Confused About 3.5

[Zaruthustran]

There's a pretty big continuum between, say, a reprint vs. a reprint with errata corrections vs. a reprint with errata corrections and clarifications vs. a revised edition with errata corrections, some re-written rules, and some new material vs. an entire new edition of the game. Ultimately, it's a matter of semantics and also somewhat a matter of personal opinion (the question being "are the changes to D&D 3e so big/encompassing/ numerous/important that they -- for you -- essentially make this a new game or a new "edition" -- whatever you think that means?"). From what I've seen so far, in my opinion, no. But that may change as we learn more; and you may think differently.

Good points, Eric.

Yeah, you know an argument is going south when folks start quoting the dictionary.

-z

 

[Negative Zero]

But we're not talking about a computer game - we're talking about a book. First your computer analogy is flawed. "Patches" actually change the game engine in some way, most of the time. Look at the recent Battlefield 1942 1.3 patch, for instance. So your analogy is off, right there.

Second, the closest things computer programs have to new "editions" are the "point" releases. ...

first of all, i concede that the computer game analogy is flawed. (i don't think that there's any other analogy that could be more appropriate, but it's what the original poster used, and i think it works well enough.) it wasn't meant as an absolute, only a means to illustrate what i was saying. i'd considered saying as much in my original post, but i (clearly wrongly) assumed that this would have been understood. anyway...

i think that you may not understand what "game engine" means. (i don't know anything about the Battlefield 1942 patch, so i won't comment on that.) a game engine is the code that makes the game possible. it defines what can and can't be done, and in what way. very often, a company will make an engine for a game, and then liscence it to other companies who make other games with it.

for example, the LithTech 3D Engine was made by Monolith Productions and used to make: Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza, KISS Psycho Circus: The Nightmare Child & Navy Seals among others. the engine used to make Quake III (also called the Quake engine) was also used by many other companies to make other games. Hexen II, Half Life, Duke Nukem (which i think still isn't finished) were all made using it. heck, some guy even made movies using the Quake engine. not to mention the hundreds of mods made with it.

in much the same way, the game engine for DnD 3E is the d20 System. it was created by WotC (unless i'm totally off my rocker) and then used by numerous other comapies to make additions to the DnD game and other games like 7th Sea and Wheel of Time.

so, is the new RPHB and RDMG gonna change d20? probably not.

in video games, "patches" don't change the actual engine of the game. they change (read fix) mistakes made in the coding done to utilise the engine. and in this regard, the changes proposed to the DnD books (from what i've heard) are doing just that. adjusting the DnD rules (code) that use the d20 System (engine).

... So, when you change the "version number" (as they did) you by definition change editions. You can say it's not a new edition (as WotC is doing), but when you do this you're wrong. ...

um ... no. you change the version when you go from 2.x to 3.x. that is a version change. going from 2.0 to 2.000000001 isn't a version change, it's an incremental upgrade. it is done to adjust a flaw in the current "version". of course i'm being facetious with the whole "2.0 to 2.000000001" deal but the same applies to 3.0 to 3.1 (or 3.5 as your tastes dictate). it is NOT a new version it is a change to the current version. an addendum (if you like terms more closely associated with print) if you will.

(the actual version isn't changed until the number before the decimal point is changed. and that isn't usually done unless there are hugely significant changes made to the layout and or functionality of a program.)

it may do you some good, to look away from the rigid book deffinition of a thing, and look at it, instead, in the actual context that it is used in. very very often in communication there are implications and connotations that must be taken into account if you want to grasp someone's meaning. sterile deffinitions don't always suffice.

your comic book analogy on the other hand, isn't simply flawed, it's downright unsuitable. that specific form of print, assumes regular issues, whereas the one in question pretty much assumes that there won't be anymore issues.

~NegZ

<EDIT>
this post has been edited for clarity and overall readability ... and to remove the snide and often offensive remarks that i'm so prone to making