Search results

Apart from the very odd numbering, you missed out Holmes Basic, B/X and 3.5 are separate editions (and probably so will OneD&D be) so you cannot just include them in something else to fit your thesis, and B/X is part of the same edition family as BECMI, not OD&D. Also, while you are correct...

An edition of a gameline is not the same things as an edition of an individual book. So "edition" as applied to D&D and other RPGs is effectively a new sense of the word edition, but even that "new" sense is around forty years old so it is a bit late to complain about it now.

There is one partial mechanism. If you bring out a new OGL document (book, SRD, whatever) and declare something PI in that, anyone who wants to use that document has to respect that declaration, even if that something was completely open before. OTOH, they obviously still have the option of not...

Regarding the "catering to casual fans/catering to hardcore fans" dichotomy: I think it is a bit of a red herring, in that is presupposes that all casual fans care about the same things, and those things are different from what all hardcore fans care about. When the difference between them is...

....and a sidebar just inside the front cover saying "it's not a new edition, honest!" But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of insulting me. Again.

Not yet, but unless things change quite dramatically there is going to be. WotC also tried to claim 3.5 wasn't a new edition. Nobody bought it then either.

Some people have said that Takhisis and Tiamat being separate entities is "silly". Personally, I find this much sillier.

I just read the blue-dragon one; pretty interesting, and I am going to add a couple of the things to blue dragons in my setting (and a couple of things were already there, so obviously I approve of those :D). However, my inner pedant compels me to point out that silver has higher conductivity...

I think it is restrictions that make magic feel magical; the odd little rules, the lacunae. For example, in Wheel of Time* . IIRC they never actually refer to The One Power as magic, but it feels magical to me, because of things like that. Which I guess is why I like vancian magic, and was...

Whereas to me it sounds like exactly what happened. Like beyond a reasonable doubt, to the point that I am surprised it is any way controversial. We know that 4e had a goal of $50 million with a growth path to $100 million, which we know it missed. To my knowledge they never published similar...

It was going to allow characters that felt and acted like 1e, 3e, or 4e characters, but with compatible mechanics, not characters that were literally 1e, 3e, and 4e characters - incompatible numbers and all. Of course, they quietly ditched that particular goal pretty early on.

That's more than I can find now (thanks to WotC purging most of the DDN stuff), but it is a lot less than was there at the time. There was a lot more, over the first few months after the announcement, until suddenly there wasn't.

I do not disagree with the general point that mainstream tastes change over time, but that is not a great example. The sitcom Friends is stupendously popular with the current generation, to the point that there was big bidding war between the streaming services to secure it a couple of years...

"Some people" of course including the DDN design team early on, until they tacitly abandoned that goal. Anyway on the main subject, "won't have an OGL" does not make any sense as said, but is probably meant to mean "will not have its own SRD released under the OGL". Which may or may not...

In my head, they are separate, for the reasons people have already mentioned: The differences in power/significance and the fact that the death of one does not seem to affect the other. It is fairly unlikely that it will ever matter in a campaign I run, but in the event that it does they will be...

I appreciate that I am coming late into a very long thread, but I wanted to highlight this point. There was a lot of discussion early on about "offence", but offence is not what really matters - harm is what matters (or as Bill Zebub puts it - "damage"). If WotC prints something horrifically...

"Obligated" is a strong term. But if I think the players have forgotten something that their PCs would have remembered, I remind them - things that happened a week ago for the PCs could be several months for the players, and the PCs are possibly smarter and definitely more motivated than the...

I could get behind any version that is not "it's just slotted spells, but we'll call it psionics". If they went with 3e-style point-based magic, I would prefer they did not call it "psionics", but it would not be a dealbreaker if it were (as it wasn't in 3.x). It would not be my first choice -...

My list would be similar, but from PF2 I would take the method of determining ability scores and possiby the way proficiency ranks work, rather than the 3-action economy. And while I might reduce the rate of number scaling compared with PF1, PF2, or 4e, it would not be to the extent that 5e did...

Putting problematic stuff in there accidentally is certainly slightly better than doing so with malice aforethought, but still a lot worse than not doing so at all. The people harmed by it get harmed the same either way.