What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

[Desdichado]

Sure, and it was handy to have dungeon but that format is only helpful to supplement actual full blown module lines. With dungeon there is a built in space limitation (these are not full modules, they are short adventures written largely by fans). Dungeon was great, don't get me wrong, but no subsittute for a well produced module.

lolwut?

Actually, there were a number of really long adventures. The Adventure Path concept was crystalized (I won't say that's when it started, because heck; some of Gary Gygax's modules themselves followed a loose arc, like Against the Giants, etc.) during this era. And the writers were freelance professionals, mostly.

Can't argue with you that you didn't get the modules you wanted during that era, but the more you go on, the more clear it is that you want something very, very specific and very, very niche. Lots of modules were produced during this era, and lots of people liked them. Quite possibly, your tastes have evolved into something a bit esoteric, or they remained in the 80s somewhere while the market went on to other things.

 

[Bedrockgames]

lolwut?

Actually, there were a number of really long adventures. The Adventure Path concept was crystalized (I won't say that's when it started, because heck; some of Gary Gygax's modules themselves followed a loose arc, like Against the Giants, etc.) during this era. And the writers were freelance professionals, mostly.

My memory could be fuzzy, but I recall the adventure path being a much later development. I could be wrong though. I also don't remember being especially fond of the adventure path stuff (which is one reason I haven't made the switch to pathfinder).

Can't argue with you that you didn't get the modules you wanted during that era, but the more you go on, the more clear it is that you want something very, very specific and very, very niche. Lots of modules were produced during this era, and lots of people liked them. Quite possibly, your tastes have evolved into something a bit esoteric, or they remained in the 80s somewhere while the market went on to other things.

I don't think it is very niche. It is one of the single biggest complaints I hear about the 3E era. Sure there was high volume from 3rd parties. But the quality (both content and production) was usually not that great. Some companies like Green Ronin did an excellent job for certain. However my shelf is littered with dissapointing 3rd party modules.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think it is very niche. It is one of the single biggest complaints I hear about the 3E era. Sure there was high volume from 3rd parties. But the quality (both content and production) was usually not that great. Some companies like Green Ronin did an excellent job for certain. However my shelf is littered with dissapointing 3rd party modules.

I've never hread that complaint about the 3E era. And in fact, when you made it here, there was a chorus of replies asking what you were talking about, because if anything, the opposite was true. The 3E era was in fact well-known for being a hotbed of good module production.

But you've chimed in and said, no, you want it to be official. You want it to have high production values. You want boxed sets. You want a mix of setting and adventure material. You want a specific length. You don't like adventure paths. You want professional writers. You want them exactly like the modules you really liked form about 1990 or so... except, y'know, different.

You've put on nearly a dozen caveats that excludes most of the content of the 3E era in order to make your argument that you didn't have "good modules" during the 3E era. How is that not niche? That's like the textbook example of niche.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've never hread that complaint about the 3E era. And in fact, when you made it here, there was a chorus of replies asking what you were talking about, because if anything, the opposite was true. The 3E era was in fact well-known for being a hotbed of good module production.

I've heard this complaint pretty consistently and seen it online quite a bit. I am not denying the overall volume of third party modules, but the quality of those products is something people debate. I guess we just disagree on this issue. Fundamentally I was looking for high-quality, official material.

But you've chimed in and said, no, you want it to be official. You want it to have high production values. You want boxed sets. You want a mix of setting and adventure material. You want a specific length. You don't like adventure paths. You want professional writers. You want them exactly like the modules you really liked form about 1990 or so... except, y'know, different.

You are free to disagree with me. This isn't a matter of life and death. Just a matter of taste. However I think my preferences are perfectly reasonable and I have found they are shared by many. I think you are also building something of a straw man out of my position.

You've put on nearly a dozen caveats that excludes most of the content of the 3E era in order to make your argument that you didn't have "good modules" during the 3E era. How is that not niche? That's like the textbook example of niche.

Not really. I said quite bluntly the quality wasn't very high during that period in my opinion. You can disagree, but that isn't a niche caveat, quality is a pretty universal expectation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But you've chimed in and said, no, you want it to be official. You want it to have high production values.

I think this is a reasonable expectation. I purchased tons of 3rd party material during 3E, remain a huge fan of the system and the open license, but just think this is one area where WOTC fell short. I admit, it was nice having such high volume material at the time. Would have been nice to have high quality production modules on top of that. What I am saying is I just never found myself enjoying the official WOTC products after the core book (with a few exceptions). And would have liked to see them put out some strong module series.

You want boxed sets.

No, I gave the wrong impression there. I don't care about the form (all a boxed set gives you is a fold out map a seperate booklets (occassional overlays, dice and stock cards). What I want is the kind of content you used to get in those boxed sets: great locations, great setting and background information, excellent adventures, etc. They were comprehensive. You could easily reproduce this in a large book.

You want a mix of setting and adventure material.

Yes, and I don't think I am alone here. This might not be your thing, and that is fine, but I like having lots of setting material and modules for inspriation. When the two are combined, even better.

You want a specific length.

No. I just want length, more than a 12 page dungeon adventure. Want a full sized module. I wasn't really complaining about the length of 3rd part or even official modules during 3E, just explaining why Dungeon wasn't enough for me (I liked dungeon but I do have a host of reasons why it didn't cover the ground of official module material).

You don't like adventure paths.

Yes, this is something that just never clicked for me.

You want professional writers.

Personally I am not hung up on a the writer's credentials. I may have overstated this point. I do want good quality adventures. While dungeon was good at times, there were entire issues I found I couldn't use.

You want them exactly like the modules you really liked form about 1990 or so... except, y'know, different.

