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

[Glyfair]

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.

That's not what I remember from the issue of Dragon that introduced Basic D&D. I'll have to look up the issue for details.

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.

1) Which employees specifically have said this? I've heard a lot of "oh, I heard that employees said..." comments, but nothing that's substantial.

2) "Veiled as it was, it was obvious she hated the nerd/geek crowd and Gary specifically." This doesn't mean it was done so that Gary would stop getting either credit or royalties.

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).)

That may be a reason, but the reasons I gave were all given by Gary. Most of them were given at the time (in Dragon. I doubt Gary said "let's cut Dave out, create a new edition!"

 

[Glyfair]

That's not what I remember from the issue of Dragon that introduced Basic D&D. I'll have to look up the issue for details.

Gary - Dragon #14

Organizational work was in progress when correspondence with J. Eric Holmes, professor, author and incidentally a respected neurologist, disclosed that the Good Doctor was interested in undertaking the first stage of the project — the rewriting and editing necessary to extract a beginner’s set of D&D from the basic set and its supplements. The result
of his labors is the “Basic Set” of D&D.

It is important to note, however, that the “Basic Set” is NOT aimed at the existing group of enthusiasts, it is designed solely for new players. It has rules which take players only through the first three experience levels! If they enjoy the game they must then obtain either AD&D or D&D.

The “Basic Set” was done with care, and it can lead to either the Original game or to the new, as yet unfinished, ADVANCED D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

3.0 was certainly a 3rd generation game. It's about as advanced as gurps.

What is a 4th generation game...mood/storytelling gaming?

I think you have the right idea. IMHO 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation games have generally not forgotten their wargaming roots and therefore have telltale simulationist genes that are not strictly necessary.

I would cite Puppetland and GUMSHOE as 4th generation.

I am sure there are other takes on RPGs that could arguably be 4th generation.

I agree completely with your assessment of GURPS.

In terms of basic mechanics, 3.0 is the game that 2e theoretically could have been (except for the fact that the strategic decision was made to make no change that could conceivably spook a dyed in the wool 1e player). All the "new" ideas in 3.0 were in plain view in other RPGs back in 1990. The only thing that makes 3.x 21st century is the open gaming license.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Kudos to Sanguinemetaldawn.

There are things that I disagree with you on. But it was a thoughtfully argued essay. And polite, as well.

You also earn brownie points for having some inkling of the differences between editions of Chivalry & Sorcery.

 

[buzz]

Gary - Dragon #14

Right, but this is pre-legal dispute. Basic evolved into BECMI later.

 

[WizarDru]

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

True, if you ignore the parts where Dalamar, Trancejeremy and I all mentioned it.

 

[Goodsport]

Twilight 2000

It's interesting that you mention Twilight: 2000 (one of my all-time favorite RPG's), as that's certainly another example of a game that's had both a complete overhaul in one change of edition and a less drastic polishing/tweaking in the next change of edition.

From an older post of mine (minus the &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp's that used to work back then as HTML indentation ):

THE EVOLUTION OF THE TWILIGHT: 2000 LINE

Twilight: 2000 First Edition (released in 1984) was much too math-heavy for my taste! Although a fun game, the vehicle-combat rules were almost impossible to run quickly and many rules aspects weren't in place yet (recoil rules, shooting while running, aimed shots vs. area burst, etc.). And the history portion in the beginning of the book ran from 1995-2000.

Twilight: 2000 Second Edition (released in 1990) was a complete overhaul of the system, simplifying much of it (for the better, IMO) and changing the game from % rolls to d10 rolls - I was amazed at how quickly I was able to create a character after the marathon-session chargen of the First Edition. And the history in the beginning of the book changed to 1989-2000, so at least the first year of the history was already familiar to readers (it mentioned the Panama Invasion and the Gulf War).

