Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Glyfair" data-source="post: 3944149" data-attributes="member: 53">Indeed. Gary has said that part of the reason for AD&amp;D was to have a more consistent game from table to table.&nbsp; With all the house rules used in OD&amp;D, playing in a another person's game for a single session could be a huge challenges. At the time they felt it was slowing the creation of a strong community.Basic D&amp;D was originally created to serve as an introduction to new players.&nbsp; Give them a simpler system to start and lead them into OD&amp;D and AD&amp;D.&nbsp; I admit, I have no idea what lead into the creation of BEMCI D&amp;D.&nbsp; I imagine they felt that BD&amp;D was lacking and wanted to improve it, especially since it was written and released before they had finished working on AD&amp;D (it would be like releasing a BD&amp;D4 at last year's GenCon).&nbsp; I don't know why they decided to change the basic, introductory game into a parallel modular game, although I have a few guesses.&nbsp; Anyone know?2nd edition was released because people were moving away from D&amp;D.&nbsp; There were many strong choices for alternate RPGs in the mid-80s.&nbsp; People saw major flaws in D&amp;D and moved away from D&amp;D (not always abandoning it, but often doing so).&nbsp; 2nd edition was an attempt to move the game forward and draw some of those players back.3E was released when D&amp;D was at a low point.&nbsp; They game had been in trouble for years for many reasons.&nbsp; Two of the biggest were TSR's many problems and collapse, and the continued evolution of the RPG market leading to different expectations in RPGs.&nbsp; The morass of the many expansions added to that morass (Skills &amp; Powers, the Complete *). Many, many people were calling for a new edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Many players had moved away from D&amp;D and never considered going back.&nbsp; You can argue whether they changes needed to be as drastic, but I do think they needed to be somewhat drastic to drawback the lapsed players.3.5, if you count it as a new edition, seems to have come about because WotC needed to boost the sales of the game.&nbsp; They wanted to fix some new things with the game, but the scale of the &quot;fixes&quot; and the timing seems merely to have been to stop D&amp;D from falling off the radar.&nbsp; 4E seems to come at a time when many people have been moving away from D&amp;D again (ironically, large portions of the market have moved into OGL/d20 systems based on 3E).&nbsp; People have been seen flaws in the system they didn't want to deal with and moved to something that fit their styles better.&nbsp; Sure, there is a still a sizable &quot;D&amp;D 3.5E (or 3E) is good enough for me&quot;, but they are getting smaller every year.&nbsp; Also, 3.5 has started to hit the &quot;morass&quot; stage.&nbsp; There are a lot of great supplements out there, but they don't fit together so well because of design at different times.&nbsp; For example, Book of Nine Swords is generally considered great, but it does make the Fighter a far less attractive class.&nbsp; It does seem time to take the great ideas from the last ~5 years and move them into the game so that everything is considered in the core design.&nbsp; Why such major changes?&nbsp; I agree with Chris Pramas that a 3.75 would have been a mistake.&nbsp; A lot of people felt 3.5 was a mistake.&nbsp; The changes were just enough to be annoying.&nbsp; There were enough to make older products very difficult to use with the new game, but not enough so that the game felt like a real new edition.&nbsp; It felt like a half-measure put together with duct tape (the ranger doesn't quite work, move this here...hold it...tape it...viola!).&nbsp; IMO, they needed a significant change with 4E for there to be a 4E.&nbsp; I do think it was about a year too early.&nbsp; 2009 would have been about right on the maturity of the game for a 4E.&nbsp; I suspect market forces played a role in that.&nbsp; As much as some hate it, roleplaying companies are in business.&nbsp; They have to run it like a business if they want to survive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Glyfair, post: 3944149, member: 53"] Indeed. Gary has said that part of the reason for AD&D was to have a more consistent game from table to table. With all the house rules used in OD&D, playing in a another person's game for a single session could be a huge challenges. At the time they felt it was slowing the creation of a strong community. Basic D&D was originally created to serve as an introduction to new players. Give them a simpler system to start and lead them into OD&D and AD&D. I admit, I have no idea what lead into the creation of BEMCI D&D. I imagine they felt that BD&D was lacking and wanted to improve it, especially since it was written and released before they had finished working on AD&D (it would be like releasing a BD&D4 at last year's GenCon). I don't know why they decided to change the basic, introductory game into a parallel modular game, although I have a few guesses. Anyone know? 2nd edition was released because people were moving away from D&D. There were many strong choices for alternate RPGs in the mid-80s. People saw major flaws in D&D and moved away from D&D (not always abandoning it, but often doing so). 2nd edition was an attempt to move the game forward and draw some of those players back. 3E was released when D&D was at a low point. They game had been in trouble for years for many reasons. Two of the biggest were TSR's many problems and collapse, and the continued evolution of the RPG market leading to different expectations in RPGs. The morass of the many expansions added to that morass (Skills & Powers, the Complete *). Many, many people were calling for a new edition of D&D. Many players had moved away from D&D and never considered going back. You can argue whether they changes needed to be as drastic, but I do think they needed to be somewhat drastic to drawback the lapsed players. 3.5, if you count it as a new edition, seems to have come about because WotC needed to boost the sales of the game. They wanted to fix some new things with the game, but the scale of the "fixes" and the timing seems merely to have been to stop D&D from falling off the radar. 4E seems to come at a time when many people have been moving away from D&D again (ironically, large portions of the market have moved into OGL/d20 systems based on 3E). People have been seen flaws in the system they didn't want to deal with and moved to something that fit their styles better. Sure, there is a still a sizable "D&D 3.5E (or 3E) is good enough for me", but they are getting smaller every year. Also, 3.5 has started to hit the "morass" stage. There are a lot of great supplements out there, but they don't fit together so well because of design at different times. For example, [I]Book of Nine Swords[/I] is generally considered great, but it does make the Fighter a far less attractive class. It does seem time to take the great ideas from the last ~5 years and move them into the game so that everything is considered in the core design. Why such major changes? I agree with Chris Pramas that a 3.75 would have been a mistake. A lot of people felt 3.5 was a mistake. The changes were just enough to be annoying. There were enough to make older products very difficult to use with the new game, but not enough so that the game felt like a real new edition. It felt like a half-measure put together with duct tape (the ranger doesn't quite work, move this here...hold it...tape it...viola!). IMO, they needed a significant change with 4E for there to be a 4E. I do think it was about a year too early. 2009 would have been about right on the maturity of the game for a 4E. I suspect market forces played a role in that. As much as some hate it, roleplaying companies are in business. They have to run it like a business if they want to survive. [/QUOTE]

Verification