1e/3e Epiphany

[MerricB]

Forgive me if I sound like a noisy, pragmatic minority but Im a bit old and skeptical to really regard 3.5 edition as anything more than just a revenue raiser for Wotc. If you get something out of it and the money keeps the game alive and fun for someone out there then all's well and good.

One thing about being a "revenue raiser" - the 3.5 revisions had to be good enough for people to want to buy the revised books.

Actually, in an important way, I think the 3.5 revision comes two years too late.

That is because the 3E books were not very friendly towards the newcomer. From all the reports I've been getting, the 3.5E books pay more attention to the novice gamer - especially the novice DM.

This can only be construed as a good move, from my point of view.

Cheers!

 

[rounser]

Hmmm, good point Merric. Maybe the combat chapter of the PHB alone will make it all worthwhile....who else had to be aided in getting a clear grasp of 3E combat by the examples on this site and in Dragon magazine? Who has met groups who are still a bit hazy about more than a few of the specifics?

 

[WizarDru]

Hmmm, good point Merric. Maybe the combat chapter of the PHB alone will make it all worthwhile....who else had to be aided in getting a clear grasp of 3E combat by the examples on this site and in Dragon magazine? Who has met groups who are still a bit hazy about more than a few of the specifics?

I went to some site named after some guy named Eric that I found doing a quick search...apparently he had this page that explained AoOs, and it helped explain them to me.

Wonder what ever happened to that guy?

 

[mmu1]

One thing about being a "revenue raiser" - the 3.5 revisions had to be good enough for people to want to buy the revised books.

Actually, the revisions only need to seem pervasive (wanted to say extensive, but they're not that) enough to get people to buy the new books.

In effect, we're getting a lot of changes no one asked for, some changes people did ask for (of varying quality) and still no changes to a lot of things that could have used some re-design.

 

[Gnarlo]

I'm still having to evaluate the situation, but I think its the later , along with the most of the gaming community's responce to the changes, leading to the former. I have spent a 1,000 times more time arguing about the game, than playing the game lately. That just is not fun. [/B]

I would agree it's not as much fun, and would (humbly) suggest doing what helped with EQ a few years back -- avoid all the argument and flame posts. The old official EQ message boards that Sony ran had turned into a flame fest the size of the Arizona blaze, with people constantly arguing over how "you nerfed spell x so that it only lasts 92.5 seconds instead of 96.3 just so that you could get your hands on money for that extra 3.8 seconds; this has totally ruined the game for me and I'll never play it again, you money-grubbing bastards!!!"

Then they shut down the general discussion EQ board. Oh, my, it was the flamefest of all flamefests on all the non-Sony EQ sites, screams of censorship and hiding the problems with the game, and all the other expected accusations.

And then, after about a month, something funny happened. The flames died down, the constant threats and proclamations of "I'm quitting, they'll never get another dime from me!" went away, and you started noticing posts on the boards about how people were having fun playing the game. Lots and lots of posts from that time from people discovering that when they didn't spend every day reading posts about how small change x was going to "ruin the game utterly and destroy the industry" they realized that the complaints that caused pages and pages of flames to sprout were trivial and easily ignored. And this was all in a game where the content and mechanics were handed to you whole and you had no power to simply Rule 0 away anything you didn't like.

Perhaps that would help a lot of folks here. I know that I have grown very burned out on certain topics; I go to a message to see what information is presented on changes so I can work on preparing my game and players, and 9 times out of 10 it turns into a gripe fest over whether change x is the end of the game as we know it or the greatest thing since sliced baatezu. So I'm basically avoiding those threads from now on. Of course, since in a week and a half, I'll have the facts in front of me with a nice shiny cover, it's easier to do

/gnarlo!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Actually, the revisions only need to seem pervasive (wanted to say extensive, but they're not that) enough to get people to buy the new books.

In effect, we're getting a lot of changes no one asked for, some changes people did ask for (of varying quality) and still no changes to a lot of things that could have used some re-design.

To get them to sell they just need to slap the D&D logo on it. Most D&D players seem to have a lust for new D&D books that defies logic.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

And then, after about a month, something funny happened. The flames died down, the constant threats and proclamations of "I'm quitting, they'll never get another dime from me!" went away, and you started noticing posts on the boards about how people were having fun playing the game. Lots and lots of posts from that time from people discovering that when they didn't spend every day reading posts about how small change x was going to "ruin the game utterly and destroy the industry" they realized that the complaints that caused pages and pages of flames to sprout were trivial and easily ignored. And this was all in a game where the content and mechanics were handed to you whole and you had no power to simply Rule 0 away anything you didn't like.

The same thing happened with Star Wars Revised, from what I've seen on those boards.

 

[MerricB]

I went to some site named after some guy named Eric that I found doing a quick search...apparently he had this page that explained AoOs, and it helped explain them to me.

Wonder what ever happened to that guy?

You had to visit Eric's site? I worked it out myself from the books. (With a little help from my previous gaming experience - all 20 odd years of it).

Actually, I didn't realise that people had trouble understanding the AoO rules until I visited Eric's site for the first time.

However, that's not the point. The assumption of WotC has to be that people won't know about ENworld, or be able to use the 'net at all. The books should be complete in themselves - clearly explained and suchlike.

Nor indeed is the clarification of the existing rules enough for the novice gamer - sections on what the game is about and suchlike were also required. Apparently, in 3E, the Adventure Game was meant to be the introduction for newbies, setting forth the roles of the DM and the players.

There is no such introductory game for 3.5E, alas! So, the 3.5E books must be written so that a novice gamer can use them - though not sacrificing the material that makes them useful for us experienced gamers, one hopes.

As an aside, Ed Stark confirmed the non-existence of the introductory game in is mortality.net interview; I posed the question he answered, as the introduction of new players to the game is one of my greatest interests - I was unhappy to learn that the 3.5 Adventure Game was nothing more than a rumour, but I'm quite happy with what I'm hearing about the material aimed at newcomers in the new core books.

Cheers!

 

[Agback]

One thing about being a "revenue raiser" - the 3.5 revisions had to be good enough for people to want to buy the revised books.

Sadly, we have all learned from what supplements do to our game that it is not necessarily the good stuff that sells. People buy material that makes their characters stronger, even if it makes their campaign worse. Competition among the character-players and between them and the monsters drives supplementitis, and once a campaign is infected with it anyone who holds out will go under.

And that's why I play D&D (when I play D&D) by the core books only.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Vocenoctum]

The 1st-to-2nd Ed and 2nd-to-3rd Ed changes were much more widespread and fundamental than the 3rd-to-3.5 ones.


3.5 revisions feel alot more like the release of the Player's Option books for 2e than a release of a whole new edition.

I'd go a step further. When Unearthed Arcana & Dragonlance and the Survival Guides worked their way into out game, we refered to it as "D&D 1 and a half".

People complained to no end of the changes and additions.
(Granted, my knight of solamnia/ cleric of kiri jolith had (2d10+2d8)/2 for HP at 1st level, and we used the max rule back then... and since he was a cavalier he could fight to negatives equal to his starting HP and... well, my brother was a minotaur barbarian, so balance was not a problem

When I ran a pseudo 2nd edition game, I used initiative from 2e, with speed factors and everything, and the diehard 1st edition guys got used to it in the first session. Most of their hatred of 2nd edition was based off of what they heard, and the concept that anything new was bad, and the only reason for the new edition was money.

So, anyway, I'd say both previous editions also had a "half" edition. Unearthed Arcana and such, and the Players Options stuff.

They just didn't call attention to them as much I think.