The concept of D&D is so universal now, it's cliche. That's not to say that it's not any good, though.
The whole version thing confounds and frustrates me. Obviously, unless new editions come out, the licence-holder doesn't make any money. I get that part. But it seems like they keep releasing deliberately problematic material so that in a few years they'll have a reason to debut a "new-and-improved" version.
I've read up a little of WotC's vision of v5 as a universal, completely customizable edition that will simultaneously appeal to all styles of fantasy RPG players and DMs and, although I'm rooting for this to be the case, I am highly skeptical. If this is possible, why didn't it happed decades ago? If it's not possible, then this ploy is an all-time low.
I also think it's interesting how invested folks get in their favorite editions. From the little I've read in Amazon reviews of various editions, there's some seriously passionate, partisan folks out there when it comes to defending a particular edition (and attacking most others). I've only ever played 4e, and that started only very recently. Seems like a lot of folks hate it. I've enjoyed it so far (but then I don't have any experience playing any other editions, unless you count the old Gold Box computer games and the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale series where the mechanics are mostly behind the scenes).
In my mind, I think the quality of the DM and the playing group is much, much more important that the version being used (unless the system is so slow and clunky that it takes forever to resolve a single turn). If the DM's really good and the players enjoy one another's company, the experience can transcend nearly any limitations or shortcomings inherent in whatever rules-set is being used.
Anyway, thus end my ramblings on the matter.
|