Games with "terrible" follow-up editions

aramis erak

Legend
For an unmentioned example, Tunnels and Trolls 5th and 7th edition both altered the system significantly. Many fans disliked the changes, since they'd made older material incompatible both times.
T&T changed none of the processes save paying for/casting spells. 1st ed combat works just like 4th, 5th, 5½th 7th, 7½th, and DT&T. (2nd & 3rd are literally just edits of 1E, per Ken St. Andre. There is no 6th; Ken's instructions are any homebrewed variation is 6th)

If using a module for early eds (1-4), add a die to all weapons.
if using 1-5, spells pay with Str; 5½ and later pay with Wizadry/Kremm. So when using 5E stuff, for detailed casters, make Wiz equal the original STR, and regenerate STR.

Early editions have no Spite Damage; 5.5 and later do. (Any attack die showing a 6 does direct damage like how TTYF works.)

Technically, 7.x requires your current Wiz to exceed the target's to successfully cast; most of us ignore that.

All editions are more cross compatible than AD&D1E to AD&D2E...

The "edition warring" within T&T is way more subdued than most, as most stuff can be pulled either way seamlessly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

aramis erak

Legend
not cool.
Basically, 4e was almost nothing like any MMO that has ever existed. And if you want to say it's like a video game, a better example would be something like Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics- but even there, you field a small army, not 4-6 characters.
FFT one fields 1-6 characters. Not a "small army"....
Can't speak to Fire Emblem.

Feel in play was very like WoW and EQ. Not that it's mechanically similar... but there are d20 system adaptations of both... and people I know who've played the d20 flavors of both and the sourced MMOs note that 4E was closer in feel than the d20 versions, despite the d20 versions explicitly trying.

Me, I liked 4E as a minis wargame... but it felt very much like Melee+Wizard: not quite enough there to be a full RPG, but clearly a minis game for use in an RPG system.

Then again, for me, D&D has always been more a minis game than an RPG as a ruleset... from Moldvay to 5E.
 

Honestly I don't think there's going to be a single entry in this thread where there aren't people who prefer the version that "ruined" the game in its previous incarnation. Which I suppose is a large part of why we have "Edition Wars", because it's hard to have a war when everyone is on one side.

A reasonable assumption...but I haven't heard a peep from any Shadowrun 6e stans, and that was the kickoff example for the whole thread.

Some editions don't even want to be defended.
 


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I disagree with that opinion on a factual level. I don't see how time in the new edition is relevant in a thread talking about past games. I would think my opinion is just as valid as your own. You can agree to disagree, or simply let it go, but instead you decided to show sterling character and superior wit. I am duly humbled by your excellent defense of your position.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
We're what, 7 years into 5e and some wanker is still "whah whah" over my opinion of 4th edition? Yeah, VERY BIG YAWN. THE BIGGEST YAWN.
I find it curious how somebody can be a 'long time lurker' and yet still be under the impression that calling people rude names is how we play around here. Poor observational skill, I guess. But with 9 warnings in the last year and no change in behaviors, it seems clear that you simply ignore us moderators, so next step, I suppose. 🤷 YAWN.
 

Retreater

Legend
Honestly I don't think there's going to be a single entry in this thread where there aren't people who prefer the version that "ruined" the game in its previous incarnation. Which I suppose is a large part of why we have "Edition Wars", because it's hard to have a war when everyone is on one side.
There's stuff to like about all the editions I've tried. I wouldn't say 4e is my absolute favorite edition (though I think I'd take it to 3.x because I just got so burned out of that one). I do think that 4e is the edition most likely to be completely discounted by fans instead of learning why it was designed like it was, and maybe using it to enhance your games now.
But yeah, I'm not an edition warrior because I don't play sides, other than all editions have some value.
 

DrunkonDuty

he/him
L5R has diehards for 3E (like me until 5E came out) and for 2E...

5E, being very different mechanically, is also having issues with existing 3E and 4E fans badmouthing it. It does, however, seem to have a strong fanbase.... including me.

@aramis erak, Would you please tell me what is it you like about L5R 5E? Also, are there any bits you don't like?

Just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from:

I really like L5R 3E despite that it's almost unplayable. I mean, it is unplayable without some heavy house ruling. But I managed to play a few enjoyable mini campaigns of it. I guess I like the feel of it.

I've only read the 4e core rule book, never played it, but I didn't like what I read. I missed the separate duelling sub-system and battle sub-system. I also didn't like that they just doubled down on some of the overpowered character options from later 3e splat books/revised 3e core rules. I'm thinking specifically of the Wasp and Monkey bushi but there may be others.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:


Hex08

Hero
I don't think the conversion from oWoD to nWoD in the early 2000s was terrible (in many cases, I thought the new games were better). However, rebooting all your old games with similar concepts but completely new lore and modified mechanics is definitely an A+ way to split your fanbase into arguing pieces.
I agree, nWoD was a good game but after playing oWoD for so long and being used to its history and setting nWoD just kind of fell flat for me.
 

Remove ads

Top