Because it'll upset the chocolate lovers and they'll stop patronizing your store. When your store is 100 times bigger than anyone else's and most people who like ice cream have barely even heard of other stores, that's a problem.
You want to make a new game? Make a new game, and don't pretend it's not a new game. Maybe don't give it the same name as a different game.
As some of several options, why not? Add, don't replace.
Well, I agree with you, but that's not the world we live in, and if it was we wouldn't even have a 3e to preserve against 4e.
I liked the TSR editions personally, not least because none of them were entirely new, incompatible games nonetheless called "Dungeons & Dragons".
You're happy for CAGI as originally written to be a full official part of the game? And for full unabashed official support of narrativism in the main rulebooks?
Me too! AD&D 2.0 is my favourite, with the 1e DMG for inspiration
Sure. You can take or leave stuff you don't like. I would leave CAGI, and narrativism. But it would still be in the rules, and that's good for those who want it.
But so what? Why do they have a moral obligation to continue supporting the chocolate lovers? (I'm a bit worried this means something else)
Wouldn't you have players expecting to use these things in play?
