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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 4001351" data-attributes="member: 29398">*only* if they wanted to, at the time, pretty much throw out all of 1e and start over.  As their intent seemed to be one of building on the foundation already laid, we had to wait till 3e for the throw-out-and-redo to happen. Just because they might have been available doesn't mean TSR hired 'em...I disagree, not because I'm defending 2e, but because of the approach taken.  WotC intentionally set out to design a 3e game that would sell (succeeded), and that would be and remain playable (mixed results).  They did their homework - we can argue later about the merits of their research, but at least they did some - and designed from there.  WotC also had at that point about 6 years of in-house experience designing and tweaking the most rules-laden game in the history of anything, that being M:tG, leading to the obvious expectation that their design department by 1999 knew what it was doing.  The 1e designers had none of this.  The 2e designers *could* have had the research but still didn't have the experience, nor did they come at it with the rules-first approach WotC brought from M:tG.My expectations of 3e were thus pretty high, and - credit where it's due - it even lived up to some of them; that they didn't design the game I wanted to play is hardly their fault.  (I'm referring to core 3e here; ditto core 2e where I reference it; splatbooks in either edition do not count)  2e I found disappointing, mostly because the direction taken was somewhat at variance with the direction Dragon articles seemed to be pointing...never mind the caving to the hardcore fundie nutballers and the atmosphere-destroying move away from the Gygaxian prose that made 1e what it was.Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification