I'm done with 3.5

[RFisher]

So, in effect, you're not really "done". You're taking a long-term hiatus.

Duh! (^_^) It's like "farewell performance". It doesn't really mean its absolute face-value.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar,

I actually agree with you Re: the amount of support for 3.X.

That said, "All you have to do is run it" is not nearly as good a tagline as "Products of Your Imagination". (emphasis mine)

 

[SavageRobby]

That wouldn't bother me so much if they were any other RPG publisher, because almost all those customers would find their way to another company. But many (if not most) of the new-to-RPGs crowd is going to first encounter D&D & are much less likely to seek or find an alternative if it completely turns them off.

This is what worries me about the hobby and the future of it. Wizards is such a huge force in the industry, and so many game stores I've been carry almost exclusively 3x RPGs (if they carry RPGs at all anymore), that to a new-to-RPGer, it would definitely seem as if they're the only game in town. And if they don't like the complexity, what do they do then? Especially when a) stores don't carry much of an alternative (for good reason; they need to stock what sells), and b) most other players around (especially the vocal ones) play only 3x.

I know the fanboys are going to stomp around and claim 3x isn't complex, or that we're not intelligent, or some other garbage. Go stomp somewhere else. Perhaps GURPS and Hero are more complicated - perhaps - but my gaming group, composed of professional programmers, master gardeners and business executives (not a dull penny in the lot) all thought the system was overly complex (even with just the core books), and that our gaming nights would get a lot more mileage from a more elegant, less rules-heavy system (which we've switched to). We wanted to focus on the fun, not a million little rules and subsystems and number crunching. And our perception of the game is shared by many. While you might not find it that way, a large number of other folks do, that is a problem if people new to RPGs feel the same way, and don't have some other viable choice sitting on the shelves.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

This is what worries me about the hobby and the future of it. Wizards is such a huge force in the industry, and so many game stores I've been carry almost exclusively 3x RPGs (if they carry RPGs at all anymore), that to a new-to-RPGer, it would definitely seem as if they're the only game in town. And if they don't like the complexity, what do they do then? Especially when a) stores don't carry much of an alternative (for good reason; they need to stock what sells), and b) most other players around (especially the vocal ones) play only 3x.

I know the fanboys are going to stomp around and claim 3x isn't complex, or that we're not intelligent, or some other garbage. Go stomp somewhere else. Perhaps GURPS and Hero are more complicated - perhaps - but my gaming group, composed of professional programmers, master gardeners and business executives (not a dull penny in the lot) all thought the system was overly complex (even with just the core books), and that our gaming nights would get a lot more mileage from a more elegant, less rules-heavy system (which we've switched to). We wanted to focus on the fun, not a million little rules and subsystems and number crunching. And our perception of the game is shared by many. While you might not find it that way, a large number of other folks do, that is a problem if people new to RPGs feel the same way, and don't have some other viable choice sitting on the shelves.

I'd just like to add a QFT to this reply. As one who came from earlier editions of the game to 3.x I found it just wasn't D&D and fun for me and my group. We had the advantage to go back to an earlier system. I worry for newer players that didn't have that opportunity and if they find out 3.x is not for them they quit without finding out what else is out there.

 

[Hussar]

(Not to mention that I haven't seen that many modules for which I would claim every encounter was fully vetted. (^_^))

Sorry, I meant that *I*[/] had vetted the encounters. Since I run over OpenRPG, I do up a quick code line for every likely attack a creature will make. That means I have to take a look at the most likely attacks a creature will make and any large glaring errors tend to jump out at that time. Sure, a +1 here or there might get missed and I can honestly say I couldn't care less. But, having vetted lots and lots of encounters, I'm fairly confident in my ability to spot numbers that are off, like allowing someone with a whip-dagger to gain x2 damage bonuses to power attack. (one that jumped out at me from a module a while ago)

*snip*

I know the fanboys are going to stomp around and claim 3x isn't complex, or that we're not intelligent, or some other garbage. Go stomp somewhere else. Perhaps GURPS and Hero are more complicated - perhaps - but my gaming group, composed of professional programmers, master gardeners and business executives (not a dull penny in the lot) all thought the system was overly complex (even with just the core books), and that our gaming nights would get a lot more mileage from a more elegant, less rules-heavy system (which we've switched to). We wanted to focus on the fun, not a million little rules and subsystems and number crunching. And our perception of the game is shared by many. While you might not find it that way, a large number of other folks do, that is a problem if people new to RPGs feel the same way, and don't have some other viable choice sitting on the shelves.

It's not a fanboy thing though. There simply aren't that many sub systems. You can have some fairly serious complexity, I'll agree with that, but, the actual number of different systems you have to deal with are fairly small. You use pretty much the same mechanic - d20+x vs target number - for nearly every action.

Now, I freely support anyone's idea that if a game doesn't meet their needs, they should change games. That's the single best advice anyone can give. But that doesn't mean that the system is bad. Simply bad for you.

D&D, for all its wrinkles simply isn't that difficult. Try Traveler character generation sometime. See how long it takes to make a character in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Heck, even Vampire isn't exactly light. Are there easier choices out there? Yup. But, to say that D&D is on the high end of the complexity spectrum ignores an awful lot of games out there. D&D, even with splat books, doesn't necessarily get that much more complicated.

Going back to the Basic/Advanced model for a second.

Sure, you're right, you get those who want D&D Lite and Heavy (for lack of better terms). And, if you provide both, you appeal to more people. How many more people, we don't know, but, we'll say, for the sake of arguement, more people.

So, you crank out a Lite Set and a Heavy Set. We'll say that they sell about equally well. Good for us right? Not really. Selling twice as many books doesn't equal twice as much money if you have to put out more titles. It's always better to sell one book than two, unless two books are going to massively outsell one. With your Venn diagram, you get a bunch who will buy heavy, some who will buy heavy because there is no other choice, and those who will never buy heavy. In other words, more than half the potential buyers will buy a single choice if only one is provided.

