D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

[Anoth]

Or, if you are a god, you are very much tied to your worshipers...

Oh a Dm that loses his worshipers will not be a DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, it doesn't. And, the "bloat problem" came down to a couple of fundamental decisions about how they'd monetize the edition.

Decision #1: Players are where the money is at. Third edition was the first edition primarily marketed to players and not to DMs. Where as most of the content in prior editions was aimed exclusively at DMs - monster manuals, setting supplements, adventures, etc. - they made a conscious decision to aim 3e primarily at players. (I should say here I'm not privy to the actual internal details of WotC's brand management, so this is all speculation on my part, but I do think I'm a pretty good detective.) As a result, there was a rule that no book was going to be produced by WotC without at least part of the book aimed at players. Since players are only interested in one thing from a rules perspective, that meant every book came loaded with character options. And it's that, and not rules aimed at making settings or minigames come to life, that caused the mechanical bloat.

I think you hit on two major elements, yes.

3.x Really pushed things more toward the player than ever before. The heavy codification meant that there was less need for judgment from a DM than there had been previously.

I know that I couldn't keep up with stuff. Not that we started new campaigns incredibly often, but anytime anyone was making a new character for whatever reason, there were a handful of new books in the mix.

Decision #2: Highly aggressive publishing schedule. When it became obvious that 3e was a success, someone made the decision to milk that cash cow as fast as they could. That meant publishing like 6 large hardcover rules supplements a year. It was an avalanche of books. Not only did that mean that new options were being introduced all the time, it also meant that no one in brand management had a comprehensive picture of what they were doing with the brand. The pace of publishing exceeded the ability of anyone to adequately review much less play test what was being published, and it meant that there was basically no real coordination between products. No one was even attempting to address how all this material would be used or how it would fit together. Brand management was de facto being left up to the individual Dungeon Masters to decide if and how they would integrate all this content with their game. In effect, they were directly sacrificing the long term health of the brand for short term profits.

I'd like to think that among the lessons the 5e brand management team has absorbed, is the consequences of the above two mistakes.

Yeah, that publishing schedule seems insane. I can't understand how they thought it would be sustainable. I think that's why when they decided to go with a new edition, they decided to depart more than ever before from the core elements of the game. And then they spammed those books, too. Pathfinder likewise maintained that heavy publishing schedule, and they too had to go to a new edition.

I think that this lesson was clearly learned by WotC and the D&D team there. The slow pace of publishing, the control of the PC options....these seem like deliberate responses to past mistakes.

 

[Anoth]

I think you hit on two major elements, yes.

3.x Really pushed things more toward the player than ever before. The heavy codification meant that there was less need for judgment from a DM than there had been previously.

I know that I couldn't keep up with stuff. Not that we started new campaigns incredibly often, but anytime anyone was making a new character for whatever reason, there were a handful of new books in the mix.



Yeah, that publishing schedule seems insane. I can't understand how they thought it would be sustainable. I think that's why when they decided to go with a new edition, they decided to depart more than ever before from the core elements of the game. And then they spammed those books, too. Pathfinder likewise maintained that heavy publishing schedule, and they too had to go to a new edition.

I think that this lesson was clearly learned by WotC and the D&D team there. The slow pace of publishing, the control of the PC options....these seem like deliberate responses to past mistakes.

I hope they all sit around tables playtesting everything and having a blast before it is ever published

 

[Quartz]

I don't recall much problem with 3E or 3.5E. I do recall Disjunction being used frequently and simplifying matters (quite a few threads here too )

Saves? Everyone has base saves of +1 / 2 levels rounded down. Class bonus of +2 for good saves. Easy calculation too. So a Ftr 6 / Sor 6 has FRW saves of +8 / +6 / +8. Your A / B / C / D level 20 PC has FRW base saves of +10 / +10 / +10 modified by the class bonus for good saves.
Bonuses? Group them and take the best from each group. "So spell X gives you a +2 Enhancement Bonus and spell Y gives you a +3 Insight bonus? Take the better."
Skill points? Introduce character skills. All class skills became character skills when you take the class and persisted despite multiclassing.

 

[Stormonu]

Grease. Ugh, I had more arguments with that spell in 3E than anything else I can recall.

When 3E was in full swing, it was the bee’s knees. When it was out, I can’t imagine me wanting or accepting a different version. It had, or you could make, a rule for anything and everything. And everybody did their own take on it - and it broke the game. It was very hard to keep supplement bloat out of the game when your players are insisting they need this ability, item, race or etc. for their character concept, which some author had “thoughtfully” stated up for you an supposedly play tested. It’ll be fine to add to your campaign - until three levels down the road and some ability comes into play that just wrecks the game state.

5E was, to me, a breath of fresh air. I find DMing it far less cumbersome than 3E (as well as 1E or 2E, thanks to unified systems). As a player, I feel like I have a lot more control on the development of a character, in that I don’t feel tied to the magic Christmas tree effect, bonus grinding or prestige class chasing. While 5E lost some mechanical effects for player choice (say 5E pirate background vs. 3E pirate prestige class), story wise, it feels better me (“Good at sailing” vs. +2 bonus to Use Rope, for example).

 

[Anoth]

I got really tired of players trying to spam disarm or trip. Just have a fumble table for god sake. It for boring. And then the crit fishers. I am sure the mechanics are important in their own mind for them to role play their character concept.

 

[Bohandas]

3e was good because the monsters weren't 2 dimensional standees. Everything had full stat blocks

 

[hawkeyefan]

I got really tired of players trying to spam disarm or trip. Just have a fumble table for god sake. It for boring. And then the crit fishers. I am sure the mechanics are important in their own mind for them to role play their character concept.

My biggest DM/player argument happened because of a player who had built his character so that he could trip everyone he fought, and then attack his prone enemy with his subsequent attacks. It became very old, very quickly.

This was another problem for our group....character builds became a replacement for character concept. As if we've ever encountered a character who was "The Best at Tripping His Enemies" in any fiction ever. Ugh.

 

[Mecheon]

The ol' tripmaster was pretty much the go-to best way to make a fighter who was still a relevant, important member of the party who wasn't being outdone by the druid's animal companion though, so it was pretty much going to be the build you saw

 

[hawkeyefan]

The ol' tripmaster was pretty much the go-to best way to make a fighter who was still a relevant, important member of the party who wasn't being outdone by the druid's animal companion though, so it was pretty much going to be the build you saw

We had plenty of fighters who managed to contribute without being ultra-specialized, one trick ponies. But even if we hadn't, your comment still goes to show what didn't work about the system. So many of the "options" were actually far less desirable than others, and the difference between an optimized character and a non-optimized character was severe....so most of the options were actually anything but.