PDA

View Full Version : Who wants to protest WotC's stopping 3.5



el minster
2020-07-14, 04:57 PM
Hello all. For all of you unhappy with WotC's discision to stop making more books for D&D 3.5 we can do somthing about that! We can protest! We can send emails to WotC demanding a few more books! We can make them hear us! And the reason we and this is because together we are powerful!

This thread is here to measure support for this issue and to ask for ideas about the specifics. Remember, together we can do anything.

JNAProductions
2020-07-14, 05:01 PM
Hello all. For all of you unhappy with WotC's discision to stop making more books for D&D 3.5 we can do somthing about that! We can protest! We can send emails to WotC demanding a few more books! We can make them hear us! And the reason we and this is because together we are powerful!

This thread is here to measure support for this issue and to ask for ideas about the specifics. Remember together we can do anything.

It's... It's been done for over a decade now.

5th edition is nearly six years old now. There was an entire 4th edition that's ALSO done.

el minster
2020-07-14, 05:02 PM
Yes, but people still play 3.5 not many people play 4e

JNAProductions
2020-07-14, 05:04 PM
Yes, but people still play 3.5 not many people play 4e

And more people play 5th edition than 3.5.

Moreover, there's Pathfinder, and probably a dozen other 3.5esque systems you could pick up.

Even more, what new content would they produce?

el minster
2020-07-14, 05:07 PM
They could take online content and put it in books

JNAProductions
2020-07-14, 05:19 PM
They could take online content and put it in books

And... What else? Moreover, online content is already available, online. People who want it can access it.

Heck, go to DMs Guild, the website. You can buy most of the 3.5 books there, in PDF format.

el minster
2020-07-14, 05:21 PM
naysayer :wink:

Palanan
2020-07-14, 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by el minster
They could take online content and put it in books….

We had a thread about this a few months ago, and several of us contacted WotC with this very suggestion. We were ignored completely. Wizards is done with 3.5.


Originally Posted by JNAProductions
Moreover, online content is already available, online.

Until Wizards decides to remove it, as they did wholesale several months ago. That was what sparked the prior thread.

Wizards did restore the content, but I doubt if that had anything to do with what a few 3.5 grognards said on the internet. Long-term, online content is inherently unreliable, and at some point they will probably pull the plug for good.

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-14, 05:29 PM
I'm gonna agree with the sentiment of not being at all upset about this.

Support lent to content that is currently niche and becoming MORE niche is only worthwhile if they make more money selling the content than they spend on the employee hours spent making it. If they crossed that threshold, they should stop wasting that money. 3.5 has a veritable mountain of content, official and homebrew and third party combined, it's absolutely astounding just how much content there is. They're good to go.

This is much the same reason why they no longer make games for the Playstation 2, Original X-box, nor Gamecube. They're just not being played enough nor moving enough product to justify the expense. So there's no reason to spend the cash.

3.5 is done, man. Been done for a decade. No reason to beat that dead horse and take resources away from the new hotness.

el minster
2020-07-14, 05:34 PM
We had a thread about this a few months ago, and several of us contacted WotC with this very suggestion. We were ignored completely. Wizards is done with 3.5.



Until Wizards decides to remove it, as they did wholesale several months ago. That was what sparked the prior thread.

Wizards did restore the content, but I doubt if that had anything to do with what a few 3.5 grognards said on the internet. Long-term, online content is inherently unreliable, and at some point they will probably pull the plug for good.

if you have enough people protest it will work

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-14, 05:35 PM
I agree with El. We should have a say in this situation and email Wizard of the Coast about it.

JNAProductions
2020-07-14, 05:35 PM
We had a thread about this a few months ago, and several of us contacted WotC with this very suggestion. We were ignored completely. Wizards is done with 3.5.

Until Wizards decides to remove it, as they did wholesale several months ago. That was what sparked the prior thread.

Wizards did restore the content, but I doubt if that had anything to do with what a few 3.5 grognards said on the internet. Long-term, online content is inherently unreliable, and at some point they will probably pull the plug for good.

That's fair. I could reasonably see an ask for a print version of online-only content, in a collection, to be printed.

But outside that... What's really left to do for 3.5?

el minster
2020-07-14, 05:38 PM
Not much but it would be nice to have all that stuff in a book

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-14, 05:52 PM
You're well over a decade late. It's just not happening, dude.

PATHFINDER 1 is done, and that's over ten years old. (And you'd have more luck pursauding Paizo to make more PF1, to be honest.)

It woudn't have mattered even if you'd protested at the TIME (because I garentee you, a lot of us did NOT buy much, if any, of 4E and it didn't matter, because WotC had already decided), when the 3.5 fanbase was the least divided it ever was. There CERTAINLY isn't enough left NOW that care, even from the vast majority of the people who still play 3.5 don't care that WotC stopped officially supporting it a decade ago.

It was damned lucky, to be honest, that enough people complained that they got the web articles back up at that's really a trivial thing for them to do in this day an age.

It's entirely possible that none of the D&D people at WotC now even wrote anything of 3.5 - at which point, they'd be less able at it than any of us on the forums.



3.5 is done, officially. Like AD&D is done. It's not officially coming back, not much how you might personally want it to. (And I'm saying this as someone who has used 3.5 as the system of choice basically since it came out.) But, y'know, there's, like all of Pathfinder and two decade's worth of third party material plus homebrew to pull from, and a lot it is better balanced and thought out than a lot of latter-end 3.5 was anyway *cough*Complete Psionic*cough*.

So why do you care that you aren't getting something from a company that moved on a tenth of of a century ago?

el minster
2020-07-14, 05:57 PM
But what if we got The Giant on board didn't he used to work for WotC?

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-14, 06:10 PM
But what if we got The Giant on board didn't he used to work for WotC?

No, he did not. He did a bit of OotS as a back-up strip in Dragoin for a bit as I recall and he made a proposal for a campaign world (but that went to the chap who did Eberron), but that's it.

And, let me brutally honest, why would WotC care even if he did and even if you did get him on board?

They would not. Hell, they wouldn't care if, like, Vin Diesel was on your side, and let's be real, I'm sorry and no offense to Rich, but Mr Vin Diesel is a MUCH more influential figure than a gentleman that writes a webcomic in terms of marketing and capital.



Sorry, mate, but you're going to have to let it go. It's just not happening any more than Disney are going to scrap the nuCanon Star Wars and bring back the old one less everything from the new Jedi Order onwards, anymore than Reboot is going get a proper conclusion, anymore than EA is suddenly going to re-instate Bioware and Westwood and Bullfrog and start making proper games again aso I can get Jade Empire 2 and a proper C&C 4 and TIE Fighter 2 and DungeonKeeper 3.

Stuff ends. Stuff you like ends, or moves on, or changes. And you can't do frack all about, and believe me, I would very much like if that didn't happen, since that happens to pretty much EVERYTHING I like, but it does.

And this isn't even like a TV show or something with finite content, it's a set of RPG rules you can keep playing with forever.

Pick your battles. Trying to get a massive corporation to revive a set of rules that's been dead for over a decade when even the majority of its former fanbase have moved on, especially one in direct competetion with its current extremely successful one is not a battle that's worth fighting.

el minster
2020-07-14, 06:15 PM
No, he did not. He did a bit of OotS as a back-up strip in Dragoin for a bit as I recall and he made a proposal for a campaign world (but that went to the chap who did Eberron), but that's it.

And, let me brutally honest, why would WotC care even if he did and even if you did get him on board?

They would not. Hell, they wouldn't care if, like, Vin Diesel was on your side, and let's be real, I'm sorry and no offense to Rich, but Mr Vin Diesel is a MUCH more influential figure than a gentleman that writes a webcomic in terms of marketing and capital.



Sorry, mate, but you're going to have to let it go. It's just not happening any more than Disney are going to scrap the nuCanon Star Wars and bring back the old one less everything from the new Jedi Order onwards, anymore than Reboot is going get a proper conclusion, anymore than EA is suddenly going to re-instate Bioware and Westwood and Bullfrog and start making proper games again aso I can get Jade Empire 2 and a proper C&C 4 and TIE Fighter 2 and DungeonKeeper 3.

Stuff ends. Stuff you like ends, or moves on, or changes. And you can't do frack all about, and believe me, I would very much like if that didn't happen, since that happens to pretty much EVERYTHING I like, but it does.

And this isn't even like a TV show or something with finite content, it's a set of RPG rules you can keep playing with forever.

Pick your battles. Trying to get a massive corporation to revive a set of rules that's been dead for over a decade when even the majority of its former fanbase have moved on, especially one in direct competetion with its current extremely successful one is not a battle that's worth fighting.

It says he worked for WotC on his wikipedia page

Tom Kalbfus
2020-07-14, 06:45 PM
I'm gonna agree with the sentiment of not being at all upset about this.

Support lent to content that is currently niche and becoming MORE niche is only worthwhile if they make more money selling the content than they spend on the employee hours spent making it. If they crossed that threshold, they should stop wasting that money. 3.5 has a veritable mountain of content, official and homebrew and third party combined, it's absolutely astounding just how much content there is. They're good to go.

This is much the same reason why they no longer make games for the Playstation 2, Original X-box, nor Gamecube. They're just not being played enough nor moving enough product to justify the expense. So there's no reason to spend the cash.

3.5 is done, man. Been done for a decade. No reason to beat that dead horse and take resources away from the new hotness.

PlayStation is tech dependent, D&D is not, 3.5 is a pen and paper game and so is 5th, 4th, and 1st and 2nd edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Pen and Paper games don't become obsolete like electronic games do. You need a PlayStation to play a PlayStation game, but you use the same pen, paper, and dice to play all 5 editions of D&D.

Peelee
2020-07-14, 07:24 PM
We should have a say in this situation
Why?

No, he did not. He did a bit of OotS as a back-up strip in Dragoin for a bit as I recall and he made a proposal for a campaign world (but that went to the chap who did Eberron), but that's it.

And, let me brutally honest, why would WotC care even if he did and even if you did get him on board?

They would not. Hell, they wouldn't care if, like, Vin Diesel was on your side, and let's be real, I'm sorry and no offense to Rich, but Mr Vin Diesel is a MUCH more influential figure than a gentleman that writes a webcomic in terms of marketing and capital.



Sorry, mate, but you're going to have to let it go. It's just not happening any more than Disney are going to scrap the nuCanon Star Wars and bring back the old one less everything from the new Jedi Order onwards, anymore than Reboot is going get a proper conclusion, anymore than EA is suddenly going to re-instate Bioware and Westwood and Bullfrog and start making proper games again aso I can get Jade Empire 2 and a proper C&C 4 and TIE Fighter 2 and DungeonKeeper 3.

Stuff ends. Stuff you like ends, or moves on, or changes. And you can't do frack all about, and believe me, I would very much like if that didn't happen, since that happens to pretty much EVERYTHING I like, but it does.

And this isn't even like a TV show or something with finite content, it's a set of RPG rules you can keep playing with forever.

Pick your battles. Trying to get a massive corporation to revive a set of rules that's been dead for over a decade when even the majority of its former fanbase have moved on, especially one in direct competetion with its current extremely successful one is not a battle that's worth fighting.
Whoah, holdon just a second there, I can't believe what I just read, it's really hard for me to relate here. Are you saying that we got a proper C&C 3?

Of course, by "C&C", I mean exclusively "Red Alert", since all non-RA C&C's... well, aren't RA.

Also, I heard a bunch of good things about Jade Empire after KOTOR.

Tarmor
2020-07-14, 07:51 PM
I want Advanced D&D back, d6 Star Wars (WEG) and 3rd edition Shadowrun!

No, not really... even though two of those are my preferred systems over the later ones.

It's not like 3.5 is dead. Like any other system that has officially been replaced, there are still people who play it, and as others have said, there's so much stuff that exists that is accessible for download or purchase. I'm certain that you could never run/play all of it anyway. Why do you want more? You certainly can't need more.

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-14, 08:11 PM
It says he worked for WotC on his wikipedia page

Okay, assuming that isn't just referring to the aforementioned webcomic - what does it matter even if he did?

He doesn't work there NOW, and he wasn't the head honcho or anyone with editorital mandate or project direction or anything, so again, why would WotC care what one of their former employees said?

The answer is they don't.



Look, dude, 4E DID start to tank after a while, but they didn't bring back 3.5 then, they're certainly not going to do it now, because a couple of people on a forum want them to.

Again, PATHFINDER ran for more years than 3.5 did, so there was clearly enough money to sustain a business, because Paizo have thrived for the past decade. But for WotC? That's not enough money to get out of bed.

hell, I remember someone formerly of the WotC staff having to explain to the Hasbro board or shareholders or whatever than 3.x's success was really meaningful, because by comparison to the toy stuff, it looked like pocket change; the sort of numbers they were getting would be considered a massive failure in the tou market.

The long of the short of it is, there is simply neither the money nor the motivation for them to ever go back to 3.5. And the maybe handful of people you could scrape from a forum isn't even going to register.



There's a big difference between them putting back some web articles and investing in the effort for publishing (which is chuffing expensive) and all the rest of it. The one requires one or two ladies or gentlemen and a few hour's work and the other costs a lot of money and involves lots of people.



It is, in essense, the same thing I have to tell people when they say "Bleakbane, why don't you do a model for such-and-such and engineering vehicle?" And I say "are you going to pay £75-100 for it? No? Then it's not worth doing then, because I'm sure not doing it for the fun of it." Because even wargamers will ever only want one (as opposed to regular tanks) and they take twice as long to CAD design for a bare fraction of the sales. So unless someone is litrally paying what I set as a pittance for my wages for the hours, it ain't happening. That's the reality.



You might have more chance trying to persuade people to start up a kickstarter to have the SRD printed into a cut-down version of the core rules so you could get that done as a limited print run (assuming such a thing diesn't already exist), since more people might be interested in replacing their old, falling apart rule books.

(I wouldn't be one of them - one of the reasons I've spent hundreds of hours on 3.Aotrs was a slow transfer of everything I use to digital so when my books fall apart, it won't matter, I can just print it out myself.)

el minster
2020-07-14, 08:24 PM
Maybe he knows people who could print just one or two more books

JNAProductions
2020-07-14, 08:25 PM
Maybe he knows people who could print just one or two more books

Highly unlikely.

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-14, 08:59 PM
Maybe he knows people who could print just one or two more books

You can't just "print one or two more books."

Have you ever written a set of rules? Have you ever editied anything? Done the graphic design the set-up? The artwork? All of those take a huge amount of time. And that's not EVEN counting the time to write the rules - to playtest them (as you're not REALLY suggesting that they print stuff without playtesting, are you? How would that makre them any better than anyone on the forums, doing homebrew?)

Even just re-printing is not a simple task, like using your home printer; it requires a huge amount of money and time.



Look, I don't know how much clearer I can be about this. What you want is unrealistic, and you can grasp at straws all you like, but what you want is not going to happen because you want it to and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make it happen.

I can pretty much guarantee that all you have thought about is writing an email to WotC saying you want something, isn't it? On a whim? Because you didn't start a thread with "who would be interested in trying to get a print-run of 3.5" with the intention of starting a kickstarter, or of sending a carefully constructed proposal to WotC with a business plan to demonstrate it would be worth their while, which might have garnered you as far as a polite response from them. But no, you started a thread about making a protest. What was your plan for that? Did you have one, other than send a few emails? No? Then why would you expect anyone to pay any attention to it, if you don't care enough to actually make an effort? Because I can tell you now, no-one is going to come along and solve your problems for you, no-one is going to do it for you. That's not how reality works. If you want this to happen YOU have to be the one to make it happen. Not Rich. Not any of us. YOU. el minster.

So let me take you at your word seriously, it'll be a good education-slash-test-run for you if nothing else. A good protest usually involves showing a sample. If you're that serious about this, then show us the sample letter (letter is better than email) that you are going to send to WotC as part of this protest and you want us to send in a similar fashion. If you haven't written it yet, that's fine, we'll wait. This is your campaign, so it's on you to do the organisation; first rule is, if you want something, be prepared to do the work yourself, or you don't really want it. If you can't convince me, or any of us, after all, who don't have a monetary stake in this, you're never going to convince a major corperation (i.e Hasbro).

(I'll help by suggesting the word "demand" should not be anywhere in your initial proposal.)

Peelee
2020-07-14, 09:01 PM
But what if we got The Giant on board didn't he used to work for WotC?

Why would he want to?

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-14, 09:25 PM
Why?

Because we love D&D 3rd Edition. That's why. :annoyed:

LibraryOgre
2020-07-14, 09:26 PM
Maybe he knows people who could print just one or two more books

I mean, and the OGL still exists. If I decided I wanted to publish more 3.5 books, I can still do those under the OGL. I could use Drivethru RPG.

Nothing prevents you from doing it, so long as you follow the OGL.

Crake
2020-07-14, 09:27 PM
Maybe he knows people who could print just one or two more books

What content would you want in these new books? Why can't you just homebrew the content you desire?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with homebrewing content however you like, just take the things you want and make it work for you, you don't need some official books telling you what is and isn't playable in your games.

Of course, that only works if a) you're the DM, or b) you're actually good friends with the DM and not just playing in some pick-up group, in which case I would suggest you either start DMing, or find a consistent group of like-minded friends to play with.

Peelee
2020-07-14, 09:34 PM
Because we love D&D 3rd Edition. That's why. :annoyed:

... And? I love tacos, that doesn't give me a say in my favorite Mexican restaurant's business decisions. You claimed that you should have a say in WotC's decision to stop supporting older material. "Because I like it" is not a good reason. So I ask again. Why?

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-14, 10:03 PM
... And? I love tacos, that doesn't give me a say in my favorite Mexican restaurant's business decisions. You claimed that you should have a say in WotC's decision to stop supporting older material. "Because I like it" is not a good reason. So I ask again. Why?

Actually it's a very good reason. If people has a passion on something they will fight for it.

Crake
2020-07-14, 10:32 PM
Actually it's a very good reason. If people has a passion on something they will fight for it.

But you're not fighting for it, you're pushing for someone else to fight for it for you.

Peelee
2020-07-14, 10:35 PM
Actually it's a very good reason.
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

If people has a passion on something they will fight for it.
That is true. However, Wizards of the Coast stopped supporting 3.5 in 2007. There have been 13 years and 2 edition changes since 3.5, so I would say that the time to fight for it has long since passed.

And this isn't even touching on the fact that homebrew is perfectly acceptable; the insistence that WotC officially make more splatbooks for an unsupported edition that was noteworthy for being overly bloated with splatbooks strikes me as a tad odd.

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-14, 10:58 PM
If anyone wants more 3.5 content, instead of making a meaningless gesture to WotC who will obviously ignore it, just check out the hundreds of books worth of various 3rd party material that exists out there. Or switch to Pathfinder.

The spirit of 3.5 is out there, but it left WotC a very long time ago. To be blunt, there's not enough money to be made in retreading old ground. It isn't worth the time or effort to a big company like WotC.

Look, people can choose to remain in the past if you want to, but don't expect companies like WotC or Paizo to do so. Don't expect the hobby as a whole to stand still when it can create something new.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-14, 11:13 PM
But you're not fighting for it, you're pushing for someone else to fight for it for you.

How? :confused: :annoyed:

Ignimortis
2020-07-14, 11:43 PM
Protest? I love 3.5, but the only way to progress is to move on. Sure, I don't like 5e, but it doesn't mean 3.5 was perfect- it just was better for me personally. A constructive way of going about it would be getting info to WotC that there are potentially a lot of players who would welcome some more complexity and epicness in 6e.

Vrock Bait
2020-07-14, 11:56 PM
You know the last real, active 3.5 community?

It’s this one. And that’s solely because the webcomic hosted here is based around that system. If I had known about D&D in 2010, I would have totally supported a protest. But this like {scrubbed}. That battle is lost, and a new system has already taken its place anyway.

The best we can do is maintain this last bastion of the third edition - donating to the webcomic and the website maintenance fees would probably help.

Psyren
2020-07-15, 12:44 AM
It says he worked for WotC on his wikipedia page

In addition to the setting contest, he has author credit in at least one 3.5 book (Dungeonscape). Interestingly, the other guy credited for that one (Jason Buhlman) went on to be Lead Designer for Paizo.

In any event, I second the "you might have better luck getting more PF1". (Or, dare I say, a PF3.5?)

el minster
2020-07-15, 01:23 AM
Actually it's a very good reason. If people has a passion on something they will fight for it.
I don't know it doesn't look like people want to fight :sad:

You know the last real, active 3.5 community?

It’s this one. And that’s solely because the webcomic hosted here is based around that system. If I had known about D&D in 2010, I would have totally supported a protest. But this like {scrub the post, scrub the quote}. That battle is I lost, and a new system has already taken its place anyway.

The best we can do is maintain this last bastion of the third edition - donating to the webcomic and the website maintenance fees would probably help.

So you're saying we've already lost?

Segev
2020-07-15, 01:36 AM
I don't know it doesn't look like people want to fight :sad:


So you're saying we've already lost?

I'd say, personally: Pathfinder exists. And there's a thread in the 3.5 subforum by Legendary Games about making "Corefinder" that they're billing as being to PF1 what PF1 was to 3.5. So I'd focus my energies on supporting that, personally, given the OP's request.

Zhorn
2020-07-15, 01:52 AM
I don't know it doesn't look like people want to fight :sad:
There's very little reason to fight for it.

For the consumers; there's a mountain of content, both official and third party, available online quite easily. As far as new modules, if you understand your system well enough, you don't need the module's story to 100% match the system you're playing, so any new modules not made for 3.5 can still be played using old rules. I and a few DMs I learned from often grab stories/modules from other editions/systems, use the plot of the adventure and just skip over the mechanic specifics to use what is relevant to the system I'm playing in, inserting what I need to bridge the gaps.
The big fight worth fighting is for settings specific content, not system specific.

For WotC, there's not a large enough market for them to concern themselves with. They could turn a profit of it, sure, but it wouldn't compare to the returns they get on their 5e content, which has a larger market presence that they dominate more of.
With their current production cycles, WotC is producing less volume of books compared to what I hear about in the past, but the pace is more sustainable. A larger portion of the community is buying each individual publication on the slower release cycle; which translates to higher profits per publications.

Morty
2020-07-15, 01:57 AM
Online petitions are useless 9 times out of 10, and they're certainly not going to make "let's undercut our current and popular game by releasing content for an edition that we discontinued more than a decade ago" sound like a good idea.

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-15, 02:26 AM
So you're saying we've already lost?

You lost 13 years ago, bud.



Or if you look at it another way, you won. D&D 3.5 didn't die, we had Pathfinder for over 10 years. We have other 3rd party products extending the life of both 3.5 and Pathfinder. There will probably be new spin-offs based on 3.5's legacy for the forseeable future.

But none of that is made by WotC. You have to let them pass the torch, and follow where it leads.

Vinyadan
2020-07-15, 05:00 AM
About the Giant working for WotC, he coauthored a book, "Dungeonscape", published by them. That's why he made a joke about some old hack writing rules about acid-breathing sharks. So I'd say that he did work for them.

Not that it matters as far as this discussion is concerned, I just wanted to give some more accurate info on this detail.

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-15, 05:06 AM
I don't know it doesn't look like people want to fight :sad:

Do you, though, really?

I'm not seeing the level of passion that would be required to actually lead something like this, el minster. If you and Bartmanhomer REALLY want this, you need to be stepping up to the leadership role. You have to be the metaphorical party face, because the rest of us certainly aren't going to do it for you.

You need to want to make us believe in your cause. And it will be an uphill struggle. But if you truly and whole-heartedly believe in this idea, you have to convince the rest of to share it.

(I don't watch the Apprentice, but that's the clearest example of the sort of thing you need to be prepared to do, believe in this enough to want to stand in front of Sir Alan Sugar and sell him on your idea, if that's what it took to get it off the ground.)


So you're saying we've already lost?

If you personally (you and Batmanhomer) are not prepared to commit your own time and effort and likely money to a major campaign to win hearts and minds to get grassroots support (let lone convince a major corporation), then yes, you lost thirteen years ago.




How? :confused: :annoyed:

Because you neither of you have thus far showed us you're prepared to do the serious work that you will have to do in the real world to make something like this happen.

Unless you would like to show us a sample letter for this campaign to send to WotC? If you want to convince us that this is good idea?

If neither of you are not prepared to do that, if you're not prepared to sit down and write a letter, even a mock-up, to show to us to try and convince the people you want to help you, you aren't really serious about it.

An online petition is not going to work. It just is NOT. The world and the economics just don't work that way.

If you want this to happen, if this is so much your passion that you really want it to happen, it's going to take probably years of work, an uphill struggle and a serious campaign. (And this is me genuinely giving you the benefit of the doubt.) It means work. It means work that's not fun. It means being the PR men for you campaign.

Make no mistake none of us is going to put that kind of time and effort in on your behalf. It is YOUR task to convince us, and that means you need to start with something credible, something more "let's send some emails demanding new material."

(I can guarentee you, the only engagement you'll get from that at best is whoever gets that email calling a collegue over to half a laugh at your expense before they delete it, or at level best, if they thought you were a kid or something, you MIGHT get a polite, fairly generic response of "no, mate.")

If you want this to be done, you are going to have to engage with the business on a professional level.



Look guys, I was deadly serious when I said "show us a sample letter." I wasn't saying that so you could post it up for us to rip apart to make fun of it. I was saying you NEED to post it up, not just to convince us; because I genuinely think the pair of your will never have written a letter like that before and you will almost certainly need someone who has at least half an idea (being a very, very, VERY small business-person, albeit one most business-people would have a jolly old laugh at) of how to do it. I'm going out on a limb and volenteering my time to look over your proposal.

But that means you actually have to MAKE one. I'm not going to write a letter for you, and neither is anyone else on the forums.

If neither of you wants to do that, if the idea if that gives you an anxiety attack... Then sorry, guys, this can't ever happen, because if you can't work up the nerve to put on your best business face to ME, a member of the general public who you're trying to get the support of, and who is at the moment going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you seriously, you're never going to succeed with a massive corporation.



So, let me straight up ask you. Do either of you want this badly enough to basically make obtaining this basically a second job?

Durkoala
2020-07-15, 06:46 AM
You know the last real, active 3.5 community?

It’s this one. And that’s solely because the webcomic hosted here is based around that system. If I had known about D&D in 2010, I would have totally supported a protest. But this like {scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

Unrelated to the thread, but there's something quite beautiful about this post. I might ask if I can sig it, if I think there's room in my signature for it.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-15, 08:57 AM
Do you, though, really?

I'm not seeing the level of passion that would be required to actually lead something like this, el minster. If you and Bartmanhomer REALLY want this, you need to be stepping up to the leadership role. You have to be the metaphorical party face, because the rest of us certainly aren't going to do it for you.

You need to want to make us believe in your cause. And it will be an uphill struggle. But if you truly and whole-heartedly believe in this idea, you have to convince the rest of to share it.

(I don't watch the Apprentice, but that's the clearest example of the sort of thing you need to be prepared to do, believe in this enough to want to stand in front of Sir Alan Sugar and sell him on your idea, if that's what it took to get it off the ground.)



If you personally (you and Batmanhomer) are not prepared to commit your own time and effort and likely money to a major campaign to win hearts and minds to get grassroots support (let lone convince a major corporation), then yes, you lost thirteen years ago.





Because you neither of you have thus far showed us you're prepared to do the serious work that you will have to do in the real world to make something like this happen.

Unless you would like to show us a sample letter for this campaign to send to WotC? If you want to convince us that this is good idea?

If neither of you are not prepared to do that, if you're not prepared to sit down and write a letter, even a mock-up, to show to us to try and convince the people you want to help you, you aren't really serious about it.

An online petition is not going to work. It just is NOT. The world and the economics just don't work that way.

If you want this to happen, if this is so much your passion that you really want it to happen, it's going to take probably years of work, an uphill struggle and a serious campaign. (And this is me genuinely giving you the benefit of the doubt.) It means work. It means work that's not fun. It means being the PR men for you campaign.

Make no mistake none of us is going to put that kind of time and effort in on your behalf. It is YOUR task to convince us, and that means you need to start with something credible, something more "let's send some emails demanding new material."

