Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shurai" data-source="post: 3264777">Almost AccurateI'd say the only real problem with this analogy is that it mistakenly places 3.5 Ed at the cutting edge, where the F-22 seems to be.This is provably not correct.&nbsp; D&amp;D 3.5 contains no new innovations, special &quot;higher technology&quot;, or drastic innovation compared with 3rd Ed; it's basically the same game.&nbsp; That means it's probably like the difference between the F-18s produced in the 1970s or 80s, and the F-18s they're producing today.Given that this place is mostly d20/D&amp;D-oriented, I'm likely to offend with the following, so I'd like to apologize in advance.&nbsp; I wouldn't be about to say it if I didn't think it was useful to the discussion.The real truth, to me, is that D&amp;D isn't very &quot;advanced&quot; as roleplaying systems go, so no version of D&amp;D is really analogous to the F-22 or even, I'd say, the &quot;teen series&quot; fighters of the post-Vietnam era.&nbsp; Moreover, D&amp;D has lagged behind other systems for quite some time, and continues to do so, especially as far as innovation is concerned.&nbsp; For instance, D&amp;D adopted skill-based mechanics and a quasi-unified dice-rolling mechanic at least a decade after the first of such systems were conceived.I'd suggest revising the progression somewhat, perhaps placing 3.5 somewhere in the transition period from propeller aircraft to jets.&nbsp; I'm not very expert on the history of this sort of thing, but maybe 3rd Edition is more like the F-86 Sabre, for instance.&nbsp; This isn't a slight against D&amp;D; the Sabre is a highly-respected aircraft, and D&amp;D is a highly-respected game, or it ought to be.&nbsp; I just wouldn't say it's particularly cutting-edge from a technical point of view.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shurai, post: 3264777"] [b]Almost Accurate[/b] I'd say the only real problem with this analogy is that it mistakenly places 3.5 Ed at the cutting edge, where the F-22 seems to be. This is provably not correct. D&D 3.5 contains no new innovations, special "higher technology", or drastic innovation compared with 3rd Ed; it's basically the same game. That means it's probably like the difference between the F-18s produced in the 1970s or 80s, and the F-18s they're producing today. Given that this place is mostly d20/D&D-oriented, I'm likely to offend with the following, so I'd like to apologize in advance. I wouldn't be about to say it if I didn't think it was useful to the discussion. The real truth, to me, is that D&D isn't very "advanced" as roleplaying systems go, so no version of D&D is really analogous to the F-22 or even, I'd say, the "teen series" fighters of the post-Vietnam era. Moreover, D&D has lagged behind other systems for quite some time, and continues to do so, especially as far as innovation is concerned. For instance, D&D adopted skill-based mechanics and a quasi-unified dice-rolling mechanic at least a decade after the first of such systems were conceived. I'd suggest revising the progression somewhat, perhaps placing 3.5 somewhere in the transition period from propeller aircraft to jets. I'm not very expert on the history of this sort of thing, but maybe 3rd Edition is more like the F-86 Sabre, for instance. This isn't a slight against D&D; the Sabre is a highly-respected aircraft, and D&D is a highly-respected game, or it ought to be. I just wouldn't say it's particularly cutting-edge from a technical point of view. [/QUOTE]

Verification