Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8976565" data-attributes="member: 7023840">This whole debate is also weird to me. Given I've <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-interoperability-of-od-d-basic-ad-d-and-kinda-5e.673352/" target="_blank">written before</a> about the interoperability of the entire TSR era, I don't get this at all. Perhaps it's because people have become more used to the discontinuities between 3e, 4e, and 5e?But the entirety of D&D products from 1974 - 2000 were interoperable; you could run B2 (written for OD&D, included with Moldvay Basic) in 2e AD&D. Sure, there were certainly extremes that became more difficult to translate and balance; the difference between OD&D using just the LBBs in 1974 and late-period 2e with all the kits and player options in the late 90s could be large, and yet ... fundamentally, they were the same system.Given we don't know what OneD&D will look like yet, all the weird argument over it seems misplaced. It is likely to be more compatible than many of the alternate systems we see right now (such as LevelUp or whatever Kobold Press is working on). But maybe not! We don't know yet.But the question is - will it be "different" in the sense that Moldvay Basic is different than Mentzer Basic? Or will it be "different" in the sense that the AD&D 1e PHB is different than the 2e PHB? And if either of those is the case, isn't a refreshed game that incorporates some of the changes that have occurred a reasonable thing 10 years into the lifespan of the product?</blockquote>

Verification