Maybe we are talking about different things. Anyone who likes the commonality of 1e,2e,4e aren't really the people I'm talking about. Also I am sure there are things about 3e that fall outside this tradition I speak of and those things of course would be up for discussion too. I just think 3e deviated far less in the areas of which I am thinking.
Here are some of the common things. 1. Vancian spellcasting (Spellbook, Daily Preparation, X number of each level per level, Fire and Forget) 2. Fighter ascending multiattack BAB (3e varied this slightly but the essence was there). 3. Saving Throws 4. Iconic Spell Names 5. Hit Points (treated in some ways as physical whether realistic or not. This would preclude martial healing and surges.)
I'm sure other people could come up with more. If the game had #1 through #5 and was balanced then it would have been ok with the grognards I think. The really old grognards would still not like feats and if there is a way to remove them then cool.
You spoke of the D&D of those 30 years versus the 4 that followed. You didn't mention people. I realize you feel like there is a continuity of certain mechanics through 3E. Despite your perceptions, there is no need to divide players into 2 camps - those who like 1st - 3rd versus those who like 4th. There are a lot of views out there, and they don't need to be enumerated or explained for you to be wrong. You've created a false dichotomy, and the supporting details aren't the point. WotC's decision here is NOT to cater to the 1st-3rd crowd you've made up versus the 4E fans you think won't accept anything but a copy of their favorite edition. Those may not be real groups at all, and they certainly aren't the only ones.
Edit: Oh yeah - "really old grognards" is a bit much too. Age doesn't play a role in this stuff as much as you'd think. We have retirees posting about why they like 4E. We have 20-somethings who never played AD&D and are firmly opposed to anything too different from 3E. We have people who won't play any WotC edition who haven't disclosed their ages. There isn't a lot of value in trying to guess which age groups play which editions.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
IMO the OGL and the SRD were a bad idea to begin with. While it was only kind of positive for us as customers, it was a total desaster as a business idea.
Not at all. The OGL & SRD was probably quite beneficial to WOTC. True, it made it harder to stay king of the hill, but it made the hill a lot bigger. The problem was that when it came time for 4e, they didn't realize the customers were no longer their prisoners. The 2e players had little choice but to become 3e [or quit]. But our 3.5 player could continue to play 3.5/Pathfinder with barely a bump. So when they made something as innovative as 4e, they were leading with their chin. If they had put out a 3.75 or so, Pathfinder would have never happened. Now I consider 4e superior, but there are obviously a lot of people who don't share that opinion. It may well have been too revoluntionary, or it may be too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever. The point here is that the mistake was not the OGL.
I believe WotC does count the Ilithid among it's IP. One reason they added the racial name, I suspect - Mind Flayer probably isn't trademarkable.
Considering Square Enix still uses Mind Flayer in Final Fantasy, I'd say that's a good guess.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
IMO the OGL and the SRD were a bad idea to begin with. While it was only kind of positive for us as customers, it was a total desaster as a business idea.
Not at all. The OGL & SRD was probably quite beneficial to WOTC. True, it made it harder to stay king of the hill, but it made the hill a lot bigger. The problem was that when it came time for 4e, they didn't realize the customers were no longer their prisoners. The 2e players had little choice but to become 3e [or quit]. But our 3.5 player could continue to play 3.5/Pathfinder with barely a bump. So when they made something as innovative as 4e, they were leading with their chin. If they had put out a 3.75 or so, Pathfinder would have never happened. Now I consider 4e superior, but there are obviously a lot of people who don't share that opinion. It may well have been too revoluntionary, or it may be too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever. The point here is that the mistake was not the OGL.
