1 for each character that helps accomplish a task for things that can be done together, like pushing a boulder. Group Checks: In a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren’t. To make a group attribute check, everyone in the group makes the attribute check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds.
I encourage creativity and puzzle solving instead of relying on the character sheet for solutions, so I take the player's ideas into consideration when making checks.
In general 5e combat is too fidgety and unnecessarily complicated. Not as bad as 4e but if you use it all combats can take way longer than necessary. But I do like these wrestling rules:
If an attempt to grapple or wrestle is made it becomes a contest. In this case each side uses Dex to grapple. Once a grapple is made each side can use either Dex or Str to wrestle. The highest total wins and is in the superior position in the next round. You may have someone in a headlock or with their hand pulled behind their back. They will be at a disadvantage to fight back, but still have a chance. The one in the superior position gains +1 next round, the one in the inferior position has -2 adjustment. Each round a character is in the superior position the other side takes 1d6 subdual damage. When subdual damage is equal to or greater than that character’s total remaining hit points then they are subdued, unconscious. Subdual damage recovers within a few hours of rest.
As Finarvyn noted, 5e has cantrips done right. In general I like how 5e handles spell slots.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 28, 2021 11:50:57 GMT -6
Although I thought hard about it, most of the specific mechanical things I would swipe from 5E for OD&D actually saw their debut in 4E. 5E Lair Actions seem new, but 4E just did not have a name for them-certain monsters had lair actions. 5E has implemented it better for sure. 5E Monster ability Recharges- 4E 5E Hit Dice mechanics= Healing Surges with a less offensive name- level of recovery is to a lesser degree for core play, though the option is there for 4E style in the 5E DMG. 5E Passive checks- 4E 5E Cantrips= 4E At Wills (4E Essentials at wills way more flavorful, IMO) Finesse Weapon rules are worth stealing but that's also a 3/4E thing 5E Rituals- 4E I originally saw "Best/Worst of 2" used a fair amount in DW and 13th Age, so I don't strictly consider it a 5E thing, but after seeing it implemented in the NEXT playtest, I totally swiped the Advantage part for C&C instead of PRIMES and the 12/18 split. in OD&D this may be overpowered for those who like more "grounded" games, as it is essentially a +4 bonus (from what the Math Nerds say) 5E Fighter styles are neat "feat-lite" like abilities (Great Weapon Fighter, Archer, etc), but I think I saw nearly the exact same thing in Knockspell #1 or #2 back in...2008(?) for S&W, so (mine are in storage can't check to be sure which issue) 5E "Slots available" instead of "Spells memorized" is an improvement over typical Vancian casting (but I've been doing this for a long time ) 5E Damage Resistance/Vulnerability (I prefer 4E's specific DR/V #s in the stat block, but 5E is clean and would be easier than translating "math" for each OD&D monster that has R/V) 5E Conditions- also clean , but some of them are "weak" or too easy to recover from- e.g. knocked prone As I mentioned in another thread A/D, feats-lite, simple skill system, and some other modern OSR mechanics (usage dice, etc) are implemented exceedingly well in the rules light B/X retro style game RELICS & RUINS Worth taking a look at to swipe for an OD&D game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 15:04:16 GMT -6
I feel like a lot of what we're talking about here has possibly been accomplished already. I haven't played Five Torches Deep but I'm informed it takes the core 5e mechanics and scales everything way back down to late seventies style play. (I know Black Hack does something similar but for my tastes, it misses the mark in several ways.)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 28, 2021 17:47:18 GMT -6
