Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Micah Sweet]

You didn't ask me, but I do. Same as I believe about all the editions of RuneQuest, even though there were some serious variations in some areas to them.

I don't know how compatible different versions of Runequest are from each other. How does it compare to 3e, 4e, and 5e versus the clearly more compatible TSR editions?

 

[Fenris-77]

Fair enough. To me, any game that incompatible with another without major work is a different game, no matter what name it carries.

This begs rather a lot of questions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This begs rather a lot of questions.

Like what?

 

[Fenris-77]

Like what?

Like how you think that iterations of game that aren't compatible aren't the same game. Our hobby is littered with game iterations that are incompatible or only semi-compatible with one another. The only way to rationalize you PoV is to assume solipsism. Game companies don't owe you, personally, a damn thing, so stop pretending they do. A new edition isn't fan service, it's a game company trying to stay in business (to some extent).

Your likes and dislikes only matter to you. Obviously, you care far more about those personal likes and dislikes than whether or not a given game company stays in business, but I promise you the employees of that company don't share your perspective. It's really not all about you my man.

 

[soviet]

That's the problem though; how different a game needs to be to be called something different is in the eye of the beholder. I'd say even 4e was clearly D&D to my view--too many structural or mechanical elements were either nearly identical or recognizably derived and updated to be otherwise--and I wasn't exactly a massive fan of it. To you it apparently wasn't. So which of us has the more appropriate perception? After all, someone buying a game they think "Isn't D&D" and hitting 4e from where I come from on it would be pretty annoyed too.

I think to a large extent OD&D to AD&D 2.0 are different variations of the same game.

I think after that each full edition change is pretty much a new game, with 4e being a natural but significant evolution of some aspects of how 3.X worked, and 5e being to some extent a synthesis of big chunks of both 3.X and 4e combined with a withdrawal from saying anything definitive about what you should do with it.

I can respect the position that all editions are largely different games and I can respect the position that (to some extent) they are all the same game. The only position I find baffling is the idea that 2.0 to 3.0 is some sort of natural progression while 3.5 to 4e is a paradigm shift. The paradigm shift if anywhere is TSR to WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like how you think that iterations of game that aren't compatible aren't the same game. Our hobby is littered with game iterations that are incompatible or only semi-compatible with one another. The only way to rationalize you PoV is to assume solipsism. Game companies don't owe you, personally, a damn thing, so stop pretending they do. A new edition isn't fan service, it's a game company trying to stay in business (to some extent).

Your likes and dislikes only matter to you. Obviously, you care far more about those personal likes and dislikes than whether or not a given game company stays in business, but I promise you the employees of that company don't share your perspective. It's really not all about you my man.

Sure, but I can't speak from anyone else's perspective than my own, and neither can you.

Can you give me an example of incompatible game editions from someone other than WotC? Preferably by the same company.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think to a large extent OD&D to AD&D 2.0 are different variations of the same game.

I think after that each full edition change is pretty much a new game, with 4e being a natural but significant evolution of some aspects of how 3.X worked, and 5e being to some extent a synthesis of big chunks of both 3.X and 4e combined with a withdrawal from saying anything definitive about what you should do with it.

I can respect the position that all editions are largely different games and I can respect the position that (to some extent) they are all the same game. The only position I find baffling is the idea that 2.0 to 3.0 is some sort of natural progression while 3.5 to 4e is a paradigm shift. The paradigm shift if anywhere is TSR to WotC.

I agree. 2e and 3e are definitely different games, just like 3e, 4e, and 5e are all different games.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure, but I can't speak from anyone else's perspective than my own, and neither can you.

Can you give me an example of incompatible game editions from someone other than WotC? Preferably by the same company.

Every edition of every Games Workshop game ever.

 

[soviet]

Sure, but I can't speak from anyone else's perspective than my own, and neither can you.

Can you give me an example of incompatible game editions from someone other than WotC? Preferably by the same company.

Traveller - Megatraveller - Traveller the New Era

MERP/Rolemaster 2 - RMSS

HeroQuest - HeroQuest 2 (arguably)

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure, but I can't speak from anyone else's perspective than my own, and neither can you.

This is the core nonsense that supports your position. Of course I can speak to wider trends and opinions. The only reason you don't is that you don't have any that support your opinion.