Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 9263144" data-attributes="member: 22424">Or I guess you just had each person use the rules from the PHB they had. There has always been a large constituency of casual gamers who just really don't care about the rules.Fair enough.My larger point, which seems to have become lost in all of this, is that there simply is no universally accepted definition of 'edition', nor agreement of what marks the boundary. Personally, I would tend to agree that 3.5e should be considered a new edition and Essentials should not. But that's my definition - WotC would disagree (stating that neither is a new edition), and the market would likewise mostly disagree (treating both as new editions).And, to be honest, the argument mostly seems to be a proxy for arguing over which edition is best - was 4e the shortest-lived WotC edition, or the second longest? In which case... I'm sorry, but I just don't care any more. Play what you like; like what you like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 9263144, member: 22424"] Or I guess you just had each person use the rules from the PHB they had. There has always been a large constituency of casual gamers who just really don't care about the rules. Fair enough. My larger point, which seems to have become lost in all of this, is that there simply is no universally accepted definition of 'edition', nor agreement of what marks the boundary. Personally, I would tend to agree that 3.5e should be considered a new edition and Essentials should not. But that's [I]my[/I] definition - WotC would disagree (stating that neither is a new edition), and the market would likewise mostly disagree (treating both as new editions). And, to be honest, the argument mostly seems to be a proxy for arguing over which edition is best - was 4e the shortest-lived WotC edition, or the second longest? In which case... I'm sorry, but I just don't care any more. Play what you like; like what you like. [/QUOTE]

Verification