Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Some Thoughts on Historical Edition Changes, and What that Portends for OneD&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8851918" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Perhaps, then, we should dig into the recipe. For a ".5 edition," I mean.</p><p></p><p>3.5e did not change the design ethos or goals of 3e. Indeed, it was specifically intended to preserve them by correcting mistakes in the implementation thereof. It's why Savage Species will always be dubiously applicable to 3.5e, because the ethos remains, but the (even weaker...) 3.0 rules make it hard to preserve. Similarly, Pathfinder has often been called a "3.75e" (that is, if we think of "3.5" as being halfway between 3.0 and 4.0, then PF is a half of the remaining half, a "3.5.5" if you will.) By most posters' own admission, Essentials was intended to change or adapt the design ethos of 4e, accomodating something that had not been present before. By those lights, it more resembles things like Skills & Powers (which some think of as "2.5e," but most do not), or even the Book of Nine Swords, which almost no one considers a "half edition within the half edition." So, on this axis, it seems strange to classify Essentials as a "4.5e," when the goal of the exemplars of the ".5" update has consistently been to <em>preserve</em> and <em>repair</em> an edition that already exists rather than to <em>expand</em> and <em>diversify</em> an edition that exists.</p><p></p><p>3.5e was, pretty much intentionally if we believe folks like Monte Cook, set up for "you have to buy the core books anew." Many folks slammed Wizards at the time for this fairly obvious "buy core books again just a few years later" approach, <em>especially</em> because the changes were relatively minor. PF also required buying new books, but was welcomed due to the "we're saving the game" presentation. Essentials and Skills & Powers, meanwhile...had nothing to do with the original core books. S&P as I understand it would not have functioned as a standalone game. Essentials did, and that was intentional, but it was an alternate, equally-valid starting point, rather than an actual <em>replacement</em> of the original. So, on this front as well, Essentials is unlike 3.5e and much closer to just being another supplemental book (or pair of books in this case.)</p><p></p><p>Even the claimed reason for its origin doesn't match up. 3.5e came into being because the <em>designers</em> had concerns and wanted them addressed. Essentials, as we have been told more than once, was in part an effort to make more "old school" fans feel more included in 4e. It was a response to <em>player</em> concerns, not a designer-driven do-over like 3.5e. Again, the comparison fails.</p><p></p><p>Now, perhaps I am cherry-picking without realizing it. I am, after all, trying to advance the position that Essentials is little to nothing like 3.5e other than "it has new books" (which I consider a pretty much worthless standard, given that that would mean we'd already be on like 5.875e by now.) I'm willing to consider what criteria by which you would judge Essentials to be structurally a ".5 edition."</p><p></p><p>Putting my cards on the table, I won't think very much of any argument which hinges on denying any of the above points. Nor one based on time elapsed or other factors that are not relevant to the <em>function</em> the rules perform relative to their claimed edition. As noted, and as you agree IIRC, Essentials <em>at most</em> put a chunk of errata into an official print publication (RC) and offered an <em>alternate</em> starting point that was not a <em>replacement</em> starting point. (That is, PHB1 remained a perfectly valid starting point long after Essentials launched. I would know. An OSR-leaning DM who decided to check out 4e after the hubbub ended permitted me to join his game and it was one of the best games I've ever played. He enforced a strict "PHB1-2 only" rule, at least to start off, so he could get his bearings in the game.)</p><p></p><p>So. What were the relevant factors that made 3.5e a ".5 edition" to you? Which among them applied to Essentials, and how/why?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8851918, member: 6790260"] Perhaps, then, we should dig into the recipe. For a ".5 edition," I mean. 3.5e did not change the design ethos or goals of 3e. Indeed, it was specifically intended to preserve them by correcting mistakes in the implementation thereof. It's why Savage Species will always be dubiously applicable to 3.5e, because the ethos remains, but the (even weaker...) 3.0 rules make it hard to preserve. Similarly, Pathfinder has often been called a "3.75e" (that is, if we think of "3.5" as being halfway between 3.0 and 4.0, then PF is a half of the remaining half, a "3.5.5" if you will.) By most posters' own admission, Essentials was intended to change or adapt the design ethos of 4e, accomodating something that had not been present before. By those lights, it more resembles things like Skills & Powers (which some think of as "2.5e," but most do not), or even the Book of Nine Swords, which almost no one considers a "half edition within the half edition." So, on this axis, it seems strange to classify Essentials as a "4.5e," when the goal of the exemplars of the ".5" update has consistently been to [I]preserve[/I] and [I]repair[/I] an edition that already exists rather than to [I]expand[/I] and [I]diversify[/I] an edition that exists. 3.5e was, pretty much intentionally if we believe folks like Monte Cook, set up for "you have to buy the core books anew." Many folks slammed Wizards at the time for this fairly obvious "buy core books again just a few years later" approach, [I]especially[/I] because the changes were relatively minor. PF also required buying new books, but was welcomed due to the "we're saving the game" presentation. Essentials and Skills & Powers, meanwhile...had nothing to do with the original core books. S&P as I understand it would not have functioned as a standalone game. Essentials did, and that was intentional, but it was an alternate, equally-valid starting point, rather than an actual [I]replacement[/I] of the original. So, on this front as well, Essentials is unlike 3.5e and much closer to just being another supplemental book (or pair of books in this case.) Even the claimed reason for its origin doesn't match up. 3.5e came into being because the [I]designers[/I] had concerns and wanted them addressed. Essentials, as we have been told more than once, was in part an effort to make more "old school" fans feel more included in 4e. It was a response to [I]player[/I] concerns, not a designer-driven do-over like 3.5e. Again, the comparison fails. Now, perhaps I am cherry-picking without realizing it. I am, after all, trying to advance the position that Essentials is little to nothing like 3.5e other than "it has new books" (which I consider a pretty much worthless standard, given that that would mean we'd already be on like 5.875e by now.) I'm willing to consider what criteria by which you would judge Essentials to be structurally a ".5 edition." Putting my cards on the table, I won't think very much of any argument which hinges on denying any of the above points. Nor one based on time elapsed or other factors that are not relevant to the [I]function[/I] the rules perform relative to their claimed edition. As noted, and as you agree IIRC, Essentials [I]at most[/I] put a chunk of errata into an official print publication (RC) and offered an [I]alternate[/I] starting point that was not a [I]replacement[/I] starting point. (That is, PHB1 remained a perfectly valid starting point long after Essentials launched. I would know. An OSR-leaning DM who decided to check out 4e after the hubbub ended permitted me to join his game and it was one of the best games I've ever played. He enforced a strict "PHB1-2 only" rule, at least to start off, so he could get his bearings in the game.) So. What were the relevant factors that made 3.5e a ".5 edition" to you? Which among them applied to Essentials, and how/why? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Some Thoughts on Historical Edition Changes, and What that Portends for OneD&D
Top