D&D 3E/3.5 1996 3E Survey

[The Little Raven]

With any luck, the skewed results will become apparent when 4E sales don't meet expectations and WotC is forced to realize that D&D's sacred cows -- things the WoW kids think are teh suxxorz -- are an important aspect of why the game ahas been on top for 30 years, despite constant attempt to unthrone it.

That's basically what all the anti-3E geniuses said about removing Thac0 and dual/multi-classing, and a single experience chart for all characters, and no more racial level limits or class restrictions...and they were totally and utterly wrong.

Oh, and D&D would't be on top anymore if it wasn't for Wizards saving it from TSR's management and killing off a number of those sacred cows to give us a game that benefits from modern game design (rather than just adhering to outmoded design, just because "it's always been that way").

 

[Reynard]

That's basically what all the anti-3E geniuses said about removing Thac0 and dual/multi-classing, and a single experience chart for all characters, and no more racial level limits or class restrictions...and they were totally and utterly wrong.

Oh, and D&D would't be on top anymore if it wasn't for Wizards saving it from TSR's management and killing off a number of those sacred cows to give us a game that benefits from modern game design (rather than just adhering to outmoded design, just because "it's always been that way").

3E maintained far more sacred cows -- in both fluff and crunch -- than 4E looks like it will. Prior to the rules and power bloat of late 3.5, you could still "play D&D" with 3E.

 

[Engilbrand]

While plenty of great documents are great during a specific time, they eventually become outdated and need to change with the people. Or interpretations of said documents need to change to make them work with a new generation.
Examples:
Dungeons and Dragons
The US Constitution
The Bible

 

[The Little Raven]

3E maintained far more sacred cows -- in both fluff and crunch -- than 4E looks like it will. Prior to the rules and power bloat of late 3.5, you could still "play D&D" with 3E.

The number one RPG in the world should be on the forefront of game design, not maintaining outmoded game design models simply because tradition demands it. The story must change as well, because while you might enjoy the same exact fluff slightly rewritten for decades, many of us want new ideas since we have previous editions full of the same ideas repeated ad nauseum.

 

[Engilbrand]

I'm only the only person who's been playing for about 6 years and doesn't care about a lot of the fluff changes? I've been reading FR books for about 12 years, but I'm not bothered by the changes to FR. I like new and fresh. The Demon/Devil thing doesn't anger me at all because they've rarely played a part in my games. The planes have almost never been touched by anything that we've done. Why would anyone even need to give players a primer over the changes. Just tell people to play D&D and not use previous knowledge. Orcs are probably still going to be evil for the most part. But assuming that a character can just shift to a different plane is when you should probably stop them and give some heads up.

 

[Masquerade]

The number one RPG in the world should be on the forefront of game design, not maintaining outmoded game design models simply because tradition demands it. The story must change as well, because while you might enjoy the same exact fluff slightly rewritten for decades, many of us want new ideas since we have previous editions full of the same ideas repeated ad nauseum.

You are my hero.

 

[Shade]

The number one RPG in the world should be on the forefront of game design, not maintaining outmoded game design models simply because tradition demands it. The story must change as well, because while you might enjoy the same exact fluff slightly rewritten for decades, many of us want new ideas since we have previous editions full of the same ideas repeated ad nauseum.

And many of us like the richly-detailed, inspiring old stuff expanded upon and don't want a fresh start.

In the end, the success or failure of 4e in relation to previous editions will determine whether they made the right choice. Only time will tell.

 

[The Little Raven]

And many of us like the richly-detailed, inspiring old stuff expanded upon and don't want a fresh start.

I find this hard to believe, because every expansion of old stuff I've seen has been met with hostility by grognards, unless it adheres precisely to how it has been in all the previous editions (which is why things hardly every change, they just get reworded).

You've got 30 years of fluff on all those things you want, and another 10 years of them continuing that trend and not changing in the slightest (except where mechanics force them) is not going to make a difference in the grognard game, since they wouldn't have used any changes anyhow.

I'm sorry, but I don't really give a damn about what was considered a good setting 20 or 30 years ago, and I don't want my preferred fantasy RPG to remain stuck in 1984 because a bunch of "old school" gamers are scared of change. I've had the same fluff given to me again and again for the past 20 years, and I am damned glad they are finally breaking away from the traditional mold of "iterate, don't innovate."

 

[Shade]

I find this hard to believe, because every expansion of old stuff I've seen has been met with hostility by grognards, unless it adheres precisely to how it has been in all the previous editions (which is why things hardly every change, they just get reworded).

Expansion does not equal retcon. Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon articles have expanded the Abyss and demons greatly without raising ire. (The only ire directed towards Fiendish Codex 1 was the CR of the demon princes, which was purely a mechanical issue, as well as a misunderstanding).

You've got 30 years of fluff on all those things you want, and another 10 years of them continuing that trend and not changing in the slightest (except where mechanics force them) is not going to make a difference in the grognard game, since they wouldn't have used any changes anyhow.

Nothing wrong with longetivity. We've got 30 years of many comic book lines, and people still like 'em. We clamor to see the same old origin stories presented on the big screen again and again.

I'm sorry, but I don't really give a damn about what was considered a good setting 20 or 30 years ago, and I don't want my preferred fantasy RPG to remain stuck in 1984 because a bunch of "old school" gamers are scared of change. I've had the same fluff given to me again and again for the past 20 years, and I am damned glad they are finally breaking away from the traditional mold of "iterate, don't innovate."

I can't speak for others, but I'm not "scared of change"...simply not interested in yet another campaign setting that's not a campaign setting in the core books, which flavors all the supplements and makes my work as a DM more difficult.

 

[Celebrim]

While plenty of great documents are great during a specific time, they eventually become outdated and need to change with the people. Or interpretations of said documents need to change to make them work with a new generation.
Examples:
Dungeons and Dragons
The US Constitution
The Bible

Oh good grief.