5E "Slots available" instead of "Spells memorized" is an improvement over typical Vancian casting Can you explain the essence of this? FWIW, I translated the 5e M-U spells slots available into a number of 0e "spells per adventure" here. Also FWIW, that linked topic contains a bunch of ideas that might be relevant to this topic
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 28, 2021 18:36:09 GMT -6
5E "Slots available" instead of "Spells memorized" is an improvement over typical Vancian casting Can you explain the essence of this? FWIW, I translated the 5e M-U spells slots available into a number of 0e "spells per adventure" here. Also FWIW, that linked topic contains a bunch of ideas that might be relevant to this topic So if a MU has 5 1st level spells per day in TSR D&D, they have to memorize 5 specific spells each day and can cast each one only once (unless they memorized an individual spell more than once). e.g. If they memorized Magic Missle one time, they cannot cast it again after the first time. In 5E, the MU prepares 5 1st level spells and has 5 slots (castings) total of any 1st level spells prepared. E.g. one of those prepared is MM. They can cast Magic Missle 5 times if they wanted to, or any other combination of prepared spells that adds up to no more than 5.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 28, 2021 19:02:02 GMT -6
I feel like a lot of what we're talking about here has possibly been accomplished already. I haven't played Five Torches Deep but I'm informed it takes the core 5e mechanics and scales everything way back down to late seventies style play. (I know Black Hack does something similar but for my tastes, it misses the mark in several ways.) And there is also "Into the Unknown" which is the 5E engine, slanted towards TSR era D&D.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 29, 2021 2:02:21 GMT -6
I feel like a lot of what we're talking about here has possibly been accomplished already. I haven't played Five Torches Deep but I'm informed it takes the core 5e mechanics and scales everything way back down to late seventies style play. (I know Black Hack does something similar but for my tastes, it misses the mark in several ways.) And there is also "Into the Unknown" which is the 5E engine, slanted towards TSR era D&D. IMHO Into the Unknown does a much better job of turning 5e into classic D&D. Five Torches Deep is a rough draft in comparison that dabbles with the idea but doesn't develop it into a finished playable RPG.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 6:21:09 GMT -6
I think I remember seeing some of the pre-release blog posts for Into The Unknown. B/X style race-as-class characters and the like, right? I remember Dwarves got a lot of interesting abilities.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 29, 2021 7:45:22 GMT -6
And there is also "Into the Unknown" which is the 5E engine, slanted towards TSR era D&D. IMHO Into the Unknown does a much better job of turning 5e into classic D&D. Five Torches Deep is a rough draft in comparison that dabbles with the idea but doesn't develop it into a finished playable RPG. I have not run either, so I cannot say for certain but I'd say from my read throughs Absolutely ITU is a complete ready to go game. Seems well done. 5TD gives me a feeling like Arduin- some good bits to steal, but don't feel the designer/s ever tried all of it together and just threw it out there before it was ever fully baked.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 29, 2021 7:49:35 GMT -6
I think I remember seeing some of the pre-release blog posts for Into The Unknown. B/X style race-as-class characters and the like, right? I remember Dwarves got a lot of interesting abilities. It's an optional rule- you can do race/class separate or they have writeups for race as class.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 29, 2021 8:03:45 GMT -6
I went and grabbed myself a copy of Into the Unknown.
On very first flip through book 1 (of 5!). It appears to be "lighter" rewrite of 5e, but not so "lite" as maybe I was hoping it might be. Perhaps I'm really after 0e with a few 5e frills moreso even than a "5e ultralite" emaciate edition. Thoroughly desiccated. Let me read a bit more...
