Say NO to 3.5

[Mark]

There's been a new edition or revision of the rules since the original game every three years on average. I find it surprising that anyone who has been around for a while (especially insiders) didn't see this coming.

 

[Henry]

I couldn't care less if the whole 3.5 ed. products is a major improvement on the game - I enjoy it as is and it is the market that will decide if it's a flop or not.

Great statement. I agree wholeheartedly. The market shall bear, or not.

From what I have seen of gamers, there is a lot of denial. How many times have I listened to some sad sack tell me how great the tv series Lexx was, or how inspiring Chevy Chase's talk show was. . . . .or how great 3.5 is vs. the alternative.

Only one problem - both of these are off the air, and now only exist in gamer's VCR's and DVD's - kind of like the 3.0 situation.

3.5 is not "greater than the alternative" - it IS the alternative.

 

[Mark]

Only one problem - both of these are off the air, and now only exist in gamer's VCR's and DVD's - kind of like the 3.0 situation.

More to the point is what exists in someone's mind. It's easy to remember something fondly when you mainly remember what you liked about it, and couple that with remembering what you hoped it would someday be.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In 2e maybe I skipped it so I'm not sure. But 1e was fairly stable for a long time. I don't consider Unearthed Arcana a revision of 1e D&D. An optional expansion that did not invalidate any of the core books or make you do conversion work and check the power of the new monsters vs the old when running a module for the new or prior rule set. And since there was OGL you didn't have to worry about your third party stuff going all out of wack.

 

[WizarDru]

This isn't a small company run by gamers for gamers it's Hasbro.

Heh. And that means what, that a small company run by gamers for gamers is inherently better? Does that reasoning mean that F.A.T.A.L. isn't half-bad? Seriously, the track record of companies 'run by gamers, for gamers' hasn't really been all that good, has it?

One of the things about WotC is that they understand a business model. If 3.5 was soundly rejected by the fan base, than that will have an effect. But that doesn't immediately turn around and translate into 'a successful 3.5 will generate monthly updates'. Every time WotC makes a move, we hear about how the sky is falling. When WotC released 'Sword & Fist', speculation was how the days of TSR had returned. When WotC raised prices on the core books to match their printing costs, speculation came that a new age of greed was upon us, and D&D was doomed. When layoffs were announced, quality material from WotC was finished forever. And so on. I'm just not buying it.

There's nothing wrong with disliking 3.5...some folks have very valid reasons for doing so. I just have a hard time understanding why making a profit is so wrong, and why WotC is being demonized for not living on the edge of bankruptcy.

 

[Zogg]

Nobody has a right to tell me I shouldn't do whatever I want.

Actually, they do. It's just your right to ignore them.

 

[Desdichado]

Frankly, I don't see what the big hullabaloo is all about. Will I buy 3.5? Probably. Do I really care that much one way or the another? Not really.

 

[kreynolds]

If you've read Monte Cook's review on the revised books, you should be smart enough to realize that WOTC doesn't have any interest in improving the game and that in fact buying all new books again isn't going to improve your game much or even at all (possibly confusing you at the cost of gaming pleasure).

If you've read Monte Cook's products, including the DMG, you should be smart enough to realize that his work tends to have a healthy amount of mistakes, so let's not make him out to be a god. Couple that with the fact that he has a competing product, and his bias is quite clear. Besides, if I know someone that got "let go" from McDonalds, I'm generally not interested in their opinion of the food. Too much of a risk of them being disgruntled.

Anyway, I figure that's enough fuel for the fire for now.

 

[Desdichado]

Not very good fuel, though. Monte wasn't fired, he quit. Also, I wouldn't really call AU (is it just me, or does anyone else do a double take and wonder why Monte is writing about astronomical units there?) a competing product -- I don't think 3.5 PHB and AU really are trying to capture the same market niche.

 

[Emiricol]

If you've read Monte Cook's review on the revised books, you should be smart enough to realize that WOTC doesn't have any interest in improving the game and that in fact buying all new books again isn't going to improve your game much or even at all (possibly confusing you at the cost of gaming pleasure).

There's only two kinds of people who will buy those books:
1. Those who are new to the game which is OK.
2. Those fanatic enough to take whatever WOTC throws at them. I wouldn't wanna eat dirt like that...

Yeah yeah whatever. Or, those of us who want to stay current. Or, as in my case, those of us who need new books anyway.