Clint_L
Legend
People keep claiming the there are "substantial" changes, but if that is the case, why are we combining the two with basically zero effort? Why did DDB just keep chugging along?
D&D General Why Mike Mearls left D&D, an interview by Ben Riggs.
- Thread starter darjr
- Start date
Because I think that a lot of people here view small changes as a big deal. Over the years I have been here, a lot of new ideas get a lot of flat noes from members of the community and a lot of post are long and involves (and sometimes heated) discussions of small differences.
I am pretty sure that there are quite a few people here that would not allow Level Up and 5e characters (either version) at the same table. There are also probably as many that would.
Dire Bare
Legend
This is happening right now in the thread about potential fixes to the "D&D language problem".
Some posters seem upset that we're even discussing it, and the changes floated are tweaks to the existing system.
I think there’s only one person who seems upset in that thread.
You can make enormous changes while preserving backwards compatibility. D&D rules consist of "elements" (spells, feats, equipment, classes, species, etc.) and "systems" (movement rules, resting rules, combat rules, etc.). There are well-defined interfaces through which each system interacts with each type of element. So long as you keep those interfaces the same, you can rewrite any number of systems and any number of elements, which is to say, the whole rulebook. Old elements can then live alongside new elements within the new systems.
That is what happened in 3E -> 3.5E; those editions also could be, and were, combined with basically zero effort. 1E -> 2E tried to achieve the same thing, but TSR-era D&D was not as modular as the WotC versions, so there was considerably more friction. Still, they were similar enough that teenage me bought a bunch of 1E and 2E books without realizing they were different games.
Last edited:
Dire Bare
Legend
Heh, hard disagree on that. But I'll just move on so we don't drag this thread down too . . .
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
At the risk of derailing this thread further, my experience is the opposite (even though I did use both 1e and 2e and later 3e and 3.5e interoperably). That is to say, I felt like I needed to change less to incorporate 1e stuff into 2E (or vice versa) and it was very easy than I did for 3/3.5e.
1e and 2e were forced by management to be as compatible as possible, to the point that 2e was largely a reorganization of 1e rules.At the risk of derailing this thread further, my experience is the opposite (even though I did use both 1e and 2e and later 3e and 3.5e interoperably). That is to say, I felt like I needed to change less to incorporate 1e stuff into 2E (or vice versa) and it was very easy than I did for 3/3.5e.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Thank goodness!
They could’ve done better.
Similar Threads
