The 3.5 renaissance!

[Kerrick]

It's not about style or preferences. When WotC left 3.5 behind, there was a good deal of players who had no desire to switch. Some were buying Pathfinder AP's, but my guess is that most were not. Now, those left behind by WotC do not have much choice. If they want new (more) material of a certain quality, they more or less only have 1 place to go, and that is Paizo. I am not saying that other 3PP producers aren't good, because obviously, there are other good ones out there, but none of them put out material in a consistent way.

IIRC, they stated that a large part of their decision rested with the fact that WotC was dragging their feet producing the first iteration of the GSL. They are, as you stated, a company with a lot of employees, and they needed to produce something to make money. So Jason popped up with his collection of house rules, pitched it as an alternative to 3.5, and the other folks said "Great idea!" I'm sure they saw that a lot of people were dissatisfied with the new edition, and they felt that a revision of 3.5 would help garner them those customers - hence their decision to stay close to the existing rules. It was an excellent business decision, and it'll keep them going for the foreseeable future.

Don't forget about us 3e fans that are simply creating new v.3.5 material for our homebrews without actually publishing anything under the OGL. My World of Kulan campaign setting will always be v.3.5 and 3rd Edition fans are free to use and abuse my 3e stuff that I've posted here on EN World at their leisure.

Exactly! Folks like you and me, Raven, Ryan whatshisname (the E6 guy), and the folks who do Microlite d20, we're all doing this for fun, not for profit. Publishing's a pain - I know, because I've had two books published. It's much easier simply to write the stuff and put it online as netbooks or on a site, slap an OGL on it, and say "Here it is, go to town!" The only downside is getting recognition - we have to spam forums and get the word out, and if we're lucky, it'll catch on.

 

[ProfessorPain]

5E will make 4E obsolete in a way that 4E (and even 5E) cannot make 3.5E obsolete.

Isn't that going to make it risky for 3pp to get involved?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I wonder why people are so fanatical about sticking to one edition. I'm talking about 90% of you here. I'll play basic, 1st AD&D, 2nd AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, 4e....I seriously don't give a damn.

I wouldn't call myself fanatical at all, but I'm only interested in one set of rules for playing Dungeons & Dragons because it's not the only kind of game I want to play. I also want to play World of Darkness, GURPS, and other games; I think Fourth Edition is a much better version of D&D than any of the other games that came before it, so why "waste my time" playing a game I don't like as much when I've only got limited time and attention for D&D in the first place?

Teal deer: Because the version I like is a lot better and more fun than the others, for me at least. Life's too short to play less-fun games.

 

[Knightfall]

Exactly! Folks like you and me, Raven, Ryan whatshisname (the E6 guy), and the folks who do Microlite d20, we're all doing this for fun, not for profit. Publishing's a pain - I know, because I've had two books published. It's much easier simply to write the stuff and put it online as netbooks or on a site, slap an OGL on it, and say "Here it is, go to town!" The only downside is getting recognition - we have to spam forums and get the word out, and if we're lucky, it'll catch on.

Well, my stuff is strickly fan-based stuff that I do for my own enjoyment. (I've simply found that others share my passion for creating homebrewed worlds, rules, etc.) I don't have any intention of slapping the OGL on to anything I'm doing for Kulan; however, I could do it for another world concept I've been mulling over.

Still, I do appreciate those that create free fan-based OGL netbooks as well as those who publish under the OGL. It's just not for me... right now.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think this is the case at all. AD&D came out in 1977, and 2nd edition was released in 89. Both systems were very similar; unlike the jump from 2e to 3e or 3e to 4e. It was easy to switch from a 1e campaign to a 2e campaign. This represents a 22 year period, with little growth in the core mechancis; but it continued to be popular till the late 90s; and much of its decline has as much to do with poor book keeping and management more than stagnation. I do think 3e was a needed change; but I had hoped to see a similar period of stability. The problem with Changing from 3.0 to 3.5 in five years, and then changing over completely to 4E just a few years later, is it is too much growth and change. The biggest problem with 3E wasn't a lack of growth, it was the number of really bad books Wizards was releasing and rehashing to support it. The last string of Splat material was so over run with typos, ommissions and meaningless advice, the only reason to by them was to break the system. If anything, 3E needed to be more moderate in its development; and supply gamers with supplements that added to the game, but didn't break it mechanically.

There is something to be said for having a steady system that everyone knows the rules for, and it isn't stagnation, its stability. This helps the hobby grow. Releasing new editions every few years, fragments the community, as we have seen with the release of 4E. I am not saying 4E should never been released. But for me, it was way too soon. I had just finished updating my splat books to 3.5, and then they announced a new edition; an edition which required purchasing a new PHB each year to stay current with. Had it come out in 5-10 years, I would have been much more open-minded to the idea. But I would be lying, if I said a little resentment didn't creep into my evaluation of the new edition.

The second highlighted section could just as easily, if not more so, apply to 2ed. The first highlighted phrase is, I think, not really true, because TSR collapsed under the bloat that you are criticizing Wizards 3.5e for. By the late 90s D&D was floundering and producing some truly inane material. 3ed reinvigorated the game, not only mechanically but culturally.