I disagree (which you probably expected because of my rant). What I am saying is that the OGL made the competition strong. I am sure it helped WotC to sell more PHBs for some time. But 3.5 made it clear that after 3 years, a rules revision was neccessary and new PHBs needed to be sold. And although you cannot play with a 3.0 character at a 3.5 edition table (and that is the main reason why claims that Essentials are a new edition and not 4E, because you can actually play with an Essentials character at a regular 4E table), the new 3.5 edition was not too dissimilar to tick off the existing player base. But at some point in time, a new edition had to come along. It is how a game develops over time. Tastes change, new influences, well, influence the game itself and there are mechanics that are superior from a design point of view. And the more people ask for a different rules set, the more likely it is for designers to actually design a new edition. 60.000 people pay WotC on a regular basis for DDI and that is no coincidence. I am guessing that those players have a reason not to play PF or 3.0. So if WotC had only produced 3.75, they would have lost me for sure. And everybody that I play with and most of the people I do not play with. We would have played Warhammer, Rolemaster, Das Schwarze Auge or some other RPG.
But through the OGL, WotC created the strength that Paizo has. And I sure, everybody at Paizo is secretely thanking them for it. Because they can use WotC creativity, that lead to a well known, award winning ruleset for free. That, and the fact that Paizo became "the other DnD company" through publishing the magazines. I do not know what business ddecision was crappier. But even individually, they were crappy enough.
There is no way to safely know that people will love your game. Even a full blown playtest will not ensure this. Look at ENWorld (and maybe these boards, too): People loose faith in 5e because Monte Cook leaves WotC for reasons any sane person can only speculate about! No game designer can calculate the amount of weirdness we - myself included - have in us.
But our 3.5 player could continue to play 3.5/Pathfinder with barely a bump. So when they made something as innovative as 4e, they were leading with their chin. If they had put out a 3.75 or so, Pathfinder would have never happened. Now I consider 4e superior, but there are obviously a lot of people who don't share that opinion. It may well have been too revoluntionary, or it may be too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever. The point here is that the mistake was not the OGL.
I think what Paizo accomplished was what was truely revolutionary and I'm not sure 4e players fully appreciate this.
What Paizo did, was adventure paths (basically campaigns in a box) and very well written modules and a excellent setting in Golorian. They did a wonderful job of making 3.75 more balanced, not as balanced as the 4e crowd wanted but closer to 'right' than the people who felt 4e went too far. They killed some rather awful fluff and with it some mechanics that went with them as well. Good examples are 3.5 or 4e vs Pathfinder half elves and half orcs. In Pathfinder, these races are are mechanically balanced and rather cool. They innovated with the 3.75 mechanics not simply with classes but with archtypes, alternate racial abilities, traits. Unoffically, they killed off prestige classes (in the sense that no one plays them anymore).
Outside the game, they built up their organized play system so that cons in my area have many more PFS vs LFR games (I don't think this is true everywhere BtW). They had very good customer service and PDFs.
These are areas, great adventure writing, customer service, building up organized play at time when Hasbro was dumping it that allowed Paizo to prosper and build brand loyalty. Furthermore, they exploited the areas where WotC was complacent.
I think if Paizo had not done any of these things and simply made a 3.E retro clone called Pathfinder, they would not have had the impact that they did. Instead, they were given an unpalatable choice with the GSL (a poison pill not to produce OGL product) found it unpalatable based off of what they were doing, namely the adventure paths, and took the game in a different direction.
As for reunification, it could truthfully go either way. 5e could be a success and bring back at least some players back and WotC could become the undisputed dominant publisher again. Or it could divide the player base yet again or only do so--so, in which case Hasbro kills the line. About half the players of 4-5e switch, quit, or start playing Savage Worlds or Arcanis (or whatever), not because they like the system better, but because it's what they can find a game of and because Pathfinder is on the shelf at their local game store. Meanwhile, the remaining of the 4e/5e crowd become the 'holdouts'.
You spoke of the D&D of those 30 years versus the 4 that followed. You didn't mention people. I realize you feel like there is a continuity of certain mechanics through 3E. Despite your perceptions, there is no need to divide players into 2 camps - those who like 1st - 3rd versus those who like 4th. There are a lot of views out there, and they don't need to be enumerated or explained for you to be wrong. You've created a false dichotomy, and the supporting details aren't the point. WotC's decision here is NOT to cater to the 1st-3rd crowd you've made up versus the 4E fans you think won't accept anything but a copy of their favorite edition. Those may not be real groups at all, and they certainly aren't the only ones.
