Difference From 10 Years Ago?

[Zardnaar]

Ten years ago it seemed to be very one true way (3.5) and there were a few grogs around. Retroclones for the most part did not exist (hackmaster, maybe Castles and Crusades?) and older D&D barely got mentioned over on the wizards site. D&DM was a new mini line, you had Dragon and Dungeon in print, finding players was easy.

With the announcement for next I expected the 3rd ed and 4th ed edition war to keep on going but OSR players seem to be coming out of the woodwork and it seems I was not the only 3.x player to go back to AD&D or retroclones either. Even on this site on any day you can see the various tags people use for whatever edition, clone or whatever they are playing. Was the fragmentation caused by 4E, 3.x still going via Pathfinder after 13 years, people getting sick of WoTC? Are numbers of D&D players contracting or just harder to find due to the sundering?

3rd ed is now the best supported version ever and in a few years via Pathfinder will be the longest lasting in print. Right now it is tied with 1st ed for that and BECMI technically is the longest lasting version of D&D (1977- 1990's) but was not really have that much support from 1991-1994 (rules cyclopedia, a few Dungeon appearances). Probably a good thing for the players, bad for D&D as a monolithic system?

 

[n00bdragon]

Just in case you forgot what the "good old days" were like.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

*Looks around*

Nope, not that much different, really.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Compared to ten years ago, I'm playing the same game, I'm playing it better now than I did then.

Also, compared to ten years ago, the level of discourse on these boards has dropped, and the level of discourse in some other online venues has really dropped.

Other than that, not much different from where I'm sitting.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I remember a lot of arguing about whether 3e and 3.5 were compatible, whether 3.5 was a welcome refresh of the rules or a heartless money grab, and whether 3.5 was still "proper D&D" because of the game's increased dependency on miniatures.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

C (snip) Also, compared to ten years ago, the level of discourse on these boards has dropped, and the level of discourse in some other online venues has really dropped. (snip)

So very true.

 

[jonesy]

Also, compared to ten years ago, the level of discourse on these boards has dropped, and the level of discourse in some other online venues has really dropped.

It has? I think it's gone up. People just seem more polite with it compared to ten years ago. At least here. The early flame wars were really bad compared to the lame stuff we've had in recent years (which is good).

 

[Umbran]

Was the fragmentation caused by 4E

No way. Not in the slightest. Let us be clear - there's fragmentation of the market every time a new game becomes popular. There was fragmentation back when White Wolf became a big thing, for example.

Fragmentation is not a function of games, but a function of *people*.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No way. Not in the slightest. Let us be clear - there's fragmentation of the market every time a new game becomes popular. There was fragmentation back when White Wolf became a big thing, for example.

Fragmentation is not a function of games, but a function of *people*.

Yeah, its all about the numbers. With the number of new games being released every year, and the number of gamers not growing at the same or greater pace, the gaming fanbase is spread out over a wider array of games. People like trying new games. Small press publishers, the internet, kickstarter, etc. are all contributing to a huge wave of content for gaming fans of all tastes. Its a great time to be a gamer.

If you are a large company trying to corner the market on gamer spending then things aren't so great.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It has? I think it's gone up. People just seem more polite with it compared to ten years ago. At least here. The early flame wars were really bad compared to the lame stuff we've had in recent years (which is good).

To be fair, my account isn't quite ten years old. (And neither of us goes back as far as the initial release of 3e, which is more than ten years past). But yes, I do think so.

IIRC, ENW was started pretty explicitly as a site for 3e D&D news and discussion. It still is, but it's kind of expanded to a more general rpg site. The other boards that I frequented before ENW (WotC's old boards) were also explicitly for the new version of the game, and used to have great theory discussions, DM advice, houserules, etc. Maybe there were negative elements out there, but I never really saw them. And even though 3e was the thing; I don't remember a whole lot of negative discussions about 2e. For the most part, it was simply ignored.

These days, you go over to the WotC boards, and every single topic immediately becomes about how 4e "fixed" 3e, and a variety of related points. It's pretty hard to have a rational discussion about anything. Over here, there's less of that, but you do have some really bizarre stick in the mud people, who will make and vigorously advocate some very strong assertions that, to me, would have been unthinkable ten years ago. Many of which have nothing to do with editions.