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

[RFisher]

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).

I'm sure I've spent less than $300 on 3e. That's for DMing as well as playing.

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.

I don't think Monopoly is the weird one here. D&D is. The design teams for most games don't continue past the publication of the game. (Unless they weren't a team dedicated to that one game, in which case they're designing other games once the game is published.)

Which is the whole point of the Monopoly analogy. Just because D&D has followed a completely different path, there's no reason it couldn't have followed the path of the classic board games. The person making the analogy would prefer if it had.

& there's no reason it couldn't have done both. Why shouldn't the classic D&D Basic Set--complete with a "modern-retro" wooden box--be on Target's shelf next to Monopoly, Clue, Scrabble, &c.

& there have been design teams for variants & sequels to Monopoly.

 

[Glyfair]

I don't think Monopoly is the weird one here. D&D is. The design teams for most games don't continue past the publication of the game. (Unless they weren't a team dedicated to that one game, in which case they're designing other games once the game is published.)

The mistake here is implying the connection between Monopoly and D&D. D&D didn't grow out of board games, it grew out of war games. War games do have a history of continuing design after the publication of the game. It wasn't universal, but it did happen enough to not be unusual.

 

[Khairn]

I'm not sure how reading and listening to what WotC is planning -- including statements that the DI is completely optional -- could lead to the conclusion that unless you pay for the DI you will have an incomplete system. Certainly this seems no more true than saying that you would have an incomplete copy of version 3.5 without buying every issue of Dragon, picking up every new rules expansion and downloading all supplemental information from the WotC web site. And, of course, it wasn't true.

And since you will be able to play D&D without paying monthly fees, and if you do subscribe to the DI you will still have a playable offline game after ending your subscription, and you will be able to play without a computer (since that's what the playtesters have been doing all along!), then I can't see a reasonable comparison to MMORPG business models.

I will point out that some gaming companies (like necromancer games) have already had bonus material to download and unlock with keys in their products. Some magazines and newspapers have additional paid online content. That seems pretty clearly what is going on, added value for added money -- all of which is optional, premium, and possible of questionable value compared to the original product.

I believe that it is in WotC's best interest for the DDI to become a necessity rather than an unnecessary extra. The financial benefits for WotC are very significant including better cash flow, better fiancial planning, the ability to whether production spikes, slow sales months, etc etc.

I dont think it will happen in the first year, but I feel confident that this business model will have an impact on how books are written & released and will move into place quickly.

WotC has already announced that each year they will be releasing a new PHB, DMG and MM that will all be core content. Three additional core books per year, not including the setting and supplement books?

My crystal ball is no more accurate than anyone else's, and this is only an opinion. But its an opinion I feel is based on the most advantageous business model for WotC, given what we know right now.

YMMV

 

[Maggan]

WotC has already announced that each year they will be releasing a new PHB, DMG and MM that will all be core content.

Have they? I thought that was an unverified rumour from unknown sources?

/M

 

[Gargauth]

Yeah I think that one needs a citation. I haven't heard that anywhere, and I've watched every video from GenCon I can find and read all the blogs I have come across.

 

[RFisher]

The mistake here is implying the connection between Monopoly and D&D. D&D didn't grow out of board games, it grew out of war games. War games do have a history of continuing design after the publication of the game. It wasn't universal, but it did happen enough to not be unusual.

<shrug> I don't really care what it's pedigree is. I'm still not convinced there is anything fundamentally wrong with the analogy. (Regardless of my own preferences.)

 

[Patlin]

I've enjoyed playing 3.5, and found the improvements worth the extra expense. My only significant concern with 4.0 is whether or not I'll get to play all of the fun 3.5 PCs I've designed before we switch over to 4.0. That might not be for a year and a half, but I've got half a dozen PC's thought out that I was looking forward to playing someday... and I'm sure my wife won't agree to bunkering up and playing 6 level 1 to 20 campaigns in 2 months each!

 

[Patlin]

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).

15 to 20 hardcover books at $20 to $30 each, plus subscriptions to Dungeon and Dragon. And I thought I bought a lot of stuff...

My wife plays too and justy uses my stuff.

 

[king_ghidorah]

I'm sure I've spent less than $300 on 3e. That's for DMing as well as playing.

& there's no reason it couldn't have done both. Why shouldn't the classic D&D Basic Set--complete with a "modern-retro" wooden box--be on Target's shelf next to Monopoly, Clue, Scrabble, &c.

& there have been design teams for variants & sequels to Monopoly.

But the D&D Basic set was a revision... the original boxed set from 1974 was quite different, referred you to other games for rules, and would have been a questionable choice to put out as a replayable classic.

 

[Moggthegob]

I dont get all the complaints that 3.5 is unwieldy and unattractive to new players. Once i got my players as the intitial stigma that the dnd name can be they really enjoyed it and soon were begging to make full use of all supplements and options. ANd i as a dm was completely ready. SO that worked out fine. with 4e they are really pissed because they have all started investing in 3.5 products. We as a group wont make the switch and I as a dm have enough 3.5 material to run it for ages and ages to come.
As 19-21 y/o college students id say were squarely intheir demographic so idunno whats up.