thecasualoblivion
First Post
I haven't heard this talked about before, and I think this may be a more important point, however subtle, than a lot of what gets discussed in the edition wars. So here we go...
The problem with 3E/3.5E, especially combined with the OGL is that it is not one single game. What I mean by this, is that different groups could use the system to play games that could be wholly different than the games played by other groups. 3E/3.5E D&D was flexible, both in terms of flavor and gameplay, that it lacked a clear and consistent identity in either. With the amount of customizability in the game, and the almost infinite power disparity inherent in character creation, it was possible for players to be playing different games at the same table in the same campaign. While this can be a beneficial quality in the game, D&D is a brand name. For RPGs, D&D is THE brand name. While this versatility can be a boon from a certain viewpoint, it does hurt the brand name. It makes the game less portable, as I can't join a different group in my home town, move to a different state and find a new group, or play a game at a convention and expect to find a similar experience as the games I am used to playing with my regular group.
The problem in this, is the argument that D&D should mean something, people should be able to recognize what D&D means, and the concept of D&D should be robust and consistent enough that 95% of D&D games should be familiar to a bystander familar with the brand. It can definitely be argued that 3E didn't live up to this expectation.
While AD&D was legendary for its houserules and the ability of the DM to tailor the game to his/her own ends, in my experience the core game stayed the same. Back when I played 2E, I played under Gygaxian gotcha DM's, strict RAW Dm's, high and low powered games, munchkin superhero AD&D, and my own high action/high storytelling yet modestly houseruled version I DMed. Despite all these varied experiences, the game at its core was always recognizable, and any new game I played under a new DM or at a convention was always familiar.
The sheer variety in 3E(especially when you add in the OGL) allowed/allows the game to become unfamiliar in different hands and different locales. The discussions we see in this forum, in the 3E vs 4E discussions, and just discussing 3E by itself bear this out. I look at people stating their observations of playing 3E, and I think to myself, that is not the game I played. My own experiences have born this out as well, as in different games under DMs in different places, the games were dissimilar to the point of unfamiliarity. In addition, the character generation rules were flexibile to the point of allowing different results to the extent of players not really playing the same game. A player playing an optimized Druid of Death and a player who builds a Bard to maximize an aesthetic concept with no regard for gameplay consequences aren't really playing the same game, even if they are playing IN the same game. Committed powergamers who know the system and play to win and a newbie just off the street aren't playing the same game either. While there were differences in character power and outcomes in editions prior to 3E, they were never to the degree that the players were essentially playing different games.
This brings us to organized(RPGA or otherwise), tournament and convention play. WotC has stated in plain language that organized/tournament/convention D&D is important to the brand, and it is certainly the play that they are most personally involved in from a participation and feedback standpoint. The power imbalance inherent in 3E from the differences between "optimized" and "unoptimized" made this sort of play a very rough proposition to build for. If you ignore players who optimize, the optimizers can derail/steamroll the organized games. If more casual players who don't/can't "game" the system play in a game designed to challenge 3E optimziers, the adventer derails or steamrolls those players. In addition, the organized games don't inherently resemble home games, as the system can be stretched to the point where it doesn't resemble the games being played at these events.
Further diluting the brand identity of D&D was the OGL. Simply stated, the OGL allowed and encouraged 3rd party companies to take the basic framework of D&D using the d20 system and to take things further afield, further away from D&D.
It bears saying that we haven't heard much directly from WotC on this topic in the developers comments for 4E, outside of some of what they've said about organized/tournament/convention play. What we can see however, is 4E. 4E, love it or hate it, does have a loud and recognizable core identity, and one that is hard to ignore or forget. It is impossible to argue that this strong core identity wasn't a intentional design goal. Also of note was the decision to exclude 4E from the OGL, and the license available for use with 4E(the GSL) more or less requiring 3rd party material to stay within the 4E sandbox. Reading comments from people playing 4E, in different campaigns focused on different things(roleplaying, combat, or what have you), in differing amounts of RAW and houserules, in home or organized settings, I must say that the game stays pretty familiar throughout. Much moreso than 3E did.
