The purpose of D&D's evolution?

[Nightfall]

Nah I'm betting Andy but that's just me.

 

[Rasyr]

Nah I'm betting Andy but that's just me.

Is he still there?

 

[Nightfall]

Sure. Andy Collins? You know. Andy.

I'm sure he's still there.

Btw any answers to my questions?

 

[Campbell]

Mike Mearls?

That's crazy talk. Mearls name is going to appear in front of one of the 4e core rulebooks. My guess is that Wyatt and Collins will get the boot. Cordell gets to stick around. He's got tenure.

 

[Nightfall]

No kidding. Plus who else is there left to do 4th edition Psionics? Collins I'd say highly likely. No idea about Wyatt though.

 

[Silverleaf]

Despite his overt snarkiness, JR does have a worthwhile point. The development of 3e does not seem to be an exercise in simply improving upon the base of previous works. Rather 3e strikes me as being something of a reimagining what Dungeons and Dragons could be. Mechanically, there is very little in the way of similarities between AD&D and 3e. On a mechanical level 3e has more similarities with more open ended mechanically consistant systems than it does with AD&D. I'd say that 3e is AD&D's spiritual descendant, but not it's mechanical descendent. While other people might have a problem with that, I have no such issues.

I think Castles & Crusades is AD&D in spirit but not mechanics.
3e itself is both too different in mechanics and playstyle (tries to provide rules for every possible scenario instead of just relying on lots of DM's judgement).

 

[jeffh]

That impression must come from the fact that you have not read through C&C yet.

It more likely comes from the fact that, like many people including at least one other in this thread, he confuses OD&D with BD&D, when in reality the differences between the two are greater than those between any other pair of pre-3E versions of the game.

 

[GVDammerung]

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.

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.

Despite a certain "wonkish" fixation with "game balance" or "stream lining" or "builds" that has come with 3E, an RPG, IMO more than any other type of game that is rules dependent for every interaction, must be "fun" in a way that drives player interaction both within, but equally outside, the rules - ie "role assumption" - that is governed by no mechanic however perfect or imperfect.

Every rules set has it strengths but also its weaknesses. D&D has done well "rules wise" for three decades +. When change has come it has come because of factors outside the rules set. In other words, the prior rules were fine such as they were. Change was instituted not because the "rules had failed."

OD&D to AD&D - Get rid of Arneson
AD&D to 2E - Get rid of Gygax
2E to 3E - Need to "get people excited again" and "relaunch" game generally after TSR mismanagement, banckruptcy and buy out
3E to 3.5E - Money, money, money

 

[Campbell]

I think Castles & Crusades is AD&D in spirit but not mechanics.
3e itself is both too different in mechanics and playstyle (tries to provide rules for every possible scenario instead of just relying on lots of DM's judgement).

I'm guessing that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I'm going to try to qualify my previous statement. What I posted about 3e being a spiritual descendant of previous versions of D&D is meant as a reflection of the types of activities which occur in game, rather than the exact mechanical feel of a game system. When I look back at previous 3e game sessions the types of stories I remember are incredibly similar to the types of stories I can remember from playing 2e back in middle school. Of course, I probably see things in a different light then you do because running a 2e game resulted in a succession of headaches as I tried to insure that my rulings maintained a degree of consistancy. My experience with 3e has been that with a decent understanding of the rules my sessions are actually more productive, but it feels very similar to 2e on a meta level.

 

[William Ronald]

Part of the motivation for changes in the different editions, besides making a profit, seems to be a desire to respond to change and the desires of customers.

By the end of 2nd Edition, there were many supplements -- including variant rules. It seemed that different gaming groups were using very different skill sets. Also, other games had their successes and perhaps influenced the design of D&D 3.0. There was a fair amount of surveys and playtesting before 3.0 was released, which I think helped WotC in convincing many players to adopt the new rules.

I like to think that something that changes has the possibility of growth. I would argue that the current rules are easier to understand than much of the previous editions. I do wish that combat was not so heavily based on miniatures, but that may be a change for a 4th edition. I only hope that any future edition is designed with some input from the players.