Coming to the End

The more I hear about the upcoming 5.5e, the less I find myself liking it. It seems they're going for loads of changes in areas of the game that don't need it, and I'd be extremely surprised to see them making the changes that actually are needed. A real shame.

It's also now looking increasingly like the Work Game will come to an end after the "Isles of Dread" campaign - it looks like we'll probably drop below having a quorum at some point in the campaign, at which point I will run it to its conclusion and then call a halt.

And there is no other gaming on the horizon, nor indeed any expectation that that will change.

2023 is looking to be the end of the road for me and RPGs. On the one hand, that's a shame. But on the other, a properly closed door can sometimes be a blessing.

Delay

Due to my recent bout of Covid, I wasn't able to start the "Isles of Dread" campaign this week. Indeed, due to a sequence of meetings, training courses, and other things, it turns out that we won't be able to get started until the middle of October. Which is unfortunate, but on the other hand should give me some time to complete writing the adventure (three parts done, the fourth underway), compile the maps, and generate the two player handouts.

But the major upshot is that I'm still not in a position to start reporting on how it's going.

My Precious Campaign

We had the character creation session for the "Isles of Dread" campaign on Thursday, with the first regular session this week... and I find, suddenly, that I don't really want to run it. The problem is that I've spent a lot of time and effort creating the campaign, and right now it's a perfect, shining campaign. And so it will remain, right up to the point where the players get started and mess it all up.

There's a name for this sort of thing, of course: "my precious campaign". It is, of course, an impulse I just have to work through and ignore - after all, the whole point of doing these things is so that they can be wrecked by having the players engage with them!

How Many Editions of D&D Are There?

With the announcement of the 2024 revision of 5e, we've had another go around of the Edition Wars kicking off, and one of the major battle grounds is simply the question of what constitutes an "edition". How many editions of D&D have their been, anyway?

The answer is astonishingly complex, due to changes in publisher, inconsistent use of the term "edition", and legal fictions. Plus, it's a really touchy subject for some people. So, let's have a look.

TSR Era

For legal reasons, TSR maintained the legal fiction that they published two completely separate games: the "Dungeons & Dragons" game created by Gygax and Arneson, and "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" created by Gygax alone. To a large extent that was a nonsense, of course, but it's something we have to deal with.

Dungeons & Dragons

There are four pretty clear delineations of D&D versions under TSR: OD&D (or 0e), Holmes basic, B/X, and BECMI. Adding one more wrinkle, the BECMI line culminated in the rules being republished in a new format: the "black box" and "Rules Cyclopedia". These didn't contain any rules changes, other than the incorporation of minor errata.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

The line here is fairly clear: there was 1st Edition and 2nd Edition.

The only wrinkle was that during the life of each edition TSR reissed the core rulebooks. In 1st Edition, the change amounted to new covers, with the interior being unchanged (except for minor errata), while in 2nd Edition there was an entirely new layout but no rules changes (again, except minor errata).

WotC Era

When Wizards of the Coast took over, they made final settlement with Dave Arneson, and consolidated everything back to one game: "Dungeons & Dragons". Since then, there have been five publishing 'events' of note:

3e

This one is pretty straightforward - a new edition that was entirely incompatible with the past, even moreso than at any time in the D&D/AD&D split.

3.5e

A revision that made comparitively minor changes to an awful lot of rules. Given the precedents of 1st -> 2nd Edition, this should have been considered a new edition, but WotC very clearly stated that it was no such thing.

4e (2008)

Again, this one is pretty straightforward - a new edition that was entirely incompatible with the past.

The one wrinkle with 4e, which will become important later, is that this edition saw much heavier use of "errata" than previously, to the point where the word 'errata' was being used incorrectly - a lot of the changes were outright revision. (Incidentally, that misuse of 'errata' began in 3.5e when they made a significant revision to the rules for polymorph, and continues in 5e. It was particularly egregious in 4e, but by no means confined to that edition.)

4e Essentials (2010)

This is where it gets really controversial. WotC put out a new set of rule books that coincided with the release of a major set of errata/revisions. However, these were backwards compatible in a way that 3.5e was not, meaning that they amounted to a set of new options for 4e play.

Once again, WotC were clear that this was not a new edition, with much more justification than in the case of 3.5e.

5e

Another simple one - a new edition that was entirely incompatible with the past.

So, How Many Were There?

The answer to that is that it depends on how you count:

Using the IP Owner Definition

If we accept that the IP owner of the time knew best, then the answer is pretty clear: 4 versions of D&D and 2 of AD&D under TSR, plus 3 editions under WotC: 9 in all.

Release of Replacement Core Rulebooks

If instead we assume a new edition comes with the release of new core rulebooks, and where the choice of which version to get matters (that is, excluding 1st Ed's "new cover" books - the complete lack of interior change means it doesn't matter a jot), then the answer is 13: 5 versions of D&D (including BB/RC) and 3 of AD&D (including the "black cover" 2nd Ed) under TSR, plus 5 versions under WotC. (Essentials is counted in this one, because a new player should rightly be guided to the new books.)

Rules Incompatibility

If we define rules incompatibility as "I probably need to update my character sheet", then the "Rules Cyclopedia" and "black cover" 2nd Ed books are excluded, as is Essentials. However the transition from 3e to 3.5e does count.

