Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 8317388" data-attributes="member: 8863">It depends on how much a new edition changes and how much players might have invested in a previous edition.&nbsp; Very radical changes can disrupt an existing campaign.&nbsp; More casual players with just a small number of books might be able to easily shift to a new edition, but players who've invested a good amount of money into an extensive library may not wish to change rulesets, especially if there's a lot of dubious changes involved.There's a number of reasons for the whole 1e stance, and it varies from player to player.&nbsp; Some people didn't like some of the directions 1e took later in its lifespan, usually due to material from any of the later hardbacks: UA, OA, MotP, the Survival Guides.&nbsp; Some of them thought 2e was doubling down on that stuff and didn't like it.&nbsp; There was a move towards a more narrative gaming flavor that started roughly with the Dragonlance modules, and some players didn't like that.&nbsp; There were the responses towards the whole Satanic panic which turned off players.&nbsp; Some people thought Gary got stabbed in the back, and refused to support TSR after that ( though some of them don't like UA either, which was mostly Gary).&nbsp; Some people felt 2e didn't fix enough, others thought it changed too much.&nbsp; Too many lame adventures at the time, especially including Castle Greyhawk.&nbsp; The few changes that did occur either eliminated classes people liked or changed them in ways the players didn't like.&nbsp; And you have people who were playing 1e from the start and found fixes to problems they had with the system, and didn't really feel a need to move forward.I guess if you'd already been invested in 1e, then there may have been less reason to switch.&nbsp; For someone like me, who started with 2e, the differences aren't really a big deal at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orius, post: 8317388, member: 8863"] It depends on how much a new edition changes and how much players might have invested in a previous edition. Very radical changes can disrupt an existing campaign. More casual players with just a small number of books might be able to easily shift to a new edition, but players who've invested a good amount of money into an extensive library may not wish to change rulesets, especially if there's a lot of dubious changes involved. There's a number of reasons for the whole 1e stance, and it varies from player to player. Some people didn't like some of the directions 1e took later in its lifespan, usually due to material from any of the later hardbacks: UA, OA, MotP, the Survival Guides. Some of them thought 2e was doubling down on that stuff and didn't like it. There was a move towards a more narrative gaming flavor that started roughly with the Dragonlance modules, and some players didn't like that. There were the responses towards the whole Satanic panic which turned off players. Some people thought Gary got stabbed in the back, and refused to support TSR after that ( though some of them don't like UA either, which was mostly Gary). Some people felt 2e didn't fix enough, others thought it changed too much. Too many lame adventures at the time, especially including Castle Greyhawk. The few changes that did occur either eliminated classes people liked or changed them in ways the players didn't like. And you have people who were playing 1e from the start and found fixes to problems they had with the system, and didn't really feel a need to move forward. I guess if you'd already been invested in 1e, then there may have been less reason to switch. For someone like me, who started with 2e, the differences aren't really a big deal at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification