Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5775076" data-attributes="member: 3400">Whether they played with different styles or emphases or not, they still had a common language underpinning it all. So, while the games may have appeared different, they shared tremendous commonalities. I'd even say that you see many of the same commonalities between editions that are more compatible - 1e and 2e for example, 3.0 and 3.5 for another, and 3.5 and PF for a third. When it comes to edition treadmills, I'm a lot more tolerant of them if the editions are more compatible than if they are not. Call of Cthulhu has been through at least 6 editions now. If a 1st edition CoC player had been blown in to the North Atlantic, frozen into a state of suspended animation, and thawed out in 6th edition's time frame, he'd recognize it and be able to play it with relatively little instruction. The same is largely true for Champions. I have copies of 1st and 5th edition rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5775076, member: 3400"] Whether they played with different styles or emphases or not, they still had a common language underpinning it all. So, while the games may have appeared different, they shared tremendous commonalities. I'd even say that you see many of the same commonalities between editions that are more compatible - 1e and 2e for example, 3.0 and 3.5 for another, and 3.5 and PF for a third. When it comes to edition treadmills, I'm a lot more tolerant of them if the editions are more compatible than if they are not. Call of Cthulhu has been through at least 6 editions now. If a 1st edition CoC player had been blown in to the North Atlantic, frozen into a state of suspended animation, and thawed out in 6th edition's time frame, he'd recognize it and be able to play it with relatively little instruction. The same is largely true for Champions. I have copies of 1st and 5th edition rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification