• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

I always say it's better to have an option you don't want than it is to want an option you don't have. :shrug:
I don't know... I like safety railings. Because I really never want to fall deep down and end up as a big splash on the ground. It's really an option I don't even want to have avaialble.

Actually, I think you're wrong. An option that I don't want is never better than not having that option. Because I don't want it. At best, I am guaranteed to never take it. But that is exactly the same in effect as the option not being there, so my situation with the option avaialble hasn't improved. At worst, I can accidentally take that option. And then - *splash*
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Actually, I think you're wrong. An option that I don't want is never better than not having that option. Because I don't want it.

I have to disagree strongly here: having options is almost always superior to not having them. Why? Because the game is not solely about your preferences.
 

I have to disagree strongly here: having options is almost always superior to not having them. Why? Because the game is not solely about your preferences.

There is a cost to having options, because analysis is not free. Or, to put it another way: I don't want to have to sift through fifty pages of poor-to-mediocre options in order to find the handful of good ones.

More good options, organized in a way that makes them easy to find, is usually better. Having more bad options is not only not better, it is worse.
 

1) hence my qualifier "almost"

2) what you see as bad may not be seen as bad by all or even a majority. Ditto your view of "good."
 

There was also something about these books, I can't quite put my finger on that missed the spot for me. I recall loving the old 2E brown books (especially the complete bard), but the 3E Completes just didn't do it for me. And I would be lying if I said I knew exactly why that is.

I had responded to this earlier,. However, my post was, apparently, eaten when the site had problems earlier today.

I too prefer 3e (provided I stay away from most WOTC supplements including the race and class splats) and, also, prefer the 2e Complete Handbooks to WOTC's Complete Books

I like the 2e focus on a specific class. They covered a lot of archetypes from cultures and media. As a DM, it helped provide PCs and NPCs meaningful background and cultural differences (e.g., armor and weapon proficiencies) for settings with multiple cultures and/or social levels. It also provided ideas for more themed settings.

Another benefit was that 2e was about customizing the clases at first level to meet a cultural or background concept. While 3e had the tools to do this better (tailoring clases, the DMG variant spell lists and swapping class abilities), there were few examples to help out the DM until Unearthed Arcana. The result was that, in 3e, many DMs were either too afraid to tweak classes or too lazy and the unwillingness to tweak classes meant players had to jump through hoops via multiclassing and/or prestige classes to meet a concept that should be viable at level one.

Finally, the more indepth look into a single class of the 2e books meant that there were more options in the book for that class. The benefits were that
a) You most likely didn't have to wait for a concept to be covered for your class (e.g., 3e sorcereor heritage feats scattered among 3e books)
b) You had less books to refer to or carry to access material for your class.
c) For myself, I was likely to find enough worthwhile content in the 2e books to warrant buying the books even if there were some lousy content (e.g., the Greenwood Ranger and Bladesinger kits). In contrast, with 3e class supplements, I was likely to find only a few pages of worthwhile and passed on them all
 



I'm going to back down from my hypothesis. For all the folks who were demanding data but couldn't produce it, here it is. I'm curious if anyone else has any raw numbers.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?...laying-D-amp-D
Dungeons & Dragons Editions: Where Do You Stand?

Sorry, polls taken on ENWorld, don't count as raw data - its anecdotal to this forum for the date the poll was taken, but really has no viability since it only includes votes from here... it doesn't count as 'evidence'.
 

Sorry, polls taken on ENWorld, don't count as raw data - its anecdotal to this forum for the date the poll was taken, but really has no viability since it only includes votes from here... it doesn't count as 'evidence'.

Many papers on the psychology of "humans" are based on a dozen grad students at Princeton. Not that they aren't often proven incomplete, but they're still a starting point.

No, we don't have great quality data. But I'm amazed at the steadfast willingness of people to throw out anything that looks like data, especially when they're discussing on a thread like this. Are most groups playing D&D 3.5 and are they willing to buy more 3.5 material the instant it comes back on the market? It's not right to claim the answers to those questions is no on the basis of no data or a gut feeling.
 

Many papers on the psychology of "humans" are based on a dozen grad students at Princeton. Not that they aren't often proven incomplete, but they're still a starting point.

No, we don't have great quality data. But I'm amazed at the steadfast willingness of people to throw out anything that looks like data, especially when they're discussing on a thread like this. Are most groups playing D&D 3.5 and are they willing to buy more 3.5 material the instant it comes back on the market? It's not right to claim the answers to those questions is no on the basis of no data or a gut feeling.

Sampling is always the most critical step in any statistical inference. The behaviour studies I think you are citing are experimental and thus very different from pooling to access taste. As others already pointed out, a pool within ENWorld is very biased and thus not representative of the market as a whole.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top