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 29, 2021 8:54:15 GMT -6
I went and grabbed myself a copy of Into the Unknown. On very first flip through book 1 (of 5!). It appears to be "lighter" rewrite of 5e, but not so "lite" as maybe I was hoping it might be. Perhaps I'm really after 0e with a few 5e frills moreso even than a "5e ultralite" emaciate edition. Thoroughly desiccated. Let me read a bit more... ItU is pretty much the Basic Rules for 5E with a large number of small tweaks that will bring it a few notches closer to TSR era D&D in style. but not necessarily mechanics or overall gameplay. It is still very much a 5E experience- just a bit more "grounded" and choices limited. But certainly not old school zero to hero S&S D&D. I've said it elsewhere before- IMO trying to turn 5E into (insert O/TSR D&D game here) is an exercise in futility. Just bang your head against the table for a few hours instead So much of the core mechanical systems has to be ripped out from 5E to approximate a BX or OD&D style of play, that you are just wasting time that could be better spent working on adventures/prep i.e.. efforts that will truly make a positive difference in your game sessions. DMs are way better off stealing some WOTC era D&D ideas and transporting them to their OD&D games. Likewise, tweak and enjoy 5E for what it is but at the end of the day- Apples and Oranges. Pizza and Hamburgers. Hammers and Screwdrivers* *For us nerds you can also substitute- Robert Jordan and Robert E. Howard. Star Wars and Star Trek. D&D and T&T. Atari and Nintendo
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 29, 2021 9:03:39 GMT -6
Also waysoftheearthYou might actually find Five Torches Deep more to your liking if you are trying to strip away more meat off 5E
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 31, 2021 0:04:27 GMT -6
5E "Slots available" instead of "Spells memorized" is an improvement over typical Vancian casting (but I've been doing this for a long time ) I totally forgot this. We've been doing this before 5E, too, I guess that's why I didn't remember it being a 5e thing. Iirc, 3e was the first with "spontaneous conversion" of spells, where, for example, clerics could use their other memorized spells but cast a bless or heal spell instead. I think that's where we got the idea, not sure anymore. Still, for everyone else, I think spell slots are indeed a great addition in 5E and totally worth bringing to OD&D. My biggest issue with Vancian casting was that casters where not flexible enough to adjust to situations on the fly. I went and grabbed myself a copy of Into the Unknown. On very first flip through book 1 (of 5!). It appears to be "lighter" rewrite of 5e, but not so "lite" as maybe I was hoping it might be. Perhaps I'm really after 0e with a few 5e frills moreso even than a "5e ultralite" emaciate edition. Thoroughly desiccated. Let me read a bit more... Its intention is creating a blend of 5E and B/X, which is does well, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 31, 2021 2:00:56 GMT -6
You might actually find Five Torches Deep more to your liking if you are trying to strip away more meat off 5E Yep, I already have FTD... it's a very nice production. My main takeaway is the Supply abstraction, which I really like but haven't yet had a chance to try yet. Its intention is creating a blend of 5E and B/X, which is does well, in my opinion. Absolutely. I have no problem with that... and, realistically, I'm not especially qualified to have an opinion around B/X. But yyyyyyyeah. Through these types of games I'm seeing more and more that 5e is just fundamentally different to 0e, from the ground up. As a result, I'm gravitating ever more toward the: keep-0e-foundation-and-decorate-with-a-few-choice-5e-isms camp. (as opposed to: start with 5e and strip it back to its essentials. You'll struggle to strip 5e back to 0e; it's just built differently).
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 1, 2021 23:22:03 GMT -6
Through these types of games I'm seeing more and more that 5e is just fundamentally different to 0e, from the ground up. As a result, I'm gravitating ever more toward the: keep-0e-foundation-and-decorate-with-a-few-choice-5e-isms camp. (as opposed to: start with 5e and strip it back to its essentials. You'll struggle to strip 5e back to 0e; it's just built differently). That's the conclusion I've reached a while ago, too (I think in some other thread here, too). And just last weekend someone asked me about OD&D, and eventually how to make 5E more like OD&D. My answer was this, you'll have a much easier time making 0E more 5E than the other way around. 5E is very tightly constructed and once you turn one screw, another comes loose, and when you remove one part, another just falls off. OD&D is a framework to which you can attach parts from other game systems, for example 5E.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 2, 2021 0:35:05 GMT -6
I think, looking at it from the 100,000ft perspective, perhaps three of the most obvious areas that are difficult to reconcile are:
1. Having a single "core mechanic" that is expected to work for just about "everything" is the antithesis of 0e (which instead has unique bolt-on bits and pieces all over the place).
2. Having a character "build" sub-game, where part of the player reward for progressing is adding the next plus or widget to their PC is another 0e anti-pattern (which instead has an ultra-simple, front-loaded, class choice that means the many fighting-men are differentiated not by what they are, but by what they do).
