Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6543402" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I see your point quite clearly.&nbsp; I'm pointing out that you are missing Hussar's point.Three revisions and rereleases in nine years is not evergreen.&nbsp; That's the opposite of evergreen.I've bolded the part that is Hussar's point (and that I agree with).Why did they need to &quot;put their own stamp&quot; on it?&nbsp; If 3.5 was thriving and evergreen, why not just release the game as it was, adding their own branding and support?&nbsp; Why the big year-long playtest?&nbsp; 1e lasted 10 years, 2e lasted 10 years (and that's with some pretty crappy business practices).&nbsp; If 3.5 was so strong, why go through all that trouble and expense?&nbsp; It was abandoned by WotC, all they had to do was release the OGL material in their own trade dress and rake in the money.I'm not seeing any argument other than, &quot;Nuh-uh.&nbsp; 3e/3.5/Pathfinder all count as one game, so it's evergreen.&quot;&nbsp; When the whole point that Hussar and I are making is that the fact that you even have to make that argument is indicative of the problem.What part of &quot;Not arguing about quality of system&quot; was difficult to understand?&nbsp; The fundamental disconnect here is that you keep saying &quot;3e/3.5/Pathfinder&quot; are all the same thing, while we are saying, &quot;Even so stipulated, three total reboots in 9 years is a problem.&quot;If 3e had continued for 14 years maintaining that release schedule and no rebooting the whole system, I'd be right there with you.&nbsp; But we don't have that.&nbsp; We have three versions of the PHB, three versions of the MM, three versions of the DMG, and a high degree of duplication in all the following sourcebooks.I'm just hearing edition warring rhetoric here, not any persuasive arguments.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6543402, member: 6680772"] I see your point quite clearly. I'm pointing out that you are missing [i]Hussar's[/i] point. Three revisions and rereleases in nine years is not evergreen. That's the opposite of evergreen. I've bolded the part that is Hussar's point (and that I agree with). Why did they need to "put their own stamp" on it? If 3.5 was thriving and evergreen, why not just release the game as it was, adding their own branding and support? Why the big year-long playtest? 1e lasted 10 years, 2e lasted 10 years (and that's with some [i]pretty[/i] crappy business practices). If 3.5 was so strong, why go through all that trouble and expense? It was abandoned by WotC, all they had to do was release the OGL material in their own trade dress and rake in the money. I'm not seeing any argument other than, "Nuh-uh. 3e/3.5/Pathfinder all count as one game, so it's evergreen." When the whole point that Hussar and I are making is that the fact that you even have to make that argument is indicative of the problem. What part of "Not arguing about quality of system" was difficult to understand? The fundamental disconnect here is that you keep saying "3e/3.5/Pathfinder" are all the same thing, while we are saying, "Even so stipulated, three total reboots in 9 years is a problem." If 3e had continued for 14 years maintaining that release schedule [i]and no rebooting the whole system[/i], I'd be right there with you. But we don't have that. We have three versions of the PHB, three versions of the MM, three versions of the DMG, and a high degree of duplication in all the following sourcebooks. I'm just hearing edition warring rhetoric here, not any persuasive arguments. [/QUOTE]

Verification