The State of Our Hobby

[Simon Atavax]

Is it really or is it just redistributing and shifting mostly into existing fragments?

Good point. After spending time on dragonsfoot, I can tell you that there is a *world* of difference between the AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e people. I can't imagine why, but it's there. Ditto the BD&D (Moldvay) and D&D (Cyclopedia) folks. Not to mention the OD&D (1974) folks. And don't even get me started on the AD&D 2e Player's Option folks!

Point is, the D&D player base has been fragmented a long time. But the vast majority of that fragment has always been the "latest" edition, whatever it is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can tell you that there is a *world* of difference between the AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e people. I can't imagine why, but it's there. Ditto the BD&D (Moldvay) and D&D (Cyclopedia) folks. Not to mention the OD&D (1974) folks. And don't even get me started on the AD&D 2e Player's Option folks!

Between "some," that is.

Personally, I've enjoyed the transitions from Basic to AD&D to 2Ed to Player's Options to 3Ed to 3.5. For the most part, with each iteration, I've found that the benefits have outweighed the problems. Even in my favorite form (3.5), though, I can always find things I felt previous editions did better.

I just don't see that balance of pros & cons being advantageous in the transition to 4Ed.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Between "some," that is.

Very true. I myself was a die-hard AD&D 1e/2e fan (both at the same time, that is) for the longest time. Still am, in many ways. But no one wants to play the old editions. :\

I just don't see that balance of pros & cons being advantageous in the transition to 4Ed.

I always found 3.0/3.5 horrendously complex from a DM standpoint, to the point where I refused to run it at all, though I still played it. If 4e solves *that* problem, it'll be worth it for me.

 

[Amazing Triangle]

I always found 3.0/3.5 horrendously complex from a DM standpoint, to the point where I refused to run it at all, though I still played it. If 4e solves *that* problem, it'll be worth it for me.

QFT This is my big argument for 4e. 3.0/3.5 is a very complex rules set not a bad one in any way. Just harder to run than I would like. I have never played with any group where the rules didn't come into question.

 

[Silver Moon]

"Lighten up, Francis."

Two points to Dave G for the excellent and timely "Stripes" reference - now we just need to work some quotes from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and "Animal House" into the thread to make it complete.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My sister was bitten by a Düngeöns and Dragöns revision, önce.

Thöse respönsible för that revisiön have been sacked.

 

[haakon1]

Played 1e many years ago. Came back for 3e/3.5, which I like quite a bit. And that's where me and my mates make our stand. Got too many other things to pay for in this life. New editions of a game I already love ain't one of them.

Roger roger. I've sold a lot of books for WOTC by bringing former 1e players and never-played folks into the 3/3.5e family (at least count, 12 players directly due to me, about 30 if you count campaigns they started). I wish they hadn't decided to kill 3/3.5e and Dungeon and Dragon, so sour grapes plus lack of time/interest in new rules means I'll buy 4e to see what it's like, but I'm unlikely to drag all my players into it.

I thought the transition from 3e to 3.5e was well-executed -- a slightly improved game, with almost full backwards compatibility. But some of my players complained about the cost of new books and the time spent in changing their characters over. 4e would be a lot more noise for me from the players.

 

[Dragon Snack]

I thought the transition from 3e to 3.5e was well-executed -- a slightly improved game, with almost full backwards compatibility.

Someone wasn't playing a Cleric (or a Halfling or Gnome) at the time...