(I can guarentee you, the only engagement you'll get from that at best is whoever gets that email calling a collegue over to half a laugh at your expense before they delete it, or at level best, if they thought you were a kid or something, you MIGHT get a polite, fairly generic response of "no, mate.")

If you want this to be done, you are going to have to engage with the business on a professional level.



Look guys, I was deadly serious when I said "show us a sample letter." I wasn't saying that so you could post it up for us to rip apart to make fun of it. I was saying you NEED to post it up, not just to convince us; because I genuinely think the pair of your will never have written a letter like that before and you will almost certainly need someone who has at least half an idea (being a very, very, VERY small business-person, albeit one most business-people would have a jolly old laugh at) of how to do it. I'm going out on a limb and volenteering my time to look over your proposal.

But that means you actually have to MAKE one. I'm not going to write a letter for you, and neither is anyone else on the forums.

If neither of you wants to do that, if the idea if that gives you an anxiety attack... Then sorry, guys, this can't ever happen, because if you can't work up the nerve to put on your best business face to ME, a member of the general public who you're trying to get the support of, and who is at the moment going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you seriously, you're never going to succeed with a massive corporation.



So, let me straight up ask you. Do either of you want this badly enough to basically make obtaining this basically a second job?

Uh....that your choice to make. That's all I got. :sigh:

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-15, 09:02 AM
Uh....that your choice to make. That's all I got. :sigh:

That's a no, then, I take it?

Vrock Bait
2020-07-15, 09:09 AM
Unrelated to the thread, but there's something quite beautiful about this post. I might ask if I can sig it, if I think there's room in my signature for it.

Go ahead. That’s what extended signatures are for.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-15, 09:12 AM
That's a no, then, I take it?

I didn't say no. My answer is a maybe. :annoyed:

Keltest
2020-07-15, 09:15 AM
I didn't say no. My answer is a maybe. :annoyed:

There isnt really room for a maybe here. Youre either willing to put in the effort or you arent. Only you can decide that, and since its your project (well, yours and El Minster's) it doesnt really have to happen except on your time scale, so if you need to think about it for a bit, thats ok. But you cant take half measures here. If youre going to do this, you have to be aware that it will be a commitment, taking a lot of time and effort.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-15, 09:19 AM
There isnt really room for a maybe here. Youre either willing to put in the effort or you arent. Only you can decide that, and since its your project (well, yours and El Minster's) it doesnt really have to happen except on your time scale, so if you need to think about it for a bit, thats ok. But you can't take half measures here. If you're going to do this, you have to be aware that it will be a commitment, taking a lot of time and effort.

Ok. That makes sense.

Palanan
2020-07-15, 09:46 AM
Originally Posted by JNAProductions
That's fair. I could reasonably see an ask for a print version of online-only content, in a collection, to be printed.

When we suggested it a few months ago, it seemed like the best option, since it doesn’t require any actual new content creation. And there's an argument for preserving the online content in a hardcopy format.

But the staff time for editing and layout would be nontrivial, and with WotC long since devoted to 5E, there’s unfortunately very little benefit for them to spend that effort.

There was a slight precedent when they reprinted Premium editions of the MIC and Spell Compendium, back in 2013—but that was an extremely low-effort operation from the publishing side, and that was just a few years after they had finished 3.5, when there was still a fair amount of lingering interest. I doubt if there’s that much interest these days—and it’s likely true, as Aotrs mentioned, that most of the current staff at WotC didn’t work on 3.5 material and have no personal connection to the online content.

It’s unfortunate, because sooner or later the online archive will go permanently dark. Unless WotC includes access to that material in some form of online subscription, which seems very unlikely, the only real option is to archive the online content before it disappears forever.


Originally Posted by el minster
Maybe he knows people who could print just one or two more books

This isn’t how publishing works. WotC only has so many employees, and they’re probably all overcommitted on projects related to their current product line, which for D&D means 5E and 5E alone.

They don’t have time or budget for working on projects not on their release schedule. Even if an employee wanted to make this a personal project, and spend countless evenings and weekends developing something, WotC would still need to pay for publication of, say 50-100K copies, which is a nontrivial effort and would almost certainly cost more than they would see in profits.

They won’t commit the resources for something that wouldn’t make a profit—and if it did, it would only do so at the expense of 5E. That’s a lose-lose proposition for the company, and they know it.

oxybe
2020-07-15, 10:04 AM
Let me interject my two coppers.

Why should I, someone who's largely on the sidelines, join this effort? I had plenty fun with 3rd, one of my favorite PCs grew from that system, but I have massive grievances with the system that make me hesitant to return. And while I enjoy it over 5e, i enjoy it fully knowing that it's despite the issues I have.

And to be frank, if given a choice I'd still play 2nd or 4th ed D&D above 3rd or 5th. 3rd had it's time and I've largely put it behind me.

So what is your elevator pitch to me? Why should I support your cause?

Also... what content are we talking about? more Forgotten Realms BS? I wasn't buying those books when 3e was actively supported!

Willie the Duck
2020-07-15, 11:00 AM
if you have enough people protest it will work

'Protest,' specifically, won't work here. Protests, in general and when aimed at producers, work best for things you don't want to happen. If a massive protest had broken out when the cancellation of 3e was announced, it might have worked. Here, now, what exactly do you have that WotC wants? If they don't listen to your demands you will stop buying their products? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you aren't buying many right now*.
*As a counterexample to my base position, protests did create a third season of the show Arrested Development, and the difference in the situations was that the protesters did have something that they could take away from the network-- not watching all the other shows they produced.

Now, if instead of protesting, one were to passionately argue to WotC that there was a large market for 3e material (that wouldn't just take revenue away from 5e, that could theoretically work (it won't, I predict, but it makes sense in theory).

That said, why would anyone assume that the current people at WotC would be particularly good at making new 3e content? There has to be like 90% turnover at the company (leaving aside whether WotC was great at creating 3e content during the 3e era). What do they have that someone else using the OGL couldn't do as well or better?

Reathin
2020-07-15, 11:01 AM
Others have said the main points I would have bought up, and more eloquently than I likely would have. But one more thing to consider: there is a MOUNTAIN of existing content for 3.5. More than you could realistically use in decades of gaming. It is far more practical to use the grand material you have than trying for the very implausible chance that WotC would bother reviving it in any capacity. Also, Pathfinder serves admirably as a continuation there, and with many of the more annoying things filled off.

I get it. I love 3.5 the most of DnD's editions (although 5th turned out better than I had feared). But it's not a realistic thing to want to produce fresh official content, especially after so long. One cannot rewind the clock, so better by far to remember what you loved, use it when you can, and embrace what's good that followed.

Zanos
2020-07-15, 11:05 AM
Yeah, I'm okay with 3.5 being mechanically 'over', so to speak. I don't need more content from WotC for the edition. I like what I have and I don't like the current paradigm they've set up in 5e with providing rule FAQ on like...twitter.

That said, it would be nice to get some reprints of 3.5 books. They're basically impossible to find these days and there's a lot of books I'd like to have physical copies of because I like to collect RPG books.

Delicious Taffy
2020-07-15, 11:13 AM
This is reminiscent of the time Star Wars fans tried to petition Electronic Arts to add more paid DLC to their game, and not in a good way.

From what I've heard, 3rd Edition D&D is already more or less a continent of content. A contentinent? If you want more of it, probably you could just look harder, instead of asking for more as your first move. Hell, if it's really as huge as people say, then whatever content you want (which you've not specified even once) might already exist somewhere. If it doesn't, I bet something close enough does and you can just tweak it to fit.

You're really more or less just asking Sony to put out another PS2 game, though.

Faily
2020-07-15, 11:18 AM
Honestly, the best you can hope for is that they re-print the Core books in a fancy new cover like they did with older editions some years ago. But I'd say it would have to go a couple of more years for that to happen to hit an anniversary or something (maybe in 7 years for a 20 year anniversary after it was officially ended).

But really, no, they won't do anything new 3.5. Unless you manage to start the biggest online campaign ever, it won't go anywhere, since all it basically is is a minority making a lot of noise on the net. And that will almost never change a company's stance.

Segev
2020-07-15, 11:35 AM
Assuming (and this is just an assumption; I don't know) that WotC got full rights to all things D&D, and thus can reprint anything from any edition, it might be an interesting project to see a fresh, new printing of every "core set" in one big boxed set, from the initial dual D&D boxes (there was a "basic set" and a "red box," I believe; I only came in with 1e AD&D, so my knowledge of the oD&D era is fuzzy), to the AD&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e core sets.

I don't know if releasing them as a boxed set would work best, or if it'd be better to do them individually. But it sounds like a sort of thing one might do for, say, a 50th anniversary promotion.

Admittedly, that's only, what, 4 years away? Might not be enough time for a project like that. Business cycles can be weird.

Knaight
2020-07-15, 12:11 PM
if you have enough people protest it will work
No it won't. Fundamentally the reason protests against companies work (when they work at all) is the threat that they might get people who are buying their stuff to stop buying their stuff. That leverage doesn't exist here for the simple reason that not that many people are interested in buying 3.5. There's a slow trickle of PDF sales, and that trickle would get a lot slower if people were paying for physical rulebooks, which segues into my second point.


PlayStation is tech dependent, D&D is not, 3.5 is a pen and paper game and so is 5th, 4th, and 1st and 2nd edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Pen and Paper games don't become obsolete like electronic games do. You need a PlayStation to play a PlayStation game, but you use the same pen, paper, and dice to play all 5 editions of D&D.
Two things.
1) It not being obsolete means that all those books people already have still work just fine, which encourages not buying more.

