The real flaw of 3E/3.5E/OGL

[MichaelSomething]

So the question is do people want their RPGs to be more like Super Mario Galaxy or Little Big Planet? Do people want a game that is fun to play or do they want to a bunch of tools they can use to craft the exact type of game they want to play? I guess I'm more of the type who wants a fun game. Also...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ion-3-5e-open-gaming-license.html#post4715772

It seems there is a strong dislike for the RPGA and stuff like that. I forked a thread to discuss that.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Do people want a game that is fun to play or do they want to a bunch of tools they can use to craft the exact type of game they want to play? I guess I'm more of the type who wants a fun game.

w00t. False dichotomy ftw.

Re: the OP - is not bug; is feature. (is good.)

 

[Greg K]

w00t. False dichotomy ftw.

qft

 

[FireLance]

Variability of gameplay is a massive bonus and feature. Knowing that I can take the same game and play it in a different way every time I play it is an awesome, awesome thing.

RPGA and organized tournament play is one of the worst things to happen to the hobby.

From WotC's perspective, the RPGA is probably a feature, not a bug. I wonder how many game books WotC would be able to sell if the RPGA didn't exist.

It would seem, then, that WotC has to balance the needs of home games, for which variability is a feature, with the needs of organized play, for which too much variability could be a bug.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So the question is do people want their RPGs to be more like Super Mario Galaxy or Little Big Planet? Do people want a game that is fun to play or do they want to a bunch of tools they can use to craft the exact type of game they want to play? I guess I'm more of the type who wants a fun game.

I like a game that is fun to play AND gives me a whole bunch of tools to make other games that are fun to play AND gives several developers those same tools so they can also make games that are fun to play.

I see your strawman and ignore it!

 

[Fenes]

So the question is do people want their RPGs to be more like Super Mario Galaxy or Little Big Planet? Do people want a game that is fun to play or do they want to a bunch of tools they can use to craft the exact type of game they want to play? I guess I'm more of the type who wants a fun game. Also...

I want a fun game, That means I want a game I can customize so it suits me as close to perfectly as possible.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem with 3E/3.5E, especially combined with the OGL is that it is not one single game. What I mean by this, is that different groups could use the system to play games that could be wholly different than the games played by other groups.

This is a solution, not a problem.

The problem in this, is the argument that D&D should mean something, people should be able to recognize what D&D means, and the concept of D&D should be robust and consistent enough that 95% of D&D games should be familiar to a bystander familar with the brand.

Only brand managers and bean counters think like this.

It's the nature of role-playing games that there is a final step between published product and realized gameworld: personal imagination.

If WotC were ever to succeed in making 95% of D&D games immediately portable between each other, it would be a huge loss for the community and inspiration all over the world.




So congratulations to the market sharks if they've managed to make you convince yourself this is true...

For the rest of us, the true flaw of 3E was and remains its boggling complexity at high levels. This is a show stopper that simply makes the game un-DM-able, at least for me.

And I'm not sure I've seen a single 3E descendant fix (or even approach) this problem; not 3.5E, not Pathfinder.

In this critical area at least Fourth Edition is really a revolutionary step forward.

(or possibly backward, if you were around in the 1E days).

 

[dmccoy1693]

Not only is it a feature, it was a design goal. And I like it that way.

 

[Ariosto]

"The problem is ..." presumes that a problem exists in the first place. I gather that the OP considers variation among campaigns the symptom, and 3E's allowance for it the cause.

The cause ultimately is in the D&D player-culture, because any game can be modified if the participants want to do that. D&Ders want to do that, and from the start it was intended that they should do that.

If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, D&D will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another....I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign should be a 'variant', and there is no 'official interpretation' from me or anyone else.

--E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2 (July 1975)

 

[Wombat]

The problem with 3E/3.5E, especially combined with the OGL is that it is not one single game.

Personally, this is what I loved about the game.

4e has a very lock-stepped feel. The game is about combat. All character types have pretty much the same "features" in the same number and thus there is little variation other than vocabulary. With 3.whatever, conversely, I was able to run combat intensive games, non-combat-intensive games, low level games, semi-historical games, baroque "High Fantasy" (using the game definition of the term) games, gritty fantasy games, and a host of others.

Yep, this was a feature, not a drawback. Games could be individualized.