3e and the Test of Time

[Malic]

Will 3.x players feel a similar attachment to their OOP product 25 years from now?

Given how keen most 3.0 players were to immediately 'upgrade' to 3.5, I am sceptical...

Maybe. Maybe not. Some of the campign settings and stuff, some of the great 3rd party products, perhaps. But really, why do we care?

I submit that it is much more important from the point of view of survival and growth of the hobby that new players take it up and stick with it, whether they change systems in the future or not. In all probability most people will drop 3.x for the latest, best supported, most popular system in however many years time. But this will be good for the industry as the $ flow will keep the publishers going.

Now BelenUmeria's concern, as I read it, was that due to the drier, crunchier style of the core rulebooks, many new gamers would drop out in the near future.

Gamism sells books, but I do not believe that it will turn the newer players into lifelong gamers, which is why I think the auidence is graying for DnD. Very few people understand the kernal that makes DnD great.

I don't see this at all. There is plenty of inspirational stuff out there, and thanks to the SRD there is a wider range than ever. Even setting that aside, why on earth would you assume 'gamist' players will quit? There are plenty of people who stay devoted to, for example, wargaming. It might not be the style of play that you or I might like, but that's no reason to say they're not 'real' gamers or they won't last.

(BTW, I never played 2nd ed because I had played several other RPGs by the time I came across it, but I have read a dozen or so of the books. Ignoring the rules system (which did not appeal), though there was much more 'fluff' in the books I read, the style and flavour did not appeal to me at all. That was a big turnoff. With 3rd ed, it is clear that almost any style of game can be played with it, which is one of the big attractions for me.)

Finally, I agree 100% with Ankh-Morpork Guard's rant. I think we can tend to be condescending towards newer/different styles. New players don't understand 'real' fantasy or 'real' D&D, dungeonpunk and anime are momentary fashions that have no place in the game, attracting 'gamist' players will kill the hobby. New players have to like what we like or the game will die. Come on!

PS. How gamist/hack-and-slash were we when we first started playing? Give the new people attracted by 3e some time!

 

[Akrasia]

... Finally, I agree 100% with Ankh-Morpork Guard's rant. I think we can tend to be condescending towards newer/different styles. New players don't understand 'real' fantasy or 'real' D&D, dungeonpunk and anime are momentary fashions that have no place in the game, attracting 'gamist' players will kill the hobby. New players have to like what we like or the game will die. Come on! ...

I am sure that 'multicultural perspectives on x' will get many more undergraduates excited than a course on Plato or Aristotle.

That should not stop me from pointing out that Plato and Aristotle are better reads than the pop culture crap that the kids want.

Just because people want something does not mean that it is good for them. Americans are the fattest people on earth because they eat whatever they want...

I sound old.... and bitter ...

But you are right, in that there are many segments to the market, and some are anime/dungeonpunk, and others are not.

[Tongue firmly planted in cheek in this post btw..]

 

[Orius]

ILastly, although I own 3.5 editions of the big three rulebooks, I'm just not in the mood to re-buy every new thing that they're re-releasing (like COMPLETE ARCANE to sort-of-replace TOME AND BLOOD, etc.), so now I'm soured on the whole D&D-product-buying experience (although I still pick up a lot of third-party stuff).

That irritates me about 3.5 as well, the whole upgrade and rerelease of the earlier splatbooks.

 

[Orius]

Has anyone else just plain HAD IT with all these condescending attitudes towards people that play ANY other edition?!

Dude, switch to decaf.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Dude, switch to decaf.

I don't drink coffee.

 

[Orius]

Contrary to what people around here might think, 1E still has a pretty large and devoted following. I am constantly amazed at how many people still play 1E.

Old habits die hard you know. But then you constantly remind us how much you like the old RC (you're almost as bad as diaglo sometimes ), so I don't see why it's so surprising. And I'm not being critical here, the RC was a great product, but I probably wouldn't use it for my games. I like the current rules better than Basic D&D.

Will 3.x players feel a similar attachment to their OOP product 25 years from now?

Given how keen most 3.0 players were to immediately 'upgrade' to 3.5, I am sceptical...

Depends on what D&D is like in 25 years I guess. Too much dungeonpunk anime might very well keep me away. But it might look like something completely different.

As for "upgrading" to 3.5, well many of the changes seemed to have been fixes a lot of players wanted anyway, or popular house rules. I know a lot of people gave bards 6 skill points per level in 3.0, for example. There was sone stuff like changing miniatures to all squares that seemed fairly irrelevant. The DR changes don't really bother me too much, because well, I simply like it.

 

[Akrasia]

... (you're almost as bad as diaglo sometimes ) ...

Really, was that kind of personal attack necessary?

 

[Turjan]

Really, was that kind of personal attack necessary?

Really, this was completely unfounded. You use a lot more words than diaglo !

j/k

 

[Shard O'Glase]

The strong likelihood is that 4E will be to 3.5E what 3.5E was to 3E.

That is, a fixing of elements of the game that couldn't be addressed in 3.5e (Turn Undead, Metamagic, etc.), but leaving the core mechanics of the game pretty much unchanged.

Has oD&D stood the test of time? Absolutely. It is with us today... as 3.5e

Cheers!

Hopefully they fix 1/2 the things they "fixed" when they broke them with there changes from 3e to 3.5

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I am sure that 'multicultural perspectives on x' will get many more undergraduates excited than a course on Plato or Aristotle.

That should not stop me from pointing out that Plato and Aristotle are better reads than the pop culture crap that the kids want.

I've read both plato and aristotle, "the bard", and homer and ehh. Its only good because every teacher tells you its good. Seriously yeah the long deads words are all inspiring and stuff but sometimes living people and recently dead people can produce something just as good.