2) There is absolutely a tech dependence here: Printers. And the way printers work on a technological level involves print runs getting substantially cheaper as they get larger, until they eventually flatten out, especially when what's being printed is art heavy books. D&D has never been remotely at the level where the economies of scale hit capacity (which mostly only happens for a handful of novels that sell really, really well), so those hypothetical hardbacks which for books which barely have a PDF market wouldn't be looking at the $30 hardback market. Judging by the most comparable books in the indie market (full color, glossy pages, comparable length) it's more likely to be the $60 hardback market. Approximately nobody wants to spend $60 on some new official 3.5 splat.

Willie the Duck
2020-07-15, 12:57 PM
Assuming (and this is just an assumption; I don't know) that WotC got full rights to all things D&D, and thus can reprint anything from any edition, it might be an interesting project to see a fresh, new printing of every "core set" in one big boxed set, from the initial dual D&D boxes (there was a "basic set" and a "red box," I believe; I only came in with 1e AD&D, so my knowledge of the oD&D era is fuzzy), to the AD&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e core sets.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'dual D&D boxes.'

The initial version of D&D was released in three pamphlet sized books -- often referred to as the LBBs for Little Brown Books (not to be confused with the LBBs of the Traveller RPG, which are Little Black Books) -- "Men & Magic", "Monsters & Treasure", and "The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures." This had multiple printings with slight variations (including the eventual renaming of various Tolkien-related terms), but are generally treated as a single 'edition.'

The first attempt at a 'Basic Set' was produced in 1977, when Dr. J Eric Holmes took the original LBBs along with Supplement I (Greyhawk; which introduced the thief and paladin classes, most benefits of attributes, and different weapons doing different damages; amongst other things one might not realize were not originally part of the game) and combined and re-edited them into an introductory (levels 1-3) version of the game, hopefully easier to understand and get into (the original LBBs are fineokay reference documents, but in no way a good way to actually learn how to play the game without someone who already knew how teaching you. The Holmes version isn't that much better). The next version of Basic (along with a follow up boxed set: Expert Rules) were produced By Thomas Moldvay (with the Expert set by David Cook, who you will recognize as "Zeb" Cook from AD&D's Oriental Adventures or most of 2nd Edition AD&D) in 1981. This is the classic 'B/X' edition of the game, off of which most Old School Renaissance D&D-alikes are based. This one is very well written towards the goal of teaching you how to play the game. There was going to be a third installment of this line (Companion Rules), but instead a new line was released. In 1983-85, Frank Mentzer wrote new versions (including an iconic 'choose your own adventure'-style intro which may or may not have been better than B/X's sample dungeon at explaining the gameplay) of Basic and Expert, along with Companion, Master, expansions to make a 4 boxed set line that covered 36 levels of play, and then an Immortal boxed set for playing as a demigod/god-like entity. This line (often referred to as BECMI) was also rolled up into a single book (actually missing most of the Immortal rules, which never really took off) into the Rules Cyclopedia, which sometimes is treated as a separate version, but is usually considered part of BECMI.

WotC has reissued (as PDFs) all of these except the Holmes version (I don't know if it is known why. Rights could be a concern, or there simply isn't a huge amount of interest in a 3-level-long version of the game).



I don't know if releasing them as a boxed set would work best, or if it'd be better to do them individually. But it sounds like a sort of thing one might do for, say, a 50th anniversary promotion.

They (TSR, but by then owned by WotC) did something very similar for the 25 anniversary in '99, releasing a Silver Anniversary boxed set, it contained a reprint of the Holmes set (suggesting that rights might not be the issue, although things could have changed in the meantime), along with the classic adventures B2 Keep on the Borderlands, G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King, I6 Ravenloft, and S2 White Plume Mountain.


Admittedly, that's only, what, 4 years away? Might not be enough time for a project like that. Business cycles can be weird.
I think interest will be the dominant issue. Most of the people who really want to nerd out playing historic D&D have the reprints or are neck deep in the OSR movement by now. Those who are interested in plumbing the history of the game now have great breakdowns of the game history like Playing at the World*, Of Dice and Men, and Empires of Imagination. Dragonsfoot and the other grognard forums are still up and running. Most of the people interested in such things are already doing the things.
*An actual, primary-source-document-only, historical analysis of the games' influences, prehistory, and publication.

el minster
2020-07-15, 01:59 PM
So it looks like the only way this could work is if we somehow get 5e players to protest :frown:

Segev
2020-07-15, 02:44 PM
So it looks like the only way this could work is if we somehow get 5e players to protest :frown:

I'm honestly unsure what it is you want to accomplish with this. What does Pathfinder not offer that you expect WotC to offer in response to a successful protest?

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-15, 02:49 PM
So it looks like the only way this could work is if we somehow get 5e players to protest :frown:

What possible reason would they have to protest about a system probably a goodly chunk of them have never played and don't care about?



Furthermore, it's not going to get anywhere if someone doesn't have a coherent proposal to actually put to Hasbro.

Mystral
2020-07-15, 03:19 PM
Just play Pathfinder, or continue playing 3.5 with the books that are out. Why would you even NEED any more books, there are so many books for 3.5

Look at D&D 5, the rulebooks for THAT system fit into a mid-sized backpack. For 3.5 you'd need at least two shelfs.

Faily
2020-07-15, 04:18 PM
Just play Pathfinder, or continue playing 3.5 with the books that are out. Why would you even NEED any more books, there are so many books for 3.5

Look at D&D 5, the rulebooks for THAT system fit into a mid-sized backpack. For 3.5 you'd need at least two shelfs.

Very much this. 3.5 doesn't *need* any new books. You got lots of monster-books, campaign settings, plenty of splatbooks with new mechanics, feats, prestige classes, etc. Some of the later releases were infamous for being "bottom of the barrel" and poorly play-tested.

And this isn't even touching Pathfinder. And all the other things published under OGL. You can spend years going through OGL-content.

Xapi
2020-07-15, 05:01 PM
Am I wrong to assume that the 3.5 OGL still stands? Why does it necesarily have to be WotC the one to keep producing content?

CharonsHelper
2020-07-15, 05:07 PM
{scrubbed}

Civis Mundi
2020-07-15, 05:32 PM
{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I think they get the message here. Their attempt may be misguided, but I can at least appreciate their earnestness. {scrubbed}.

Quertus
2020-07-15, 05:33 PM
What's really left to do for 3.5?


What does Pathfinder not offer that you expect WotC to offer in response to a successful protest?

So glad you asked!

Last off, Pathfinder doesn't "just work" with all my old 3e books. So, what could WotC offer? "More". But we'll get back to that.

What's left to do in 3e? Hmmm… How many pages of rules dysfunctions are there? How many times do people still argue over whether you can trade away your familiar twice, or leapfrog spell slots?

What's left to do in 3e? Print "core books 3.75" (which should make them the rules authority by RAW, correct?), with *just enough* to play the game, followed by massive clarifications for what every other book should have said.

But that could be silly.

Simply the *existence* of such 3.75 core books, which use their authority to redefine what has rules authority, and a single rules clarification book - only the latter of which need ever have new content beyond that single line (or even be physically published) - would be awesome, no?

Now, imagine if that rules clarification book were run through the Playground. Where, in effect, WotC paid approximately 0 development cost. Further, imagine it *also* contained new content - Nyfftilim race, stats for Quertus, whatever silly little (emphasis on "little") things we wanted to add. Wouldn't you pay Kickstarter fees to work for WotC in that capacity to produce the Playgrounder Compendium of 3e Rules Corrections, and have it actually, officially be RAW, and get a copy at the end (like others could then purchase)?

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-15, 05:58 PM
Now, imagine if that rules clarification book were run through the Playground. Where, in effect, WotC paid approximately 0 development cost. Further, imagine it *also* contained new content - Nyfftilim race, stats for Quertus, whatever silly little (emphasis on "little") things we wanted to add. Wouldn't you pay Kickstarter fees to work for WotC in that capacity to produce the Playgrounder Compendium of 3e Rules Corrections, and have it actually, officially be RAW, and get a copy at the end (like others could then purchase)?

Well first off, I can imagine the Hasbro legal department would have a lot to say about the inherent pitfalls of using a forum a source (as it is basically the same sort of minefield as writer reading fanfiction). It would not be zero development cost, at bare minimum it would be administrative legal cost of getting all the people involved to sign "yes, I don't mind WotC making money off me (for nowt)." I don't know whether you were there when WotC tried to say "everything posted on our forums is our IP," but I can tell you it did NOT go down at ALL well on their forum, and they wouldn't even have THAT here.

(The Rules Compendium actually DID go down the route of approaching some of the more rules-savvy WotC forumites, if I recall correctly.)



And we're still at the question of who exactly is going to undertake the massive effort to get Hasbro interested. (And yes, I'm deliberately saying Hasbro, not WotC, since that's whom that they'd ultimately trying to convince.)

Segev
2020-07-15, 06:03 PM
So glad you asked!

Last off, Pathfinder doesn't "just work" with all my old 3e books. So, what could WotC offer? "More". But we'll get back to that.

What's left to do in 3e? Hmmm… How many pages of rules dysfunctions are there? How many times do people still argue over whether you can trade away your familiar twice, or leapfrog spell slots?

What's left to do in 3e? Print "core books 3.75" (which should make them the rules authority by RAW, correct?), with *just enough* to play the game, followed by massive clarifications for what every other book should have said.

But that could be silly.

