Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5800517" data-attributes="member: 957">But that is not a fair comparison.&nbsp; As a matter of fact, you are nailing my personal game preference history prior to the 3E era.I LOVED 1E.&nbsp; It was awesome and groundbreaking.&nbsp; And later games learned a great deal from it and improved on it.&nbsp; I left AD&amp;D when I found better games.&nbsp; And in my case, GURPS happens to be THE better game I left AD&amp;D for.1E was the very definition of the big tent when it was developed.&nbsp; But it didn't take long for a whole lot more ground to be discovered.&nbsp; And if there is a complaint against AD&amp;D it is that it was not forward thinking enough to evolve. But AD&amp;D was still written to be THE RPG for everyone.&nbsp; It was intended to be the big tent.&nbsp; It just doesn't make that grade when compared to standards established long after the game was published.&nbsp; That is why I'm not particularly interested in running a long term AD&amp;D campaign.&nbsp; It doesn't meet my modern standards.&nbsp; But it is also why I LOVE AD&amp;D.&nbsp; The game I do play owe EVERYTHING to that game.3E obviously took over the marketplace.&nbsp; &nbsp; You may disagree.&nbsp; But during the 3E era there were a LOT of complaints that D20 had stiffled innovation because the market was so completely dominated by it.&nbsp; It is hard to claim it was simultaneously squeezing everything else out and not covering a wide base.And, honestly, 4E was the most outspoken of ANY edition about actively seeking to appeal to a wide base.&nbsp; Obviously I consider it to have been a failure at achieving that goal.&nbsp; But the intent was there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5800517, member: 957"] But that is not a fair comparison. As a matter of fact, you are nailing my personal game preference history prior to the 3E era. I LOVED 1E. It was awesome and groundbreaking. And later games learned a great deal from it and improved on it. I left AD&D when I found better games. And in my case, GURPS happens to be THE better game I left AD&D for. 1E was the very definition of the big tent when it was developed. But it didn't take long for a whole lot more ground to be discovered. And if there is a complaint against AD&D it is that it was not forward thinking enough to evolve. But AD&D was still written to be THE RPG for everyone. It was intended to be the big tent. It just doesn't make that grade when compared to standards established long after the game was published. That is why I'm not particularly interested in running a long term AD&D campaign. It doesn't meet my modern standards. But it is also why I LOVE AD&D. The game I do play owe EVERYTHING to that game. 3E obviously took over the marketplace. You may disagree. But during the 3E era there were a LOT of complaints that D20 had stiffled innovation because the market was so completely dominated by it. It is hard to claim it was simultaneously squeezing everything else out and not covering a wide base. And, honestly, 4E was the most outspoken of ANY edition about actively seeking to appeal to a wide base. Obviously I consider it to have been a failure at achieving that goal. But the intent was there. [/QUOTE]

Verification