Edit: Oh yeah - "really old grognards" is a bit much too. Age doesn't play a role in this stuff as much as you'd think. We have retirees posting about why they like 4E. We have 20-somethings who never played AD&D and are firmly opposed to anything too different from 3E. We have people who won't play any WotC edition who haven't disclosed their ages. There isn't a lot of value in trying to guess which age groups play which editions.
First I am one of the old grognards so no offense was intended. I agree there are all sides. I also agree that there are people that lean a way but would still like X from another edition. That is the hope of 5e. I still though believe that there is a viewpoint that is not insignificant that is represented by what I spoke of in my previous post. I didn't claim it was the only viewpoint. It is a significant one. Obviously those playing Pathfinder had their reasons. They aren't retroclone people who want something else. I think if 4e had been simpler and more streamlined without dumping as many of the sacred cows if thats what you want to call them would have had a greater success.
I think those who love, like, or can tolerate 4e are playing it. If you are playing something else you've had to decide to leave the D&D brand. I have not played Pathfinder in any campaign even though I have bought a few things. I own a bunch of 4e books. I have been fairly loyal to D&D and I've always given them a chance. If they finally do shake me free then they've accomplished something because I have a lot of brand loyalty. If they deliver another game that hits me the same way 4e did then I'm probably gone. Maybe forever. And the reason may be competition. With options you aren't tied to one company which is why I love the OGL as a customer even though as an owner of WOTC I'd have hated it.
I don't think the OGL is really an edition specific issue. There is 3rd support under it. There is also support for 1st and 2nd edition style rules. I'm sure once 4th is sunset there will be a 4th ed rules set adapted (maybe not as literally as 1st and 2nd were, but close).
I think that there is an issue in the OGL making it very easy for any faction to decide "it's my ball, and I'm taking it and going home!"
But our 3.5 player could continue to play 3.5/Pathfinder with barely a bump. So when they made something as innovative as 4e, they were leading with their chin. If they had put out a 3.75 or so, Pathfinder would have never happened. Now I consider 4e superior, but there are obviously a lot of people who don't share that opinion. It may well have been too revoluntionary, or it may be too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever. The point here is that the mistake was not the OGL.
I think what Paizo accomplished was what was truely revolutionary and I'm not sure 4e players fully appreciate this.
What Paizo did, was adventure paths (basically campaigns in a box) and very well written modules and a excellent setting in Golorian.
That's not exactly revolutionary, things like that have been put out since the 70s. Judges Guild's "City State of the Invincible Overloard" is arguably the first, though Chaosium's excellent setting, Glorantha might also fit the bill. TSR put out modules in series quite a lot, too.
The first series of 3.0 modules was even called "The Adventure Path." Even 4e had a series of modules that strung together to from a campaign, from getting beaten down by a goblin with some odd dental work to ganking Orcus.
They did a wonderful job of making 3.75 more balanced
Meh, tier 1 is still tier 1.
Unoffically, they killed off prestige classes (in the sense that no one plays them anymore).
Hows that?
Outside the game, they built up their organized play system so that cons in my area have many more PFS vs LFR games (I don't think this is true everywhere BtW).
All the cons I go to, they're exactly equal. Not sure who's following whom in that regard.
Again, not revolutionary, the RPGA has been doing organized play for decades, and there were organized tournaments before that.
I think if Paizo had not done any of these things and simply made a 3.E retro clone called Pathfinder, they would not have had the impact that they did.
I can't agree. I think the 3.5 holdouts would have been delighted to have anything that catered to their nerdrage, and their confirmation bias would have them defending it no matter how mediocre it might have been. Or is.
As for reunification, it could truthfully go either way. 5e could be a success and bring back at least some players back and WotC could become the undisputed dominant publisher again. Or it could divide the player base yet again or only do so--so, in which case Hasbro kills the line.
