Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="sullivan" data-source="post: 2995684" data-attributes="member: 28152">WTF? Seriously. I mean the quality is pretty good. Certainly compared to AD&amp;D. However this is a function of progression of gaming as a whole. When 3e was released it was, in many aspects, a highwater mark in quality. Certainly within the D&amp;D line.&nbsp; Those supplements certainly applied some lessons learned from the prior 2e supplements.&nbsp; All in all this was good, it helped move the industry forward. Because WotC wasn't the only people to learn (and in some cases people that worked on the product moved on taking their learnin' with them).However that's been 6 years since 3e, and I'd argue that in many ways 3.5 really was just a paint job. It tweaked a few things here and there, but left the larger problems alone because it was functioning within the structural framework laid down by 3e.&nbsp; It is still pretty good quality, top tier for sure.&nbsp; But nothing particularly abnormal.I've seen stuff from one man working in on a game as a second job, and play tested by friends, come up with an RPG game that in many ways more fundementally sound than 3e/3.5 could even hope to be.&nbsp; Of course it didn't have the same full colour art, only B&amp;W line drawings.&nbsp; It also doesn't have a plethoria of supplemental books.&nbsp; Although it isn't, like D&amp;D is for obvious marketing reasons, designed in that way.&nbsp; So it isn't actually something that is missing....except the sales of course.You also have companies like Green Ronin going off and building derivative rules that in ways surpasses the original and provide a fresh take, shaking of some of 3e's baggage.I'm saying that TSR's tanking sales and general mismanagement, along with AD&amp;D's insane direction, helped move WW 'up' a rung relatively. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There are people that talk about a 10ish year cycle from D&amp;D, but Third edition was arguably a couple years late, and 2e was more a paint job that probably should have been more of a redo.&nbsp; That's why I hope that 4th changes go deeper than a rearranging of the chairs on the deck (and they do it around 2008).&nbsp; Not nessasarily because I want to play it, although I will come back to D&amp;D with a gusto if I like what they've done, but because I want to see them learn from others and leap frogging to up the ante to drive even better games out of everyone else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="sullivan, post: 2995684, member: 28152"] WTF? Seriously. I mean the quality is pretty good. Certainly compared to AD&D. However this is a function of progression of gaming as a whole. When 3e was released it was, in many aspects, a highwater mark in quality. Certainly within the D&D line. Those supplements certainly applied some lessons learned from the prior 2e supplements. All in all this was [I]good[/I], it helped move the industry forward. Because WotC wasn't the only people to learn (and in some cases people that worked on the product moved on taking their learnin' with them). However that's been 6 years since 3e, and I'd argue that in many ways 3.5 really was just a paint job. It tweaked a few things here and there, but left the larger problems alone because it was functioning within the structural framework laid down by 3e. It is still pretty good quality, top tier for sure. But nothing particularly abnormal. I've seen stuff from one man working in on a game as a second job, and play tested by friends, come up with an RPG game that in many ways more fundementally sound than 3e/3.5 could even hope to be. Of course it didn't have the same full colour art, only B&W line drawings. It also doesn't have a plethoria of supplemental books. Although it isn't, like D&D is for obvious [I]marketing[/I] reasons, designed in that way. So it isn't actually something that is missing....except the sales of course. You also have companies like Green Ronin going off and building derivative rules that in ways surpasses the original and provide a fresh take, shaking of some of 3e's baggage. I'm saying that TSR's tanking sales and general mismanagement, along with AD&D's insane direction, helped move WW 'up' a rung relatively. :) There are people that talk about a 10ish year cycle from D&D, but Third edition was arguably a couple years late, and 2e was more a paint job that probably should have been more of a redo. That's why I hope that 4th changes go deeper than a rearranging of the chairs on the deck (and they do it around 2008). Not nessasarily because I want to play it, although I will come back to D&D with a gusto if I like what they've done, but because I want to see them learn from others and leap frogging to up the ante to drive even better games out of everyone else. [/QUOTE]

Verification