Publishers' opinions on v3.5

[JoeGKushner]

I'm not terribly worried about a fragmented market.

Those who feel that they'll be screwed no matter which system they support should go with whatever sells more. Plan and simple.

Heck, if people had a choice, there are some who would only, and probably do, only buy 1st edition D&D stuff or 2nd edition D&D stuff. Is anyone catering to them or crying that they've lost that business?

Don't see the 'real issue' if you will here.

The game market will tell in a few months.

 

[The Sigil]

I assume your use of "d20" in quotes was pointed. Because it will NOT be D20.

Yes, the mechanics will work similarly. The Death and Dying rule and most of the feats should cross over fine. I expect that I will probably buy the first AU book for that purpose.

That's correct - technically, it will not be a "d20 game" because it will not be published under the d20STL.

However, I expect that it will in fact be a "d20" game, in that it will use the same basic mechanics as the d20 system.

Don't confuse "d20" with "D&D." I use quotes because when I say, "d20" I mean that even if it's not "official d20" it will be de facto a d20 game.

"D&D" has elven rogues. "d20" has elven rogues. It also has superheroes (Vigilance). It also has Modern (d20 Modern, Spycraft, etc). It also has "dinosaurs with sticks" (Darwin's World).

When I see "d20" I think of core system, independent of flavor. I think Str/Wis/Dex. I think "hit points." I think "roll of d20 plus modifiers vs. target number." I don't think "elves." Maybe I'm weird that way.

However, I don't worry overmuch about fragmentation, either with 3.0/3.5 or with D&D/AU. I don't think Monte is working at cross-purposes with himself, either - any more than people putting forth new PrCs or alternate rules for creating magic items, or anything else are. ANY tweak to the system immediately creates ripples. The question is simply "which ripples do you want in your game?"

--The Sigil

 

[BryonD]

Well, we all seem to agree about fragmentation.

I completely understand the difference between D20 and D&D.

But do you really not see how AU does go head to head with fantasy D&D as opposed to being just another D20 game?

Edit: Trying to stay on point: I can EASILY see using an 3E module in a 3.5 game and "adjusting" on the fly. I can not see dumping an AU module into a D&D game. At least, not with out severe re-work. There will be a bigger divide between AU and D&D then there will be between 3E and 3.5. Just because both will be small does not mean one can not be bigger.

Lastly, I may understand the difference between D&D and D20, but I do not think the D&D gamer market at large understands the difference between D&D and D20 fantasy.

To the average gamer in a FLGS:

Player's Handbook: A D&D book
Savage Species: A D&D book by WotC
Shaman's Handbook: A D&D book by someone else.
Spycraft: A spy roleplaying game that works kinda like D&D.
AU: A different D&D

 

[Monte At Home]

I don't think AU will end up putting any real dent in D&D (no offense, even if AU is 100 times better, I just think that is a market reality).

No offense taken. If I was under the illusion that my products would sell as well without the WotC logo on them as they do with it on them, I'd have been disabused of that notion long ago. But also, I don't want to dent D&D. My products, my whole company, is about supporting D&D. Arcana Unearthed isn't about taking customers away from WotC (if it was, I would have created a whole new game system).

And unless Necmancer, Mystic Eye, etc are hiring more people to do AU (news to me), then they will be doing LESS D20. So that segments the community.

Actually, as I understand it, they are. And for what it's worth, they're taking extra steps to make their products also easily compatible with regular D&D.

And, for what it's worth, I don't care about fragmenting the publishers. Publishers can do whatever they want. (In fact, as a total aside, I'm guessing there's room for one savvy publisher to carve out a niche for themselves putting out 3.0 compatible products rather than 3.5, going forward--but probably only one.) I don't want to fragment the audience.

His dog in the D20 fight puts him on the side of being hesitant toward change. His dog in the AU fight puts him on the side of being an advocate of change.

I guess that's the crux of it. AU isn't about change, it's about an alternative.

