A history of Dungeons&Dragons

Haha. Fitting, i think, even though I didn’t play some editions.

Meh; I have little patience for the 4th Ed hate-wagon. It’s just as good an edition as any others and there is quite a few things it actually does better than other editions…

No hate involved. I like the Austin Powers movies. They are just radically different from the standard spy-movies.

Meh, it’s not like there is anything like a “standard D&D edition”, though.
Sure 3; 3.5 and Pathfinder are the same game but 1st Ed. used some raves as class (neing an Elf was its own class); 2nd edition introduced the concept of skills, but not for every characters, and in a format that has nothing to do with later versions. Skills as we know them, feats even AC were introduced for third edition…

The idea that there is “one true D&D” is a bit silly and myopic.
Really, Edition wars annoy me, especially as I find many of the argument vacuous… 4ed received a lot of unjustified bad press…

I’m quick to bash 4th ed., but I also don’t see the Austin Powers thing as negative. Seems more along the lines of “which one is different from the others?” than any criticism.

The 3rd/3.5 part is what really confuses me here. Guess I’m missing the reference…

And I agree, there’s no one true D&D. Silly and myopic is right. Obviously, both 1st and Basic qualify… :smiley:

(Incidentally, races were their own classes in Basic, not 1st.)

Would it have made much of a difference if there would be Ethan Hunt for 4th Ed? (Or is he already in line for 5th?)