Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seskis281" data-source="post: 4119568" data-attributes="member: 41593">This is really the only thing I truly disagree with (with all due respect to the fine people at Necromancer games)....Better for some, yes. Better for others, no. The only reality is that it is different, and be self-admission seeks to change the paradigm again. There IS a distinct difference between certain editions, and less between others, which heats the debate on what &quot;is&quot; D&amp;D, since each edition still bears the name.OD&amp;D --&gt; B/X and AD&amp;D = no paradigm shift; this already occurred when OD&amp;D was developed as distinct from Chainmail (the &quot;role-playing&quot; aspect became central paradigm).AD&amp;D 1e --&gt; 2e = a major shift, but not a completely new paradigm; the major issues were with the restrictions and limitations the company of TSR at the time chose to throw over the game.2e -- &gt; 3e = Major paradigm shift, primarily in the concept of &quot;equalization&quot; of classes - major detractors emerge when it becomes clear that the goal of equalized progression isn't quite there. 3e -- &gt; 3.5 = Actually a fairly major shift given the concept of &quot;.5&quot; - really adapted the idea of &quot;a rule for every situation.&quot;3.5 --&gt; 4e = Major paradigm shift - seeks to retain the power concepts of abilities beginning at low levels, quick progressions (equalized), yet also seeks to return to a gamist philosophy of quicker action.So, is each one &quot;better&quot; than the earlier? No, just different.&nbsp; &nbsp; When you start to use words like &quot;better,&quot; and, as I've said a lot lately, &quot;fixes the problems,&quot; you open a whole can of worms because, essentially, the assumption gets made that everyone sees the same things as problems, or wants the same experience in RPGing. So just remember - &quot;better&quot; is just a frame of mind, an opinion like anything I or anyone else posts here. My 2 cents.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seskis281, post: 4119568, member: 41593"] This is really the only thing I truly disagree with (with all due respect to the fine people at Necromancer games).... Better for some, yes. Better for others, no. The only reality is that it is different, and be self-admission seeks to change the paradigm again. There IS a distinct difference between certain editions, and less between others, which heats the debate on what "is" D&D, since each edition still bears the name. OD&D --> B/X and AD&D = no paradigm shift; this already occurred when OD&D was developed as distinct from Chainmail (the "role-playing" aspect became central paradigm). AD&D 1e --> 2e = a major shift, but not a completely new paradigm; the major issues were with the restrictions and limitations the company of TSR at the time chose to throw over the game. 2e -- > 3e = Major paradigm shift, primarily in the concept of "equalization" of classes - major detractors emerge when it becomes clear that the goal of equalized progression isn't quite there. 3e -- > 3.5 = Actually a fairly major shift given the concept of ".5" - really adapted the idea of "a rule for every situation." 3.5 --> 4e = Major paradigm shift - seeks to retain the power concepts of abilities beginning at low levels, quick progressions (equalized), yet also seeks to return to a gamist philosophy of quicker action. So, is each one "better" than the earlier? No, just different. When you start to use words like "better," and, as I've said a lot lately, "fixes the problems," you open a whole can of worms because, essentially, the assumption gets made that everyone sees the same things as problems, or wants the same experience in RPGing. So just remember - "better" is just a frame of mind, an opinion like anything I or anyone else posts here. My 2 cents. [/QUOTE]

Verification