Quote from: BedrockBrendan;684207This was the crucial point. I remember buying 1E and 2E products and mixing them freely. 2E was not a rejection of 1E (which was the edition during the boom in D&Ds popularity in the early 80s). Their marketing was all about cleaning up the corners and making the thing easier to navigate.

Kim Moran recently did a podcast where he said, "It amazes me that people think we never thought of ascendnig AC back then.  Of couse we did.  But it was key to us that 2e be compatible with 1e, so we just streamlined the attack matrix into THAC0."

Quote from: Bobloblah;684204The cognitive dissonance that must be required to claim that makes my head hurt.

I didn't say that it did. Also, you don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;6842052E is virtually the same game mechanically as 1E.

IIRC, it got rid of most of the "elder game stuff".

Also, it was almost the same game at the beginning of its run, but the addition of kits and whatnot changed the game towards the end of the run.

I see 2E as the real point of turning from "survival horror/fantasy Vietnam" to "fantasy heroes".  It's not the *end* of that road, but it seems like the place where the switch in direction happened.

To my mind the big change with the strategy around 4e was when Mike Mearls took over. Mearls was not IIRC one of the lead designers of 4e (although he seemed to get a lot of the blame for it until DDN started). It was when he took over that the abortion called Essentials came out, the errata train went into overdrive, and official support for 4e generally became shitty. It's clear that he didn't like or possibly understand 4e even before DDN was on the horizon, although granted that might have been why he was brought in in the first place.  The fact that he's dismissing it now shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. I'd be interested to see what the original lead designers think of 4e now though.

Quote from: soviet;684212To my mind the big change with the strategy around 4e was when Mike Mearls took over. Mearls was not IIRC one of the lead designers of 4e (although he seemed to get a lot of the blame for it until DDN started). It was when he took over that the abortion called Essentials came out, the errata train went into overdrive, and official support for 4e generally became shitty. It's clear that he didn't like or possibly understand 4e even before DDN was on the horizon, although granted that might have been why he was brought in in the first place.  The fact that he's dismissing it now shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. I'd be interested to see what the original lead designers think of 4e now though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all of the lead designers for 4e gone now. Maybe they can comment now that they are not under the umbrella of D&D. Note: Didn't one of them move to Magic or something?

Quote from: 1989;684186I think Mistwell is a closet 4venger.

I feel the burning flames of righteousness in his defense of 4e.

Nah, it's just the joy of white knighting. Twee virginal special snowflake harkens for a hero, and lo shall he appear. The discarded crusts of sandwiches have an advocate to clamor for their virtue as croutons. And for that we should be thankful, for it is entertaining.

Quote from: JasperAK;684216Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all of the lead designers for 4e gone now. Maybe they can comment now that they are not under the umbrella of D&D. Note: Didn't one of them move to Magic or something?

Well I have seen their 'love letter' has been published already.

Quote from: 1989;684186I think Mistwell is a closet 4venger.

I feel the burning flames of righteousness in his defense of 4e.

Fortunately even fewer people care what you think, than care what I think.  And that's saying something, since the number of people who care what I think is pretty damn low!

Quote from: soviet;684187I've been reading a lot of 80s Marvel comics lately so I'm seeing a lot of TSR adverts. The ads for the 2e PHB all say as their headline 'Your toughest opponent shouldn't be the rulebook'. Which to me clearly implies that in 1e the rulebook sometimes was your toughest opponent and had a bunch of problems that 2e would now be fixing.

Quote from: Haffrung;684201Dude, 3e was released 11 years after 2e. You might have a point if TSR turned around in 1991 and released a substantially repackaged version of the 2e core game, and then scrapped it altogether in 1992.

Now you're moving the ball.

The claim was things WOTC *SAID* demonstrated 4e was a failure.

So I addressed that claim that was made.

And in response, you shifted to a time frame that is not something WOTC said.

I am sure if I responded to that, you'd shift to some other factor other than things they said and the time frame?

How about we address the issue raised first, maybe?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684206If you can't see the difference between a new company saying their version is better than the old companies',

No, that's not what happened.  When you phrase it like that, you imply there was some sort of competition there.  There was not.  The old companies game BELONGED TO THE NEW COMPANY.  It was their game, and the same employees moving over to the new company for the most part! So no, there is fuckall difference there, for this sort of issue.

Quoteand the same people who worked on a version saying the previous one was wrong, then I can't help you.  That's a clear distinction.  You claimed it was true of every edition that it was admitted the previous one failed.  

And it is.  And yes, some people who worked on 2e were the very ones making 3e and crapping on 2e.  In fact, Monte Cook worked on both, and bashed 2e plenty.  Are you saying the name on the door of the company, it's location in the nation, and the guy who was the head of the company, are relevant to that?

