D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[overgeeked]

I don't think the basic line ever used the "edition" terminology and despite your previous argument - it was an addition of D&D

Of course it didn't use the terminology. It wasn't an edition of the game. It was a separate game called D&D. Like my example above with chess and 4 way chess. Both are chess(D&D), but they are different games of chess(D&D). It can be argued that basic had different editions of that game, though.

Edition was used in B/X and BECMI. I don’t have my Holmes handy to check it.

ETA: Yep. Holmes Basic also uses the word edition in the typical RPG context when referring to OD&D.

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn't really matter if it was marketing BS or not. Whatever it was, it caught on big time and that's what edition currently means in gaming. Whether it was absurd or not is simply a matter of opinion. Clearly you don't like it, but D&D used it all the way through 5e, so at this point there has been zero time where D&D hasn't been using edition terminology. It's not a lot, but it is on the cover of the books and edition(s) were used in the DMG a couple of times.

Ah, but it does matter, since the entire question is one of the usefulness of terms and how best to use them.

 

[Parmandur]

Of course it didn't use the terminology. It wasn't an edition of the game. It was a separate game called D&D. Like my example above with chess and 4 way chess. Both are chess(D&D), but they are different games of chess(D&D). It can be argued that basic had different editions of that game, though.

TSR said it was a seperate game, but frankly that was always an unserious claim. People played them interchangeably all the time.

Even discounting the original D&D and Basic lines (which is frankly absurdist, obviously OD&D and every Basic was an edition of D&D), though, the "AD&D" line doesn't work at making the numbers work, because there have been 9 of them, not 5 or even 6.

 

[Parmandur]

Like my example above with chess and 4 way chess. Both are chess(D&D), but they are different games of chess(D&D)

To zoom in on this: BD&D & AD&D were not different like normal chess and 4 way chess. It's more like a chess set with wooden pieces versus one with plastic pieces.

Ze game is ze same.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, but it does matter, since the entire question is one of the usefulness of terms and how best to use them.

That I know about, I've never met someone(other than you here online) for whom it was a useless term. As I said, I disagree with your opinion about the usefulness of the term as it relates to games.

 

[Maxperson]

TSR said it was a seperate game, but frankly that was always an unserious claim. People played them interchangeably all the time.

Well that doesn't matter. I've seen people play risk where the troops have AC, HP, etc. That you can play them together doesn't make them the same game. Again, see chess and four way chess. The moves are the same for all the pieces, yet different games.

To play basic and advanced together, you had to alter the rules. Elves, dwarves and halflings were only a race in AD&D, but were classes in basic. Those don't mesh together. And those are just some of the differences that had to be reconciled. They were not the same game.

Even discounting the original D&D and Basic lines (which is frankly absurdist, obviously OD&D and every Basic was an edition of D&D), though, the "AD&D" line doesn't work at making the numbers work, because there have been 9 of them, not 5 or even 6.

Basic was an edition of basic D&D, yes. It was not an edition of AD&D, which begins with 1e. And no, there have not been 9 editions of AD&D. Objectively, using the RPG definition which is the only one that matters, there have been only 5 editions of AD&D. And half edition revisions for most of them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To play basic and advanced together, you had to alter the rules. Elves, dwarves and halflings were only a race in AD&D, but were classes in basic. Those don't mesh together. And those are just some of the differences that had to be reconciled. They were not the same game.

We were 12 years old. We didn't CARE. Half the rules we made up as we went along anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

That I know about, I've never met someone(other than you here online) for whom it was a useless term. As I said, I disagree with your opinion about the usefulness of the term as it relates to games.

So because they are the same game, I can be a basic elf and then take the AD&D fighter/thief multiclass, making me a fighter/magic user by race and a fighter/thief by class, getting all kinds of extra class abilities?

 

[Maxperson]

We were 12 years old. We didn't CARE.

Yep! Not caring doesn't make them the same game, though. It just means you didn't care about the differences.

If his argument was that people didn't care, I wouldn't be arguing back.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yep! Not caring doesn't make them the same game, though. It just means you didn't care about the differences.

Well, we cared that "Basic" was presented as a kid's game, so being 12 we preferred the "grown up" AD&D. Even when running adventures designed for Basic.