Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 5627389" data-attributes="member: 20854">I embrace change if I think the change is good.&nbsp; If I don't think it's good, I stick with what I think is good.With RPGs and editions, I'm more likely to accept a new edition of a game if the new edition keeps broad compatibility with what has gone before.&nbsp; I'm less likely to be interested in a new edition if it drastically modifies the game, pushing it into incompatible or even &quot;different game/same name&quot; territory.Obviously, I'm not drawing crisp lines: &quot;incompatible&quot; and &quot;different game&quot; aren't exact definitions.&nbsp; There's some wiggle room from person to person.&nbsp; My rule of thumb is the &quot;adventure test.&quot;&nbsp; That is, can I run an adventure written for the core rules of Edition A using the core rules for Edition B without much fuss and without completely ignoring the stats?&nbsp; If so, even if there are some differences, there's broad compatibility.&nbsp; I think all the editions of Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu pass the &quot;adventure test.&quot;&nbsp; Even the various editions of Runequest do well with the adventure test.&nbsp; I think TSR D&amp;D editions pass the &quot;adventure test.&quot;&nbsp; (Heck, I bet a lot of people ran B2 with AD&amp;D and didn't even realize B2 was written for a different edition.)&nbsp; I find that WotC D&amp;D veers into incompatibility with TSR D&amp;D in 3e, and the break becomes decisive with 4e.&nbsp; In fact, from this broad perspective, I'd say there are three &quot;versions&quot; of D&amp;D: TSR D&amp;D, 3e, and 4e.&nbsp; I don't mind this.&nbsp; I'm satisfied with the way the D&amp;D market has developed: my needs are being met, just not by the current holder of the D&amp;D trademark.&nbsp; I'm decisively off the &quot;edition carousel.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; I like TSR D&amp;D.&nbsp; I don't find WotC and what they're doing with the D&amp;D brand to be relevant to my D&amp;D gaming, so I ignore them.&nbsp; I don't mind other people liking WotC D&amp;D, but I don't think all change is good, or a positive &quot;evolution.&quot;&nbsp; And I see no reason to embrace it if I prefer something else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 5627389, member: 20854"] I embrace change if I think the change is good. If I don't think it's good, I stick with what I think is good. With RPGs and editions, I'm more likely to accept a new edition of a game if the new edition keeps broad compatibility with what has gone before. I'm less likely to be interested in a new edition if it drastically modifies the game, pushing it into incompatible or even "different game/same name" territory. Obviously, I'm not drawing crisp lines: "incompatible" and "different game" aren't exact definitions. There's some wiggle room from person to person. My rule of thumb is the "adventure test." That is, can I run an adventure written for the core rules of Edition A using the core rules for Edition B without much fuss and without completely ignoring the stats? If so, even if there are some differences, there's broad compatibility. I think all the editions of Chaosium's [i]Call of Cthulhu[/i] pass the "adventure test." Even the various editions of [i]Runequest[/i] do well with the adventure test. I think TSR D&D editions pass the "adventure test." (Heck, I bet a lot of people ran B2 with AD&D and didn't even [i]realize[/i] B2 was written for a different edition.) I find that WotC D&D veers into incompatibility with TSR D&D in 3e, and the break becomes decisive with 4e. In fact, from this broad perspective, I'd say there are three "versions" of D&D: TSR D&D, 3e, and 4e. I don't mind this. I'm satisfied with the way the D&D market has developed: my needs are being met, just not by the current holder of the D&D trademark. I'm decisively off the "edition carousel." I like TSR D&D. I don't find WotC and what they're doing with the D&D brand to be relevant to my D&D gaming, so I ignore them. I don't mind other people liking WotC D&D, but I don't think all change is good, or a positive "evolution." And I see no reason to embrace it if I prefer something else. [/QUOTE]

Verification