Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5799658" data-attributes="member: 59082">Interesting results so far. I'm a bit suprised at how 1E is leaving&nbsp; everything else in the dust, although I suppose that if you combine 3.x&nbsp; and Pathfinder it is similar.It is also interesting to note that 3.x, 4E, and Pathfinder are all neck and neck.I appreciate your view but isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? To me a better comp would be the difference between 1E and 2E.But the reason I separated 1E and 2E and not 3E and 3.5E is that the latter are less distinctly different in terms of aesthetics and overall feeling. 2E marked the beginning of the first new edition of AD&amp;D in 12 years and started a whole new wave and direction of products, in particular the &quot;Campaign Setting Golden Age.&quot; 3.5 was a solid revision, but its overall aesthetic and ethos wasn't much different.But again, it is a judgement call. Not splitting 3E and 3.5 is the only one that I hesitated on - I actually originally put it in but decided to combine them so as to recognize that they are, in the end, one edition, just like 2E and Players Options, or the BECMI boxes and Rules Cyclopedia. I wanted to be consistent with how I divided editions; if I had separated 3E and 3.5 out, I probably would have had to separate other editions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5799658, member: 59082"] Interesting results so far. I'm a bit suprised at how 1E is leaving everything else in the dust, although I suppose that if you combine 3.x and Pathfinder it is similar. It is also interesting to note that 3.x, 4E, and Pathfinder are all neck and neck. I appreciate your view but isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? To me a better comp would be the difference between 1E and 2E. But the reason I separated 1E and 2E and not 3E and 3.5E is that the latter are less distinctly different in terms of aesthetics and overall feeling. 2E marked the beginning of the first new edition of AD&D in 12 years and started a whole new wave and direction of products, in particular the "Campaign Setting Golden Age." 3.5 was a solid revision, but its overall aesthetic and ethos wasn't much different. But again, it is a judgement call. Not splitting 3E and 3.5 is the only one that I hesitated on - I actually originally put it in but decided to combine them so as to recognize that they are, in the end, one edition, just like 2E and Players Options, or the BECMI boxes and Rules Cyclopedia. I wanted to be consistent with how I divided editions; if I had separated 3E and 3.5 out, I probably would have had to separate other editions. [/QUOTE]

Verification