Twilight: 2000 Version 2.2 (released in 1993) was the final, and IMO the best, version of T:2000 to date (unfortunately, GDW went out-of-business three years later ). While not the overhaul that came between the first two editions, it polished up many of the Second Edition's rought edges, and changed the system from d10 rolls to d20 rolls. This time around, the writers of the history in the beginning of the book had the benefit of hindsight... 1989-1991 went exactly as it did in real life, while in the game's history, KGB's Alpha Team obeyed the Soviet coup leaders' orders in August, 1991 and stormed the Russian White House, killing Boris Yeltsin and his fellow rebels and restoring a Stalinist rule on the Soviet Union. Surprisingly, though, most of the rest of the game history ran similarly to the Second Edition's version - so basically, they took a point in history's past (by the time Version 2.2 hit stores), changed it, and thus created a "what-if" world whose history no longer needs revising but instead simply becomes a different dimension (similiar to the "What if the Germans had won WWII?" or "What if the Roman Empire had never fallen?" type of settings).

Merc: 2000, Dark Conspiracy and Cadillacs & Dinosaurs all used the Second Edition ruleset (as they were released prior to Version 2.2), although Traveller: The New Era used the Version 2.2 ruleset. However, while 2300AD was set in the Twilight: 2000 universe (just 300 years later), it used its own completely different ruleset (evolved from its previous incarnation, Traveller: 2300, which contrary to what some initially believed, had nothing to do with the Traveller continuity).

On a side-note: until GDW developed one house-rule system for all their games, it was annoying how each of their RPG's had great settings but different game-systems from one another.

I hope this helped!

-G

 

[Goodsport]

Also of note to my post above was that converting NPC stats and such from Twilight: 2000 First Edition modules to the later editions' rules was surprisingly less difficult than expected, though the same wouldn't have been true if converting from the later editions to the First Edition.

The same could be said for West End Games' The World of Indiana Jones line (1994-1997), as I'd pointed out earlier here and here:

The first half of the WEG Indiana Jones line was released using the Masterbook System rules. When the D6 System become WEG's house system in late '95 - early '96, the rest of the Indiana Jones line was written using the D6 rules, which also included conversion rules for switching previous characters' and NPC's stats from Masterbook to D6... fortunately, it converts pretty easily (although not so easily if it had been from D6 to Masterbook).

And it also helped to purchase the D6 Core Rulebook as well (which was surprisingly thin, but still helpful).

Fortunately for me, although I heard vague tidbits of the WEG Indiana Jones then-upcoming release in 1993, I wasn't really able to find the game until about 1998, when WEG had a huge sale from their warehouse (and I was able to purchase all the books at 50% off and have them mailed to me ).

By then, the D6 System was the game's default system (in the latter half of the game line's books, at least), so my friends and I had created characters using the D6 System straight for the get-go (we were all relieved that we didn't have to use the more wieldy Masterbook System).

-G

 

[Goodsport]

Also of interest was that GDW had planned to release new editions of 2300AD, Space: 1889 and Dark Conspiracy (and maybe Merc: 2000 and Cadillacs and Dinosaurs) with the same ruleset used in both Twilight: 2000 Version 2.2 and Traveller: The New Era, thus firmly establishing a single GDW House Ruleset. This would've been awesome for me since I GM'd all of those games and a single ruleset would've made things much easier for me (also having GM'd GURPS and some Palladium, the value of a single ruleset absolutely can't be overstated).

Unfortunately, all the simultaneous factors that eventually sunk GDW hit just shortly afterward.


-G

 

[Spell]

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.

about the reasons why there was a 2nd edition, i quote from the first printing of the PHB, page 8:

"the AD&D game evolved over the course of 16 years. During that time, the game grew tremendously through play. Changes and improvements (and a few mistakes) were made. Thee were published in subsequent volumes. By 1988, the game consisted of 12 hardcover rule books. It was physically and intellectually unwieldly (but still a lot of fun). The time was right to reorganize and recombine all that information into a manageable package. That package is the second edition"

the name of the paragraph is "why a second edition?"

...

oh, my god!!! i turned into a RULE LAWYER!!!! AAAAAARGH!!!!


ps: it's interesting that in that same paragraph, David Cook (or whoever of the design team wrote the introduction) stated that "this second edition of the AD&D game is a lot different from the first edition"... ehm... it was different, especially from the original core books... but A LOT different?!?! come on, dave! i can still take a module from 1983 and run it without any significant adaptation!