3. The meticulously knowable, plannable, controllable symmetry between risk/reward of 5e vs the chaotic asymmetry of 0e where anything can and frequently does happen, adding greatly to both the potential challenge and delight.
Mmm. probably more nuanced than that, but it's a start...
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 2, 2021 1:58:34 GMT -6
I like the way this thread has progressed, considering both options of 5E-->0E and 0E-->5E and honestly I don't know which is "better" since each sort of has a slightly different end-goal. Starting with 5E helps my players, who are also starting with 5E, but starting with 0E helps me since 0E is a lot easier for me to run. (I believe that earlier versions are a lot more DM-friendly with fewer player options, and later versions are a lot more player-friendly with a lot more DM confusion.) I have several "5E lite" games already mentioned (free 5E basic download, 5E Essentials, Into the Unknown, Five Torches Deep, Dungeoneque) but honestly haven't had the time to look at each carefully to determine what makes each one different. Perhaps someone who has examined these can give a better synopsis so that the rest of us have a better frame of reference for each. I gather that Into the Unknown is "more B/X like" and Five Torches Deep is more "of an outline" but that still leaves me a little lost as to specifically what 5E-isms are kept or stripped from each system. Maybe I just need to take the time and read the darned things myself.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 2, 2021 6:10:17 GMT -6
I tend to agree these days, that it's easier starting with the OD&D (or Holmes) chassis and tweaking it. That also frees one to crib from everywhere, not just 5E - LotFP, Pathfinder, B/X, whatever. Aaaand we're back to house ruling, yay!
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 2, 2021 10:49:21 GMT -6
1. Having a single "core mechanic" that is expected to work for just about "everything" is the antithesis of 0e (which instead has unique bolt-on bits and pieces all over the place). Unless of course the alternative happened to work out as +/- 5% increments. At which point you have to ask why? It not just a OD&D thing, Runequest has a lot of this as well. Which is why I converted everything to 1d20 rolls or a d20 roll high when I made my Majestic Fantasy Rules. For example Contact Higher planes and it Swords & Wizardry variant. Plane # of Questions Chance of Knowing Veracity Insanity 3rd 3 25% 30% nil 4th 4 30% 40% 10% 5th 5 35% 50% 20% 6th 6 40% 60% 30% 7th 7 50% 70% 40% 8th 8 60% 75% 50%
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 3, 2021 0:28:01 GMT -6
Finarvyn : Dungeonesque isn't much more than the free Basic Rules and some SRD content reformatted and reorganized. The white box splits it up into little booklets, the red box has one volume. 4 standard classes and races plus half-elf. There are some additional rules for 0-level characters, but not much. Very compatible with vanilla 5E, of course, as it actually is pretty much the same content. Personally, I don't feel the price tag is appropriate. Into the Unknown brings B/X classes to the 5E system, with the biggest difference being race-as-class for demihumans. All classes are redesigned from the ground up, with new abilities at some levels and 5E abilities at others, overall I felt it was simplified. You can play the standard 4 classes and races, but the classes have sub-classes similar to 5E's archetypes, e.g. the Magic-User can have an Arcane Origin of Wizard, Warlock/Witch or Sorcerer, gaininig some 5E abilities according to those classes, for example the Wizard can regain spells lots with short rests, the Warlock/Witch has pact magic, etc. The Priest class splits up into Cleric or Druid. Fighters and Rogues choose specialties called Fighting Styles (you'll recognize some of them from 5E, mixed with some Feats) and Rogue Schemes (also, some archetype abiltities mixed with some Feat abilties). The content is split up into 5 booklets (characters, rules, magic, DM'ing, monsters). It doesn't differ that much from the SRD beyond the character classes, I believe. I've honestly only skimmed the other sections, but I noticed some random tables for dungeon stocking, for example. That is because ItU doesn't change the mechanics of 5E - what I've read of the rules, it's what you know from 5E (also the Basic Rules). Very compatible with vanilla 5E. Personally, I think it does a great job and delivers on the intention of mixing 5E and