If people are happy with their current game, they drop a runethane into D&D just as easily as one of Steve Kenson's excellent shamans. AU can just supplement your existing D&D game, or it can be a whole new thing. I know you said that we "can't have it both ways," but I hope that you'll see when Arcana Unearthed comes out that indeed we can.

But whatever. It seems that we all just keep saying the same thing post after post. ByronD, your recent two posts seem to indicate that I can't speak truthfully or fairly about 3.5 because I'm working on AU, but that isn't going to mean I'm not going to talk about 3.5. (I don't see 3.5 as competition, maybe that's what's tripping us up.) Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[BryonD]

No Problem Monte.

Thanks for the time.

I'll only quibble that "biased" is not the same as not "truthfully or fairly". And in this circumstance, biased is not a really negative thing, as being untruthful or unfair would be.

Other than that, I'll complete agree to peacefully disagree.

But I still disagree

 

[Morgenstern]

Getting back to the topic (briefly), I believe the guys over in our d20 "topics" line had advanced access to D&D 3.5, but frankly, I never thought to ask. I just follow along here out of mild interest. I haven't worked on a D&D product for a couple of months, so I knew my stuff would be off and gone before 3.5 became a pressing issue. The change over to 3.5 will, so far, have one effect on Spycraft that I can see: I'll probably errata Weapon Finesse to resemble the 3.5 version. More wham from Power Attack is right out in my opinion, but then again, I deal in a game where I'd get asked why Bullseye (sort of like Power Attack for guns) doesn't do extra damage if I hold the gun in two hamds...? Just not worth the trouble .

On the subject of fragmentation, I'd be concerned too. The introduction of LR5's second edition gutted the players base, because while there where changes that were clever and lead to better play, there were also clearly changes for the sake of changes. That left some people playing one game, and some playing the other, both for very good reasons. A new player never knew what kind of answer he'd get on a rules question, or if he was about to set off a massive debate asking about one of the contentious changes. All-in-all: Ugly.

The accusation of changes for the sake of changes can and has been leveled at 3.5. I don't have Monte's behind the scenes insights, but I do make my living writing d20, and I've -studied- as many books as I can lay my hands on, hard. There are some subtle reasons why things were done the way they were - not always with explinations given, but they do reveal themselves in play. Some of the changes in 3.5 make me itchy. That tells me than Monte's 90% switch over in a perfect world is a reasonable best case figure, and it means that newbies are going to ask "What are you talking about?" when somebody discusses a druid different than the one in their book. It sounds like a triffle, but trust me, it harms a game. It certainly puts smaller publishers in an awkward spot. People talk about aving conversion notes and sidebars in their books to make both crowds happy. I promise it'll be a cludge at best. The L5R dual-stat books never fail to take a hit from reviewers because somebody isn't using some part of the book, but that "other system" is taking up precious space. Were I a prgnosticator, I'd predict a sharp decline in the number of barbarian, druid and bard NPCs in 3rd party adventures for a while... Why step on a land mine when you don't have too?

Oh, and for the record, I'll be picking up AU so I can puzzle apart all the systems in it , and downloading the 3.5 SRD out of my continuing idle curiosity. They both look like interesting reads, but one I can get for free.

 

[Cergorach]

It certainly puts smaller publishers in an awkward spot.

Wouldn't that hold established publishers back (even for a bit) and leave a space open for daring new publishers? It's kind of reinventing the market, which might or might not be a good thing...

 

[MEG Hal]

T

And unless Necmancer, Mystic Eye, etc are hiring more people to do AU (news to me), then they will be doing LESS D20. So that segments the community.

Jumped on late...you should not see a slow down in fact we are picking up the pace and you should see more books from us as well as AU not instead of....at GenCon from MEG you will see:

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed: Siege on Ebonring Keep
Player's Archive a player journal for 3.5
1A:Hamlet of Thumble for 3.5
Artificer's Handbook
Giant Monster Rampage II: World War non d20--gasp

So working with Malhavoc will not slow down our production it only adds to our schedule.

Thanks Monte for the chance!

 

[BryonD]

That is great news Hal.

Thanks

 

[BVB]

I'd just like to add a word or two myself to this discussion.