Simply the *existence* of such 3.75 core books, which use their authority to redefine what has rules authority, and a single rules clarification book - only the latter of which need ever have new content beyond that single line (or even be physically published) - would be awesome, no?

Now, imagine if that rules clarification book were run through the Playground. Where, in effect, WotC paid approximately 0 development cost. Further, imagine it *also* contained new content - Nyfftilim race, stats for Quertus, whatever silly little (emphasis on "little") things we wanted to add. Wouldn't you pay Kickstarter fees to work for WotC in that capacity to produce the Playgrounder Compendium of 3e Rules Corrections, and have it actually, officially be RAW, and get a copy at the end (like others could then purchase)?

Other than it having WotC, rather than Paizo, marking the book with their logo, how is this different than Pathfinder?

And...how does PF not "just work" with your 3.5 stuff, at least any less than 3.5 stuff "just works" with 3.0? Remember, by advocating a "3.75," you're at least hinting at something of an update that be in the ballpark of 3.0->3.5.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-07-15, 06:30 PM
Remember, by advocating a "3.75," you're at least hinting at something of an update that be in the ballpark of 3.0->3.5.
And if a mostly-compatible 3.75 is what you want, there are probably enough 3.5-derived fantasy heartbreakers out there to fill a d100 table.

dps
2020-07-15, 06:44 PM
While we're at it, why not protect WotC screwing over the Strategy & Tactics lifetime subscribers back when they bought the assets of SPI? That'll do about as much good.

Psyren
2020-07-15, 07:01 PM
Or if you look at it another way, you won. D&D 3.5 didn't die, we had Pathfinder for over 10 years. We have other 3rd party products extending the life of both 3.5 and Pathfinder. There will probably be new spin-offs based on 3.5's legacy for the forseeable future.

But none of that is made by WotC. You have to let them pass the torch, and follow where it leads.

My take, right here.

Cluedrew
2020-07-15, 07:45 PM
Reminds me of an old thread I made asking (in effect) Why do people still care about 3.X? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?453149-Why-is-3-X-still-so-popular)

Which is to say even if this had a chance of succeeding I wouldn't join in. Not that 3.5e or any of its ilk is bad, but 5e is still trapped by the mistakes of 3.5e in a lot of ways and probably would have been a better system if it had mixed things up a little bit more. I mean if all you want is to save what is there than save what is there yourself, collect up a set of rule books, do a webpage crawl and there you go. Do you want more content? … Well if you actually have all the existing content I'm not sure why, but you could homebrew it. Do you want people to care about 3.5 again? Not going to happen, the only people left are those whose mastery of it comes from when it was a big deal but I can say with confidence its not really anymore, not even for this hobby.

I would rather they make a better 6th edition that new people can pick up and play and have a great time with over continuing to keep this old thing on life support. Sure it will probably be not quite the same. But a lot of those changes will be fore the better, for instance I think D&D has a lot of wasted rules weight (particularly in those editions with trap options and really narrow classes) so a rules-light system that spends its rules a lot better would be an improvement in my opinion.

In conclusion: Build a better tomorrow over clinging to the past.

el minster
2020-07-15, 07:54 PM
Maybe I need to look into Pathfinder then any advice?

Delicious Taffy
2020-07-15, 09:04 PM
Maybe I need to look into Pathfinder then any advice?
Find somebody selling the books online, buy it if the price is right.

Quertus
2020-07-15, 09:13 PM
Well first off, I can imagine the Hasbro legal department would have a lot to say about the inherent pitfalls of using a forum a source (as it is basically the same sort of minefield as writer reading fanfiction). It would not be zero development cost, at bare minimum it would be administrative legal cost of getting all the people involved to sign "yes, I don't mind WotC making money off me (for nowt)." I don't know whether you were there when WotC tried to say "everything posted on our forums is our IP," but I can tell you it did NOT go down at ALL well on their forum, and they wouldn't even have THAT here.

From my experience in completely different fields, "handing out NDA or other legal documents" meets my criteria for "almost zero effort". Granted, things like layout and artwork could cost WotC some effort that isn't quite so negligible

Yes, it would be completely opt in. We would pay for the privilege of volunteering our time to this labor of love. And be rewarded with a) (hopefully) comparatively inarguable rules; b) a copy of said rules (cf "Kickstarter logic"); C) citation in the credits; d) new content after all these years; e) our own content added to official publications.

No, I could not (for example) add "Nyfftilim" without (at least) Nyfft's permission.

Yes, I would give WotC (non-exclusive) rights in perpetuity to use the "Quertus" name in conjunction with Quertus-branded content. Quertus considers "Mage's Disjunction", "Black Tentacles", etc to be plagiarism, and I would honor his beliefs in ensuring that his name remained attached to his works, royalty free.

And would encourage anyone else contributing content to select from a list of WotC-friendly terms (I'm guessing the default world be royalty-free for 3e usage).


(The Rules Compendium actually DID go down the route of approaching some of the more rules-savvy WotC forumites, if I recall correctly.)

Precedent. Anyone pitching such an idea should cite that.


And we're still at the question of who exactly is going to undertake the massive effort to get Hasbro interested.

I think we would all agree that my Charisma is not suited to that task.

I'm just trying to pitch ideas (or, rather, to get the process of pitching ideas started (or, rather, to try to move the conversation in a more productive direction than "no")), to see if anyone says, "oh, that *would* be fun!".


(And yes, I'm deliberately saying Hasbro, not WotC, since that's whom that they'd ultimately trying to convince.)

Of course? Maybe?

I mean, just getting WotC onboard to bring the idea to Hasbro would be huge.


And...how does PF not "just work" with your 3.5 stuff, at least any less than 3.5 stuff "just works" with 3.0? Remember, by advocating a "3.75," you're at least hinting at something of an update that be in the ballpark of 3.0->3.5.

Point. "3.51”, then. The *only* change my "plan B" would require to the core rulebooks was that they clarify rules of "primary source", to include that the new book and Rules Compendium actually have the authority to change/clarify rules.


Other than it having WotC, rather than Paizo, marking the book with their logo, how is this different than Pathfinder?

RAW. It defines RAW. (Granted, for 3.51 rather than 3.5, so it's not perfect)

Also, does the notion of a reference to "Segev's Legions" in official D&D canon hold no appeal? Maybe it's just me, but every since I saw named spells in D&D, that's been something *I* thought would be cool.

And that's my whole pitch: isn't there *anything* you think would be cool to have in D&D canon? Yes, with homebrew (and even without), we can make almost anything. But, with everyone saying, "what is there to make?", my answer is "official errata" and "cool stuff", of the personalized / egocentric variety.

Quertus
2020-07-15, 09:50 PM
And if a mostly-compatible 3.75 is what you want, there are probably enough 3.5-derived fantasy heartbreakers out there to fill a d100 table.

Lol. Fortunately, nobody saw my giggling fit when I read this.


5e is still trapped by the mistakes of 3.5e in a lot of ways and probably would have been a better system if it had mixed things up a little bit more.


I would rather they make a better 6th edition that new people can pick up and play and have a great time with over continuing to keep this old thing on life support.

In conclusion: Build a better tomorrow over clinging to the past.

Oh, absolutely, I think 6e is the right answer.

Except…

We don't want another 4e. You don't even want a 6e that looks as much like 3e as 5e does. WotC needs to build their skills *before* making 6e.

Trying to write better versions of 3e rules? That's a skill they need.

Trying to understand "fun" and "cool"? Another needful skill.

When either rules clarity or fun cool unique get out of balance, the game suffers. What I've pitched is, secretly, "6e training camp, Quertus style".

Feel free to suggest "6e training camp, cluedrew style".

Crake
2020-07-15, 10:52 PM
a) (hopefully) comparatively inarguable rules

The rules are already plenty inarguable: Your DM makes a ruling and you all move on with your lives, no arguing required.

NigelWalmsley
2020-07-15, 11:21 PM
The world does not need more 3e content. It didn't need more 3e content in 2008, and yet people have gamely spent the intervening decade producing more 3e content at varying degrees of compatibility and official-ness. What D&D needs to do is learn from and iterate on the lessons of 3e. The information and tools are there to write a game that solves 3e's problems. But that requires moving past 3e, not churning out even more content for a game which already includes more prestige classes than there are countries in the world.


Yes, it would be completely opt in. We would pay for the privilege of volunteering our time to this labor of love.

I promise you don't want to play an edition written exclusively by people who would pay money to write rules for D&D.

The problem with TTRPGs is already that there isn't enough money to attract people who aren't fanboys or hacks, lowering the marginal cost of labor to negative will not make this problem better. Not to mention that free labor is expensive. I swear there's a rant out there somewhere by a guy who actually worked in the industry, but the gist of it is that getting a bunch of volunteers to write things, check their egos, and submit work on time is way more expensive than just paying professionals.

Should you recruit people who have loud opinions about D&D on the internet? Maybe. But it should be people who are willing to mathhammer the rules into submission, not people who want to make their pet character a permanent part of the franchise.


The rules are already plenty inarguable: Your DM makes a ruling and you all move on with your lives, no arguing required.

And is this exactly why there will never be a version of D&D where the rules are actually good. As long as people believe "DM hacks it" is an acceptable substitute for "rules that work out of the box", there is no incentive for rules to work out of the box.

el minster
2020-07-16, 01:34 AM
Well maybe if we can't get WotC to do it we could do it ourselves?on this forum

Segev
2020-07-16, 01:55 AM
Even people who “want to mathhammer the rules into submission” don’t always make the best games. There’s an art to it. 4E was...controversial...in part because the mathhammerers decided that a treadmill difficulty curve and every class using identical subsystems was great because the math worked out. They missed other key elements that attracted people to D&D.

el minster
2020-07-16, 02:02 AM
No make semi-official books/compilations out of people's homebrew and imput

DeTess
2020-07-16, 02:48 AM
No make semi-official books/compilations out of people's homebrew and imput

Well, if that's what you want to do, no one's stopping you (provided you properly credit the authors of all the homebrew). But no one's going to do it for you either.

