Is it time to put the "A" back before D&D?

[Shade]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and it really is a non-issue. I've just noticed that in the past year to two, the books have largely shifted focus. We've got new, lengthier monster, class, prestige class, spell, and magic item formats. The books contain more sample NPCs, sample lairs, sample encounters, predesigned treasure troves, and so on than they did before. They also contain less of all the items listed above as a result of this process.

Take for example the Player's Handbook II. I love this book. However, I'm only using about 4 of the chapters of material (classes, feats, spells, retraining). With the MMIV, I will not be using the MM races with class levels tacked on, the sample encounters, the predesigned treasures, etc.

I don't believe these books should cater to me or my style, but they have definitely changed. Some view the change for the better, some for the worse, but the change is most certainly there.

Regarding the possibility that most ground has been covered and we are getting experimental products as a result of that, I can agree to some extent. Books like Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and Weapons of Legacy fit the bill. But on the other hand, there are easily enough monsters, feats, spells, and magic items to fill several more books on each topic alone.

Many folks have theorizied that the books are shifting focus to help new people enter the game. This seems like strange timing, if you believe that 4E is right around the corner. Wouldn't the launch of a new edition be the best time to attract new gamers, not when the current edition is waning?

 

[Gentlegamer]

I believe a sliding level of complexity within the rules would be a good thing. Players could choose which "level" of D&D to use, and each would be compatibile with the other. Perhaps instead of different products, rules that belong to each level could be identified in the core rulebooks so if you're using basic, don't use the rules marked "advanced" and so on.

For example, the basic level would have fewer classes, and a "simpler" way of handling skills and feats. The miniatures based combat with AoP wouldn't be part of this level. Perhaps no multiclassing.

In fact, if the different rules within each level were made modular, players could add and subtract which rules subsystems they wanted to get the level of game they want without extensive house rules. Some players would prefer not to use the tactical miniatures combat, for example (this would mean several feats and some class abilities would need to be made less important/changed because the core game presently integrates tactical considerations throughout the rules and character classes).

Since the mantra of the d20 system is choices, I think this kind of thing would fit right in.

 

[atom crash]

Regarding the possibility that most ground has been covered and we are getting experimental products as a result of that, I can agree to some extent. Books like Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and Weapons of Legacy fit the bill. But on the other hand, there are easily enough monsters, feats, spells, and magic items to fill several more books on each topic alone.

Many folks have theorizied that the books are shifting focus to help new people enter the game. This seems like strange timing, if you believe that 4E is right around the corner. Wouldn't the launch of a new edition be the best time to attract new gamers, not when the current edition is waning?

I don't really see it as the current edition waning. When the new edition was launched, the first few books were on broad topics that offered a wide range of subjects but very little depth on any one subject. What we're seeing now are narrower topics with more depth to each one.

All the big topics have been covered pretty thoroughly. You don't need a 4-page write-up about how to work orcs into your campaign, since they are part of the core game. But it's nice to see that treatment of a new prestige class, a new monster type, etc. whose function within the campaign may not be readily apparent.

 

[Umbran]

I may be overreacting, but the threads in the past few months seems to indicate that the market is badly fractured.

Yes, well, yet another form of the game isn't going to help with that.

 

[Sejs]

They took the A off for a very good reason.

It served to alienate new players. That was bad for business.

I can't see it coming back.

 

[diaglo]

Do you think this is a realistic possiblity?

i'm against bringing the A back. but i was against its creation.

 

[Scribble]

A for Awesome.

Awesome Dungeons and Dragons.


Word.

 

[lukelightning]

God no. We get enough disagreement from 3.0 vs. 3.5 (and vs. 1ed, etc.). Making a new AD&D would just fill the boards with more arguement and confusion.

 

[cildarith]

From a marketing and financial perspective, I don't think we'll ever see Wizards go down that road like TSR did. They've learned from history that fragmenting the audience is a bad thing. It'll also lead to brand confusion and a sense that one product is for "superior" players. We've already got enough players applying that label to themselves without official support.

This is kind of like the chicken and egg dilema, isn't it? Do products fracture the market or does the market fracture on its own and products are put out to cater to the fragments that aren't happy with the status quo?

I doubt such a thing will happen, however...

 

[gizmo33]

I wonder if it would be feasible at some point to once again offer two different versions of the game,

IMO it doesn't have to be an advanced version of the game for WotC to stop reprinting the same ideas over and over, or to go into some depth or assume a certain level of sophistication/familiarity with fantasy archetypes. Many of the hardback books lately have just been "basic" in their treatment of the subjects.