Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5457618" data-attributes="member: 59082">See, I don't think there is enough explicit talk about spectrum; if there is it gets lost in the blaring black-and-white statements.That's an interesting idea, Bill, re: 4E as a &quot;third developmental track&quot; distinct from AD&amp;D and D&amp;D. I actually feel that the biggest jump from &quot;classic&quot; D&amp;D was from 2E to 3E, that it was even larger than 3E to 4E. So I tend to group the different iterations into a few groups:1. Original D&amp;D and its variations - basically everything up until AD&amp;D came out; this birthed two different streams or, as you say, &quot;developmental tracks:2. AD&amp;D 1E &amp; 2E3. BECMI/Rules CyclopediaThen these were consolidated and revised into 3E, which was the first &quot;modern&quot; or 21st century version:4. 3.x, Pathfinder, 4ENow we could split these into two groups, but I'm grouping them because I feel that they're all part of a similar &quot;integrated design philosophy,&quot; unlike any previous edition.Now many people will say, as do you, that 3.x is closer to AD&amp;D than it is to 4E, but that's not my sense of things. It is not that I don't see a significant jump from 3.5 to 4, I do, but that it feels less significant than the jump from 2E to 3E, mainly because before 3E it always felt like (A)D&amp;D was behind the times, caught in the 80s (or even 70s) in terms of design principles. In some sense 3E felt like what D&amp;D should have been in the 90s, say instead of the &quot;Skills &amp; Powers&quot; phase that foreshadowed the end of TSR. It might be that if 3E had come out in 1995 or so that not only would the D&amp;D community been more receptive to 4E in 2005+, but it could have had more of a chance to &quot;bake&quot; before WotC took it out of the oven prematurely.I guess you could call 4E the doughy version of D&amp;D - some great ideas but they haven't been baked long enough.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5457618, member: 59082"] See, I don't think there is enough explicit talk about spectrum; if there is it gets lost in the blaring black-and-white statements. That's an interesting idea, Bill, re: 4E as a "third developmental track" distinct from AD&D and D&D. I actually feel that the biggest jump from "classic" D&D was from 2E to 3E, that it was even larger than 3E to 4E. So I tend to group the different iterations into a few groups: 1. Original D&D and its variations - basically everything up until AD&D came out; this birthed two different streams or, as you say, "developmental tracks: 2. AD&D 1E & 2E 3. BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia Then these were consolidated and revised into 3E, which was the first "modern" or 21st century version: 4. 3.x, Pathfinder, 4E Now we could split these into two groups, but I'm grouping them because I feel that they're all part of a similar "integrated design philosophy," unlike any previous edition. Now many people will say, as do you, that 3.x is closer to AD&D than it is to 4E, but that's not my sense of things. It is not that I don't see a significant jump from 3.5 to 4, I do, but that it feels less significant than the jump from 2E to 3E, mainly because before 3E it always felt like (A)D&D was behind the times, caught in the 80s (or even 70s) in terms of design principles. In some sense 3E felt like what D&D [I]should have [/I]been in the 90s, say instead of the "Skills & Powers" phase that foreshadowed the end of TSR. It might be that if 3E had come out in 1995 or so that not only would the D&D community been more receptive to 4E in 2005+, but it could have had more of a chance to "bake" before WotC took it out of the oven prematurely. I guess you could call 4E the doughy version of D&D - some great ideas but they haven't been baked long enough. [/QUOTE]

Verification