Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 5301058" data-attributes="member: 158">If that were the criteria, Basic Mentzer D&D would meet three of your four, the main difference being how saves are reached.  Heck, there would be more of a difference between Original D&D and Mentzer Basic, because in original there were no saves! (That I recall -- I think it was added in one of those supplement books, because I don't remember a save chart in Men, Monsters, and Magic.)I just have to disagree on whether it matters, though, because the OGL says it doesn't - it's meant to foster incremental improvements as well as broad-stroke improvements. In fact, Paizo could one day prove Ryan Dancey a prophet in an old article where he talks about people picking up an OGL D&D if the owner of D&D makes changes too unpopular with the gamer majority. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (Still need to find that article for a cite - it was part of a Q&A he did more than five years ago.)I see where you're coming from though -- I'm guessing you see it as too close broad-mechanical-strokes-wise to be a different system. I'm seeing it as almost as different as 4E is from 3E. Would you say 4E is a different system from 3E, at least?</blockquote>