Yesterday on Retro Roleplaying, Andreas Davour made the very good point that the 3.5 Resurgent Initiative started by 6d6 Fireball might be seen to exclude those 3rd edition players who stopped at 3.0, and that the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 were so relatively minor that it would seem silly to consider them as separate editions.
I’m not wanting to encourage fragmentation here, but I’m just tossing it out for consideration - should we be talking 3.X Resurgent instead?
3.X Resurgent
What do people think? Maybe the ‘X’ has too vague and nebulous a feeling and it dilutes the message. Personally, I’m undecided. But I’m sure there’ll be no shortage of opinions on this matter.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 at 4:14 am and is filed under Tabletop RPG. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:50 am
How about ‘<3<’ ?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Or how about 2<x<4. i think that’s the correct maths. :~
June 24th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I’m glad you’ve saved me the trouble of correcting you
June 24th, 2009 at 9:46 am
In fact, it’s probably better expressed as the real interval [3,4).
Though I’m not certain that Pathfinder (3.75) could be classed as ‘Resurgent’, so maybe [3,3.75) instead.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I like it better. Not surprising, since I was the one to suggest a more inclusive trend. Personally I always talk about “3rd ed” and for me that is 3, 3.5, 3.75 or whatever.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Thanks for the feedback, Andreas. Your comments are always welcome!
I think I may replace the 3.5 with the new 3.x logo in my sidebar sometime soon.