Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Brother MacLaren]

That doesn't seem to respect the customers: maybe they buy that stuff because they actually enjoy it, not because they're sheep who love shiny things?

I was a sheep who loved the shiny. I bought 2E splatbooks because I was 15 and liked getting new stuff for my game. I bought some 3.5 ones for the game I was running, looking for some new ideas for NPCs and for a way to give the PC fighter-types a bit of a boost.

It was after running a 3.5 campaign, observing the progression of new feats and abilities, the impact of some of those feats, and the evolution of monster defenses, that I just got sick of the arms race. New editions come out not because the original rules were inherently flawed (even though they were), but because those flawed systems have collapsed completely under the weight of the splatbooks.

I was part of the problem. By buying splatbooks, I helped kill 3.5. I'm sorry. I will NEVER buy another splatbook again.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It's not about the money. It's about never having had the chance to use so much of what there was. I was excited about the chance to play an Aristocrat1/WizardX, solving problems with his Knowledge skills or social skills as much as with his spells. I was excited about the chance to play an Aasimar Bard/Paladin with Perform (Dramatic Heroism), Inspiring Courage by drawing his sword and shouting "Villain, prepare to face judgment!" I was excited about the hellreaver PrC from Fiendish Codex II, or the cavalier from Complete Warrior. I got into the habit of looking at classes and PrCs and getting excited about builds. No more. I'm just not going to be interested in new mechanics anymore. I can play a paladin in BECM, and describe the dramatic challenge as how he casts his Bless spell.

I got to play ONE 3.5 character from 1st to 20th level. One for a one-shot at 14th level. No other 3.5 PCs. And I DM'ed a campaign that went from 2nd to 12th.

There is so much from 3.5 that I had wanted to explore. Will the 4E paladin be more fun for my style of gaming than the 3.5 one? Well, not being given enough time to ever play a 3.5 paladin, I'll never know. Same for cleric, rogue, bard, fighter, and, oh yeah, every single PrC. Too bad I'll never get the chance to know if those were cool things or not.

It's like I was inundated with material, much of it that looked really fun, but before I got a chance to try it out, it was taken away. So from now on, I am not going to look for new crunchy material. It will just get taken away again before I have a chance to explore even 5% of it in a game.

Jesus, you "didn't have time" to play 95% of the content? Sorry dude, but us non-elves aren't gonna wait 160 years per edition for you to get to "experience" everything. ;-)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Jesus, you "didn't have time" to play 95% of the content? Sorry dude, but us non-elves aren't gonna wait 160 years per edition for you to get to "experience" everything. ;-)

Hey, you can go on to 4E if you like, whether or not you've gotten to use all of your 3.5 material. I'm just not going along.
If I may ask, how many characters did you get to play in 3.5, and for how many levels? Do you feel that you had enough time to really explore the system?

 

[Agamon]

It's not about the money. It's about never having had the chance to use so much of what there was. I was excited about the chance to play an Aristocrat1/WizardX, solving problems with his Knowledge skills or social skills as much as with his spells. I was excited about the chance to play an Aasimar Bard/Paladin with Perform (Dramatic Heroism), Inspiring Courage by drawing his sword and shouting "Villain, prepare to face judgment!" I was excited about the hellreaver PrC from Fiendish Codex II, or the cavalier from Complete Warrior. I got into the habit of looking at classes and PrCs and getting excited about builds. No more. I'm just not going to be interested in new mechanics anymore. I can play a paladin in BECM, and describe the dramatic challenge as how he casts his Bless spell.

I got to play ONE 3.5 character from 1st to 20th level. One for a one-shot at 14th level. No other 3.5 PCs. And I DM'ed a campaign that went from 2nd to 12th.

There is so much from 3.5 that I had wanted to explore. Will the 4E paladin be more fun for my style of gaming than the 3.5 one? Well, not being given enough time to ever play a 3.5 paladin, I'll never know. Same for cleric, rogue, bard, fighter, and, oh yeah, every single PrC. Too bad I'll never get the chance to know if those were cool things or not.

It's like I was inundated with material, much of it that looked really fun, but before I got a chance to try it out, it was taken away. So from now on, I am not going to look for new crunchy material. It will just get taken away again before I have a chance to explore even 5% of it in a game.

You need to play in my games. In the last two campaigns (RttToEE and AoW), the 6 players have played 67 different PCs. I, for one, am sick of all the variation; I've seen everything. 4E is a good reason to get back to basics, if nothing else.

 

[tenkar]

Hey, you can go on to 4E if you like, whether or not you've gotten to use all of your 3.5 material. I'm just not going along.
If I may ask, how many characters did you get to play in 3.5, and for how many levels? Do you feel that you had enough time to really explore the system?

This is a pointless question as the answer is obvious... with the amount of WotC splats and supplements, let alone 3rd party products, I doubt ANYONE has fully explored 3.5.

I know I haven't... and I certainly never full got use out of all my 2nd edition material.

AD&D 1st edition I probably mined fairly well, but I'm sure I could have played it longer if there hadn't been an AD&D 2e.

So, the question isn't have you really explored 3.5, the real question is: Can I justify moving on to a new edition with the pile of splats, mods, crunch and fluff that I already have for 3.5 (much of which I haven't used)?

There is not enough spare time in my lifetime to use all that I have accumulated during the 3.5 era. I long for simpler times. That may be 4e for me, or C&C, or BFRP or even something I haven't found yet. Currently I feel crushed by the weight of 3.5 (but i have bought alot of 3.5 fluff with the recent sales... fluff is easy to convert

 

[Brother MacLaren]

This is a pointless question as the answer is obvious... with the amount of WotC splats and supplements, let alone 3rd party products, I doubt ANYONE has fully explored 3.5.

