D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 is the REAL reason everyone is angry

[Tewligan]

A better analogy would be if Apple released a new OS completely different than OSX and made both versions incompatible with each other.

WITH NO WARNING.

Is "with no warning" some sort of slang for "almost a year's notice"?

 

[Brian Compton]

I can't really see why you wouldn't be able to convert anything from any edition into any other edition, even if the mechanics are completely different. People were converting adventures from Villains and Vigilantes to Champions and vice versa and the systems were completely incompatible.

Or are adventures just the number crunching and not the plots, NPC characterizations, and ideas?

That's a bit of a rhetorical question but I submit that conversion is always possible. The question is how time-consuming the conversion is, not whether it can be done.

Sure you could convert the story, but depending on how much crunchy material is involved in the plot, what would the point be? You could spend as much time writing your own adventure and that would be free. Look at an adventure like Ravenloft. The number of encounters, monsters, and NPC's that would have to be converted into the new system would be a nightmare, and that assumes that 1-to-1 conversions are possible. At least in going from 2E to 3E WotC made an attempt to offer players guidelines for changing characters over to the new system.

When someone buys an adventure to run, it's with one of two goals (or both) in mind:

1)Involving players in an iconic experience, such as plumbing the depths of Castle Greyhawk
or affecting the direction of an entire world; or

2)Saving time by having the number-crunching, plot-planning, and other details already taken care of, so that adjustments would be minor and likely not involving numeric or rules-centric issues.

The vast majority of pre-fab adventures are written with goal 2 in mind. Having to convert to a new system, unless it's a matter of simple substitution, would negate the purpose and thus lead to less sales.

 

[The Souljourner]

It's about people who like the game so much that they care about what it is and becomes, and want to keep up with it while having some difficulties rationalizing the expense, or energy, necessary for so doing. It hurts when you feel left behind, and some people feel that way. Ergo, it's not about reason, it's about feelings. Respect that, please, mate.

I have the utmost respect for people's love of the game, please don't get me wrong. I love the game as much as anyone... from when I was 12 and first opened second hand books, to now when I have bookshelves full of D&D books I bought with my own money. I think it's great that D&D is so loved that Wizards' site and ENWorld both went down due to the massive number of people trying to get any information they can about a new version of the game.

However, there is no "left behind". The new version was going to come out at some point, everyone had to expect that. Whether it was next year or 5 years from now, it would still be disruptive. And backwards compatibility is way overrated. PCs can almost always be re-envisioned in a new system, and modules can be converted - isn't it the plot and locations that are so much more important than the stats on the specific monster in room 203b? I've run basic D&D and 1e D&D adventures in 3e while doing most conversions on the fly. An orc is still an orc, after all, and generally only major NPCs need customization that couldn't just be whipped up on the spot.

It's fine if you don't have that problem, but don't belittle people who're trying to express their own love for the game.

It's not the love that bothers me, it's the unfounded rancor aimed at WoTC.

-Nate

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I will note that looking up these quotes have convinced me that the "D&D eXperience" is a bad name for the convention.

Indeed. It should have been DraconomiCon

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

At least that is what still sticks in MY craw. If there hadn't been -that- revision, which amounted to utterly miniscule changes just three years ago, then I would be much more amenable to the idea of 4th edition. The release of 3.5 not only reeked of profit over common sense (let alone neccessity) but also all but destroyed some 3rd party publishers.

I'd be interested in knowing how in this case common sense and profit were mutually exclusive.

[Extended rant deleted - it would only lead to a flamewar. Not that the above isn't fuel enough.]

 

[wingsandsword]

Star Wars revised didn't stop people from guzzling down SW Saga like it was the finest of fortified wines.

Significant difference there because of settings.

Star Wars had never had any substantial official coverage of Episode III. The RCR was essentially an Episode II tie-in product, and aside from some web articles nothing for the Clone Wars or Episode III was ever made before SWSE.

Every Star Wars RPG made before had the problem that it was lacking large portions of the setting that George Lucas had not revealed yet. The original d6 RPG was intentionally very vague about the rise of the Empire and the latter days of the Republic because Lucasfilm made them keep it vague. The d20 Original Core Rules had a big gulf from the time of the Battle of Naboo to not long before the Battle of Yavin. RCR had a similar gap between the outbreak of the Clone Wars and Yavin.

Star Wars Saga Edition is the first Star Wars RPG (in the 20 year history of SW RPG's, since the original d6 one came out 20 years ago) to actually cover all the core movies of Star Wars and not have any large, intentional gaps in the coverage of the setting.

Thus, a new edition of the core rules to take into account the entire setting, including ways the setting was changed (or our perceptions of it) by the last movie is warranted.

D&D and Star Wars are not the same in this regard with new editions. Star Wars could justify a new edition because of changes in the source material that the game is to represent, D&D doesn't have that reason for a new edition.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

If I played those games and needed to buy new sets of core books to play the game, I'd have a problem with it.

Good thing that you don't. Same applies to any current or former edition of D&D. You do NOT have to buy any FUTURE products to continue to play the game. It's not an arcade machine that requires the continued feeding of quarters to continue to play. It's an opportunity to play a newer, different, hopefully improved version. Buy it if you want. Continue to play what you have if you don't.

