Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="teitan" data-source="post: 8318282" data-attributes="member: 3457">This was a lot less of a question when it went from AD&amp;D 1e to 2e. While there were many changes, and some for the better, they were largely cross compatible with each other and even with basic due to common terms, the implementation varied but only slightly and with adventures it was less of an issue. Most other games like CoC and early traveller editions they were implementations or clarifications of rules that weren’t clear before. White wolf, in WoD 1-revised of their games barely touched the character sheets and introduced new ways to use the rule set by introducing new terms to provide lore granularity but you could pick up older stuff and still use it without the stats needing converted. WOTC largely changed that with each edition they’ve produced being a different game with ground up rebuilds of the core rules.&nbsp; With 3e it was a drive to a more cohesive system and made D&amp;D a less arcane, incoherent game.Then with 4e they… did that again. Whole rebuild for no real reason on a game that didn’t REALLY need a new edition just yet. The success of Pathfinder 2 years later and the market split caused by that proved that 3.x era rules had legs. 5e? Rebuild.what I am getting at is not edition warring and shouldn’t be used to invite edition wars. It’s that with D&amp;D in particular that it has been increasingly less reason to move on to the next edition. If 6e winds up being another ground up rebuild I won’t buy into it because that’s 4 different games I’d had to learn to be able to play modern D&amp;D. It’s part of why I now have three PHB and will probably get another one and another DMG and MM. I’m too old to keep buying new stuff and will totally grognard to 5e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="teitan, post: 8318282, member: 3457"] This was a lot less of a question when it went from AD&D 1e to 2e. While there were many changes, and some for the better, they were largely cross compatible with each other and even with basic due to common terms, the implementation varied but only slightly and with adventures it was less of an issue. Most other games like CoC and early traveller editions they were implementations or clarifications of rules that weren’t clear before. White wolf, in WoD 1-revised of their games barely touched the character sheets and introduced new ways to use the rule set by introducing new terms to provide lore granularity but you could pick up older stuff and still use it without the stats needing converted. WOTC largely changed that with each edition they’ve produced being a different game with ground up rebuilds of the core rules. With 3e it was a drive to a more cohesive system and made D&D a less arcane, incoherent game. Then with 4e they… did that again. Whole rebuild for no real reason on a game that didn’t REALLY need a new edition just yet. The success of Pathfinder 2 years later and the market split caused by that proved that 3.x era rules had legs. 5e? Rebuild. what I am getting at is not edition warring and shouldn’t be used to invite edition wars. It’s that with D&D in particular that it has been increasingly less reason to move on to the next edition. If 6e winds up being another ground up rebuild I won’t buy into it because that’s 4 different games I’d had to learn to be able to play modern D&D. It’s part of why I now have three PHB and will probably get another one and another DMG and MM. I’m too old to keep buying new stuff and will totally grognard to 5e. [/QUOTE]

Verification