QuoteThat's not true.  Unless you can show me where the TSR folks admitted that 2e failed.  You havn't done that.  All you've done is show how WotC said their version is better.  Those don't mean the same thing.

[

Why would it matter, IN ANY WAY, who the President of the company was, and the name they used for the company? Lorianne Williams hated all of it.  WOTC and Peter bought all of it.  It was Peter and WOTC's game they were bashing with those comments.  Can you tell me how it matters which name was on the door for this subject, and why Lorriane being in control rather than Peter is relevant to this discussion?  It's like you forgot to actually make your argument, and assumed there is something inherently special about the later-days TSR company vs. the early-days WOTC company that took over TSR.  For the most part, it was the same fucking people, with the same products! And one of the biggest differences (Peter vs. Lorriane) doesn't help your point (and actually might hurt it).

Quoteso before you go around accusing other people of being dishonest, take a big long look in the mirror

Oh I am looking alright.  You've built this incredibly bullshit standard that the name on the door of the company and who was the President is relevant to this, and then asked that people run off and do research to try and refute what you say and then you automatically dismiss it when they call your bluff.  Yeah, looking at you, calling you dishonest.  Engage the debate, or don't.  But stop pretending it's anyone other than you spewing bullshit here.

Quote from: Mistwell;684224No, that's not what happened.  When you phrase it like that, you imply there was some sort of competition there.  There was not.  The old companies game BELONGED TO THE NEW COMPANY.  It was their game, and the same employees moving over to the new company for the most part! So no, there is fuckall difference there, for this sort of issue.



And it is.  And yes, some people who worked on 2e were the very ones making 3e and crapping on 2e.  In fact, Monte Cook worked on both, and bashed 2e plenty.  Are you saying the name on the door of the company, it's location in the nation, and the guy who was the head of the company, are relevant to that?

[

Why would it matter, IN ANY WAY, who the President of the company was, and the name they used for the company? Lorianne Williams hated all of it.  WOTC and Peter bought all of it.  It was Peter and WOTC's game they were bashing with those comments.  Can you tell me how it matters which name was on the door for this subject, and why Lorriane being in control rather than Peter is relevant to this discussion?  It's like you forgot to actually make your argument, and assumed there is something inherently special about the later-days TSR company vs. the early-days WOTC company that took over TSR.  For the most part, it was the same fucking people, with the same products! And one of the biggest differences (Peter vs. Lorriane) doesn't help your point (and actually might hurt it).



Oh I am looking alright.  You've built this incredibly bullshit standard that the name on the door of the company and who was the President is relevant to this, and then asked that people run off and do research to try and refute what you say and then you automatically dismiss it when they call your bluff.  Yeah, looking at you, calling you dishonest.  Engage the debate, or don't.  But stop pretending it's anyone other than you spewing bullshit here.

Its always fun when I get to use an Arnold quote in a meaningful way so here it is:

Relax, you'll live longer.

So did Cook and Williams say that 2e was a failure?  Where did they say that?

He did say this, a few days ago:

QuoteAs someone deeply involved in the 2E to 3E switch, I can tell you that we tried to keep the play focus (although we never used that term).

Seems odd that someone who viewed 2e as a failure would try to keep the 2e focus as part of 3e.

See, you are trying to act like a brand new company, taking over the IP of another company that failed (not becasue of 2e, but because of bad business management), saying that their "new product is a lot better than the old one" is equivilant to admitting 2e failed.

It isn't.  It's pretty standard business practice to do that, in fact.

just imagine all the people who are waiting to be convinced that the D&D 1e-> 2e change was the same as the 2e-> 3e change which was the same as the 3e-> 4e change, despite their wildly divergent contexts and completely different, easily observable effects

also they give a shit and also it is the year 2013

Quote from: soviet;684212To my mind the big change with the strategy around 4e was when Mike Mearls took over. Mearls was not IIRC one of the lead designers of 4e (although he seemed to get a lot of the blame for it until DDN started). It was when he took over that the abortion called Essentials came out, the errata train went into overdrive, and official support for 4e generally became shitty. It's clear that he didn't like or possibly understand 4e even before DDN was on the horizon, although granted that might have been why he was brought in in the first place.  The fact that he's dismissing it now shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. I'd be interested to see what the original lead designers think of 4e now though.

It is always going to be tough to balance the marketing of a new edition (tell me why I should buy new books?) with being respectful for past editions.  Obviously there are going to be comments that focus on the flaws of the previous edition, even if it does have many bright points.  

I am not sure that this is avoidable.