Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7640651" data-attributes="member: 4937">I never really get sick of an edition.&nbsp; I just write more house rules. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I would probably at this point completely rewrite 1e AD&amp;D before I would pick up a new edition.&nbsp; I think finally 25+ years after dropping the rules set I know enough about what was wrong with it to fix it while still maintaining its feel.&nbsp;&nbsp; Trouble is, it would take me years to do it and be an even bigger project than taking on some of the newer editions. At this point my preferred edition is a heavily rewritten version of 3.0e which I call &quot;3e AD&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm currently playing Pathfinder as a player, and for the most part I find the rules inferior to my house rules but I am very likely to steal some of their reforms to skill ranks and class/non-class skills, and I'm toying with stealing at least the idea and language of unified combat maneuver rules if I can figure out how to do it right.&nbsp; In short, I'm enjoying being a player, but I'm finding no need for a new edition, just more house rules.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />As far as I'm concerned, the introduction of new editions of D&amp;D is never really done for the sake of the game or the customers, and that has been at the heart of what has been wrong with every new edition of D&amp;D except (largely) 3.0 and possibly 5e.&nbsp; You could make the argument that new editions of some RPGs are done for the sake of the game or the customers, but for example CoC tends to be heavily compatible across editions and any changes made tend to be ones people were asking for.&nbsp; Rather, new editions of D&amp;D have always been introduced to deprecate the older material and encourage the customers to by all the same material but in a new edition and always have changes to the prior edition that almost no one was demanding.&nbsp;&nbsp; Basically, I expect each new edition of a game to be a heavily playtested and refined version of the prior edition, and not something which represents a large departure from what went before.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is, new editions ought to be as compatible with each other as say 3.5e was with 3.0e.&nbsp;&nbsp; My huge objection to 3.5e was that so much of it was not in fact heavily playtested or refined from the prior edition, but off the cuff changes by someone that thought himself smart but had never really played with the new rules to validate them.&nbsp;&nbsp; They were theoretical and not practical or done for reasons of formalism and not the empiricism of play.It is my hope that &quot;D&amp;D Next&quot; becomes &quot;D&amp;D Last&quot; and we will never again see an edition of D&amp;D that isn't largely compatible with 5e and represents only some minor improvement on the prior edition to address concerns that came up in actual play.&nbsp; I may never adopt the new edition, but at least the edition wars will be over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7640651, member: 4937"] I never really get sick of an edition. I just write more house rules. ;) I would probably at this point completely rewrite 1e AD&D before I would pick up a new edition. I think finally 25+ years after dropping the rules set I know enough about what was wrong with it to fix it while still maintaining its feel. Trouble is, it would take me years to do it and be an even bigger project than taking on some of the newer editions. At this point my preferred edition is a heavily rewritten version of 3.0e which I call "3e AD&D". I'm currently playing Pathfinder as a player, and for the most part I find the rules inferior to my house rules but I am very likely to steal some of their reforms to skill ranks and class/non-class skills, and I'm toying with stealing at least the idea and language of unified combat maneuver rules if I can figure out how to do it right. In short, I'm enjoying being a player, but I'm finding no need for a new edition, just more house rules. :D As far as I'm concerned, the introduction of new editions of D&D is never really done for the sake of the game or the customers, and that has been at the heart of what has been wrong with every new edition of D&D except (largely) 3.0 and possibly 5e. You could make the argument that new editions of some RPGs are done for the sake of the game or the customers, but for example CoC tends to be heavily compatible across editions and any changes made tend to be ones people were asking for. Rather, new editions of D&D have always been introduced to deprecate the older material and encourage the customers to by all the same material but in a new edition and always have changes to the prior edition that almost no one was demanding. Basically, I expect each new edition of a game to be a heavily playtested and refined version of the prior edition, and not something which represents a large departure from what went before. That is, new editions ought to be as compatible with each other as say 3.5e was with 3.0e. My huge objection to 3.5e was that so much of it was not in fact heavily playtested or refined from the prior edition, but off the cuff changes by someone that thought himself smart but had never really played with the new rules to validate them. They were theoretical and not practical or done for reasons of formalism and not the empiricism of play. It is my hope that "D&D Next" becomes "D&D Last" and we will never again see an edition of D&D that isn't largely compatible with 5e and represents only some minor improvement on the prior edition to address concerns that came up in actual play. I may never adopt the new edition, but at least the edition wars will be over. [/QUOTE]

Verification