Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3424797" data-attributes="member: 158">I'd almost guarantee that it really was one of the last on the list of goals, based on conversations I had with playtesters and designers about 2000-2001. Mainly, the first goal was to streamline the game, and make it such that actual play was simpler, and rules meshed very well together. Whether they went too far in this goal was and is still debated to this day. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That will be debated by a small section of D&amp;D players to the end of tabletop gaming. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> However, the thought process by the designers were that the changes to the basic rules were necessary to make the game appealing to gamers of the current generation, or at least MORE appealing to the current generation. The market according to their research had consistently shrunk from year to year, so they took some radical steps to get back that interest (the Open Gaming License was another radical step that in my opinion paid off big time for them). The end result was a game that still kept some of the most basic &quot;sacred cows&quot; (levels, classes, hit dice, saving throws, &quot;Vancian&quot; spells, etc.) but the streamlining killed off the compatability between editions.In 3E to 4E, whenever it comes, will there be so large a divide? I cannot tell. However, my gut feeling is that it will be more like the changes from 1E to 2E, than the gulf from 2E to 3E.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 3424797, member: 158"] I'd almost guarantee that it really was one of the last on the list of goals, based on conversations I had with playtesters and designers about 2000-2001. Mainly, the first goal was to streamline the game, and make it such that actual play was simpler, and rules meshed very well together. Whether they went too far in this goal was and is still debated to this day. :) That will be debated by a small section of D&D players to the end of tabletop gaming. :) However, the thought process by the designers were that the changes to the basic rules were necessary to make the game appealing to gamers of the current generation, or at least MORE appealing to the current generation. The market according to their research had consistently shrunk from year to year, so they took some radical steps to get back that interest (the Open Gaming License was another radical step that in my opinion paid off big time for them). The end result was a game that still kept some of the most basic "sacred cows" (levels, classes, hit dice, saving throws, "Vancian" spells, etc.) but the streamlining killed off the compatability between editions. In 3E to 4E, whenever it comes, will there be so large a divide? I cannot tell. However, my gut feeling is that it will be more like the changes from 1E to 2E, than the gulf from 2E to 3E. [/QUOTE]

Verification