Saintheart
2020-07-16, 03:11 AM
No make semi-official books/compilations out of people's homebrew and imput


Well, if that's what you want to do, no one's stopping you (provided you properly credit the authors of all the homebrew). But no one's going to do it for you either.

And the question still remains: what, exactly, would be the point?

There is no WOTC Police Force that's coming round your place to confiscate your rulebooks if you decide that the War domain power gives you bastard sword proficiency and Weapon Focus at level 1 regardless of what the prerequisites and the power actually says. Believe it or not, you can say 'this is the rule at my table' and heads will not roll unless it turns out you're a rubbish DM.

You don't need to seek WOTC's approval to run games with variations on their rules. They'd rather have your money for the current 3.5 sourcebooks than your submission to their will. You want to get WOTC to support 3.5 further, or at least not pull the switch on the archive, here's an idea, buy the books. Better idea: create insanely good adventures, run them, and then teach others how to create and run them. Because the one thing that threatens the TTRPG's existence, from the specific to the general, is an incompetent or badly-supported DM. Good players are a dime a dozen. Good DMs, not so much. TTRPGs can do without a couple of players. No DM means no games. And, in time, no TTRPGs.

Or let's put it the other way around: is the reason you want more product for 3.5 because you have some homebrewed or 3rd party class you really like and want as an official 3.5 product, so you can sport it into every one of the tables you join as a player? I have news for you, plenty of DMs ban even WOTC-authored 3.5 books, me included. Lots of DMs ban whole swathes of 3.5 books. Just because it's got an 'official D&D' seal and phat-looking (do the youngsters still say phat? I don't know, I lost interest after Iron Man 2) bastard sword logo doesn't mean a DM is obliged to use it at his table. Indeed I would argue there needs to be more education to DMs about what rules to use and which ones not to use, and there'll never be a book from WOTC about that because of conflict of interest: if they don't sells them books, all them books, with all the unbalanced rules, they don'ts gets paid, yo.

Stop asking for Authority from WOTC to run the games you want to run, do the homebrew you want to do. Build the stuff yourself. Run it. If it works, teach others how to run it. That's what generates more interest and more players for 3.5. Know the system and know how to pitch it to new players who're sick of MMOs or videogames, know how to get people invested in your adventures, teach others how to do it. I would suggest that'll be a much more profitable use of your time and of use to 3.5 than sending muffins to WOTC HQ asking them to issue a proper errata for Tome of Battle or burn every existing copy of Weapons of Legacy and start again.

AdAstra
2020-07-16, 03:36 AM
Lol. Fortunately, nobody saw my giggling fit when I read this.





Oh, absolutely, I think 6e is the right answer.

Except…

We don't want another 4e. You don't even want a 6e that looks as much like 3e as 5e does. WotC needs to build their skills *before* making 6e.

Trying to write better versions of 3e rules? That's a skill they need.

Trying to understand "fun" and "cool"? Another needful skill.

When either rules clarity or fun cool unique get out of balance, the game suffers. What I've pitched is, secretly, "6e training camp, Quertus style".

Feel free to suggest "6e training camp, cluedrew style".

Even if one accepts the premise of practicing rulesets for the sake of future editions (which is hard to justify from a business perspective given that the effort greatly exceeds the likely return unless you can actually market what you’re making), I would MUCH rather the designers use other systems as their base, not 3e, which has a lot wrong with it at its core. I would prefer letting the designers have a go at a variety of more modern systems, some rules-lite narrative games, some math-intensive wargames. A great deal of these systems have OGL-esque agreements that would reduce the legal headaches.

You’d be getting fresh perspectives and new concepts, far more suitable for a new edition of DnD than “hey let’s just use our old content to practice for the new content”.

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-16, 05:25 AM
I think we would all agree that my Charisma is not suited to that task.

I'm just trying to pitch ideas (or, rather, to get the process of pitching ideas started (or, rather, to try to move the conversation in a more productive direction than "no")), to see if anyone says, "oh, that *would* be fun!".

Point I'm making, as a person who has published rules and who is a business-person (in the most bottom-line sense of both), is that ideas, no matter how good they are, are worth nothing unless someone is prepared to act on them. Everyone can throw out ideas, but as I noted one computer dev say once, "everyone has an idea for a game, but until you learn how to program and write it yourself, no-one is ever going to do it for you." I have the skeleton of ideas for an extended fanfic for several shows/games, but until I ever put pen-to-paper metaphorically (which will be never, realistically), they are meanignless. Basically, being an ideas guy is not a thing, unless you have become SO successful (by not doing that) you can afford to do it. (And I think it is in reality still largely an invention of Hollywood.)




No make semi-official books/compilations out of people's homebrew and imput

This would literally be 3rd party content, which, provided you don't use anything not in the OGL, is expressly permitted. and is indeed why 3.5/3.0 dominated the rule-sets for many years and why PF1 happened at all.

But again, who is going to do all the playtesting and editing work? Having, as I say, published rules myself, I'm certainly not going to invest that amount of time.



The problem here is that the people motivated enough to want their stuff published are going to want to print THEIR stuff (see: Paizo/Dreamscarred/Legendary Games etc etc), not yours. No-one is going to do it for you, that's just a harsh reality of life.

AvatarVecna
2020-07-16, 05:51 AM
Companies, particularly large companies like Hasbro, don't make big business decisions on whims. They do it based on market analysis and profit.

3.5 did not die because some crazy employee burst into his boss' office after a weeklong writeup and say "boss, I've written the perfect game" and his boss went "my god this is perfect we have to immediately abandon this popular edition we've got currently to plug this new fangled crap". 3.5 died because at some point, WotC/Hasbro was crunching the numbers and figured out that the way book sales were going, they would soon be spending more to make a new book than they would make selling it to the fanbase. They figure out that point was coming up, and so they started working on a new edition to hopefully get people's addiction to new books rekindled by convincing them that it'd solve the problems the old edition had. Some of the later 3.5 books that got made (and even books in other systems like SW Saga) were in part less of proper 3.5 content and more "testing 4e mechanics out". And then when 4e was ready-ish (right around the time 3.5 was no longer making them money, I'd wager), they announced the edition change.

The reason they changed editions was just that the market had changed. People vote with their dollar, and they weren't voting for 3.5 anymore. WotC/Hasbro wants tabletop gamers to vote for WotC with their dollars, so they had to put forth a new product to get people interested again. That's...that's just how business works.

If there were enough people clamoring for more 3.5 content in the first place, 3.5 wouldn't have died at all. And to be fair, there were quite a few people who were fine playing 3.5 and just didn't wanna buy more 3.5 books, but wanted new content and were mad that WotC wouldn't be making it anymore. WotC abandoned that part of the market because they thought more people would be on-board with 4e content than additional 3.5 content. Paizo saw that, and swooped in with a solution, publishing this "new" system called "Pathfinder" that was (at the time) effectively blatantly plagiarizing 3.5 for their own gain. The part of the market that might have been down to protest the end of 3.5 at the time was appeased with this, and over time PF has grown into its own system mostly unchained from its origins as a blatant 3.5 ripoff. And that was still over a decade ago.

Starting a protest now? Like, I love 3.5, but a lot of the reasons I love it are also good reasons that WotC shouldn't make more content for it - namely, they're **** at balancing it. Between PF, PF 3PP, and 3.5/PF homebrew, I've got what I need to continue playing 3.5 in one form or another to my heart's content. I don't need more official content.

NigelWalmsley
2020-07-16, 06:58 AM
If there were enough people clamoring for more 3.5 content in the first place, 3.5 wouldn't have died at all.

I'm skeptical of this claim. PF managed to outsell 4e at some points. And, yes, a lot of that is on 4e being a garbage fire. But if "third party 3.5 house rules" is able to last an extra decade, I don't think that indicates a lack of desire for 3.5 content.


Even people who “want to mathhammer the rules into submission” don’t always make the best games. There’s an art to it. 4E was...controversial...in part because the mathhammerers decided that a treadmill difficulty curve and every class using identical subsystems was great because the math worked out. They missed other key elements that attracted people to D&D.

4e wasn't mathhammered. Numbers were changed because designers though they felt too big, and Skill Challenges flatly did not work. There's this narrative that 4e was giving the "make the rules good" crowd what they wanted, and its failure proves that people don't really want that, but it isn't particularly true.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-07-16, 07:32 AM
No make semi-official books/compilations out of people's homebrew and imput
"Make a nice pay-what-you-want pdf of my Giants and Graveyards overhaul/new content" is on my list... Just, like, lower than the 5e variant book that might actually make money.

Vinyadan
2020-07-16, 07:39 AM
As an aside, are there third-party publishers still producing 3.5 content?

Cluedrew
2020-07-16, 07:54 AM
Oh, absolutely, I think 6e is the right answer.

Except…

We don't want another 4e. You don't even want a 6e that looks as much like 3e as 5e does. WotC needs to build their skills *before* making 6e.
[...]
Feel free to suggest "6e training camp, cluedrew style".Play-testing, I have only made one serious attempt at creating an RPG before and it morphed almost beyond recognition. I think the fact it was a dice pool system stayed the same except for one variant where it was this weird 3d6 roll under but the dice had extra meanings version. I was pre-alpha 13 before I moved onto alpha 1 and I had a road map that carried me through many alpha and beta versions before I finished. Now I might restart anyways to make a system that is focused on something else. But for just making "a good system" it would probably be better to stay on that one old idea and keep iterating on it until it works.

