Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5839467" data-attributes="member: 59082">Interesting points and I agree in that &quot;brand integrity&quot; is important and shouldn't be sacrificed for &quot;new shiny,&quot; but disagree with your implication that they are mutually exclusive.And no, I don't want a new game - I want a new edition, but with the understanding that the last two new editions (not sub-editions) were significant changes from the prior edition. 4E was a huge change from 3.x; I wouldn't call it a new game, but it was a significant change - as was 3E from 2E.So yeah, I want more of a 2E-to-3E or 3E-to-4E change, not a 1E-to-2E change or a Holmes-to-Metzner-to-BECMI change. Is that a new game? Depends. But part of my point is that a lot of the kerfuffle in past edition changeovers is that there is a small, but vocal (and often vitriolic) minority that simply wants an incremental change. Many of these folks think that D&amp;D ceased being D&amp;D in 2000 (or 2008), rather than simply changed into a new form (for better or worse).The problem brewing with 5E is that WotC has said that it will accommodate play &quot;in the style of&quot; other editions, but many folks have seemingly (mis-)interpreted that to mean that it will emulate and even improve upon/revise their favorite edition. I've heard people speculate (hopefully) that D&amp;D Next will be a cleaned up version of AD&amp;D or even a revamped version of OD&amp;D, or a revised version of BECMI. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening. If everyone realizes that D&amp;D Next is being designed as a new edition that accommodates a wide variety of play styles, then we all should be fine. But if people continue to wishfully think that it will revive and improve upon their favorite edition--whatever edition that is--then they'll be disappointed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5839467, member: 59082"] Interesting points and I agree in that "brand integrity" is important and shouldn't be sacrificed for "new shiny," but disagree with your implication that they are mutually exclusive. And no, I don't want a new game - I want a new edition, but with the understanding that the last two new editions (not sub-editions) were significant changes from the prior edition. 4E was a huge change from 3.x; I wouldn't call it a new game, but it was a significant change - as was 3E from 2E. So yeah, I want more of a 2E-to-3E or 3E-to-4E change, not a 1E-to-2E change or a Holmes-to-Metzner-to-BECMI change. Is that a new game? Depends. But part of my point is that a lot of the kerfuffle in past edition changeovers is that there is a small, but vocal (and often vitriolic) minority that simply wants an incremental change. Many of these folks think that D&D ceased being D&D in 2000 (or 2008), rather than simply changed into a new form (for better or worse). The problem brewing with 5E is that WotC has said that it will accommodate play "in the style of" other editions, but many folks have seemingly (mis-)interpreted that to mean that it will emulate and even improve upon/revise their favorite edition. I've heard people speculate (hopefully) that D&D Next will be a cleaned up version of AD&D or even a revamped version of OD&D, or a revised version of BECMI. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening. If everyone realizes that D&D Next is being designed as a new edition that accommodates a wide variety of play styles, then we all should be fine. But if people continue to wishfully think that it will revive and improve upon their favorite edition--whatever edition that is--then they'll be disappointed. [/QUOTE]

Verification