...
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).