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: 5691563" data-attributes="member: 6667661">We should stop arguing about how analogous Monopoly is. The point is Monopoly is stable enough that it's not contentious. It would be impossible to replicate this for D&D, but WOTC dumps fuel on the fire and makes the situation much much worse.Of course, but it would be a stabilizing and unifying influence if WOTC had one steady edition forever in print. People would buy that game on the guarantee that it would always be there, and then they would have a deeper understanding of the rules and they would start to stick. While a lot of edition warring comes from educated preferences, a lot if it also comes from nostalgia, when people started playing, what books they're familiar with, and what they've committed to learning. A definitive version would mitigate the second source of edition-warring amongst newcomers, but not the first. For peoples edition-specific preferences I propose optional Arcana-style supplements that would allow you to tailor the base game into something with 4E or 2.5. For example you'd start with Castles and Crusades and buy a "3E Unearthed" add-on for feats and skills, or a "4E Unearthed" book for defenses and healing surges. Ideally this would be compatible with other materials.People would always play other games and variations, but if one edition would stick it would mitigate this problem.Okay, lets go back to my original postSeriously, where did you draw the conclusion that there would be one set of books and no house rules? I don't think anyone is advocating an end to house rules or splat books, just a single stable set of core books. And I've said like four times already including my original post house rules are integral to D&D. And Monopoly, in fact. Not even the 10-year old Battleship player or the 50-year old receptionist that plays Monopoly has beef with the idea of house rules. And that's fine.Two things.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lots of people believe learning rules takes time from roleplaying, simulationsim, thesbianism - they take time that could be spent doing that stuff. I think this is an under-represented group of edition-fatigued gamers that probably don't wallow in edition wars. They're probably under-represented on the edition-war threads or have dropped out of gaming altogether.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A simple game like Castles and Crusades can have modular add-ons that facilitate rules for simulation, combat tactics, thesbianism, etc. The trick is to have a foundation that's strong enough to support such radical additions. DMs also often use house rules to steer their games in this direction</li> </ul>You know with casual gamers who are accustomed to other editions or non-gamers this is hard. I have a no laptop and some casual gamers would have a hard time building a character off the SRD. A familiar edition mitigates start-up time and lets us spend more time in the dungeon killing stuff.Yeah, it is kind of cool to be part of a hobby no one understands like being into an indie band most people don't know. And it is sort of cool that gaming is this huge DIY wild-west frontier of options. But it also has drawbacks. I spend a lot of time teaching people rules and trying to settle them into various rules systemOf course</blockquote>

Verification