The real flaw of 3E/3.5E/OGL

[Roger]

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.

Just so I'm clear on your position here: you're claiming that at least 5% of 3E D&D games were not familiar to a bystander familiar with the brand?



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Xyxox]

it's a feature, not a bug. Like most games that are widely known, local customs of exactly how to play will vary, and a quick rundown of the colloquial norms simply adds to the charm and flavor.

qft

 

[TerraDave]

"Standardization" in D&D has been an issue for about 30 years. The game fragments, a new edition comes along to rebuild the brand, support tournament play, etc, ie to pull it back to common standards. Then it fragments again.

This de-fragmentation was very much an explicit goal of both AD&Ds. Didn't work. Sure, core concepts were the same, but there where huge differences in the details. (even just going by official material, or well known 3 party stuff, yes, they had it back then, you had big differences).

The 3E era, especially around when 3.5 came out, was, by far, the most "standardized" I had seen. And I am guessing will see.

 

[Greg K]

...
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.

Not a bug, but a feature.

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.

So, really, you are complaining that everyone should conform to your preferred playstyle. Myself, I like that I might go to different people's games and find differences.

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.

No, it just didn't live up to your expectation. Then again, this is the same thing we heard from some people in prior editions about Dark Sun and Ravenloft not being D&D.

. 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.

Honestly, I don't care about powergamers, who play to win. Nor, do I care about players that poor every book and optimize preplanned builds. These are table/group issues. Among the gamers I know, the former would be kicked out and the latter would mostly likely have their pre-planned build invalidated once the game starts (assuming the limits on source books and house rules didn't invalidate it during character generation).

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.

Catering to RPGA and organized play in general was, in my opinion and many others, a big mistake and has had a negative influence on the game.
It has been a long time since I have known anyone in RPGA. The individuals that I know that tried it left, because of the optimizers and powergamers. Of course, the warning sign was when ,locally, we saw many members kicked out of local groups were many of the people at RPGA tournaments.

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.

So are you implying that the casual gamers are the problem. If so, perhaps, the problem is the people trying to game the system and the solution is for organized play to address the people trying to game the system.

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.

No, just what your vision of what DND should be. Like most replies have stated, the OGL and the variation it allowed was a good thing, ymmv.

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.

Only a good thing if you believe in one true wayism. And as for WOTC's view, I, really don't care (other than that they determine what the DND label appears upon). To be honest, outside of the core books for both DND and d20 Modern, I found most of their supplements to not be to my liking and subpar to companies like Atlas, Green Ronin, Silverthorne and others (the occassional book like Unearthed Arcana, Fiendish Codex I, and Heroes of Horror not withstanding).

 

[Negflar2099]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the OP here. Or rather I agree but not for the reasons he's stating. Yes every game is different but that has less to do with the edition being played and more to do with the DM and the way he or she runs the game. I'm playing two games right now, one of which is barely recognizable as traditional D&D. I had no idea how far afield we had gone until a friend from the other game sat in on the other game. She was totally lost and she's hardly what I would call a newbie. That's when I realized that campaign had long ago moved away from kill creatures and take their stuff to more political nationbuilding. Less Gladiator and more Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. The edition that we're playing in is same for both games however. It's 4th.

The point is each DM puts their signature stamp on a game. Sure the different optional rules and splat books allowed quite a level of diversity in 3.x but you get the same thing with house rules.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Thing is, the same could be said for the other editions. The house ruling tradition has been strong for a very long time. The OGL really only made it possible for such things to be polished and published - folks were doing it at home since the beginning of the game. Which is fitting, seeing as the game is, at its root, basically a houseruled/homegrown wargame.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Variability of gameplay is a massive bonus and feature. Knowing that I can take the same game and play it in a different way every time I play it is an awesome, awesome thing.

RPGA and organized tournament play is one of the worst things to happen to the hobby.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Like a bunch of other people have said: FEATURE not BUG.

To be frank, I don't care about how the designers want me to play the game. I don't run or play games at cons, I don't want my game to be that same as everyone else's game. I want to run the game that makes the most sense for me and my players.

I know this is blasphemy here but 4E has really freed me from the imaginary constraints of playing by the rules as written and considering that I don't play or particularly care for the execution of 4E that's saying something. There are thing that I like about 4E and those things I've found a way to implement into my 3X game. There are things from Pathfinder that I really like and am implementing into my games. I'm looking into alot of variants in the many 3rd party OGL books as well. There's a virtual cornucopia of stuff that I'm looking to use, granted, not all of it is going to be used but the fact that I can experiment and test stuff out is AMAZING.

I used to hate the idea of Action Points, but having seen various implementations of things you can use Action Points for I love them. I've limited the use in my game to 1) extra actions 2) Spell Boost, 3) Stablize 4) Spell Recharge - 1/2 Caster Level + Spellcasting abilty modifier recovery of spell levels (coupled with a 10 min rest) 5) Add to a roll.

Also I plan on using a modified 10 minute rest feature from Wulf Ratbane's upcoming Trailblazer book to extend the adventuring day. A 10 min rest recovers 50% of HP and can recharge 1 use of a per day ability. The catch with the HP recovery is that you can only use it as many times as your Con ability bonus. I'm working on a limiter for the 1 per ability recharge but I may not need to. (I'll make the players aware of this feature, but mostly manage it myself from behind the screen as I dont want to burden my players with more resource management...)

In other words I'm having a great time customizing the game to what will hopefully make the game more fun for the players and myself. And I'm doing this using multiple sources even from 4E which I like the design philosophy but not the implementation. There's a way to make the 3.5 game work in a similar fashion without throwing out everything that came before that I liked. Now THAT's the real feature of the OGL.

 

[Drowbane]

... FEATURE not BUG...

QFT

The OGL was a beautiful concept. I've been in many groups since 3e came out (without giving it alot of thought... at least seven) and with each I've managed to find an enjoyable gaming experience... despite house rules or "3rd party influences" or different gaming styles.

 

[pawsplay]

Feature, not a bug. The essence of a RPG is to be able to adjudicate any plausible action. Creating a game that supports only certain play styles is creating a non-role-playing game. Obviously, not every game needs certain kinds of mechanics, and many games are incoherent and overladen, but in my view, a well-produced RPG has some method, however primitive, of resolving anything that could happen. That is why, for instance, I consider the Rules Cyclopedia to be an astoundingly complete game, despite a lack of a lot of systems that are considered important in other games.