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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GregoryOatmeal" data-source="post: 5690791" data-attributes="member: 6667661">Football and Monopoly and all games get tweaked - they don't get entirely revamped like D&D did for 3E and 4E. I'm talking about the foundation of the game. While Football and Monopoly vary and evolve, everyone recognizes that a field goal is worth three points and you get $200 when you pass go. If Hasbro released radically different versions of Monopoly every five years or so the public would become confused, nostalgic about "classic Monopoly" and probably stop buying the product. So while their are obviously hundreds of different Monopoly games with different coats of paint, that's not really pertinent to my discussion about people being able to keep track of the rules. Anyone that has ever played Monopoly will get Star Wars Monopoly or Oklahoma Monopoly - no barrier to entry. Changes to football really don't seem to stop people from watching football like an edition change can kill someone's interest in gaming.Games obviously evolve. This is a good thing and D&D is no exception. However after a few decades for most games these changes seem to crystallize. D&D may require a much longer process (Okay, total consensus on an edition simply isn't realistic) since the game is so much more complex than Monopoly or Football (stack the rulebooks next to each other). I think this would be healthy for the hobby because it would make it easier for people to play with one another.House rules are awesome. I think gamers can agree on that. And I would hope WOTC would continue to support this theoretical stable foundation with tons of experimental products, in the spirit of D&D. If they want to add powers and healing surges and two new attribute scores to the base six in an optional "Arcana" book, more power to them. If it catches on great. I'd probably buy that book myself. I want an enduring simple and stable game with the potential for modular experimentation if players choose.Not everyone wants to play the same game as everyone else but the surplus of choice makes it difficult for some people to agree and invest in a system. The pros and cons of a system are less important for me than being able to stick with an edition so people actually buy the books and commit to learning the rules. I like to game with a lot of different people just to mingle so this means I need to learn a lot of systems.Also my preferred game is definitely Castles and Crusades, but I just tend to run the game people ask for and agree on. If I come off as a 3.5 fanboy it's largely because I like their being an edition more people agree on and have resources for than not. It's not my favorite and it's obviously imperfect, but people seem to know it and it's good enough. Having more editions just makes getting people together to game more difficult.</blockquote>

Verification