B/X. You're getting something for the money here. Fives Torches Deep to me looks like a short summary of an OD&D-esque game with some 5E mechanics. Characters and monsters found within will not be compatible with 5E, as they're weaker: Characters are created with 3d6 in order (or 2d6+3 for some abilities for some demihumans). Level abilities are more or less minor bonuses to choose at each level, either granted by the main class (e.g. Fighter) or an archetype (e.g. Paladin or Barbarian). Some abilities will need the group to make sense of them, for example the Mage can get "Adv. to potions", which isn't explained - is it advantage to create potions? To resist? To identify? When using them? All of it? Same for several other abilities beyond a simple +X bonus. You can play the standard 4 classes and races, but the classes have archetypes which add some flavour to the basic classes by adding new level-up bonuses. No fluff included for the classes, only mechanics. Personally, I don't see why this got any attention. It'll be intended as an alternative for experienced players, as it doesn't offer a lot of explanations. 50ish pages are just too short for that. 5E Essentials is just another Starter Set with the Basic Rules plus Bard and rules for "Sidekicks", who are more or less retainers to aid the PCs, for example when playing 1:1 or solo, or with a very small group. It does have some nice handouts like magic item cards, maps, status cards and it has an enjoyable campaign which we played after Mines of Phandelver from the Starter Set. I'm not sure how much of what we played was in the book and what our DM added or changed, though. Personally, I'd recommend it for new players or when introducing a group to 5E or RPGs om general. Veterans and players with high-level characters might not find a lot to use here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2021 17:46:13 GMT -6
Neither here nor there, but worth mentioning, as of September (I think) the 5e PHB will have been out for seven years. Already way surpassed 4e on longevity, hasn't it? Also, I just typed "Palace of the Vampire Queen" into Google and apparently some celebrities played it recently at D&D live using 5e rules. For me, it's interesting how DMs synthesize a more heroic, character-driven system like 5e with its Backgrounds and Feats with the old school modules. I had Delta relay a similar question on the recent episode of Wandering DMs to designer Mark Greenberg on what it's like to design and balance the same adventure for 0e/Swords & Wizardry and 5e.
You'd assume there'd be very different approaches to adventure design there. He answered with something that's true, but which I feel misses the mark. His response boiled down to "A party of level 1s in OD&D and in 5e generally fight the same types of creatures" and I think he gave Orcs as an example of a low-level baddie. That's true, but I think it misses the part about how 5e entirely lacks a suggested procedure for Reactions and Morale for said Orcs. The OD&D encounter might not be a battle, but 5e is designed around it being one. That's the way 5e awards the xp, and that's how the system is built. Your character is made to survive combats from level 1 on up. That's simply not true in OD&D, where it's much more of a gamble to take on even a small group of Orcs on their home turf. There's no guarantee that's a profitable affair at all. Better to avoid it if possible, right?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 11, 2021 17:52:57 GMT -6
as of September (I think) the 5e PHB will have been out for seven years. Mind blown
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 11, 2021 20:14:49 GMT -6
Neither here nor there, but worth mentioning, as of September (I think) the 5e PHB will have been out for seven years. Already way surpassed 4e on longevity, hasn't it? Tally on longevity, in terms of official support in the form of product releases by the publishing company: OD&D: 3 years (1974-1976) Holmes: 4 years (1977-1980) AD&D 1E: 12 years (1977-1988) Moldvay/Cook: 2 years (1981-1982) BECMI: 13 years (1983-1995) AD&D 2E: 11 years (1989-1999) WotC 3.0: 3 years (2000-2002) WotC 3.5: 5 years (2003-2007) WotC 4E: 5 years (2008-2012) WotC 5E: 8 years (2014-2021)
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 12, 2021 6:10:54 GMT -6
