Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Luce" data-source="post: 6222672" data-attributes="member: 29760">To OP:I think the phenomena is driven by a number of factors here are just a few:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-innovation_bias" target="_blank">pro-innovation bias</a> Closest to the one you are asking. Basically if its is new it must be better.However there may be other thinks effecting this such as "bandwagon effect" (what is currently popular, in a way a herd mentality), "confirmation bias" (looking for ways to support ones existing beliefs), post-purchase rationalization (once you bought it you think it is good) etc.Here is an experiment, take the best (in your opinion and worst products from different editions). Then think why you made those choices. To me each edition have some build in assumptions about play, some more loosely then other but still there. For example, there was anticipated shift in 1st & 2nd ed. around 9-10th level where the PC started to get involved in politics. 3E has its wealth by level and CR. Of coarse there is no Game Police, so nobody will come to take you to task if you choose to make modifications. As for the evolution I would call it adaptation, but the term is still apt.Earlier editions IMO focused on individual group customizing the rules to their liking, that resulted in tailored styles which were not very portable. Campaigns also seemed to be intended to last for longer periods. Later editions focused on portability and unification of experience as well as popularizing the game to a wider audience and I think achieved that goal. There seems to be a trades off of coarse. There always is. Some like more fluff, others less for example. What is good for one play style may not be for another.</blockquote>

Verification