Furthermore, it is somewhat excusable for smaller gaming companies to do this as a means of survival, but Wizards isn't a small gaming company. They spent two years churning out splatbooks for classes and such that they knew would be obsolete within months.

So would you require 2 years of advance notice during which time WotC sold NOTHING for D&D because "It'll just be obsolete within 2 years anyway..."? Please...

If Monte Cook, who wrote the DMG, didn't agree with 3.5, in other words, if the game's original designers didn't suggest it, then who did?

If memory serves, you will find that Monte simply noted that there was objection within WotC to release 2.5 AHEAD of schedule. 3.5 was PLANNED as part and parcel of 3.0. It was INEVITABLE and they were smart enough to plan that far ahead for it. However, the "timetable" was being rushed in some opinions. THAT was the objection from within.

My Bill Gates comment is only half in jest... the best publishers, like Necromancer, make no bones about the fact that they really don't turn a profit and I don't think thats a coincidence.

Yes, it is. At best it is immeasurably subjective. At worst it shows only that Necromancer, as a business, is a HOBBY for those who run it, not a real business. It also shows that it is privately held so they can do what they like. Publicly held companies, like WotC, are indeed businesses and have obligations to people OTHER than themselves. They also clearly exist as a business, even if their product is hobbies and games. That means that somewhere there are shareholders expecting profits. Failure to produce those profits would mean that eventually WotC would be killed off as an UNPRODUCTIVE endeavor.

Remember the company called TSR? Remember how WotC came in after TSR went BANKRUPT and put D&D on a paying basis so that it could even CONTINUE TO EXIST as a hobby, much less an expanding business (wherein a "not-for-profit" enterprise like Necromancer could eventually come to life because of the mere POSSIBILITY of profit/breaking even?).

As long as people at WOTC who likely don't even play the game are making decisions based purely off of market data, the game will get worse and worse. Please don't feel the need to inform me that "of course profit drives the game" because I am aware of that. I just don't see it as healthy to the quality of the game.

It was WotC's market research that helped retrieve D&D as a game from the slow-flushing toilet into which it had been thrown. TSR hadn't ever done market research and it was a key element in why they mismanaged the brand, the company, and nearly the game itself into oblivion. WotC saved it ONLY because they were convinced that D&D could be profitable. They then did that offensive thing called market research to learn how best to do that, to understand how we play the game, why we play it, what we liked/disliked about it, and so forth. Then they made a new version of the game good enough to not just profit themselves, but to create a worthwhile market for other game companies to profit as well.

 

[Gargauth]

I'd be interested in knowing how in this case common sense and profit were mutually exclusive.

[Extended rant deleted - it would only lead to a flamewar. Not that the above isn't fuel enough.]

It wasn't an attempt at a flame war at all, which I think is evidenced by the four pages of the lack thereof. To answer your question, I believe in every fiber of my being that WotC published the 3.5 revision because selling core rulebooks is the surefire way to sell more books. While inviting 3rd party publishers to buy wholesale into 3E, they don't seem to have considered at all the damage that 3.5 would have on those same publishers and their products. Now maybe Hasbro pressured them. Maybe they had no choice. I have no idea and I'm not saying they are evil or corrupt or any of those things. I am merely saying that it cost them some amount of trust, at least in my case and I think in others as well. What I can guarantee you is that there would be much much less rancor over the release of 4th Editon if there hadn't been the 3.5 revision, and for that reason alone it seems it was a bad idea. I would point out that Scott Rouse, from WotC posting on their boards "there will be NO 4.5" is evidence that they know it was a screwup from a customer relations standpoint.

I'm editing this because I have just read your last post which wasn't present while I was posting what I have written above. While you obviously don't agree with me (and I think you make some good points by the way) I find your tone insulting and I don't enjoy my ideas, which I spent a long time thinking about, phrasing, and then typing up being followed by dismissive phrases such as "please"... lets just disagree and move on.

 

[thulsadoomson]

I've seen in some posts that people claim 4e will make 3.5 obsolete. I just don't get this. 3.5 will only be obsolete if you make it so. There is enough 3.5 material available to keep gaming for years. Heck, I know people that still play first edition and never made the switch to any of the following versions. The material is out there, it is just up to the DM to make the most of it.

 

[RFisher]

What NEEDS to be done and what IS done are not necessarily the same thing.

Yes.

Let me put it this way.

We all recognize that D&D isn't Wizards bread & butter. We all know that a product can continue to generate a positive net for decades without major changes. Therefore, the idea that new editions are not inevitable is not unreasonable. That Wizards is a for-profit organization is not a refutation of that idea.

Yes, they have the right to do with it as they wish. Yes, there may be good reasons to do as they are. Yes, they may indeed know better than us what the best thing to do is. (Or not.) But "for profit" does not refute the suggestion that a new editions are not inevitable.

And, let's face it, how many people are still using 2E out there today?

Actually, that's a very good question. I've known gamers who are always keeping up with what's happening, whether it's compulsively buying everything or just keeping tabs & judiciously moving their own games forward so as not too be very far out-of-date.

I also know gamers who are the types who could still not know there was a 3e even though 4e is on the way. Not only were they not sitting there waiting to participate in crashing the Wizards site with us, they probably have never seen the Wizards web site. They're content to just chug along with the games they have. They may be interested in new stuff, but someone has to very actively tell them about it or they won't ever know.

I'm not sure that I can say for sure that one group is bigger than the other.