Should D&D be a "Living Game"?

fusangite said:
...My hope is that D&D continues to evolve until it gradually shakes all of the ridiculous heritage encumbering it from those days in the 1970s when people were copying out Thesaurus entries to make classes.

now that's funny. just look at PrCs today.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



shadow said:
With the release of 3.5e, WotC talked a lot about how they saw D&D as a "living game",

I think the reason for that position is largely a matter of marketing strategy. Most successful RPG companies before 3rd edition (TSR/WOTC included) made their money by selling customers a constantly changing setting to justify new purchases. With 3rd edition, WOTC is largely out of that market, but they still need a steady revenue stream in order to exist as a company. Offering new rules and occasionally revising the main rulebooks to keep those rules current has turned out to be a pretty good way to do this.

So it's not so much whether D&D should be a living game as whether WOTC should concentrate on rules or campaign settings (with individual rules changes that filter back into the main rules anyway). I like the current approach.
 

fusangite said:
Well, I came back to D&D for about the same reason I came back to Microsoft products. I chose compatibility and support over actual quality. In many ways, 3E was the Windows 95 of D&D -- actually good enough at being a decent platform to be tolerable to people who were used to better. WOTC has the difficult task of maintaining some degree of backward compatibility while, at the same time producing a rational system -- in may view, they are doing an examplary job.

So, I hope D&D continues to evolve into something that an ex-Runequest player like me can not just tolerate but be truly proud of.

What a great analogy! It is the commonality and larger community that drew me back to D&D as well. A new version would not bother me in the least.
 



fusangite said:
I agree diaglo. Prestige classes are a disturbing element in the game -- as far as I can see, they are about the most negative counter-trend in 3E.

I agree with the both of you. PrCs were a really bad idea.
 

Valiantheart said:
I agree with the both of you. PrCs were a really bad idea.

PrCs are actually a good idea poorly executed.

If you look into the original reasoning for Prestige Classes you will see that they were meant to be "Campaign Specific" and probably rare. A way to add some flavor to campaigns.

The fact that almost every book that is published comes with a complete section with "ready-made" prestige classes does not invalidate the original spirit of the idea.
 

fusangite said:
Well, I came back to D&D for about the same reason I came back to Microsoft products. I chose compatibility and support over actual quality. In many ways, 3E was the Windows 95 of D&D -- actually good enough at being a decent platform to be tolerable to people who were used to better. WOTC has the difficult task of maintaining some degree of backward compatibility while, at the same time producing a rational system -- in may view, they are doing an examplary job.

Windows 95 had its flaws,but then again there also Apple computers who released G5 series to find out they both had gliches beyond repair. I think some of you are not use to way 3rd or 3.5 system is , sure they had some flaws to work on even when 2nd edition came out people were wondering how the Thaco system works.Even if they release 4th edition people are still going look at the flaws,and tell everyone they're not happy with 4th edition,and hope that 5th edition will someday come out as it seems.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top