It comes down to economics. Selling one title to 51% of the market is better than selling 2 titles to 100% simply because of economies of scale and other costs. The kind of thing RFisher is advocating is one of the main mismanagements that sunk TSR.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

That's what I intend to do in fact. I have no desire to get rid of my 3.5 books. I just want a different experience. That's all.

I did exactly this going back to 2e and RC. I ended up eBaying by core books because I realized we'd never go back. My son has my old 3.0 core books and if for some unseen reason I want to play(not run) 3.x again I've got the SRD and the 3.0 core rules to do it. But I really don't see that happening because for d20 we preferred our AE pdfs and would likely play that.

 

[chobin foot]

If there's economies of scale, why aren't WotC's titles less expensive & more innovative than other publisher's products? Why doesn't WotC consistently deliver more for less?

Fracturing the player base would be an issue... but what about the 3.0 versus 3.5 thing? That was sure fun.

Some people think that 3.5 is the best RPG to play for them, for any number of reasons. Some people have definitely found other ways to scratch the itch.

Ultimately, it's a matter of taste. Everyone doesn't have to love 3.5/the miniatures-based game. The industry is much better off if there are many solid contributors to the hobby. You know, the whole economics argument.

Wizards aren't the only fish in the pond, and many people feel like other companies do D20 better than 3.5, not just the roleplaying thing in general. Maybe Hasbro & Wizards own the D&D IP at this point, but that's not enough reason to support them versus anyone else.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wizards aren't the only fish in the pond, and many people feel like other companies do D20 better than 3.5, not just the roleplaying thing in general. Maybe Hasbro & Wizards own the D&D IP at this point, but that's not enough reason to support them versus anyone else.

QFT.

 

[Hussar]

If there's economies of scale, why aren't WotC's titles less expensive & more innovative than other publisher's products? Why doesn't WotC consistently deliver more for less?

Sorry, but, which publisher has 200 ish page hardcovers in full color for about 35 bucks US? Other than WOTC of course.

On the innovation front - just to pick one - which company brought us the new format for modules? Other companies have been doing modules for years. Yet, the format of those modules hasn't changed significantly ever. Like it or not, at least WOTC has attempted to break out of the standard mold for presenting modules.

That's of course, ignoring books like Tome of Magic, Book of 9 Swords, Unearthed Arcana, and probably a dozen other books that I can't think of right now.

You can poke WOTC for a lot of things, but, lack of production values and lack of innovation aren't really one of them.

Fracturing the player base would be an issue... but what about the 3.0 versus 3.5 thing? That was sure fun.

Replacing one product with another is not fracturing the consumer base. If they had continued to support 3e as well as 3.5, then you would be splitting your consumer base. However, replacing a product with another one does not.

Ultimately, it's a matter of taste. Everyone doesn't have to love 3.5/the miniatures-based game. The industry is much better off if there are many solid contributors to the hobby. You know, the whole economics argument.

There's the rub isn't it. That whole "solid" contributers thing. How come people don't point at all the crap that came out in the early days of D20 as a massive turn off to new gamers? We've now managed to winnow the field down to some pretty solid producers, but, IMO, the hobby simply isn't big enough to support numerous contributers.

Wizards aren't the only fish in the pond, and many people feel like other companies do D20 better than 3.5, not just the roleplaying thing in general. Maybe Hasbro & Wizards own the D&D IP at this point, but that's not enough reason to support them versus anyone else.

And that's more than fair. I have my own shelves with d20 books on them as well and think that there are some solid books out there. And that's the point. Not liking 3.5 D&D is perfectly fine. Moving on to another game that better suits your needs is bloody fantastic.

But, again, that doesn't make 3.5 D&D a "3.5/the miniatures-based game". It means that it doesn't appeal to you and probably for that reason. However, there are numerous posters on this board that talk about not needing minis to play, just to use that example.

I believe it was Crothian who said that it's a big shock to realize that you are no longer the target audience of the game. Or something to that effect. That doesn't mean that the game has changed or that it's become bad or anything else. It simply means that you are not enjoying it now. Fantastic. No one said it should be forever. Move on to something that does float your boat.

 

[jdrakeh]

Note the exception there - prepublished adventures. There are hundreds, if not thousands of licensed D&D adventures.

I think that you're exaggerating those numbers a lot. To the best of my knowledge, officially licensed D&D adventures are few and far between. I think you're failing to draw a distinction between d20 System products and D&D products. These are two different things. Excluding Paizo, I think that there are fewer than 100 licensed D&D 3.5 adventures out there (though in fairness, that's probably a bit more that there are for any other system). Even so, the thing is, adventures only alleviate the work for GMs who don't want to run their own campaigns/adventures.

Need NPC's? NPC Wiki serves you up nice. Need a monster? There's at least 4000 monsters for 3.5 edition published. Need a map? WOTC site has a couple of hundred maps for free.

Well, barring the NPC wiki (which is a fan-created thing, not an official D&D product), you do have a point where maps and monsters are concerned. That said, it has been my experience that simply having books of monsters and or maps available doesn't mean that they magically insert themselves into my games. That all requires prep work (and, again IME, that kind of prep work in D&D 3.5 is very time-consuming).

I know that when I ran my World's Largest Dungeon game, I went six months without doing a minute's prep work.

Except for ten hours of cutting and pasting from PDF documents to make the information that you had easily useable, right? See, for me, that more than qualifies as prep work. And I don't have to do that with a great many other games that I own.

Show me a game that I can run fully prepped for six months without doing any work.

You first. Your examples thus far have be disingenuine.