Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 4069085" data-attributes="member: 14159">I frankly don't understand the bad attitude other people are throwing in my direction, because I am not incorrect in my factual assertions.&nbsp; The AD&amp;D development line has been the primary development line of D&amp;D since it's inception, and when you're calling the new edition &quot;4th Edition&quot;, by extension what was in 3rd, 2nd and 1st are the previous editions, and what was in prototype or side-product lines aren't part of the same development line.It's not like people can just go and pick up OD&amp;D and start a game of it, it's not been in stores for thirty years and it doesn't exactly regularly show up in used book stores.&nbsp; You can get ahold of 1e PHB's and DMG's and MM's cheap and easy, cheaper than 3.5 books and almost as easy.&nbsp; 2e books are very easy to get too.&nbsp; If somebody wanted to play OD&amp;D, or even read it, it would be a search just to get one copy.With Basic D&amp;D, you don't exactly see that much in the secondary channels either.&nbsp; On very rare occasion you might see a Rules Cyclopedia, but don't count on it.&nbsp; I did read the Rules Cyclopedia once, and played in a game of it once, and it felt like a stripped down, overly simplified version of D&amp;D that lost so much in the process.&nbsp; Our gaming group tried it once because one member had found a RC and wanted to try it because he heard some buzz about it online.&nbsp; We read through it, we tried it for a couple of sessions, we decided it was definitely not what we wanted or liked and that RC quickly went to collecting dust on a shelf as a historical curiosity of D&amp;D.Trying to justify 4e cutting out a lot of what makes D&amp;D, D&amp;D, by saying it wasn't in some early prototype edition released 34 years ago or in a simplified basic product seems like grasping for straws.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wingsandsword, post: 4069085, member: 14159"] I frankly don't understand the bad attitude other people are throwing in my direction, because I am not incorrect in my factual assertions. The AD&D development line has been the primary development line of D&D since it's inception, and when you're calling the new edition "4th Edition", by extension what was in 3rd, 2nd and 1st are the previous editions, and what was in prototype or side-product lines aren't part of the same development line. It's not like people can just go and pick up OD&D and start a game of it, it's not been in stores for thirty years and it doesn't exactly regularly show up in used book stores. You can get ahold of 1e PHB's and DMG's and MM's cheap and easy, cheaper than 3.5 books and almost as easy. 2e books are very easy to get too. If somebody wanted to play OD&D, or even read it, it would be a search just to get one copy. With Basic D&D, you don't exactly see that much in the secondary channels either. On very rare occasion you might see a Rules Cyclopedia, but don't count on it. I did read the Rules Cyclopedia once, and played in a game of it once, and it felt like a stripped down, overly simplified version of D&D that lost so much in the process. Our gaming group tried it once because one member had found a RC and wanted to try it because he heard some buzz about it online. We read through it, we tried it for a couple of sessions, we decided it was definitely not what we wanted or liked and that RC quickly went to collecting dust on a shelf as a historical curiosity of D&D. Trying to justify 4e cutting out a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, by saying it wasn't in some early prototype edition released 34 years ago or in a simplified basic product seems like grasping for straws. [/QUOTE]

Verification