Not at all. I just want them to take a lesson from some of the things going on from the 80s to 90s. There was also a lot of problems with modules form that period. No denying that. Like I said in another post, I don't want to go back to 1982 or 1990.

 

[Desdichado]

You are free to disagree with me. This isn't a matter of life and death. Just a matter of taste. However I think my preferences are perfectly reasonable and I have found they are shared by many. I think you are also building something of a straw man out of my position.

I don't think so... I agree that your tastes and expectations are perfectly reasonable. That doesn't mean that they were shared with the majority of the rest of the customer base. By and large, the customer was well-served by a large variety of module styles during the 3E era. That you found few that met your needs doesn't make your preferences unreasonable... just niche.

That's not an insult or denigration, by the way. It seems you are reading it as such. It just means that the market didn't cater specifically to what you wanted because it didn't percieve that there was a large segment of the customer base that would pay for what you specifically wanted. Supply meets percieved demand, after all.

Heck, my tastes are quite a bit more niche than yours, I'd say. Please don't take that as some kind of put-down. I'm proud to be on the bleeding edge of what I want in my games. Although I wish it didn't bleed quite so much sometimes.

Not really. I said quite bluntly the quality wasn't very high during that period in my opinion. You can disagree, but that isn't a niche caveat, quality is a pretty universal expectation.

Oh, sure. But your definition of quality was... quite comprehensive, shall we say. And included a number of things that aren't strictly related to quality at all. You've basically come up with a definition of quality that exactly equals "your taste." And hey, that's fine. But I do disagree. I'll think you'll find that many do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think so... I agree that your tastes and expectations are perfectly reasonable. That doesn't mean that they were shared with the majority of the rest of the customer base. By and large, the customer was well-served by a large variety of module styles during the 3E era. That you found few that met your needs doesn't make your preferences unreasonable... just niche.

That's not an insult or denigration, by the way. It seems you are reading it as such. It just means that the market didn't cater
Oh, sure. But your definition of quality was... quite comprehensive, shall we say. And included a number of things that aren't strictly related to quality at all. You've basically come up with a definition of quality that exactly equals "your taste." And hey, that's fine. But I do disagree. I'll think you'll find that many do.

Sorry if i misread your tone. I admit that is how it came across to me but clearly that wasnt your intention (i've been squeezing this between a project i am working on and may havd read your post too hastily).

I dont think my opinions are universally shared buf i do thing a broad segment of the 3e fanbase was not happy with official support material, and would have liked to see more modules. In fact i think this is why paizo is getting such an enthusiastic response.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Well it doesn't help that Monte Cook actually admitted that some of the design attributes of 3E made a huge mess out of the game.

My thesis is that edition changes make a mess out of the game logistically for players that can't keep up with the changes. Is that a bigger mess than the pitfalls of 3E? For me it is

Ooo god no. If there is one thing that I have learned about any Pen and Paper RPG is that if you start borrowing from real life you are more often than going to get something that is whitewashed and borderline racist.

On the side - I can see how it could and getting Hasbro to publish it just wouldn't happen. But if you're even-handed you could create a product that really explores the depths of a problem like colonialism in an interactive way that promotes empathy for both sides. I'd like to learn a little bit more about the Berlin Conference, Cortez and Columbus before I go into my Isle of Dread campaign. And that definitely won't be whitewashed.

 

[Desdichado]

I dont think my opinions are universally shared buf i do thing a broad segment of the 3e fanbase was not happy with official support material, and would have liked to see more modules. In fact i think this is why paizo is getting such an enthusiastic response.

:shrug: I think a large segment of the gaming population didn't care that it wasn't official. Paizo was going that already, for years before the 3e era came to an end.

Which was really the whole point; the module demanding public was well-served during this era. They just had to (mostly) get their stuff from 3rd party OGL sources. But within the third party OGL sources, they were really spoiled for choice.

Frankly, the splats that came out from WotC were much more useful to me than modules would have been. But I've already admitted my tastes were extremely niche.

 

[Desdichado]

My thesis is that edition changes make a mess out of the game logistically for players that can't keep up with the changes. Is that a bigger mess than the pitfalls of 3E? For me it is

Curiously, I think the worst offender in this regard was the change from 3E to 3.5. With 4e, the game was significantly enough overhauled at a fundamental level, that you didn't have all these carryover associations. With 3E and 3.5--heck, we still sometimes can't remember if a rule belonged to one or the other, or what the "correct" rule is for the game that we purport to be playing. And with few exceptions, we've been playing 3.5 non-stop since it was released. And although I've mostly made my peace with 3.5 by now, I'm still somewhat bitter about the change, which I think was completely unnecessary, which broke as many things as it fixed, and which changed a good many things in ways that were neither better nor worse--just different, so that you couldn't remember what the rule was anymore.

Also curiously, a big part of what eventually won me over were the splatbooks, which were greatly improved from their 3E counterparts.

Also curiously, I think the exact same problem exists for the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder, although the market in general certainly doesn't seem to agree with me. If Pathfinder eventually wins me over, which has more to do with whether or not our group decides to change over than anything else, it'll be all the tracks and a la carte options within the classes that'll eventually convince me that it might possibly be an improvement after all instead of just change for change's sake.

On the side - I can see how it could and getting Hasbro to publish it just wouldn't happen. But if you're even-handed you could create a product that really explores the depths of a problem like colonialism in an interactive way that promotes empathy for both sides. I'd like to learn a little bit more about the Berlin Conference, Cortez and Columbus before I go into my Isle of Dread campaign. And that definitely won't be whitewashed.

If Disney can make a series of Aladdin movies and more recently a Prince of Persia movie, then certainly Hasbro can remake Al-Qadim and have it succeed in the marketplace if its a quality product. All this fear about it being racist, or not sensitive enough, or whatever, seems more like paranoia than reason to me.