What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

[Dausuul]

Actually, I would say that 4E does small trivial combat far better than 3.5E can ever have hoped to attained. I don't think even LFR runs combat encounters like how you are supposed to but if you actual follow their guidelines you will get exactly what you claim is missing.

Which guidelines do you have in mind? The ones I know about, if followed, produce challenging set-piece battles that can be a lot of fun but take a solid 45-60 minutes to play out. If you design the adventure with that in mind, it works great, but if your adventure incorporates a bunch of small fights to wear down the party (the standard model for 3E and earlier), it really bogs down. "Keep on the Shadowfell" was a godawful grind because of this; the big fights were excellent but the little ones were maddening.

One can, of course, throw in totally non-threatening fights, e.g., a handful of minions and 1-2 normal monsters as suggested above. However, the resource drain from such a combat is minimal.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

One poll on Enworld had D&D 3.5, D&D 4 and Pathfinder about neck to neck. I'd be surprised if D&D 3.5 was less than 20% of D&D-like games being run.

There. I've seen about the same number on other boards. Can anyone find a link? Maybe other websites have similar polls? I tried googling this for my original post and couldn't find any polls...

If two thirds of gamers aren't willing to make a major change in games and half of those aren't even interested in a minor change, eleven years after the debut of the system (or eight depending on how you slice it) I'd say you have a pretty strong brand that merits support.

Can someone dig this poll up?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Making them hardcover was done because the softcover 3.0 books didn't sell that well, and apparently they got feedback that distributors and bookstores were prioritizing hardcovers (from 3rd parties) over softcovers.

I am sure they had a valid reason for the shift. If the softcovers weren't selling I suppose there isn't much they could have done differenty; however going over the softcovers I did own for 3E, I have to wonder if it was more an issue of the content than the cover. The one that leaps immediately to mind was the hero builders guide (or something on that theme). It was pretty bad.

Power creep is hard. The new magical classes in the Complete books tended to be less powerful then the cleric and wizard in the core book, so I for one tend to think for a while before I play one of them. If a book has a lot of new content, and all of it is less powerful then the core options, people aren't going to be happy and probably aren't going to use it. (This may not be as true if they designed material as replacements for the core material instead of alternatives, but most of the Complete material didn't come across that way.)

Power creep is difficult but also almost inevitable if you keep expanding the game. I guess I just never understood why they went that route. It was simply something that didn't appeal to me. It got to the point where their books were built around prestige classes, feats and spells. I guess I just wanted more than that. I also felt many of these options could have been playtested more thoroughly to vet for unexpected combos.

I also don't think I buy the assumption that most gamers just want options that are more powerful than core. D&D is like building a magic deck. There were always be min/max-optimizing players, but in my regular gaming I encounter that mentality somewhat infrequently. When I do encounter it, I am happy to cater to it as a GM, but I have only met a handful of people who were all about finding more powerful options for characters. What I suspect most people want is cool and interesting material with flavor that inspires them.

So you have to try and make options that are powerful enough that people will take them instead of core material, without making them so powerful that they are more powerful then the core material. It's a tough line to walk, and the Complete books had a lot of stuff that was distinctly underpowered, while having a few things that were overpowered.

I don't think you do. I'd much rather have a solid core game with minimal splat material (perhaps occassional optional feats or prestige classes when it is truly warranted). By the end I just felt all the splat material created a clutter effect more than anything else.

Flavor is another complex line to walk. Personally, I found the prestige classes in Complete Arcane to have a bit much flavor, making them hard to weave into a campaign. It perhaps would have been better if they felt like they came from one world where they all made sense.

It depends on the kind of flavor. When I say flavor I mean I want lots of flavor material to draw from and not just stats or mechanics. I don't expect all the flavor material to apply to my campaign, but I'd like to see stuff that provides it. To be fair some of their releases did a good job of this. I felt the 3E Oriental Adventures had plenty of inspiring flavor material in it. I can't remember if it was an official WOTC product but the d20 Cthulu book had lots of excellent flavor as well (I thought some of it was more impressive than the original CoC stuff). I think what I am saying is I really would have liked to see more stuff for the GM rather than the player (which is kind of what I meant when I said they could have learned from the old 80s to 90s approach).

 

[Dausuul]

Power creep is difficult but also almost inevitable if you keep expanding the game. I guess I just never understood why they went that route.

Splat sells, pure and simple. Adventures don't bring in the kind of cash that a popular splatbook does. That's not to say you can't make a living doing adventures--Paizo did quite well out of that--but it's not where the big money is.

It depends on the kind of flavor. When I say flavor I mean I want lots of flavor material to draw from and not just stats or mechanics. I don't expect all the flavor material to apply to my campaign, but I'd like to see stuff that provides it.

Heh. I see a lot of this feedback nowadays (have provided some of it myself), and I bet it makes the older designers want to scream. What they kept hearing from players in the 3E era was "We want more crunchy mechanics, less flavor text." 4E gave the gaming masses what they said they wanted, and they abandoned it in droves.

I think the lesson here is that what gamers really want are flavorful mechanics. Splitting them out into separate sections is a mistake; the two should be integrated, so that you take in the flavor at the same time you're learning the mechanic.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Splat sells, pure and simple. Adventures don't bring in the kind of cash that a popular splatbook does. That's not to say you can't make a living doing adventures--Paizo did quite well out of that--but it's not where the big money is.

I agree splat sells initially. however I question whether it is sustainable over the long haul. This is just speculation, but I think the reason WOTC keeps releasing new editions or half editions in such a short span is because the splats paint them into a corner eventually. Whereas if they took the approach Paizo seems to be taking I think they would have less of a big burst initially but more steady sales across the span of a single edition. Just speculation, and admittedly it is informed by my preference for non splat material.

