10 years was too long.

[Mercule]

I think 1E was still viable after ten years. The only major improvement when 2E came out was with thief skills -- and confirming that rangers could stealth. Otherwise, I think 2E had outlived it's usefulness by the time the first "complete" book came out.

Since I like 3.5 better than 3.0, I'm happy the revision came out, but 3.0 could have survived for quite some time. I don't think we need a revision to the rules anytime in the near future, but I'd support one if it fixed some of the things that have been named in this thread.

I do want to see a slight change in the "culture" of D&D products, though. I'm sick of every book (and many Dragon mags) being a compilation of new feats, spells, and PrCs. I'd be much more interested in seeing example multiclass builds to handle a concept, as an example. If it takes a revision to adjust that pattern, so be it -- I'm ready now.

 

[Estlor]

Part of the reason (if you believe TSR and WotC employees that talk on the subject) to revise D&D as a whole is because soft areas of the rules have been identified and good solutions have been released in a supplement or at least started toward through other material. The birth of 1e came, largely, from new ways to resolve things included in Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures. On the flip side, it seems like revisions are done when something gets so out of hand your only recourse is to wipe the slate clean and start over.

I think the only two areas of true concern that have been turned up by supplements and gamers are the poor implementation of metamagic and the inherent penalties involved in certain multiclass situations (read: spellcasters). Unearthed Arcana took a step toward offering a resolution, but not a complete enough one on either front (IMHO). Likewise, the birth of 3.5e prestige classes to patch the issue with an existing rule works, but not elegantly. It masks the problem by forcing you to take a separate class and doesn't work in every instance. Neither of these alone are changes that warrant a wholesale reimagining of the D&D system at this time.

I agree with the idea that the "culture" of 3.5e releases needs to change. I don't mind the inclusion of more and more feats with each release; that's something good for the rules because 1) they don't gobble up too much space and 2) they provide new paths for PCs and NPCs. However, prestige classes are out of control. A lot of books waste nearly half of their pages on prestige class after prestige class that doesn't really serve a purpose. They need to refocus on the original concept of a prestige class - representation of a special group in the campaign or a reward for an ultra-specialized aspect of a class (or classes). A prestige class should exist for a very specific purpose and add flavor to the book, not pad the pages.

Ultimately what will happen is 4e will come about because we've been buried under such a mass of 3.5e "crunch" that designers and gamers will rebel against it. At what point we reach critical mass, I don't know, but once WotC has run the course of classes, races, environments there won't be much more for them to do other than revise and start over.

 

[jmucchiello]

There is nothing that raises my ire more than this statement.

They need to refocus on the original concept of a prestige class - representation of a special group in the campaign or a reward for an ultra-specialized aspect of a class (or classes).

I know this shouldn't bug me, but these are not the only purpose of prestige classes. The third and other important part of prestige classes is to introduce new abilities that PCs can have. What campaign group or class ultra-specialization does the shadowdancer fill? Ultra-rogues manipulate shadows? That doesn't sould like specialization as much as a new ability to explore.

Likewise, none of the original prestige classes (Arcane archer, dwarven defender, loremaster, etc) make any reference to campaign groups.

No, the reason publishers, including WotC, fill books with prestige classes (and feats and spells) is because people buy books full of prestige classes. Somebody wants them. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean your needs or desires are representative of all players.

As to 4e, I don't see enough need for a great change to the system that would justify it. I fear 4e will contain more changes than necessary as a way to justify the release and make people more likely to feel they need to upgrade.

 

[maddman75]

There is nothing that raises my ire more than this statement.

I know this shouldn't bug me, but these are not the only purpose of prestige classes. The third and other important part of prestige classes is to introduce new abilities that PCs can have. What campaign group or class ultra-specialization does the shadowdancer fill? Ultra-rogues manipulate shadows? That doesn't sould like specialization as much as a new ability to explore.

None. That's why I banned them. They're boring, and give me no adventure ideas. And hide in plain sight makes no sense to me. How do you hide when someone is looking right at you? I don't know how to describe that in-game. Is it invisibility? If so, just call it that.

If you want to add new abilities, feats and spells are a great way to do that.

 

[Ranger REG]

But was 10 years too long between editions for 1e/2e and 2e/3e?

Nope. Unless you are at 50% unsatisfied with the rules, it should remain static as the rules in Monopoly or any boardgames. Also, no matter how much crunch we added to the standard rules, we gamers always find a way to implement houserule because the existing rules simply do not cover all bases.

