The moment of fragmentation

[Graf]

There was a point, not so long ago, when someone said: "I'd used a maximized bull's strength spell" you had a pretty idea of what was going on. It was something that could happen in just about every game, and it worked the same way. Maybe someone had house ruled the spell one way or another but they were (generally) always aware it was a specific choice they had made that made their game different from most people's games.

Thousands of people, around the world, were playing games that were pretty much indistinguishable from each other on a mechanical level. Published worlds tended to adhere to the mechanics with only minor changes. A shield spell, or a druid, were basically the same on the continent of Ghelspad, or in Eversink, or on Toril. Campaigns differed radically of course but it was fairly easy to figure out how far from the baseline they were. While some people (Monte Cook & Kenneth Hite come to mind) felt the profusion of similar worlds showed a lack of creativity a player could feel comfortable that they knew how to play D&D and it was generally the same everywhere. This created a huge market for products, allowing them to compete on a more or less even playing field, and supercharged the industry.

It think we're on the cusp of a real fragmentation.
3rd ed. -- with all the existing commonly used modifications, and a lot of errata that people are only partially aware of
3.5 ed -- with a lot of people keeping favorite spells and powers from 3.0
Arcana Unearthed -- with a completely different set of alterations to 3.0

Furthermore new worlds seem to be more and more intent upon changing the core ruleset. While I don't own the books I understand that Midnight (which shows up frequently on the message boards of late) has different classes and magic system. I expect the new D&D world (which seems likely to include psionics) will probably tinker with some fundamental assumptions of D&D as well.
Not that the designers of these worlds really have a whole lot of choice, given a lack of a clear leader.

It may be that the current storm of posts about liking or disliking one of these new gaming systems is just a temporary fad, but I wonder if we've seen the beginning of the end of the unification effect produced by the original release of 3.0.

 

[Fenes 2]

I often discover in discussions on those boards that house rules and differing rules interpretations are more common than I'd expect and that is only the mechanical aspect of the game.

Add in the campaign settings, often with special rules as well, DM taste in NPCs, monsters etc, and playstyle, and you have fragmentation already.

3.5 adds just a new layer to that, but is not that significant imho.

 

[genshou]

The beginning of the end has begun, but the end is unseen. Man, that's a funny sentence...

Me? I'm sticking with 3rd. I might pick up a few of the GOOD ideas from 3.5 and use them as house rules, but they're killing too many of my favorite prestige classes, and they're essentially destroying a lot of their supplemental products. If not for the fact that I had spent a lot of money on these products, I might think of crossing over. As it is, I think I'll wait for 4th (if it ever happens).

 

[rushlight]

Oh waaa.

Did you play D&D 2nd edition? If not then perhaps you were unaware that there was more deviation from game to game than with the conversion to 3.5.

You had the core books, class books, race books, kit books, skills and powers books, supplement magic ruleset books, alternate game worlds with different classes altogether (Darksun for one), D&D in space, numerous magic tomes with varying rules, etc...

Our 2nd edition game used a spell point system for magic (from S&P) and the kit books, but not the class or race books. Not to mention that many of the 2nd edition rules were often houseruled to fit the players.

It's a common occurance that gamers alter their game to fit themselves. If there weren't products that fit that niche before, then they would just do it themselves. Games were NEVER that similar between play groups, unless the shared the same style. 3.5, 3.0, 2nd e, or all the way back to 1e, each game group's method was different.

It's the same way in other games, like GURPS. The game suits the gamer. Why is this a bad thing to you? Do you expect that everyone should play the same way, preferably the way YOU play? What's wrong with diversity?

 

[BrooklynKnight]

the great thing about 3.0/3.5/d20 is that those gamers that changed the game to fitthemselves are now d20 publishers or developers

 

[genshou]

It sucks

Heh heh... now you think I'm a whiner. Obviously you've never met a REAL whiner. My problem is that now all my friends are going to go ahead and play 3.5 except for the diehards, so my options for players are going to be severely limited. And yes, I DID play 2E, and the only reason I didn't like it was the backward math. That and the fact that 2E books were hard to come by at the time I started purchasing books, which was when 3E came out and all my 2E friends had moved. So I play 3E now, and have found that the accessory books really flesh out the game with fun prestige classes like Bloodhound and Arcane Trickster. They won't duplicate those in future releases, but will come out with other cool ones, of course. The problem is that I have grown to love 3E supplemental classes and feats. Sorta like if you killed my wife and gave me a "new, improved version." It just wouldn't work unless she wasn't the right woman to begin with. And she was the right woman.

 

[Graf]

Leaving aside personal feelings about which edition you're using....

...there was more deviation from game to game than with the conversion to 3.5.

Yup. Which was something that the "3e unification" kind of reversed. I wasn't saying "this is the most fragmented the game has ever been".
It's clearly a critical mass thing. Some people were using radically different spell systems or whatever (and publishing them for use by others) long before the advent of 3.5. I just see a lot more conflict (both on the boards and within gaming groups) about minor mechanical things than we had previously. Enough that suddenly people aren't playing D&D anymore, the term needs to be further clairifed. You need to say that you're playing D&D version X.

In other words, fragmentation.

 

[Fenes 2]

It's clearly a critical mass thing. Some people were using radically different spell systems or whatever (and publishing them for use by others) long before the advent of 3.5. I just see a lot more conflict (both on the boards and within gaming groups) about minor mechanical things than we had previously. Enough that suddenly people aren't playing D&D anymore, the term needs to be further clairifed. You need to say that you're playing D&D version X.

In other words, fragmentation.

With the amount of 3rd party material you already have to state what material you are using - splatbooks, FRCS, KoK, OA - to name only the official ones. The thought that 3E was a unified system used almost identically among all gamers is an illusion, especially when it concerns the part of the gamers that are active on the net, and doubly so when it comes to EN world.

I use feats from all over the place, home-brew PrCs, a modified, almost home-brew setting with limitations, banned 3E core spells and classes in my campaigns and still consider myself playing 3E.

IME, people already discuss rules while stating their take or house rule on it.

 

[rushlight]

Which was something that the "3e unification" kind of reversed. I wasn't saying "this is the most fragmented the game has ever been".

What on earth possibly led you to believe that 3e was some "unification" effort? That's completely opposite the very ideal that 3e was written around!

The reason 3e was made was to DIVERSIFY, not to unify. Thus the SRD. That's why it's "Open Content" - so that anyone and their cousins can make their own versions, rules, modifications, and bizzare changes to the game. That's the whole REASON for the "Open Content" to begin with!

It's supposed to be like that. That's why you have Arcana Unearthed. That's why there are different classbooks from different publishers with different takes on the same thing. That's why there's over two dozen different books on magic and spells, relating different systems for handling the same thing!

It's totally illogical to claim that a system that is functioning EXACTLY as desgined is somehow broken. Perhaps you don't realize this, but the gamer market is as "fragmented" as the system is. THAT'S WHY IT'S SO SUCCSESFUL. People do the same thing different ways. Always have. Always will. Now there's just a system that suits them. And 3.0 or 3.5 are just different ways of doing the same thing.

The introduction of 3.5 will only make the game stronger. It will bring in new players, young players, who will make this hobby a life-long activity. Only fools and idiots will say, "Well, damn - there's a new core rule book out there so I guess I can't play D&D anymore since I only have the old books..."

 

[Harlequin_1998]

The idea of fragmentation is a very 3E-centric one. There are other game systems out there. Should they be considered fragmented players as well, since they aren't playing 3E? No? Why not?
As long as there are options, there will be people exercising those options.