Has 3.5E "failed"?

[Cannibal_Kender]

Nobody in my group seems to be very interested in shelling out the money for 3.5 books. If we want to see the differences we can just look at the SRD.

 

[Ranes]

Didn't I read a news item on this very site a while ago that reported Amazon listing the 3.5 core books among its top ten bestsellers of 2003?

If that's the case, and 3.5 is a failure, it's time to sell your shares in Amazon.

 

[Pants]

Forget the Newbie, when I started 3e, I had 15+ years experience, and it still seemed pretty badly laid out for teaching the rules. I mean, the d20 mechanic isn't hard, but an explanation of it should have come pretty early I think.

Damn straight. With 3.5 I'm finally running combat correctly.

 

[Psiblade]

Regarding the upgrade from from 3.0 to 3.5, our group has all purchased new 3.5 books. Most of the RPGA players that I know have also purchased 3.5. I would definitely state that the revision is successful based on sales.

-Psiblade

 

[Vocenoctum]

I think selling the D&D brand would be VERY VERY GOOD news. You might then have someone in charge of the brand that cares about it and the players instead of a corporate behemoth that only cares about wring every last penny from the name that they can in the short term, long term be damned.

It could be, but it could also kill the game for several months, or a year or more. Shadowrun (IMO) never really recovered from the Fanpro switch. Sure, there should be something more to a D&D buyout, but it's no sure thing.

Besides, regardless of content, I think the 3.5 books really are better crafted then earlier stuff.

 

[DWARF]

Me, I'm waiting for 4th edition...

 

[Treebore]

For the record I was considered a "3.5 hater", however that was a misnomer. I was, and am, a hater of WOTC/Hasbro marketing to the RPG market. But that was easy to resolve, I didn't buy anything that would give WOTC profit until I had a legitimate need to buy the 3.5 Rulebooks.

Another thought, my 1e AND 2e books are still useable/solid. Why did the spine on my 3.0 books start splitting after a couple of years of heavy use?
Don't use the heavier use excuse, I used my 1e and 2e books a whole lot more. For years longer.

 

[Eldragon]

I would say that 3.5 was a failure. Regardless of my opinon of 3.5 (which I will get into later) Here is how I came to my decision:

3.5 was intended to improve the rules, to clarify confusion, fix typos, and remove loop-holes. The 3.5 FAQ is now 24 pages long. Only a few pages short of 3.0. Many of the typos that were in 3.0 carried over into 3.5. 3.5 even managed to introduce some new ones.

I can't justify spending $90 on 3 new books that have just as many problems as the original. Yes, 3.5 fixed a lot of problems, but far from all of them. 3.5 also managed to "fix" a lot of things that were not, IMHO, broken.

I could look past the rules changes I don't like if 3.5 was flawless (or at least a lot closer).

Now I play 3.0 (along with the rest of my gaming group). I simply stopped buying new books at this point. Most of what WotC introduces as something "new" for 3.5, is just a reprint of 3.0 content. Lucky for me (and unlucky for WotC) many people feel like I do, and I can expect to find 3.0 gamers for years to come.

 

[Pramas]

WotC doesn't share their sales numbers so there's only one way to know for sure. If D&D 4th edition comes out in 2005, the answer is yes.

 

[Scorpio]

Playing Devil's Advocate, consider the economical climate when they were released...bad timing, IMHO...

But was 3.5 necessary? Not that I can see, but it does help to sell miniatures...