Neither here nor there, but worth mentioning, as of September (I think) the 5e PHB will have been out for seven years. Already way surpassed 4e on longevity, hasn't it? Tally on longevity, in terms of official support in the form of product releases by the publishing company: OD&D: 3 years (1974-1976) Holmes: 4 years (1977-1980) AD&D 1E: 12 years (1977-1988) Moldvay/Cook: 2 years (1981-1982) BECMI: 13 years (1983-1995) AD&D 2E: 11 years (1989-1999) WotC 3.0: 3 years (2000-2002) WotC 3.5: 5 years (2003-2007) WotC 4E: 5 years (2008-2012) WotC 5E: 8 years (2014-2021) Nice list, and I like the concept of what you've done here. I never know how to break down 1E and 2E, as they had various printings. The AD&D line started out normal, then had the "orange back" covers. 2E had a regular set then the "black book" product line. I see you broke down 3E and 3.5E into two separate entries (8 years total) but not 4E and 4E Essentials. I may be wrong but in general I think all of your "years" totals might be reduced by one. For example, OD&D was launched in '74 so it would be one year old in '75 and two years old in '76. (It's the old "year zero" issue in calendars.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2021 6:33:54 GMT -6
Yeah. I remember my kid brother brought home the 5e Starter Set in the summer of 2014 and invited me to a game over at his place. I also remember the playtest period, "D&D Next", leading up to that. I saw some of the earlier versions online. That went on for over a year IIRC, but I would consider the release of the Starter Set in stores and if not that, the PHB that September as the true beginning point for 5e as a product line, so that's seven years by my math.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 12, 2021 10:52:13 GMT -6
Tally on longevity, in terms of official support in the form of product releases by the publishing company: OD&D: 3 years (1974-1976) Holmes: 4 years (1977-1980) AD&D 1E: 12 years (1977-1988) Moldvay/Cook: 2 years (1981-1982) BECMI: 13 years (1983-1995) AD&D 2E: 11 years (1989-1999) WotC 3.0: 3 years (2000-2002) WotC 3.5: 5 years (2003-2007) WotC 4E: 5 years (2008-2012) WotC 5E: 8 years (2014-2021) Nice list, and I like the concept of what you've done here. I never know how to break down 1E and 2E, as they had various printings. The AD&D line started out normal, then had the "orange back" covers. 2E had a regular set then the "black book" product line. I see you broke down 3E and 3.5E into two separate entries (8 years total) but not 4E and 4E Essentials. I may be wrong but in general I think all of your "years" totals might be reduced by one. For example, OD&D was launched in '74 so it would be one year old in '75 and two years old in '76. (It's the old "year zero" issue in calendars.) I was counting total years in print rather than fiddling with questions of "What month was this published?" and "Do I round partial years up or down?" So OD&D was '74, '75, and '76 - three years. I counted 3.0 and 3.5 as separate because the books themselves specify "v.3.5" on the cover - at least the core rulebooks, anyway. Also different from the multiple printings of AD&D in that the actual contents of the rulebooks changed, whereas in 1E and 2E only the layout and artwork was changed. As for 4E Essentials, that was just a new set of new "builds" for the classes, intended to be more accessible to beginners or players of previous editions, but didn't change the core rules. Just as importantly, they continued to release books that were not branded as Essentials. They actually retired the Essentials label in 2011, and the last couple of books that used Essentials-style classes and formatting instead resurrected the 2E "Player's Option" label. So if I was going to include Essentials, the main 4E entry would be unchanged, but there would be an additional row for Essentials from 2010 to 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 12, 2021 11:05:14 GMT -6
I should add that I also thought erring on the side of adding a potential "extra" year to the accounting was appropriate since, in my experience, previous edition product was still easy to find at retail for quite some time after the printing presses went silent and the next edition was announced. Of course, if we took that to the extreme, we might even be able to call OD&D as much as 4 or 5 years, since I believe the Greyhawk supplement was still in print until '78 or '79. I wasn't that committed, though, so rather than try to track down printing dates for all the individual books, I settled on using the publication date of the final new release for each edition, and then counting years the way that I did where it's basically automatically rounded upward.
|
|