Under this measure there are 4 versions of D&D and 2 of AD&D under TSR, plus 4 versions of D&D under WotC: 10 in all.

What do I think?

My answer is 10 - I'm inclined to follow the "rules incompatibility" scheme, and think that 3.5e is incompatible enough to count as a new edition, but the move to Essentials does not. (I find the "it's just new options" argument compelling - that said, I detest the misuse of the word 'errata' that was, and still is, applied.) And neither the "Rules Cyclopedia" nor the "black cover" 2nd Edition books count.

And the 2024 Revision?

At this point it's hard to tell. It looks very much like the changes are much smaller than from 3e -> 4e, and smaller even than those from 3e -> 3.5e. However, they do look more extensive than those from 4e Classic to 4e Essentials.

So, this will clearly not be a new edition under the "IP Owner" scheme, will be a new edition under the "New Rulebooks" definition, and might be under the "Rules Incompatibility" scheme (which is the one I'm using).

I guess we'll see!

Thoughts on Writing "Isles of Dread"

I'm now well advanced in writing my upcoming campaign, and so I of course have some thoughts:

• Writing these things is hard! Just the routine of piling up words upon words is tough, and making it all interesting, ensuring it hangs together, and that things that get set up all pay off is a whole new level of tough. I do like to think I've done a good job, and that the outcome is somewhat comparable to "Lost Mine of Phandelver" (though that's comparable in the sense of "not as good as"). But it's definitely hard work.
• I keep finding myself caught between two stools: am I writing this for me to run it, or as a mock-product for some hypothetical group in the future. That's a bit of an issue, since the notes I need for myself are much less extensive than otherwise. I've tended mostly towards the mock-product side of things - if the campaign goes well then I may consider polishing it up and making it available somewhere.
• I really like this adventure format: a first part that starts somewhat in the middle of things, then introduce a home base, then a third part exploring a sandbox (with multiple micro entries, three one-or-two encounter areas, and four mini-adventures), and then a big adventure to bring the thing to its conclusion. That feels almost ideal for a 1-5 level mini-campaign, which is also ideal for my current group.
• I've been somewhat frustrated by some of the gaps in the array of available monsters - in particular as regards things like elves and dragonborn (the latter may feature in Fizban's, which I don't have). This has led to me generating rather more custom stat blocks than I'd really prefer. But that's okay - doing so have been a somewhat interesting experience in its own right.
• I really wish the guidance for building monsters, encounters, and adventures provided by the DMG was better. Frankly, that book has turned out to be a massive disappointment.

(Speaking of disappointments, it looks like we've lost one player and may lose another imminently. In which case the survival of the campaign as a whole is imperilled before we even start. Oh well.)

Lifestyle Brand

Over the past few years, D&D has exploded in popularity, to the extent that it is now considered a "lifestyle brand" by Hasbro. Sadly, this is a hugely mixed blessing.

It is no longer the case that the primary use for these various products is as game accessories. Instead, they exist primarily to look good on the tables of rich executives, to allow them to show off their Geek Chic credentials. They have no intention of actually playing the game; they have all of the gear...

The secondary use for these products, for those who want a little more from them, is as reading material. Like most cookbooks, they're still not really intended for use - for the most part they're selling an aspirational lifestyle. They're there to let kids dream of all the fantastical adventures they could have, if only they'd stop dreaming about them and actually start playing.

It's only then that we get to the question of actually using the products.

Even then, there's a very great disparity between players and DMs, which means that the majority of customers, even in this grouping, are mostly interested in new and exciting toys for their PCs - so new race and background options, new magic items, new spells.

All of which goes a very long way to explaining the art-heavy vacuity that is the new Spelljammer set.

The final thing to note is that the vast majority of players (and, therefore, customers) these days have no experience at all with any prior edition - even 4e.

Which means that the upcoming Dragonlance set is largely being aimed at kids of the 80s who were maybe vaguely aware of the name, probably never read the books and certainly wouldn't have been seen dead playing the game - and who are now buying for their grandkids.

Linking in the Characters

As I started on part three of the campaign, I suddenly found myself hitting a major snag - there's no really good reason for the PCs to go off exploring the other islands in the chain. Parts one and two are fairly straightforward in this manner, in that there are clearly some things that need to be done, and part four is the logical and obvious conclusion to it all. But part three is entirely, and indeed intentionally, skippable.

Which is something of a problem.

I have a partial solution, in that a couple of the elements in part two point to things in part three. But these are entirely skippable and besides, as I said, they're just a partial solution.

But, fortunately, there's a solution waiting for me to grab hold of.

Obviously, when the characters are created they'll generate a load of stuff: the usual ability scores, race, class, and so on; and the role-playing stuff as well, such as ideals, bonds, flaws, etc.

However, there are a couple of other things that can usefully be generated:

The players should, of course, be asked to come up with a name and a picture for their character.

They'll also be asked to come up with a reason why their character was on board the Far Horizon travelling to Equinox, and indeed why they were below decks immediately prior to the start of events.

But, finally, each character will be given a connection to the adventure - a lightweight hook to give them some interest in events beyond just "we happen to be here". This is similar to the personal quests I gave characters in the "Quest for Memory" campaign, albeit somewhat more lightweight. And, as an added bonus, they can all point to things in part three, thus giving the characters at least some reason to explore.

That's another partial solution, of course. But hopefully two such solutions should be enough.