The purpose of D&D's evolution?

[MerricB]

But herin lies the rub: as I see it, a full revision edition is more like to try to fix what wasn't broke, and break it in the process.

Possibly, but what real experience do we have for that?

Well, RuneQuest 3e, I guess. OTOH, hasn't Call of Cthulhu pretty much remained static?

Cheers!

 

[Numion]

But as to the original question: it's just the nature of life and hence, businesses. Everything is constantly modified into a more interesting and better forms, for whatever end. Humans tend to do that. If it's a freeware computer program, it's still improved and modified for the own joy of the developers even if money isnt directly involved. If it's a sold commodity, one driving factor, somewhere down the line, is money.

Still, I don't know if all the designers got royalties from different editions of D&D. So it was partly TSRs/WotCs desire to make money, and partly the designers will to excel, even if their monetary compensations wasnt immediately on the line, that drove the modifications.

 

[Campbell]

My feelings exactly.

Its great that so many people loved 3E. That it is "proveably" "better than" or "superior too" any prior version of the game is IMO a dubious proposition.

It is not a dubious assertion as much as it is an ambigious one. Within the context of a messageboard discussion it is reasonable to assume "x is better than y" is shorthand for "Within the limits of my personal gaming experience, x accomplishes what I want out of a gaming product at a higher rate of efficiency than y does." While the use of unclear language within a thesis weakens presented arguements as it is nearly impossible to argue that a given product x is superior without defining superiority within the context of the arguement, I'd hazzard a guess that the majority of the posters on this thread are not interested in actually presenting an arguement concerning 3e's superiority. Unless otherwise noted it's probably safe to assume that posters are merely relating their opinions in the context of the thread's original question, and in no way trying to dig at previous editions of the game.

 

[Staffan]

I thought 3.0 was an improvement, but the high DCs of spells tended to exalt spellcasters over other classes.

This is one thing that's backwards from the way things worked in earlier editions: saves and probability. In 2e, a 1st level fighter had a save vs. spell of 17, and would build it up (down) to 6 at level 17+. In other words, he'd be less and less likely to succumb to foul magic. In 3e, his saves would go from +0 and +2 to +5 and +10 in the same span (for bad and good saves), whereas the DCs he's expected to roll would increase from ~14 to ~25. That means the d20 rolls needed change from 12-14 to 15-20 - in other words, it becomes more difficult, not less, to succeed on saves.

 

[VirgilCaine]

So that D&D can eventually attain sapience and imprison its human players and use them as an energy source.

Aren't you glad you asked?

How creative! "The Matrix."

 

[Abstraction]

This is one thing that's backwards from the way things worked in earlier editions: saves and probability. In 2e, a 1st level fighter had a save vs. spell of 17, and would build it up (down) to 6 at level 17+. In other words, he'd be less and less likely to succumb to foul magic. In 3e, his saves would go from +0 and +2 to +5 and +10 in the same span (for bad and good saves), whereas the DCs he's expected to roll would increase from ~14 to ~25. That means the d20 rolls needed change from 12-14 to 15-20 - in other words, it becomes more difficult, not less, to succeed on saves.

You're forgetting to add magic gear to his saving throws, and possibly feats.

 

[Staffan]

You're forgetting to add magic gear to his saving throws, and possibly feats.

No, I'm just abstracting the gear out, assuming that a 2e character will have about as much in the way of save-boosters as a 3e character does. Feats, OK - most fighters do take Iron Will eventually.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To get from the left to the right. He stepped out of rank, got hit by a tank and he aint no chicken no more.

 

[Nightfall]

*gives Thornir the "I must be Right ALWAYS!" award* Mostly because I found his answers most innovative.

I may have answered the question but who said my answers were right? I may just make up questions anyway, Thornir. I thought there were. I mean there were a bunch of OTHER dead people besides Mister Dirty Dancing that he talked to. So it stands to reason, there'd be undead chickens. I saw Sister act but I also thought she might be an Expert 10 from Jumping Jack Flash.

Frut,

Does that mean he's undead now?

Virgil,

Well it's better than letting some IT nut screw me into his light bulb.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

None of this has anything to do with evolution: invoking evolution here is marketing cant designed to make you think the newest thing is inevitably best. D&D is a creative work, not a machine, and a 2000s RPG is not inevitably better than a 1980s RPG any more than a 2000s film over a 1980s film.

I most strenuously disagree with what you're suggesting. A 2000's-era film is not INEVITABLY better (it's easily arguable given the movies lately...) but it most certainly is VASTLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLY greater in potential if for none other than purely technical reasons. Films can realistically depict things that it was inconceivable to depict on film 20 years ago.

RPG design in general has UNDENIABLY advanced continually over the last 30 years. This NECESSITATES evolution; we've seen changes in the game as we have known it in order to incorporate new, desirable options or to actually even be ABLE to incorporate changes. Evolution is not just marketing hype it's a desirable, necessary, and interesting factor in RPGs.

That said, D&D is a creative work and each successive evolution of the game has seen a few less desireable changes in addition to all the positives, but the trend has indeed been positive. It also means you can't please everyone every time (and you haven't pleased Diaglo at all in about 25 years ) which simply brings sub-species into the evolutionary analogy.