D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Hussar]

That's my point. They absolutely reinvented the wheel. Multiple times. 3e is not compatible with 2e. 2e is compatible with 1e, but, that's kinda the exception. 4e isn't backwards compatible and neither is 5e. The old module remakes have had to be considerably rewritten for the new edition.

Like I said, a 1e wheel and a 5e wheel aren't really the same wheels at all.

 

[Scott Christian]

But, again, why are you presuming minorities here? You say we'd lose most of the game if we removed everything that someone, somewhere had a problem with. But, look at the current issues. The orcs thing (sorry, I know that's a bit of a dead horse) has been an issue for a LONG time. This had been something of a perennial issue that kept coming back, year after year. Same with alignment. Or chainmail bikinis. It's not like these issues have suddenly sprung forth from the head of Zeus. These have been around for quite a while.

Two parts I see to this: One, what about those in the minority that disagree with the minority? Take Satine Phoenix who has expressed the liking of chainmail bikinis as an example. Or the forty percent that think: "Sure change it, but don't throw it out." You see, it goes back to seeing things from multiple sides and understanding without judgement. If your quote above were true then here are the things we need to reconsider because these "issues" have been around for awhile:

• hit points (more debate about hit points than has been written on Twain's influence of modern writing)
• attributes (used to be more than hit points, but has lost favor in the debate community - mostly because everyone wants to debate what hit points are)
• encumbrance (remember all the talk about how it needs to change because a dwarf with a 20 strength wouldn't have the space to carry everything the strength stat says he can)
• weapons (oh my god, if I hear one more time an arrow should do more damage...)
• armor (same as weapons - "I've walked around in platemail, and it is not as encumbering as chainmail)
• spells (think of how many debates certain spells cause, let alone table arguments for those groups prone to such things)
• magic items (please do not debate the alignment of your sentient item, or if there are too many, or attunement)
• and dare I say... opportunity attacks, armor class, initiative, etc...

You see, just because something has been debated "a LONG time" doesn't mean throw it out. It means, try to improve it, or finds ways to keep it, or completely change it, or throw it out. Those are your four options. There is not one, not two, not three, but four. Four ways it can be viewed. It behooves us, as a gaming culture, to try and understand all of them.

The only difference is, now the voices are loud enough that the majority no longer feel comfortable ignoring them. And, frankly, the "majority" is changing pretty rapidly too. Ten years ago, there was what, maybe 10% of gamers were women? Now it's pushing 50%? That's going to radically change what is a "minority" voice.

This is a great observation. I don't know the actual numbers (I think 50% is not accurate looking at conventions). But it is rising, and good for us as a community.

- Editing changes on punctuation and the word of to on and you to your. I must be tired.

 

[Scott Christian]

At the end of the day, it's an unanswerable question. How much of a problem does something need to be before it gets changed? I don't know and no one else does either. But, I do know that simply painting the issue as "oh, it's just some loud minority of squeaky wheels" doesn't really work either.

Completely agree. It is the minority or majority's inability to understand multiple sides that causes the squeak.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's my point. They absolutely reinvented the wheel. Multiple times. 3e is not compatible with 2e. 2e is compatible with 1e, but, that's kinda the exception. 4e isn't backwards compatible and neither is 5e. The old module remakes have had to be considerably rewritten for the new edition.

Like I said, a 1e wheel and a 5e wheel aren't really the same wheels at all.

OD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1e, and 2e are all compatible.

That's two major forks over 27 years. Not bad!

While 1e and 5e might not be the exact same wheel, they are close enough that anyone with a experience with 1e can run a 1e module "on the fly" in 5e.

Saying it's not backwards compatible as opposed to identical isn't quite accurate. I appreciate that some people prefer to pay for the conversions (especially those that never played 1e to begin with!), but most people can simply dust off the modules and run them.

 

[Umbran]

OD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1e, and 2e are all compatible.

That's two major forks over 27 years. Not bad!

Any of you folks old enough to remember old Intel chip and Windows attempts to remain backwards compatible, and the headaches and lack of innovation and improvement they caused?

 

[Hussar]

OD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1e, and 2e are all compatible.

That's stretching a bit. You had some serious work cut out for you if you tried to run a Basic/Expert monster in AD&D without converting.

And that's ingnoring the fact that PC's got a LOT more powerful between Basic/Expert and 2e. A 2e party was effectively two or three levels higher than the same party in Basic/Expert.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's stretching a bit. You had some serious work cut out for you if you tried to run a Basic/Expert monster in AD&D without converting.

Moldvay Ogre:
AC:5, HD:4+1, AT:1, D:1-10, AL:Chaotic

Gygax Ogre(MM):
AC:5, HD:4+1, AT:1, D:1-10, AL:Chaotic .... EVIL!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Any of you folks old enough to remember old Intel chip and Windows attempts to remain backwards compatible, and the headaches and lack of innovation and improvement they caused?

Yes, that was exactly the point I was making. I appreciate you clarifying my point for me.

Nothing should progress, ever. That was the point I was making.

I had asked that you stopped making short sarcastic responses to me- you don't have to reply to me to make your points. Thanks.

 

[Remathilis]

I love how apparently the fact that 4e attempted radical departures in both lore and mechanics lead to D&D's sales slump, Pathfinder's rise, and the birth of D&D Next as the attempt to create a unity edition of D&D taking from all previous and capturing that spirit has receded into Goldfish Memory at this point.

Surely NOW is there time for a radical reinvention of D&D, right?

 

[Mecheon]

Well, technically speaking Pathfinder didn't outsell 4E until 4E's "Let's just, stop producing books" that came at the end. Which. Says a lot about D&D's just sheer presence as a market Thing.

And by "technically speaking" I mean "I saw sales numbers somewhere years ago and have promptly forgotten where"