The problem with 3E/3.5E, especially combined with the OGL is that it is not one single game. What I mean by this, is that different groups could use the system to play games that could be wholly different than the games played by other groups. 3E/3.5E D&D was flexible, both in terms of flavor and gameplay, that it lacked a clear and consistent identity in either. With the amount of customizability in the game, and the almost infinite power disparity inherent in character creation, it was possible for players to be playing different games at the same table in the same campaign. While this can be a beneficial quality in the game, D&D is a brand name. For RPGs, D&D is THE brand name. While this versatility can be a boon from a certain viewpoint, it does hurt the brand name. It makes the game less portable, as I can't join a different group in my home town, move to a different state and find a new group, or play a game at a convention and expect to find a similar experience as the games I am used to playing with my regular group.
The problem in this, is the argument that D&D should mean something, people should be able to recognize what D&D means, and the concept of D&D should be robust and consistent enough that 95% of D&D games should be familiar to a bystander familar with the brand. It can definitely be argued that 3E didn't live up to this expectation.
While AD&D was legendary for its houserules and the ability of the DM to tailor the game to his/her own ends, in my experience the core game stayed the same. Back when I played 2E, I played under Gygaxian gotcha DM's, strict RAW Dm's, high and low powered games, munchkin superhero AD&D, and my own high action/high storytelling yet modestly houseruled version I DMed. Despite all these varied experiences, the game at its core was always recognizable, and any new game I played under a new DM or at a convention was always familiar.
The sheer variety in 3E(especially when you add in the OGL) allowed/allows the game to become unfamiliar in different hands and different locales. The discussions we see in this forum, in the 3E vs 4E discussions, and just discussing 3E by itself bear this out. I look at people stating their observations of playing 3E, and I think to myself, that is not the game I played. My own experiences have born this out as well, as in different games under DMs in different places, the games were dissimilar to the point of unfamiliarity. In addition, the character generation rules were flexibile to the point of allowing different results to the extent of players not really playing the same game. A player playing an optimized Druid of Death and a player who builds a Bard to maximize an aesthetic concept with no regard for gameplay consequences aren't really playing the same game, even if they are playing IN the same game. Committed powergamers who know the system and play to win and a newbie just off the street aren't playing the same game either. While there were differences in character power and outcomes in editions prior to 3E, they were never to the degree that the players were essentially playing different games.
This brings us to organized(RPGA or otherwise), tournament and convention play. WotC has stated in plain language that organized/tournament/convention D&D is important to the brand, and it is certainly the play that they are most personally involved in from a participation and feedback standpoint. The power imbalance inherent in 3E from the differences between "optimized" and "unoptimized" made this sort of play a very rough proposition to build for. If you ignore players who optimize, the optimizers can derail/steamroll the organized games. If more casual players who don't/can't "game" the system play in a game designed to challenge 3E optimziers, the adventer derails or steamrolls those players. In addition, the organized games don't inherently resemble home games, as the system can be stretched to the point where it doesn't resemble the games being played at these events.
Further diluting the brand identity of D&D was the OGL. Simply stated, the OGL allowed and encouraged 3rd party companies to take the basic framework of D&D using the d20 system and to take things further afield, further away from D&D.
It bears saying that we haven't heard much directly from WotC on this topic in the developers comments for 4E, outside of some of what they've said about organized/tournament/convention play. What we can see however, is 4E. 4E, love it or hate it, does have a loud and recognizable core identity, and one that is hard to ignore or forget. It is impossible to argue that this strong core identity wasn't a intentional design goal. Also of note was the decision to exclude 4E from the OGL, and the license available for use with 4E(the GSL) more or less requiring 3rd party material to stay within the 4E sandbox. Reading comments from people playing 4E, in different campaigns focused on different things(roleplaying, combat, or what have you), in differing amounts of RAW and houserules, in home or organized settings, I must say that the game stays pretty familiar throughout. Much moreso than 3E did.
