Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reanjr" data-source="post: 1969675" data-attributes="member: 20740">Player's Option would have been AD&D 2.5 if the modern revisionist ideas were around back then.I would actually prefer a cohesive versioning system.  Major version (currently 3) would be incremented whenever forwards compatibility was removed.  This means that the new rules could either make a current character obsolete and there is no direct path up upgrade.  The 3.5 rules might be said to do this with the Ranger class, except that the 3e Ranger can be easily used in a 3.5 game, and can be updated to work directly in 3.5.Minor versions (current is 5) should incremenet by 1 each time (as opposed to jumping to .5) would represent backwards-compatibility breaks.  Two games that share the same minor version should be totally compatible without any conversion.  Going from 3 to 3.5, for instance, requires that several things be updated, like two-weapon fighting feats, certain classes or class abilities, particular spells, face/reach, certain skills are no longer used, etc.  All of these things are easily convertable, but do have to be converted between the two systems.  Since conversion is necessary, a minor version change is in order.On the other hand, errata such as that found in the FAQs (for instance a clarification or a mild balancing of rules) could result in a revision number (so we'd be on 3.5.1 or whatever).  Whenever a new print run is issued, if anything has been introduced, even grammatical mistakes, the revision number should be incremented.Each book should also have as extensive a changelog as is possible, indicating the changes since the last revision and the changes since the last minor version.  This could also include an upgrade guide when necessary (i.e., when converting a Ranger from a d10 class to a d8 class, simply subtract 1 hp from the character's total for each class level).I would also suggest pulling an idea from a lot of GPL projects where they use odd and even to indicate stability (for minor version only).  In RPG terms, this could indicate whether the new rules have gone through extensive, out-of-house playtesting.  If it hasn't, then assign an odd number, if it has, then assign an even number.Another good indication of whether a change is a revision or a minor version change is how the RPGA has to handle it.  Revisions should be able to be played either way, even both ways in the same game.  A minor version should be a required upgrade.  Indicating what version a game or product is using can be a succint way of expressing which errata has made it into said game or product.Supplements should be versioned based on which core game the supplement is assuming.This information should be located on the title page of the book.  You could also indicate a range  of version (3.5.0-3.5.4) to indicate that no rules changes in those versions would have any affect on the material in the book.This is another one of those things that I think our dollars should be spent on if Wizards expects us to continue to drop money into the same game.  It goes hand-in-hand with my ideas of Wizards providing us with better organization and integration of their products.They should begin doing something to improve the current edition before they even think about beginning on another.</blockquote>

Verification