Heh. I see a lot of this feedback nowadays (have provided some of it myself), and I bet it makes the older designers want to scream. What they kept hearing from players in the 3E era was "We want more crunchy mechanics, less flavor text." 4E gave the gaming masses what they said they wanted, and they abandoned it in droves.

And I think this was because the loudest gamers were the ones saying they wanted more crunch, less fluff and a perfectly balanced game. I don't think they reflected the feelings of the majority of gamers though.

Also I think part of the issue if "fluff" gets a bad name and people associate it with meaningless material thrown in to increase page count. So if you ask, do you want flavor/fluff material, a lot of people will say no.

I think the lesson here is that what gamers really want are flavorful mechanics. Splitting them out into separate sections is a mistake; the two should be integrated, so that you take in the flavor at the same time you're learning the mechanic.

I agree they should be integrated but I also think the desire for pure flavor is there as well.

 

[prosfilaes]

I also don't think I buy the assumption that most gamers just want options that are more powerful than core. D&D is like building a magic deck.

I find that a confusing analogy in the context of your statement.

There were always be min/max-optimizing players, but in my regular gaming I encounter that mentality somewhat infrequently. When I do encounter it, I am happy to cater to it as a GM, but I have only met a handful of people who were all about finding more powerful options for characters. What I suspect most people want is cool and interesting material with flavor that inspires them.

I think you're being too binary. I don't consider myself all about finding more powerful options for characters--I played a catfolk favored soul, for one example. I like cool and interesting material with flavor that inspires me. But what I don't find cool and interesting is when my character is constantly outshadowed by the other characters, when my character isn't useful in the party. I've felt that way before, and take great care to look up what's considered optimal and make a conscious choice to take suboptimal options, instead of creating a character to find out that what was cool and interesting in design is boring and powerless in play.

 

[technoextreme]

Which guidelines do you have in mind? The ones I know about, if followed, produce challenging set-piece battles that can be a lot of fun but take a solid 45-60 minutes to play out.

That is 45-60 minutes if you start pushing boundaries of what is considered a sane encounter. I'm also fairly sure that is the major problem with Keep on the Shadowfell.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree splat sells initially. however I question whether it is sustainable over the long haul. This is just speculation, but I think the reason WOTC keeps releasing new editions or half editions in such a short span is because the splats paint them into a corner eventually. Whereas if they took the approach Paizo seems to be taking I think they would have less of a big burst initially but more steady sales across the span of a single edition. Just speculation, and admittedly it is informed by my preference for non splat material.

A typical splatbook almost certainly outsells a typical adventure, both initially and over the lifespan of the book. You are right that there is a limit to how much splat can reasonably be produced for a given edition; eventually the product line must be rebooted with a new edition, so all the old splats can be re-published. However, if the reboots are successful, the splat business model is far more profitable.

That is, of course, an important "if" right there. Wizards rebooted 2E with spectacular success as 3E, then rebooted 3E with 3.5. The latter was widely criticized as a money grab (and if Monte Cook is to be believed, that's exactly what it was), but most gamers did eventually follow along, and WotC was able to re-create the old splatbooks as shiny new hardcovers.

It wasn't unreasonable of them to think they could keep it up, and they might well have done if 4E had not been such a radical departure--or if they had done a better job with the GSL. As I recall, most of the 3PPs were standing ready to jump on board with 4E, including Paizo. But when WotC was unforgivably late with the GSL, and then the first version included a bunch of clauses that no sane publisher would agree to, the 3PPs couldn't hang around waiting forever. Paizo was already developing Pathfinder as a way to get a little money from the 3E holdouts, but it was the GSL fiasco that drove them to make it their flagship product. And then, when there were a lot more 3E holdouts than anyone anticipated, Paizo was right there with the alternative.

And I think this was because the loudest gamers were the ones saying they wanted more crunch, less fluff and a perfectly balanced game. I don't think they reflected the feelings of the majority of gamers though.

I'm pretty sure they did. WotC knows how to do basic market research--they aren't just reading posts on the Intarwebz.

I think, however, that WotC misinterpreted the feedback they were getting. When I buy a gaming book, I don't want pages and pages of flavor divorced from any mechanics, unless the writers producing that flavor are really damn good, and writers of that caliber are beyond rare in the gaming industry. If you have it in your head that flavor goes in one box and mechanics in another, it's easy to read "Stop giving me pages of disconnected flavor" as "We need less flavor, more crunch," when in fact it means "We need our flavor to be more closely tied to our crunch."

 

[Bedrockgames]

I find that a confusing analogy in the context of your statement.

That was a typo. I meant to say D&D is not like building a magic deck.

I think you're being too binary. I don't consider myself all about finding more powerful options for characters--I played a catfolk favored soul, for one example. I like cool and interesting material with flavor that inspires me. But what I don't find cool and interesting is when my character is constantly outshadowed by the other characters, when my character isn't useful in the party. I've felt that way before, and take great care to look up what's considered optimal and make a conscious choice to take suboptimal options, instead of creating a character to find out that what was cool and interesting in design is boring and powerless in play.

Sure, I think there are shades of gray here and I think you represent a viewpoint that is somewhat widespread.

 

[Dausuul]

That is 45-60 minutes if you start pushing boundaries of what is considered a sane encounter. I'm also fairly sure that is the major problem with Keep on the Shadowfell.

What do you mean by "what is considered a sane encounter?" Sure, if I give my PCs a fight at level-1 to level (rather than level+2 to level+3), it may take 30-40 minutes instead of 45-60. But those 30-40 minutes will be incredibly freaking boring, because the outcome is a foregone conclusion and everyone knows it.

A minor fight whose purpose is to expend PC resources should take no more than 10-15 minutes.