Is D&D the only game that radically changes each edition?

[TwinBahamut]

While it doesn't concern tabletop RPGs directly, a lot of videogames undergo a lot of change between each iteration of a series. The Final Fantasy series is a great example. Each iteration reinvents the entire system so thoroughly that the most recent incarnation, Final Fantasy 12, barely even resembles any previous game in the series, and is has no meaningful connection to the original Final Fantasy whatsoever (other than the naming conventions of a few spells).

 

[Lanefan]

That's a rumor that was passed among anti-TSR people (at the time). As far as I know there has never been a bit of evidence to back it up.

The bit about Gygax and the royalties may be rumour, but it's fact that 1e and 2e were published side by side for a few years...about 1989-1991, if memory serves.

Lanefan

 

[tenkar]

The bit about Gygax and the royalties may be rumour, but it's fact that 1e and 2e were published side by side for a few years...about 1989-1991, if memory serves.

Lanefan

I'm also fairly sure any reference to EGG was removed from AD&D 2e PHB, DMG and MM... course my books are all boxed up so I cant be totally sure.

 

[Glyfair]

The bit about Gygax and the royalties may be rumour, but it's fact that 1e and 2e were published side by side for a few years...about 1989-1991, if memory serves.

Yeah, a little overaggressive quoting Fixed.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm also fairly sure any reference to EGG was removed from AD&D 2e PHB, DMG and MM... course my books are all boxed up so I cant be totally sure.

AD&D PHB 2e Revised, under Credits heading...

This is a derivative work based on the original [smallcaps]Advanced Dungeons & Dragons [/smallcaps] Player's Handbook and [smallcaps]Dungeon Master's[/smallcaps] Guide by Gary Gygax and Unearthed Arcana and other materials by Gary Gygax and others.

 

[buzz]

The basic box set and AD&D Moster Manual were both published at the end of '77. Both systems were perfectly viable as seperate and continually supported systems.

The original blue book Basic set was specifically designed as an intro product for AD&D. Just about every other paragraph in the text ends with "for more on this, see Advanced Dungeons & Dragons." D&D as a separate line from AD&D evolved a little later, born out of a legal dispute between Arneson and Gygax.

 

[WizarDru]

Most of the designers on 3E weren't around to "learn from their mistakes" for 3.5. Some of them still prefer 3E to 3.5 and don't regard the 3E design decisions as "mistakes."

Considering the size of the development team and the fact that different players prefer different styles, I don't find that surprising. That said:

Jonathan Tweet: No longer plays 3e, working on 4e
Monte Cook: Stopped using 3e and wrote several new variants on it (AU, WoD, etc.)
Skip Williams: Unknown, but worked on 3.5e
Rich Baker: Working on 4e
Bill Slaviscek: Working on 4e
David Noonan: Working on 4e
Andy Collins: Working on 4e
Bruce Cordell: Working on 4e
Rob Heinsoo: Working on 4e


I mean, when I look at this list of 3.0 contibutors and compare it with this list, I'm seeing a LOT of duplication. I'm not trying to say that some of the folks who worked on 3e and 3.5e aren't thrilled with the direction, but a large number of the R&D department has maintained continuity. Folks like Sean K. Reynolds, JD Wilker and others certainly weren't thrilled with 3.5...but they also all have released their own changes to 3.0 in the intervening years based on their experiences and personal preferences. So I suspect that, like any group project, there were compromises made and each designer views certain aspects of any edition as having flaws they'd like to address.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I mean, when I look at this list of 3.0 contibutors and compare it with this list, I'm seeing a LOT of duplication.

Thanks for posting those links. I was aware that many of the 3E guys were not involved with 4E, but wasn't aware of what overlap there was.

I'm sure my perspective is skewed. When I think of the 3E designers, I think first of SKR and Monte Cook, because they had active websites with cool material and interesting discussions on game design principles. I was reading their sites well before 4E was even a rumor, so it's not like I gravitated towards them because I'm opposed to 4E. And I knew Skip Williams' "voice" from reading Sage Advice for years. Because my slanted sample of 3E developers aren't involved in 4E, I may have seen more turnover than actually occurred.

 

[Thunderfoot]

That's a rumor that was passed among anti-TSR people (at the time). As far as I know there has never been a bit of evidence to back it up.

However, Basic D&D was concieved originally as an introductory game for OD&D. Since AD&D was in the works, it was written to lead into both. The PHB wasn't even done, leading to odd bits like references to the AD&D witch class.

The move from Basic D&D as an introduction to BECMI as a paralled version of D&D was later (early 80s). I still haven't heard any reasons for this change to Basic D&D.

Glyfair - I don't think I've disputed anything you ever said, but I'm going to.
The employees of TSR said that Lorraine was sick of having to live under the EGG umbrella and when he finally sold his shares to her and 'left' the business her first act as the new queen was to launch a new edition in order to 'clear away the old wargamer mentality and usher in a newer era of more accessible games'. Veiled as it was, it was obvious she hated the nerd/geek crowd and Gary specifically.

Basic was never issued as a gateway game, but as the updated rules of the OD&D. Like its predecessor it had a limited advancement plan and basically was just a re-adaptation of the old rules, cleared up for easy grasp. The Expert rules were already in the works when AD&D dropped. It dropped in 81 and was TSRs way of saying there was no link between BD&D and AD&D.

AD&D was created when Gary and Dave had a disagreement about the direction of the rules (specifically the differences of play between tables (house rules).) Which is why Gary's name is on AD&D and Dave's is not. Howerver both Dave & Gary's name is on the BD&D books, just as they appeared on the OD&D. AD&D was the actual replacement for OD&D, but in a much more broader and sweeping set of changes than BD&D.

PS - I just did a major paper on the history of D&D for a college communications course so, all of this information is a little fresh from memory. (Ah, when old geeks go to new schools)

 

[Lord Fyre]

W.o.W., we got this far, and no one mentioned the collosal changes in the "new World of Darkness" material from White Wolf.