True, but I imagine that if I had gotten to play 5 or 6 campaigns, bringing a different PC from 1 to 10+ in each one, I'd feel that I had gotten much more mileage out of my 3.5 material. Not enough to see everything, but enough to decide whether or not it was the system for me. I played in one outstanding campaign, and I DM'ed one campaign that didn't live up to my hopes (more about player group chemistry and player-DM chemistry than about the ruleset).

I never got to experience the resource management challenges of playing a low-level wizard, the fun of the Indiana Jones Bard, the RP challenge of the hellbred paladin... there was a lot I was looking forward to.

 

[Ty]

Not to be a Killjoy Brother, but I'd almost wager going back to basics sometimes is just as enjoyable as trying out the new and untested.

Our group recently adjusted to a new campaign with literally, a first-timer DM due to the other standard DM's having insane work/life schedules. All of us with the exception of 1 newcomer to D&D are grognards. We all basically seem to have agreed not to go too far into prestige classes or strangeness. Instead, each player came up with a concept, ran with it, and has progressively built their character around that concept.

Surprisingly, we haven't used any Prestige Classes by level 6, only one of us has multi-classed, and we all have stayed with feats out of the PHB, PHB II, and the Complete X Series Part One. I have to say, we have had an amazingly successful and probably the most enjoyable campaign we've had in years BECAUSE we're going back to the old basics. We end each session with that same sense of "fun" that the game used to have for us back in our teens and twenties because we've conciously tried to simplify and limit the splat attack.

I guess my point is that I don't think it's the core game that is broken. I think it's the compounding of rules and power creep of the supplements that has caused the game to breakdown to some extent. It also is surprising because this is all being handled quite well by a completely newbie DM. I know this playstyle isn't for everyone but it's made me step back and take stock of what really makes the game fun for my friends and I.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Hey, you can go on to 4E if you like, whether or not you've gotten to use all of your 3.5 material. I'm just not going along.
If I may ask, how many characters did you get to play in 3.5, and for how many levels? Do you feel that you had enough time to really explore the system?

I played probably a half-dozen characters, only a couple of them for more than a few levels. Certainly not all the fun-looking options out there.

Despite that, I'm really looking forward to 4e. Why? Because there are a lot MORE characters that I've always wanted to play, but which were a pain in the butt under core 3e rules. Even base classes like ranger and paladin look a whole lot more appealing now that they're going to have a focused role in the group, while other classes like wizard and cleric might be a lot more fun now that they (hopefully) won't require keeping track of 80 spell slots at high levels.

You mentioned not ever having played a 3e paladin. Let me ask you, then: why did you buy ANY of those 3e/3.5 supplements before you'd played through all the appealing combinations of the core classes? I'm gonna guess it's because some of the stuff in the supplements looked EVEN MORE appealing. That's why I'm psyched about 4e: hopefully, it'll be even more fun than playing 3.5 with the requisite stack of supplements to make it semi-balanced, and it'll be a lot cheaper!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

You mentioned not ever having played a 3e paladin. Let me ask you, then: why did you buy ANY of those 3e/3.5 supplements before you'd played through all the appealing combinations of the core classes?

Two reasons: 1) my friends had just opened a gaming store, and 2) I was looking for some ideas for the campaign I was running (not the one I was playing in). I bought CW and CAdv because I was worried the PC fighter-types would fall behind without those (with them, they were utterly dominating); I bought CDiv, CArc, BoVD and FCII for the bad guys. The campaign I was a player in had started much earlier, and I hadn't bought the books at that time because I as a player was quite happy with the core rules. I eventually used 2 things from CDiv for my druid (Rapid Spell and Mass Resist Energy) and, yeah, I felt kind of dirty about it. Like the druid needs more power. I never even glanced at the SC list for druid spells...

To a lesser extent, I was academically interested in seeing how WotC was using these books to patch various multiclassing flaws (such as Practiced Spellcaster and some of the CAdv feats). I was really hoping that these books would fix everything and give 3.5 a nice long life -- the warlock class certainly provided an option for those who hated Vancian magic, while leaving the wizard for those of us who loved it. Then I realized how much of a mess these books made things (Shock Trooper/Leap Attack, those orb spells, Arcane Mastery, etc.), and I decided to NOT buy any additional splatbooks.

And Ty, I think you're exactly right on simplifying things. The only games I'll play in the future are core-only 3.5 or BECM (either one house-ruled as the DMs see fit, of course).

 

[JohnSnow]

That's fair enough Brother Maclaren, but I think we come at this from two different perspectives. I certainly understand the belief that there's a lot more playing left in 3rd Edition. On the other hand, I never expected any number of supplements to prevent there from being a new edition.

Could I have waited another couple years? Sure, I guess. But I was houseruling the hell out of 3e already, and in 2 more years, I'd hardly be playing something recognizable as 3e. It'd still be d20, I'm sure, but I was already looking at Iron Heroes over D&D. And even that was getting some houseruling.

So I guess I'm just ready for a new edition, even though I haven't exhausted the possibilities of the old one. But that's always going to be the case. However, I understand people who decide that they like 3e and decide to jump off the "edition treadmill" here. It happens with every edition of the game. Some of them may eventually come back, and some may not. diaglo, for example, jumped off the edition treadmill LONG ago: he still plays OD&D.

Just curiously, I keep seeing people mention "BECM." At first I thought it was a typo of the shorthand for "Big Eyes, Small Mouth," but I'm now pretty sure that isn't the case. Is it an abbreviation for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master D&D? In other words, it's the stuff that was republished in the Rules Compendium.