It's all about meeting the demands of the Pathfinder set. Thanks to the OGL, the game can never again move forward. If WotC doesn't go far enough in caving to the 3.5 holdouts, 5e will fail commerically. If they go far enough to win them back, it will simply fail to innovate going forward. Whether it fails immediately and Hasbro kills the line, or it stagnates and dies slowly, the hobby can look forward to D&D(including Pathfinder) declining in relevance over the next decade or so, much like it did in the 90s.
Hopefully, other producers will step in and keep things fresh, like SJG and WWGS did in the 90s. If not, the hobby itself could fade into (even deeper) obscurity.
IMO the OGL and the SRD were a bad idea to begin with. While it was only kind of positive for us as customers, it was a total desaster as a business idea.
Not at all. The OGL & SRD was probably quite beneficial to WOTC. True, it made it harder to stay king of the hill, but it made the hill a lot bigger. The problem was that when it came time for 4e, they didn't realize the customers were no longer their prisoners. The 2e players had little choice but to become 3e [or quit]. But our 3.5 player could continue to play 3.5/Pathfinder with barely a bump. So when they made something as innovative as 4e, they were leading with their chin. If they had put out a 3.75 or so, Pathfinder would have never happened. Now I consider 4e superior, but there are obviously a lot of people who don't share that opinion. It may well have been too revoluntionary, or it may be too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever. The point here is that the mistake was not the OGL.
I disagree (which you probably expected because of my rant). What I am saying is that the OGL made the competition strong.
Which is fine when it also makes WOTC strong. So there is no error here. It was the decision to really innovate with 4e that gave Pathfinder a chance. They were given the chance to serve an abandoned market. Had WOTC stayed in that market by putting out a 3.75, there just would not have been any Pathfinder.
at some point in time, a new edition had to come along. 60.000 people pay WotC on a regular basis for DDI and that is no coincidence. I am guessing that those players have a reason not to play PF or 3.0.
Nobody gives us any reliable numbers, but there seems to be about an equally large number who are playing Pathfinder, who thus have a reason not to be playing 4e. The point seems rather unimportant.
So if WotC had only produced 3.75, they would have lost me for sure. And everybody that I play with and most of the people I do not play with. We would have played Warhammer, Rolemaster, Das Schwarze Auge or some other RPG.
This seems unlikely. These games are not 4e and have not seen any big growth. By contrast Pathfinder has been very successful, whether or not we take seriously the claim it is close to being #1. So by the evidence at hand, a 3.75 would have been highly successful. The idea the player just has to have something new looks rather dubious when you consider the current version of chess is 200 years old and nobody is sure whether it's been one or two thousand years since Go changed its rules much.
This seems unlikely. These games are not 4e and have not seen any big growth. By contrast Pathfinder has been very successful, whether or not we take seriously the claim it is close to being #1. So by the evidence at hand, a 3.75 would have been highly successful. The idea the player just has to have something new looks rather dubious when you consider the current version of chess is 200 years old and nobody is sure whether it's been one or two thousand years since Go changed its rules much.
If you look at the behavoir of the RPG industry, though, there is a clear pattern of popularity wanning late in an edition's life. It's the early, 'core' books that always sell best, then taper off. There are any number of possible reasons. One I find compelling is that games like D&D that add sub-systems as they add options become more and more complex and less and less playable the longer they're supported. They need to 're-boot' periodically to restore playability (and revenue). Pathfinder is wildly successful (for a 3rd-party OGL game) because buzz and furor was whipped up by the rejection of 4e. An official "3.75," as 3.5-compatible as Pathfinder is wouldn't even have been a 'reboot,' just more ongoing support, adding yet more complexity and making the game more arcane and turgid and less playable. It would have flopped. Unless, of course, "3.75" had been incompatible enough to 'force' an either/or switch - in which case it would have been rejected like 4e, and we'd still have Pathfinder, though it might be an even more faithful clone than it is now.
