What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

[technoextreme]

Well...why don't they?

Well it doesn't help that Monte Cook actually admitted that some of the design attributes of 3E made a huge mess out of the game.

Al-Qadim never made it to 3E or Dark Sun. It'd be really cool and pertinent IMHO to do an Arab-Spring themed campaign for those settings (maybe they kinda did in 2E for DS). Or d20 modern.

Ooo god no. If there is one thing that I have learned about any Pen and Paper RPG is that if you start borrowing from real life you are more often than going to get something that is whitewashed and borderline racist. I don't even like how 4th edition has the thin vestiges of it left in there.

Granted Paizo is a smaller company than WotC (man for man, I don't know how much smaller it is, but...), but Paizo has mentioned for those asking them to create 4e versions of their APs to offer adventure material for 4e fans. They've stated that currently they are almost undermanned to accomplish their production schedule for just Pathfinder. They'd have to hire out double their current staff (well almost) to do both rulesets - which at this time is out of the question (and more likely forever out of the question.)

That is really weird considering the fact that a lot of the 3.5E modules I have would probably take a day for me to rework them. As long as you aren't trying to do something funky like convert a module designed for a setting like the Forgotten Realms you are peachy keen. In fact it even surprised me because the statblocks on 3.5E monsters are huge.

 

[Desdichado]

Its not gamer specialness, rather (at least those I run into - not everyone) those that use other cultures as part of game play, have a greater appreciation for other cultures. So one sided views on many aspects of world concepts are less apt than those who do not expose themselves to outside cultures - at least IME. Plus gamers tend to be 'readers' more than others - it depends on what you read I guess.

Er... yeah, that's specialness. And I don't believe it.

 

[Dausuul]

That is really weird considering the fact that a lot of the 3.5E modules I have would probably take a day for me to rework them. As long as you aren't trying to do something funky like convert a module designed for a setting like the Forgotten Realms you are peachy keen. In fact it even surprised me because the statblocks on 3.5E monsters are huge.

Have you actually done this? I haven't played a converted 3E adventure, but I have played early 4E adventures which seem to have been designed with 3E sensibilities, and they're a godawful slog. 3E assumes a lot of small, trivial combats; but there is no such thing as a small, trivial combat in 4E.

 

[Pentius]

Have you actually done this? I haven't played a converted 3E adventure, but I have played early 4E adventures which seem to have been designed with 3E sensibilities, and they're a godawful slog. 3E assumes a lot of small, trivial combats; but there is no such thing as a small, trivial combat in 4E.

I've converted 3e addies to 4e. Not a lot of them, but a couple. Usually I just drop or condense some of the smaller encounters. And small, trivial combats can be done in 4e, but you have to come at it a little differently, and you have to intend them to be small, trivial encounters. 4-5 minions and maybe a L-1 or 2 standard works out.

 

[Hussar]

yes, I do. All it needed was a change in direction (toward flavor material like modules) and some fresh paint.

How many modules do you need for 3.5? There are several HUNDRED modules for 3.5. Between WOTC, Paizo, and various others, there's more modules than any dozen people could possibly play in their lifetime.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How many modules do you need for 3.5? There are several HUNDRED modules for 3.5. Between WOTC, Paizo, and various others, there's more modules than any dozen people could possibly play in their lifetime.

Wizards produced very few modules for 3.5. Paizo mostly did dungeon adventures, and the third party material was hit or miss. I am talking about official releases by the company making the game. That kind of stuff matters. One of the strengths of the AD&D era was the number of modules available. This is totally a matter of taste, but when I was playing 3E and WOTC was supporting it, I just never got why they focused so much on splat books and so little on modules.

 

[Hussar]

Well, going by List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I see 14 3.5 edition modules (Not counting Fantastic Locations) spread over 2004-2007 all directly from WOTC. That's about three or 4 per year. Not a lot, but, then again, Dungeon was meant as the vehicle for modules. I'm not sure why you wouldn't include them with 3.5. They were 100% official.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, going by List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I see 14 3.5 edition modules (Not counting Fantastic Locations) spread over 2004-2007 all directly from WOTC. That's about three or 4 per year. Not a lot, but, then again, Dungeon was meant as the vehicle for modules. I'm not sure why you wouldn't include them with 3.5. They were 100% official.

But dungeons existed as far back as AD&D. For me there were two issues with WOTC adventures during that period: 1) volume and 2) quality. I would have much prefered more modules than they put out and I would have liked the quality of the modules they did release to be greater. I just wasn't impressed with the modules they put out during 3E. I was impressed with much of the dungeonn content. But I always felt like modules were an afterthought with WOTC. The most dissapointing game product I purchased in the last few years was the Expidition to Castle Ravenloft. Was looking forward to it and it truly dissapointed. I just felt I was on a completely different page than WOTC when it came to my expectations about modules and setting material.

This is a completely subjective call. You are free to disagree with me. But trying to convince me it was better than I remember isn't going to change my opinion (especially since I was a very active GM and player during that period).

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, that I won't disagree with. I was simply disagreeing that they didn't produce modules. That they didn't produce GREAT modules, oh yeah, totally with you on that. The modules were there, they just weren't that great.

Then again, Paizo was producing great stuff for 3.5, that was 100% official, so, while WOTC might not have been doing module support, the module support was certainly there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh, hey, that I won't disagree with. I was simply disagreeing that they didn't produce modules. That they didn't produce GREAT modules, oh yeah, totally with you on that. The modules were there, they just weren't that great.

I never intended to imply they didn't produce any modules, just that they produced far fewer than TSR and that the quality (imo) was not very good---something a lot of people seem to agree with.

Then again, Paizo was producing great stuff for 3.5, that was 100% official, so, while WOTC might not have been doing module support, the module support was certainly there.

Sure, and it was handy to have dungeon but that format is only helpful to supplement actual full blown module lines. With dungeon there is a built in space limitation (these are not full modules, they are short adventures written largely by fans). Dungeon was great, don't get me wrong, but no subsittute for a well produced module.