Quote from: estar;845798Kellri answer does a good job of making the point I was getting at.

The interest in D&D genesis, the internet allowing dozens of people sharing a niche hobby to communicate easily, and increased actual play; there developed a sense of the possibilities of AD&D and what it excelled at. And what made it stick was the internet allowing this information to be easily accessed by anybody with a minimum of effort.

All of this applies to OD&D, B/X, and BECEMI as well.

You and I had very different internet experiences. Sure, us AD&D folks talked about the game on Usenet. As soon as 3E was released though, AD&D fell by the wayside. I didn't see an actual 'split' in the gaming community until 4E hit. When I learned quite recently that there had been a 1E/2E split I was baffled. No one I know ever played 1E again after 2E was released.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799This isn't politics, it's evolution.

It's not evolution. It's just a different system, designed by different guys, which you happen to like better that what came before it.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799I'm one of those YouTube people. I post daily vlogs (six+ years and counting) and put up a RPG related video every Saturday. I *loved* AD&D when I played it. Then something better came along, 3E. I never looked back mechanically. You couldn't pay me to play an earlier edition of the game. Just reading the rules now makes me shudder. So many pointless walls and inconsistent systems. This isn't politics, it's evolution.

Horseshit.  It's DIFFERENT, not better.

I've played Pathfinder.  It sucks intergalactic moose cock and swallows.  And Star Wars d20 was even worse, and NOT just because d20 was a bad fit for Star Wars.  More rules is not always better.

"Oh, no, my belly burst and I died because I didn't take "KNOWLEDGE: TAKE SHIT". "

Yeah, what Bren & Gronan said.

Happily D&D is moving away from "as many rules as possible" atm.

3.x/PF introduced a lot of ideas like feats, prestige classes, and a multiclassing system that combined to make a very player facing character optimization game.  When you can expand the sales base from just GMs to players and get them to buy things like Player's Handbook 2 and 3, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Complete Arcane, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Equipment and so on, it just makes sense that WotC and Paizo have done wwhat they have with their game.

TSR tried to do likewise in the latter 2nd Ed days, but I don't think it was nearly as successful given the missing player facing optimization mechanics.  AD&D 1st Ed had far less of this commercially driven design, but had its own greed taint in the royalty wrangling between Gygax and Arneson and it's one true way marketing in the face of massive OD&D heterodoxy.

Once real money entered the situation, marketing-driven design was inevitable.

At some point, everybody who wanted old style D&D had it.  At that point, you either shut the doors or do something different.

I don't mind that some people like other games more.  I mind them claiming that their game is somehow "better" in any way other than "I like it more."

Quote from: Brad;845331There are people who apologize for liking Alf and Vanilla Ice.

How can people apologise for liking Alf? It is comedy gold.

Quote from: Benoist;845425Dude. Check your facebook.

By the way, are you back for keeps Benoist? I'd like it if you were. You don't know me, but I liked a lot of your posts.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799I'm one of those YouTube people. I post daily vlogs (six+ years and counting) and put up a RPG related video every Saturday. I *loved* AD&D when I played it. Then something better came along, 3E. I never looked back mechanically. You couldn't pay me to play an earlier edition of the game. Just reading the rules now makes me shudder. So many pointless walls and inconsistent systems. This isn't politics, it's evolution.

My first RPG was RQ2, then AD&D. I liked AD&D but loved RQ. When 3E came along, we looked at the new rules for clerics and thought "Hey, that is like how RQ does it". But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric.

If 5e is an "evolution", maybe the Creationists are right.

Quote from: Spinachcat;845868If 5e is an "evolution", maybe the Creationists are right.

Anyone who uses "evolution" in the sense of "improved" is presenting a Creationist argument anyway.

The idea that evolution is an arrow, that starts with "primitive" species and progresses up through more "advanced" species (exemplified by that famous sequence of images showing an ape turning into a caveman turning into a modern man), is just Victorian Era Creationist sophistry to explain why Man is at the top of the evolutionary ladder (there isn't a ladder), and is thus naturally and innately superior to the "primitive" animals.

The idea that creatures from some arbitrary time in the past are somehow inferior is garbage -- dinosaurs were just as perfectly adapted to their environment as the wolves of 10,000 years ago were to theirs.

Evolution is far more specific and messy than that. It's adaption to a specific environment. And once something's in a niche, it's rarely displaced. We still have sharks, for instance, and they haven't been supplanted by whales. Creatures rarely displace other established creatures. What happens is that, over time, the evolutionary toolbox grows; and new creatures with new traits evolve to exploit new niches.

OD&D is the shark. Perfectly adapted for what it does. D&D 4th edition is just filling a new niche, and it's adapted to that purpose. Neither is superior, and anyone who uses evolution argue the more recent game is somehow better is just a scientific illiterate.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799I'm one of those YouTube people. I post daily vlogs (six+ years and counting) and put up a RPG related video every Saturday. I *loved* AD&D when I played it. Then something better came along, 3E. I never looked back mechanically. You couldn't pay me to play an earlier edition of the game. Just reading the rules now makes me shudder. So many pointless walls and inconsistent systems. This isn't politics, it's evolution.

I'm the complete opposite. 3E made me stop playing because the focus moved away from playing a character, the adventure, and all of that and onto building character builds. I got started with 2E and we play stuff from both editions. I think the only thing 3E has over Ad&d is that it's not 4E.

I just like that I can have a player create a character and not screw themselves or the party by doing it wrong.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845823Horseshit.  It's DIFFERENT, not better.

I've played Pathfinder.  It sucks intergalactic moose cock and swallows.  And Star Wars d20 was even worse, and NOT just because d20 was a bad fit for Star Wars.  More rules is not always better.

"Oh, no, my belly burst and I died because I didn't take "KNOWLEDGE: TAKE SHIT". "

You and I want very different things from a game. I thought Star Wars D20 was one of the best sci-fi games ever written.

Quote from: soltakss;845844My first RPG was RQ2, then AD&D. I liked AD&D but loved RQ. When 3E came along, we looked at the new rules for clerics and thought "Hey, that is like how RQ does it". But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric.

This: 'But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric', I don't get. How can a set of rules have 'atmosphere'? Some of the setting material from the AD&D era is great. I still have some of it. But I wouldn't ever use the rules again.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845875You and I want very different things from a game. I thought Star Wars D20 was one of the best sci-fi games ever written.

And as long as "objectively better" never comes into it, I'm perfectly good with that.  I like beer much better than I like Scotch.  Doesn't mean beer is objectively better than Scotch, or vice versa.