Raven Crowking said:
Now, am I wrong in thinking that you had fun with 3e before 4e was announced?
If so, don't you find it odd that you think 3e "is beyond redemption" now?
Nobody had ever fun with 3e. That was an absolute imagination that fooled us all.
But luckily, some of us picked the blue pill and know it better now.
This is exactly what I mean about the shine wearing off. And, while a new game (Pathfinder, 4e, whatever you haven't played yet) seems shiny now, how long do you expect it to last before you are increasingly convinced that it is beyond redemption?
My initial bet is something around 8 years. Or whenever 5E is announced and the designers give us hints and insights about flaws in 4E and how 5E will make these all go away.
That's the big problem with this sort of "Edition Vs. Edition" comparison. Every edition has strengths and weaknesses, and, depending what you focus on, can seem as amazing as a gourmet dinner....or as unsatisfying as Spam on toast. I expect that Pathfinder and 4e will be no different. Best to examine which game best matches your basic assumptions -- whether that be a new game, or even an out-of-print game like OD&D.
Okay, this assumption might be made out if ignorance, since I never actually played AD&D or OD&D, but I believe that D&D is improving or "evolving" over time. Subsystems for missing aspects get added, or existing subysstems they get cleaned up, streamlined, better integrated and overhauled.
Still, contrary to what people sometimes seem to believe, evolution isn't a straight path that leads us to perfection. Sometimes, a change that improves one aspect leads to a weakening of another aspect. And in some ecological niches, this simply doesn't work. Some animals began crawling to the land and adapted to it. They work great on land, but few of them can survive for long in the water. Maybe in terms of games, this means that they might gather a new audience of players, but leave an old audience behind. So to speak, OD&D is a fish, and Diaglo is the sea.
But still, there are some noteable advancements. But advancements are never free. For a larger brain to support complex social structures and development of mechanical tools, human bodies became more and more focussed on supporting the large brain, and other aspects were neglected. (On the risk of this being read as me claiming 4E is "dumbed down") Maybe 3.x is a case where the brain became so big that the body sometimes couldn't support it, and a "fix" of the evolution is to simply a little stuff.
The priorities (or likes/dislikes) of each individual gamer describe an "environment" where the game system can "try" to thrive. Some game systems are highly specialized, so they fit the needs of a very few gamers perfectly and don't really appeal to others, but in evolution, this is just as valid as trying to be "adaptable" to fit most environments. But environments aren't always stable. (You don't always need a Meteor Strike for that, and I guess there has never been a Meteor Strike equivalent for game systems and gamer priorities.) You might always find something specialized that fits the criteria of a given group of gamers better then another one. But still, the one that comes close enough for enough has still a good chance to populate.
Or, simply put: What you said.
Editions change, and everyone has his favorite edition, since the edition fits best to his priorities. Some editions might hit larger gamer priorities then others. And yet, they aren't absolutely better. Overall, for the time being, they are fitter. But don't count on them being in this place forever...
In a way, D&D seems to always have been the game that fits the largest audience.
[/Rambling]
