D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[beancounter]

Wait... what do you mean timestamp... it's the year it was released. I mean it's not like the books are stamped with their actual editions either.

Timestamp, edition number, whatever. Without some type of line in the sand, rules will get jumbled.

If you disagree, that's cool. I think I've expressed my opinion sufficiently.

 

[Imaro]

Timestamp, edition number, whatever. Without some type of line in the sand, rules will get jumbled.

If you disagree, that's cool. I think I've expressed my opinion sufficiently.

It's the year... that's what I'm saying.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you give numbers like that, and are asked to give their source, "you wouldn't accept the source" is not a constructive response.

Please give your source. If you don't have one, please admit it and move on.

I explicitly gave these as (a) my own personal perception, and (b) "in whatever abstract, analogic sense these numbers apply," to quote myself.

If that's not enough for you, I'm not gonna give you more.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You gave an extremely specific answer in numerical percentages. Where did you get those from?


I didn't give a specific numerical percentage like it came from some sort of hard data though, did I? All I said was I don't think they're that important. I didn't speak for anyone outside myself. I made it clear it was my subjective opinion and not some majority of players of the game.



You want me to put some specifics on my view when you previously stated a very specific appearing-objective number on a majority view like that and then tried to slide past being asked where it came from?

How about we resolve that important claim first before we move on. Because the answer hinges on whether we're having a legit conversation or not.

So, just to be clear here.

Me giving my personal opinion, which is what was requested...

Me explicitly saying that these were "abstract" and "analogic"...

All of that's irrelevant. I'm somehow inventing percentages about...what, exactly? I never said this was "the amount of people who care." I never said this was "a measure of public opinion on the matter." It's literally just my perception.

Funny how people make such strident claims about what is and isn't appropriate, what absolutely positively definitely doesn't matter in the slightest degree, but hold everyone else (well, everyone who disagrees with them) to a standard of peer-reviewed-scientific-journal rigor.

So, y'know what? No. I don't have peer-reviewed studies for the number I invented on the spot as an explanation of my feelings. I can't give you inarguable scientific data somehow proving that my statement, "in whatever abstract, analogic sense these numbers apply," has such validity. Because there isn't any and I never made any pretense otherwise.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Turned out to be based on bad premise.

 

[FrogReaver]

I explicitly gave these as (a) my own personal perception, and (b) "in whatever abstract, analogic sense these numbers apply," to quote myself.

If that's not enough for you, I'm not gonna give you more.

FWIW, I'm with you on this one. You were asked your opinion about how much more and so answered the question the clearest way you could - by expressing your opinion in terms of percentages. Nothing wrong with that IMO. Somehow that's been misconstrued into you making up statistics in bad faith.

 

[FrogReaver]

Me explicitly saying that these were "abstract" and "analogic"...

The purpose of the 'abstract' and 'analogic' wasn't clear to me when I read the original post. For some, if they didn't understand that phrasing then it may have sounded more like you were claiming your percentages were based in objectivity instead of merely your opinion of what the percentage would be if it could truly be quantified.

 

[pemerton]

"system matters" is a phrase I think is more applicable to wholly different systems. D&D vs WoD vs RQ, &c. Excepting 4e, it is relatively easy to convert materials from one edition to another. 4e's engine is sufficiently different that I think conversion is quite a bit trickier, and system may matter more in that case.

You seem to be using "system" to describe the technical, mathematical/statistical, elements of a RPG.

I think @Campbell was using it to mean the core structures of play of a RPG, as in who gets to say what when about the shared fiction.

In the first sense, changing from to-hit tables, to THACO, to attack bonuses, is a change in system.

In the second sense, that sort of technical change is orthogonal to whether or not we're using the same system.

 

[Baron Opal II]

You seem to be using "system" to describe the technical, mathematical/statistical, elements of a RPG.

I think @Campbell was using it to mean the core structures of play of a RPG, as in who gets to say what when about the shared fiction.

I consider those to fall under the umbrella of "rules system".

Who gets to say what is a rule. It's a rule that allows referees in FATE to force compels, or players to construct personal shadows in Amber Diceless, or the contacts a Ventrue has made over the past century. It might only be "the player determines this detail", but that's still a rule.

 

[FrogReaver]

One question I've been meaning to post - do editions not matter because they have all been designed fairly similarly or do editions not matter because the game system is simply irrelevant.

I think the arguments in this thread support the first, but I think the thread is really asking about the 2nd.