ishy wrote:shadzar wrote:(...)
Goal #1: Reunification through Common Understanding
Anyone who has ever played any version of D&D must recognize and understand its most important elements.
(...)
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be quoting AD&D. That one is apparently outside of the scope of the project since they are only talking about D&D.
sadly you may be right, because they cannot understand since their first product that D&D and AD&D are two games, and wish to lump them into one game/product/brand.
which would beg the questions to be answered then: why look at 3.x or 4th since they are built of AD&D?
3rd was a direct next step to take in ONE direction from AD&D 2nd, thus the naming it 3rd. 4th following the same naming, and building upon the 3.x d20 system. they jsut dropped the name back to AD&D, without realizing that one step one in damaging the games, and misunderstanding of them.
aside from their clear incompetence to understand AD&D is NOT D&D but a totally different game they have CLAIMED to be taking into account AD&D in their bastardized naming format in L&L articles since the announcement of 5e.
here are some quotes from various L&L articles since the announcement of "Next"
Uniting the Editions, Part 1
As a contrast, AD&D (that is to say, 1E) involved more specific mechanics to create a more unified play experience from table to table. This included a more careful eye toward "realism," or perhaps more accurately, "simulation." But by modern standards, the game was still fairly simple, and things moved quickly. There were options for miniatures and tactical play, but most 1E fans did not use them. (Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't use them either.) 1E fans—and I'm of course overgeneralizing here—want many of the same things that BD&D lovers want, but with a few more options and a bit more simulation.
Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started reading phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became more important than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to another, "let me tell you about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might say to another, "let me tell you about my world." As the system developed with many supplements, simulation and game balance took a back seat to story, setting, and interesting characters. Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes, showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that, broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create well-developed characters.
Uniting the Editions, Part 3
Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What about a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st Edition? Could we make that work as a part of a simulationist rules module? Maybe. Racial class restrictions? Sure (but why?). Are these good ideas? Bad ideas?
One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition.
The Challenge of High Level Play
So, despite the fact that high-level 4th Edition play is quite different than high-level 1st Edition play, the general commentary about how high-level play breaks down remains the same.
A Walk Down Monster Lane
The AD&D Monster Manual consolidated hundreds of monsters into a single book, delivering to Dungeon Masters a seemingly endless supply of threats.
If you're a Dungeon Master, and you're like me, then you can never have enough monsters. I must have the Monster Manual and its sequels. In fact (and at the risk of showing my youth), the Monstrous Manual from 2nd Edition was the first D&D book I ever bought, even before I knew how to play D&D. I simply wanted the book because I was fascinated by the monster lore. Even though I had no idea what the statistics meant—I still hadn't figured out THAC0—I could tell from reading about the tarrasque that it was a badass.
so within their ivory tower the wizards of the coast sit and confuse themselves calling two things by one name, and do not yet understand why their arcane dealings are not bearing fruit....
the designers are clearly unable to grasp that its two games. the very nature of it being 2 games means they werent intended to work together or the gap be bridged, yet they wish to do so.
not the comment on AD&D 1st being a unification of the rules, as Gary intended, rather than having 4 versions of D&D, there would be a single AD&D.
it didnt end D&D or takes its place, it jsut offered a more uniform game rather than guesing which of the others people were playing. it was a distinct different game.
this bring to the point not just of editions, but the two games themselves:
you cannot reunify, things that were never unified.
their goal is a failure to begin with because AD&D exists as a separate entity, no matter what marketing decided to do with 3rd, it IS AD&Ds extension into the 21st century. 3rd was NEVER D&D, nor could it be because it went well beyond the scope of D&D.
so what really is there goal at this point? to make more money.
3e is dead! woohoo!