It's a rulebook, not a schoolbook. It shouldn't explain why they use such and such game mechanics to be followed by a series of (pseudo) scientific equations or physic's law. Then someone else will complain too many unnecessary fluff.

I have said this before, and I'll say this many times, don't treat RPG like a TCG or a videogame. The latters don't tend to last long and become obsolete in a year or two before a new version come out, especially TCG where the company can decide which card is banned from tournament play (if you're into tournaments) as they introduce new cards.

 

[Wraith Form]

It's a rulebook, not a schoolbook.

Whay can't it be a game book?

I'm beginning to strongly lean toward what others have said regarding "less crunch". I've been around this game for several years (late 1st edition) and have seen it drift steadily away from it's role playing/storytelling roots and into a number-crunching, math geek lovin' miasma. And face it, it's easier to run numbers than it is to creatively think (hence the popularity of CCGs)....but that's a different topic.

I don't think 10 years is too long. By 2010 we'll be sick to death of the term PrC and AoO, I hope.

For DMs: Books that detail how to create shared, group adventures for newbies. Books that explain how pacing, theme and description can be used effectively to craft or steer an adventure. Books about how to write great adventures that aren't too "railroady" nor too free form.

For Players: How to use backstory to mold your current PC, and why your DM will love you for that. How to avoid "player knowledge" influencing "character knowledge". Books on improv acting and drama, taken from a storytelling contribution viewpoint. Etc etc.

Granted, many of these topics are covered by Dragon & Dungeon magazine. Shouldn't these topics be covered in the core, essential books, since that's what the core essence of the game is: playing a role in an improvisational storytelling session?

What happened to gaming books that described how to play role playing games, rather than number crunching? As someone so wisely stated eariler, DMs are now supposed to be a "walking rulebook" that churns out cookie-cutter adventures for number pushing power gamers. Isn't that what we have Neverwinter Nights for?

 

[wingsandsword]

What happened to gaming books that described how to play role playing games, rather than number crunching? As someone so wisely stated eariler, DMs are now supposed to be a "walking rulebook" that churns out cookie-cutter adventures for number pushing power gamers. Isn't that what we have Neverwinter Nights for?

Those games are still out there. I run one, sure I use minis and have a lot of combat, but there is also a lot of plot, plenty of roleplaying, and an attitude that the game is more than a collection of rules and "crunch" and that the rules exist to express the setting and characters, not that the setting is built upon the rules and the characters are compilations of stats.

I don't want a 4th Edition because 3.5 serves me well. I've got rules for everything I want to do in D&D, campaign materals for the settings I want to run, and I've learned that more rules != better game. I can't imagine any game that could be written in the forseeable future that would top 3.5, in both simplicity (yes, 3.5 is simple, it's not complex, 1e/2e was a train wreck of a game, 3.5 runs far faster and cleaner than what came before) and flexibility. A more "rules light" game would have a lot less options for characters, and as a DM I don't want the ambiguity, vagueness and rigidity of prior versions.

I don't need a new edition of D&D to play the game differently, I don't need to buy more rules (and spend probably over $100 given the increase in book costs by the time 4e comes out) to play a game I'm enjoying already.

Or as one player in my game put it "I have a serious problem with the idea of planned obsolescene in roleplaying games."

 

[Wraith Form]

Well spoken.

(I usually don't talk a lot, so sometimes when I write it all comes gushing out in a vomitlike stream of consciousness. Sorry.)

 

[woodelf]

I have mentioned more than once when the subject has come up that many games seem to have a 2-4 year revision cycle. Call of Cthulhu and Ars Magica come to mind in particular.

Um, yeah, ars Magica 3 in `92, Ars Magica 4 in `96, so i can see where you got teh impression. But that was also a fairly minor revision, all things considered. I'd say less than the change from PH&DMG AD&D1 to PH&DMG AD&D2. And Ars Magica 5 is `04/`05 (last month). That's 8 years, and a much more substantial revision, but still nothing like the revision from AD&D2 to D&D3. (Especially since the change from AD&D2 to D&D3 is roughly the same amount of change as from AD&D2 to Ars Magica 3.)

 

[woodelf]

That would be fine if there were actually changes in CoC between editions. As it is, there's basically nothing new. No new artwork, text etc etc. Maybe, just maybe, their editor went through it again, but that's about the extent of it.

Isn't that a point in Chaosium's favor? That there's really no need to upgrade, even when a new edition *does* come out? That i could probably sit down with my copy of CoC 3rd in a game run with CoC 6th, and i'd never know the difference? You can't even do that with D&D3E and D&D3.5E.