D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 is the REAL reason everyone is angry

[RFisher]

Monopoly is a bad example. Monopoly makes its money based mainly on those different "localized" monopoly versions. Basically, anytime a Simspons or Trek Monopoly comes out, PB gets a slice however, the main problem is, would D&D players pay for a new PHB that only has different pictures?

I was under the impression that most of those Monopoly knock-offs aren't licensed from PB. Isn't this one of the commonly cited precedences in the "game mechanics aren't copyrightable" issue?

Regardless, the actual, un-customized Monopoly sets actually do make a profit, I believe. There is a constant market for it. It is small, but they know that, so they only print enough to meet that demand & still make a profit. It is an important enough brand & product that they aren't going to discontinue it despite the fact that it'll never be anyone's bread & butter again.

I think the analogy with D&D is very apt.

Except that, while they may have been short-term successes, no attempt at a sequel or new edition of Monopoly has had the staying power of the original. (Though I don't think they were every foolish enough to force any of them to be a true replacement for the original.)

I think you're spot on. I don't ever buy a first version Microsoft product, because its always buggy and incomplete. Wizards is teaching us the same lesson about their products, too.

This is the thing I don't get about a lot of products, RPGs included. Don't just go into your R&D ivory tower, then do a perfunctory playtest, & release it as "perfect". Come out with a "beta", "preview", "early adopters", or whatever edition. Maybe not even in print--just PDF or another e-format. Make it clear that it isn't meant for everyone & that it's to really shake out the system before a general release.

Yeah, having people pay to playtest your product seems wrong at first, but I think we're going to have to come to terms with it, since the alternative seems to only be inadequate playtesting, systems that don't work nearly as well without supplements, & dot-5 editions. Besides, there are some of us who will gladly pay to be part of that.

 

[Glyfair]

I was under the impression that most of those Monopoly knock-offs aren't licensed from PB. Isn't this one of the commonly cited precedences in the "game mechanics aren't copyrightable" issue?

Part of that was because of the big lawsuit regarding a version of Monopoly. I'll note Hasbro won that in the end, but not because of game mechanics.

 

[Glyfair]

So I'm not angry about 3.5. I'm still a bit shell-shocked that 4.0 came out so soon. I think I was mentally prepared for it to come out in 2009, based on what Wizards had been saying. That makes the 2008 dates feel more like an ambush.

I'm not sure exactly what the OP meant, but I'll say that I'm not angry* because of 3.5. However, I'd be angry about 4E because of 3.5.

I think that 8 years is a reasonable time to upgrade to a new edition of D&D. Because of the way 3.5 was handled, it feels like a new edition. 5 years is too soon from a new edition.

Look at 3.5. There were big countdowns to it, preview articles, new core books. When 3.5 was release all D&D product assumed you were using it.

Look at the other mid-edition changes (Unearthed Arcana, Skills & Powers). There might have been previews, but no new core books. The books didn't automatically assume you were using it (although skills & powers went down that path after a while).

* Angry isn't even right for my feelings about 4E, wary is. However, that's a bit distracting for this particular point I want to make.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I understand the frustration of those who spent thousands of dollars on 3.5 over the years, but I will contend that those people have the less to complain about than people like me.

I don't buy a lot of game materials. I pretty much use the core rules, and then a couple of setting books. In terms of overall budget, the release of 4e means that to buy the core rules, over the course of three months I will spend about three times my normal annual gaming budget.

To those who spent thousands, did you think you had bought it all and were no longer going to need to buy any more, or at least a lot less that you had been? I could understand being mad if you did, but if you anticipated continuing to spend on 3.5 material at about the same pace, then the release of 4e won't negatively affect your future spending very much.

 

[Maggan]

I I could understand being mad if you did, but if you anticipated continuing to spend on 3.5 material at about the same pace, then the release of 4e won't negatively affect your future spending very much.

Good point. 4e will mean I spend less on D&D than I would have had 3.5 continued. Not because I have any dislike of 4e, but because I need to get mileage out of my 3.e books befre moving on.

/M

 

[Aus_Snow]

5 years is too soon from a new edition.

Ha. I got back into D&D with 3.5, damn it. So yeah, I think I have a vague idea of what you mean here.