Personally I would like to see MORE edition updates, but with less endless "splat" books. Or rather, the splat books should be mainly fluff so that they don't need to be rehashed with every new edition, and the new edition is simply an every-few-year evolution of the rules, tweaking this, adjusting that. Sort of like other RPG systems . The problem with "only" four editions in 30+ years is that as soon as the new edition comes out the playtesting is multiplied a thousand-fold, and all the little problems and idionsyncrasies with the new system that slipped through the playtesting cracks get found out by the loyal fan base. Some of those idiosyncrasies are forgivable and even give D&D some of its charm, no matter what edition. But then there are things that are too hard to ignore, so you start house-ruling which, again, is fine and part of the joy of playing D&D, but eventually the "official" rules have to update, so do you do them every year or so with sub-editions or do you do a major edition change or do you do you come up with something radically different? The "problem", if it really is a problem, is that there is a lot of creativity in this industry and changes happen fast, so you want the #1 game to stay up to date with some of the latest developments. It was almost embarassing playing D&D in the 90s because there were so many slicker game systems out there; 3ed re-legitimized D&D in the gaming community AND opened the doors to new (and old) players. Unfortunately 4ed is not having the same effect. It might be a gamble that "failed" in that it didn't re-revolutionize--as any edition of D&D should (but usually doesn't) do--although it "succeeeded" in that it came out and people are still buying it. For now. As I mentioned elsewhere, given the "schism" in D&D World I wouldn't be surprised to see 5e sooner than later, but as a Grand Consolidating Project, sort of the like the first decade+ has been (is being) for the 20th century in other cultural spheres.

But I ramble...

 

[ProfessorPain]

Unfortunately 4ed is not having the same effect. It might be a gamble that "failed" in that it didn't re-revolutionize--as any edition of D&D should (but usually doesn't) do--although it "succeeeded" in that it came out and people are still buying it. For now. As I mentioned elsewhere, given the "schism" in D&D World I wouldn't be surprised to see 5e sooner than later, but as a Grand Consolidating Project, sort of the like the first decade+ has been (is being) for the 20th century in other cultural spheres.

But I ramble...

And I think the reason is it was too soon. Like I said AD&D had a good 20 year run. And by its end, people were eager for a new system. People didn't really want a new system when 4E was released. What the game needed, wasn't a new edition. It needed a new direction and more quality in terms of the books being released. 4E is a great game. As someone who is a 3E partisan, I can admit 4E is nice. But I just wasn't ready to shift to a new D&D system. I had just settled in with my 3E splates, when 4E was announced. 3E needed more high quality adventures. MOre stuff that generated buzz at the game table by boosting the GMs performance.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I do think that one advantage that 4th Edition will have is that as far as providing new options, each class can be served just as well as the Wizard and Cleric were in previous editions.

Even if your not a big fan of the way powers and handled in 4th edition, one of the common criticisms of the spatbooks was that every book that came out with cleric spells made every cleric stronger, and every book that had wizard spells potentially made wizards stronger (if they could add them to their book, and of course subject to DM approval). This was great if you played either of those classes, but every other class did not have a means to evolve much after release. It improved a bit with Feats, but not by much, since every class got feats, but only the spell casters had spells. Sooner or later the spell casters end up with a massive selection of options compared to the other classes.

But now every class is like a 2nd edition Wizard. The addition of new powers does not automatically allow your current character to use them interchangably with your current power set. You can retrain, but you cannot have access to all at once. Each class can be updated easily, so it will be easy to keep PHB1 classes on par with what comes out in PHB 3 or PHB 5 or whatever.

I suspect that the overall lifespan of 4th edition may be getting underestimated.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Mark]

Isn't that going to make it risky for 3pp to get involved?

In a sense, it is. It limits your involvement to the amount of time the license is in place (provided that you do not violate the license in some way, of course) plus a sell off period once WotC decides they are done with it. There is also no guarantee that 5E will have any type of similar licensing. However, if you truly like the current system that is being licensed, and feel you can bring enough to the table to make it worth your while (financially or simply as a matter of personal pride), and if you do not feel that it would be time taken away from some more pressing or rewarding pursuit (game design or otherwise), then why not throw your hat in, write and publish something? It's not like there's much to lose in most cases.

 

[Jack99]

IIRC, they stated that a large part of their decision rested with the fact that WotC was dragging their feet producing the first iteration of the GSL. They are, as you stated, a company with a lot of employees, and they needed to produce something to make money. So Jason popped up with his collection of house rules, pitched it as an alternative to 3.5, and the other folks said "Great idea!" I'm sure they saw that a lot of people were dissatisfied with the new edition, and they felt that a revision of 3.5 would help garner them those customers - hence their decision to stay close to the existing rules. It was an excellent business decision, and it'll keep them going for the foreseeable future.

I think you are recalling wrong. Pretty sure Pathfinder was announced in March, whereas 4e was released in June. Meaning Jason had been working on it for a while on it before that. It also means the decision to stick was made before seeing 4e, and before knowing anything about the GSL.

Either way, it was the right business decision to make. I have stated this many times, and in my mind, there is little doubt that sticking with 3.5 was the plan even before 4e was announced.

Cheers

 

[Glyfair]

I think you are recalling wrong. Pretty sure Pathfinder was announced in March, whereas 4e was released in June. Meaning Jason had been working on it for a while on it before that. It also means the decision to stick was made before seeing 4e, and before knowing anything about the GSL.

The decision that the 2nd Pathfinder Adventure Path was made when their deadline passed without the GSL and SRD being released. This deadline was well before 4E was released.

I am certain Paizo was hoping to be in on 4E at release. WotC's feet dragging sunk that very early on. I would bet they were planning to support 3.5 in some fashion, as long as it was profitable. However, their comments made it clear they were considering moving Pathfinder to 4E. Circumstances meant they didn't even need to see 4E before they needed to make a long term decision.