Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8636080" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, so my take is that it would have been virtually impossible to alter D&D MORE than 4e did and still credibly package it as an edition of D&D! I mean, starting from the most basic skeletal outline of 3.x was not based on a desire to 'keep what is good and iterate', it was based on a desire to remain within the overall structure and genre of D&D itself. They basically had 2 choices here, they could take d20 and strip it to the bone and build from there, or they could go back to 'classic pre-WotC' (IE 2e or something approximating it) and start there. They really didn't have any other options from a business/product point of view. So, yes, I agree with your assessment in that we can agree that 3e was at least an attempt to evolve D&D beyond its classic design and create a more solid structure around combat (mostly) as well as an attempt at codifying skills and moving them into the core of the game (IE using them to implement things like thief abilities). Note that 4e basically ditched that last one and started over with skills, which is a pretty major thing, actually! So, 4e does, in some sense "build on that" but: IMHO 4e represents what happens when you say "well, our goal is to make a game which serves an agenda derived from modern ideas about RPGs, but we have to build on a chassis that is recognizably derived from some edition of D&D." Had Rob, Mike, etc. been simply given carte blanc to make any old RPG they wanted which was in the heroic fantasy genre, I very strongly doubt they would have built it on anything that resembles 3e at all. In fact I would have thought that a game more closely resembling Hero Quest/Hero Wars would have been more likely.</blockquote>

Verification