 

[StupidSmurf]

Wow...what a mess....ok...hmmm....

"Angry"? No, not really.
"Annoyed"? Oh yeah. Definitely...and if I stub my toe, lose $20, or get a flat, THEN thinking about 4E makes me angry.
"Surprised?" Sadly, no.

In my opinion, I think WotC underwent a big hit in credibility with the way 3.0/3.5 was handled. This has resulted in a loss of consumer trust, at least among some, by no means all.

Which could go a long way towards explaining some people's unwillingness to buy 4.0 and instead wait for 4.5.

Here's my answers to some of the things I've read in the past five pages. I think it'll be self-evident as to what points I'm addressing, so I won't bother quoting them.

1. I'm our group's DM. I DO like staying in the loop, I DO like staying current. Sure, I like being known as a DM who runs a good game, keeps things interesting, and is up on all the new rules. It's a point of pride. WotC's now saying "How much is some of that pride worth, man?"

2. Although I can't cite sources, I've read (I believe here on ENworld for example) about issues relating to poor play-testing of WotC products in the past. Such information does little to inspire confidence in me that 4.0 will be any better.

3. I like gnomes, as do a good percentage of my players.

4. I feel that D&D 3.5 cleaned up a lot....but it came about too soon (unless it was bad playtesting that caused 3.0 to have so many problems that needed to be rectified ASAP). If they had waiting juuuust another year or two, using the time to test 3.5 a little more, and made a few more tweaks, they might've had a good reason to call it 4.0 and come out with it, when, about 6 years after 3.0's release? Maybe?

5. Call of Cthulhu's gone through a number of editions, true. However, changes from, say 5th to 6th are so small, you can simply annotate your 5th edition book with a few marginal notes. Good luck trying that with 4.0/3.5, ladies and germs!

6. And let me say "Bravo!" to the point that someone else already made (was it Shark?) that there's a helluva lot more D&D 3.5 product out there than a lot of the smaller companies have for their lines. A change of D&D edition is a MAJOR EVENT.

7. All of the complexity of 3.5 can be less daunting if not all of it is thrown at a newbie from the git-go. Start off the rookie with something that fits with what they want to play, but only giving them the rules they need to start out, the basics, the fundamentals if you wll, and then add to this as time goes on. You know, like playing the old Squad Leader wargame.

8. I think eight months IS ample warning. I don't object to the timing of the announcement, just to what it is they're announcing!

SO...to recap:

No one's forcing us to buy 4.0.
BUT...if you want to be on the cutting edge of D&D, you better buy it.
If that doesn't matter to you, then don't buy it.
Unless of course you want to play in officially sanctioned/supported events that use the latest edition.
But...if that doesn't matter or is N/A, then by all means feel free to ignore it.

Our group will stick with 3.5, and 4.0 can go take a flying leap. We're happy with it. The aggravation over the loss of Dragon and Dungeon hasn't worn off yet, and the announcement of the new edition feels like another shot to the head.

 

[broghammerj]

\
- giving too much warning and finding that your current sales dry up completely, and you give competitors too much head-start to work against you
\

I've always laughed at this idea. How do you out compete the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room with proprietary rights to a brand name?

 

[Pale]

People seem to want to get all indignant about WOTC's edition scheduling. I, for one, don't spend my disposible income on all sorts of nasty habits that people pick up - D&D is my crack, and comparitively, I think it is a pretty good one.

Yeah, mine are food, gas, rent and raising a child.

Shame on me!

 

[AllisterH]

Yeah, mine are food, gas, rent and raising a child.

Shame on me!

Not to be crass, but I'm honestly finding it hard to believe that D&D is expensive. Like I said before, most DMs have spent maybe between $1500-2000 in the 5 years between 3.5 and 4E. (A lot of players have spent half of this).

Breaking it down, this is only 300-400 a year which itself is only $25-33/mth. I honestly don't believe this is excessive given other forms of entertainment. The difference I believe is that you CAN see where your money is at all times. You can easily calculate how much money one has "wasted" on D&D but in a lot of other forms of entertainment, that money is simply GONE.

re: Monopoly. Monopoly is "weird" in the sense that PB/Hasbro doesn't actually expect to make a big profit on this and in fact, don't actually have to do much. There's no actual Monopoly design team.