When did WotC D&D "Jump the Shark"?

[Hussar]

Nobody said to me "whah I won't play 2e, 1e is better, whah!"

Oh, now, this I have seen. I've seen more than a few people who would play 1 edition and not another. I honestly have never really had an opportunity to play an earlier edition unless I specifically went out and found a group playing it, so, personally, it's never been an issue for me.

But, I have had people turn up their noses based on whatever edition I was playing at the time - B/E gamers not playing in an AD&D game comes to mind for example. And most certainly vice versa there.

 

[TheUltramark]

So, let me ask
is there a segment of player out there that has at some point, when they were on board with coastwizards and their products, bought every new book as it came out and tried to integrate it into their own game?

That seems rather ambitious and completely opposite from the way we play. When we played 3.25 for example, there were some of the books we never bothered to get, for any number of reasons, including laziness i suppose.

 

[Nagol]

So, let me ask
is there a segment of player out there that has at some point, when they were on board with coastwizards and their products, bought every new book as it came out and tried to integrate it into their own game?

That seems rather ambitious and completely opposite from the way we play. When we played 3.25 for example, there were some of the books we never bothered to get, for any number of reasons, including laziness i suppose.

Yep. That was the explicit position of one of the two D&D 3.5 groups I was involved in multi-year campaigns as a player. We started just before 3.5 was published and adoped all WotC product up to and including PHB2 (and possibly a few more after that).

 

[Stormonu]

So, let me ask
is there a segment of player out there that has at some point, when they were on board with coastwizards and their products, bought every new book as it came out and tried to integrate it into their own game?

That seems rather ambitious and completely opposite from the way we play. When we played 3.25 for example, there were some of the books we never bothered to get, for any number of reasons, including laziness i suppose.

I am/was a DM, but yes, I did this - and also incorporated a lot of 3pp books (stuff from Goodman Games, Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight, Mongoose and AEG mostly). That stopped about the time DMG2 rolled out, as I just couldn't keep up any more.

Tome of Battle was one of the few books I never incorporated, and the second round of Completes just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My jumping-off point for buying/using everything was 3.5.


RC

 

[TheUltramark]

well, I guess then i am just a casual player, but I bet I have just as much fun as anyone else.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, let me ask
is there a segment of player out there that has at some point, when they were on board with coastwizards and their products, bought every new book as it came out and tried to integrate it into their own game?

That seems rather ambitious and completely opposite from the way we play. When we played 3.25 for example, there were some of the books we never bothered to get, for any number of reasons, including laziness i suppose.

I'm close.

There were some books I didn't buy because I felt I didn't need them, but I tried to incorporate almost everything I bought into my game.

The exceptions were Savage Species, which I used until I saw the improved version in AU/AE; the Epic rulebook, which I thought was clumsy; Weapons of Legacy which I used in highly modified form; and ToB, from which I only incorporated a few feats.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, now, this I have seen. I've seen more than a few people who would play 1 edition and not another. I honestly have never really had an opportunity to play an earlier edition unless I specifically went out and found a group playing it, so, personally, it's never been an issue for me.

But, I have had people turn up their noses based on whatever edition I was playing at the time - B/E gamers not playing in an AD&D game comes to mind for example. And most certainly vice versa there.

Yeah, which just illustrates how useless anecdotes really are. I don't pretend they really tell us anything. BryonD OTOH seems to think they're less than worthless. I suspect it mostly has to do with individual attitudes and what people are looking for in games. I'm very easy-going and frankly probably just filter out people I don't care to deal with, like rule system zealots. I've also been gaming in the same area since the early 80's, so I already know more-or-less all the people I need to interact with and naturally they're compatible with my preferences.

I also think it is a pushback thing. When you're going around with a chip on your shoulder for one or another game system, you will get fairly sharp responses. Even though I'll play anything, if you come to me telling me how great PF is and it is the only thing to play and blah blah blah, you'll probably get a reaction of 'stick it'. Thus I see the whole 'divide' thing as basically something people bring to the picnic themselves. I could sit in a room full of gamers and have them all playing 4e without a comment. BryonD OTOH might get a lot of 'shove off, we don't like your pet game'. Not saying that's true, or that it is a bad thing, but how you approach people has a huge effect on how they react.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So, let me ask
is there a segment of player out there that has at some point, when they were on board with coastwizards and their products, bought every new book as it came out and tried to integrate it into their own game?

That seems rather ambitious and completely opposite from the way we play. When we played 3.25 for example, there were some of the books we never bothered to get, for any number of reasons, including laziness i suppose.

In 3.5 it was a matter of money. I didn't buy many accessories, but if my players were interested in buying a book of character options I integrated the material into our game.

In 4E we use anything that's been loaded to the Compendium.

We like new options. We certainly understand why some people do not though.

well, I guess then i am just a casual player, but I bet I have just as much fun as anyone else.

I'm sure you do have just as much fun. But my group playing in your games would not have as much fun. It's a relative matter of taste, not an objective matter of one of us playing "right" and the other "wrong."

 

[Fifth Element]

Ok, so in your own words you are stating that you don't know what "in the ballpark" means. Noted.

Wrong. What I'm saying is that "in the ballpark" is a vague term, and I don't know what you mean by it, because it could mean many things.

Basically, I'm trying to get you to say something specific and verifiable, because up to now you've used vague and nebulous terms, and asked if we can disprove them. We can't even tell what you're arguing specifically. How deep is a "deep split"? How big is this ballpark you're talking about? If it turns out that PF has 30% of the player base that 4E does, someone might present that as evidence that they're not really in the same ballpark. But you might count 30% as being in the ballpark. We don't know because you won't be specific.

You can speculate about deep splits all you like, but you can't be surprised when others ask for evidence, or when they reject anecdotes provided in place of real evidence. If you want to call it speculation and opinion, there's nothing I can say to that. But you're declared it as fact.

And I'm not saying "no it isn't". I'm saying "there's no evidence that it is". That's quite different. I don't know whether it is or it isn't. There's no evidence that it is, and no evidence that it's not. Which leaves us with speculation and opinion.