Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3941724" data-attributes="member: 710">I think the problem (though only for the case of the discussion) is that there is no single, unified fan base with a large majority.Before 3rd Edition, there weren't feats in the game. This means at some point, the majority of the fan base didn't consider them important/necessary/integral of D&amp;D. Does this mean it will never be seen as a part of D&amp;D? Should it be eliminated from D&amp;D games, because it's not true to its core? (Some D20 variants in fact do just that. But others add even more - more feats, or add similar concepts like talents). I started D&amp;D with the 3rd edition. I have a different opinion on what is defining for D&amp;D then someone that started with OD&amp;D or someone that started with AD&amp;D. How many players did come aboard D&amp;D 3? If they didn't like the previous edition, can they constitute to the D&amp;D fan base and be part of the majority that defines what D&amp;D is? What if D&amp;D 4 also adds different, new (and as many as D&amp;D 3 gamers) - can they &quot;contribute&quot; to the definition of D&amp;D? Or if older editions lose players, does this mean that older editions of D&amp;D can be no longer considered D&amp;D? If the individual editions are not static, what is the core of D&amp;D, what defines it? Is there really a fixed point where you can say: &quot;That's D&amp;D, and beyond that, that's something else&quot;?I think everything is D&amp;D that can lead its lineage back to D&amp;D by having some elements of the previous editions, maybe with a new spin, adding a few tricks, removing some old ones, keeping a few others. If D&amp;D stands on its cover, it will always be some kind of D&amp;D. Even if it's a version of D&amp;D some players of different editions don't like particularly much or wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 3941724, member: 710"] I think the problem (though only for the case of the discussion) is that there is no single, unified fan base with a large majority. Before 3rd Edition, there weren't feats in the game. This means at some point, the majority of the fan base didn't consider them important/necessary/integral of D&D. Does this mean it will never be seen as a part of D&D? Should it be eliminated from D&D games, because it's not true to its core? (Some D20 variants in fact do just that. But others add even more - more feats, or add similar concepts like talents). I started D&D with the 3rd edition. I have a different opinion on what is defining for D&D then someone that started with OD&D or someone that started with AD&D. How many players did come aboard D&D 3? If they didn't like the previous edition, can they constitute to the D&D fan base and be part of the majority that defines what D&D is? What if D&D 4 also adds different, new (and as many as D&D 3 gamers) - can they "contribute" to the definition of D&D? Or if older editions lose players, does this mean that older editions of D&D can be no longer considered D&D? If the individual editions are not static, what is the core of D&D, what defines it? Is there really a fixed point where you can say: "That's D&D, and beyond that, that's something else"? I think everything is D&D that can lead its lineage back to D&D by having some elements of the previous editions, maybe with a new spin, adding a few tricks, removing some old ones, keeping a few others. If D&D stands on its cover, it will always be some kind of D&D. Even if it's a version of D&D some players of different editions don't like particularly much or wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole. [/QUOTE]

Verification