And I think the same applies here. I think there are people who knew that they needed to throw out more of 3 in 5 already. The reason they didn't is not because they needed more practice but because of marketing. The marketing side said it was to risky to make a 5th edition that wasn't like 3.5th after 4th's failure. Of course I can't prove that, but I have seen enough evidence that I think that is what happened.

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-16, 08:05 AM
Play-testing, I have only made one serious attempt at creating an RPG before and it morphed almost beyond recognition. I think the fact it was a dice pool system stayed the same except for one variant where it was this weird 3d6 roll under but the dice had extra meanings version. I was pre-alpha 13 before I moved onto alpha 1 and I had a road map that carried me through many alpha and beta versions before I finished. Now I might restart anyways to make a system that is focused on something else. But for just making "a good system" it would probably be better to stay on that one old idea and keep iterating on it until it works.

And I think the same applies here. I think there are people who knew that they needed to throw out more of 3 in 5 already. The reason they didn't is not because they needed more practice but because of marketing. The marketing side said it was to risky to make a 5th edition that wasn't like 3.5th after 4th's failure. Of course I can't prove that, but I have seen enough evidence that I think that is what happened.

As a further example, it took me 15 years to write my starship rules and get them published (and the last year was just editing). Now, I'll grant you, it wasn't my day job; but I playtested it at the wargames club every week for the majority of that time (and I'd have done it more if I could have done, but life got in the way of my mates coming so regularly.)



(I abandoned my attempt at writing an RPG from scratch after the first pre-alpha test and went "nah, this is going to require far too much effort for too little gain.")

Willie the Duck
2020-07-16, 08:31 AM
Well maybe if we can't get WotC to do it we could do it ourselves?on this forum

No make semi-official books/compilations out of people's homebrew and imput

Finally, something plausible. That's pretty much what the 3e forum plus part of the homebrew section already is, minus a bunch of organizing, getting permissions, doing the legalese, drafting, editing, word processing/layout/etc., and then self-publishing. You'll notice that that other part is about 99.5 to 99.9% of the actual work. If you would like to spearhead something like this, I imagine others would be happy to let you do so.

thorr-kan
2020-07-16, 10:27 AM
As an aside, are there third-party publishers still producing 3.5 content?
3.5 specifically? I am unaware.

OGL d20 more generally? Yes. Forex, Nuelow Games knocks out some d20 Modern OGL materials intermittently. Some companies are still providing PF1 support. There's even a thread about "CoreFinder" on the boards, a PF1 extention/redo by a third-party.

Tvtyrant
2020-07-16, 11:28 AM
I'm skeptical of this claim. PF managed to outsell 4e at some points. And, yes, a lot of that is on 4e being a garbage fire. But if "third party 3.5 house rules" is able to last an extra decade, I don't think that indicates a lack of desire for 3.5 content.



4e wasn't mathhammered. Numbers were changed because designers though they felt too big, and Skill Challenges flatly did not work. There's this narrative that 4e was giving the "make the rules good" crowd what they wanted, and its failure proves that people don't really want that, but it isn't particularly true.

Hey! 4E was the best Wuxia/Giant Robot fighting system ever printed and then mismarketed as a fantasy rpg. It fits Magic Martial Arts systems to a T (especially Korean ones) and works perfectly for Gundam/etc.

Faily
2020-07-16, 11:29 AM
There's also Porphyra the roleplaying game, which is kind of trying to be a successor to Pathfinder in the way Pathfinder was the successor to 3.5? I admit I never really read too much into it myself.

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-16, 12:01 PM
.
We don't want another 4e. You don't even want a 6e that looks as much like 3e as 5e does. WotC needs to build their skills *before* making 6e.

This entire sequence is borderline meaningless. Game design needs specific goals, not hypervague statements.



Trying to write better versions of 3e rules? That's a skill they need.
Why? What specific design goal of 6e would be satisfied by this expenditure of time and resources?
Unless they are specifically trying to make a better 3.5, this isn't useful.



Trying to understand "fun" and "cool"? Another needful skill.
Both "fun" and "cool" are meaningless for game design. My wife finds it fun to do chores. (I'm not joking or being a butt. Crossing things off her to do list is her favorite thing.) I'm quite partial to hiking.

Some people thing dark edgy characters in trenchcoats with katanas are cool. Some people think jugglers are cool. Some people (like me) think restoring old hotwheels cars is cool and could watch people do that all day.

In short: "Fun" and "cool" are extremely person-dependent. A design goal of "should be fun" is as vague and useless as the design goal "should be good." Unless you define explicitly what those mean, you'll end up with a worse result.



When either rules clarity or fun cool unique get out of balance, the game suffers. What I've pitched is, secretly, "6e training camp, Quertus style".

Feel free to suggest "6e training camp, cluedrew style".

Training camps have goals and specific things they want to accomplish. "Make a fun game that's like 3e" is extremely vague, and likely outside of what will be financially successful. Burning Wheel is a very well made game. And it's also extremely niche and not a grand financial success in part because what it offers is a sort of "fun" most people don't seem to seek. So is it actually not well made? No, it does exactly what it's meant to and does a good job. But if you're not wanting the particular thing it does, you won't like it.

So 6e needs to very carefully examine what the majority of players are looking for and cater to what the people want. Because if they don't, they lose hella money. And if they lose hella money, it puts the continued existence of D&D at risk.

So, from a business standpoint, they'll be better off paying attention to what MOST players CURRENTLY want, than listening to a few people who really enjoyed the particular 3.5 experience but may not be reflective of what the new players want.

Honestly, the only thing I actually want in a 6e is that alignment finally die and be replaced with something else. 5e made it pure flavoring with no mechanical effects I can think of, so it has been proven that alignment isn't needed for the game to be fun. Yes, it's iconic, but a more interesting system can be had there.

Oh, and changing the name of Spell Levels to something like Spell Tiers so that new players stop getting confused between their character level and spell levels.

But even with these two suggestions, I'm not going to presume that I am better suited to make design choices than professional designers who've been doing this for years.

Delicious Taffy
2020-07-16, 12:30 PM
Hey! 4E was the best Wuxia/Giant Robot fighting system ever printed and then mismarketed as a fantasy rpg. It fits Magic Martial Arts systems to a T (especially Korean ones) and works perfectly for Gundam/etc.

This is more interesting to me than the rest of the thread. Would you please elaborate? I'd love to know how 4e could potentially be enjoyable, especially if you're saying giant robots can be involved.

Tvtyrant
2020-07-16, 12:40 PM
This is more interesting to me than the rest of the thread. Would you please elaborate? I'd love to know how 4e could potentially be enjoyable, especially if you're saying giant robots can be involved.

The issue with 4E is that it is very good at interactive combat, with each character having lots of different resources to use (Daily, encounter, HP, healing surges, action points, utility powers.) It is very grid based, combat is tactical. What it does poorly is imitate human life, so you often feel less like explorers and more like you are playing Final Fantasy (obviously people can disagree on this.)

Switch it to giant robots and it makes a lot more sense. The different kinds of combat powers are based around trying to recharge or reload (dailies require overnight maintenance to set up, encounter powers require minute long reloads, HP is hull points, healing surges are emergency patches, action points are All Power to the Engines.)

So the "why can't a guy swing a sword the same way twice" becomes "We used up all of our chainsaw fuel so we can't use the giant chainsaw attachment until we refuel it" and basic attacks and at-wills are auto-reloading or just hitting things. Even the lazy skill point system becomes "things you can do with a giant robot" and rituals become "things the crew does requiring 6 hours and a crane."

Jorren
2020-07-16, 12:53 PM
The amount of content already produced for 3e to put it mildly, is staggering. Most RPGs don't have even a fifth of that. So I'm not sure how anyone has already consumed everything for 3e that is already out there, even if you've played nothing but since the game came out.

Not to mention all of the homebrews and unofficial custom content that is already out there. Setting aside the business viability of such a venture, I don't see what the benefit of 'official' material would be at this point.

DeTess
2020-07-16, 01:26 PM
The issue with 4E is that it is very good at interactive combat, with each character having lots of different resources to use (Daily, encounter, HP, healing surges, action points, utility powers.) It is very grid based, combat is tactical. What it does poorly is imitate human life, so you often feel less like explorers and more like you are playing Final Fantasy (obviously people can disagree on this.)

Switch it to giant robots and it makes a lot more sense. The different kinds of combat powers are based around trying to recharge or reload (dailies require overnight maintenance to set up, encounter powers require minute long reloads, HP is hull points, healing surges are emergency patches, action points are All Power to the Engines.)

So the "why can't a guy swing a sword the same way twice" becomes "We used up all of our chainsaw fuel so we can't use the giant chainsaw attachment until we refuel it" and basic attacks and at-wills are auto-reloading or just hitting things. Even the lazy skill point system becomes "things you can do with a giant robot" and rituals become "things the crew does requiring 6 hours and a crane."

So is there like a homebrew 4e mecha overhauls somewhere, or si it just a case of creative re-fluffing? because I love all things giant mecha, and learning about a new system that can support it is always fun.

Delicious Taffy
2020-07-16, 01:39 PM
The issue with 4E is that it is very good at interactive combat

What it does poorly is imitate human life

Switch it to giant robots and it makes a lot more sense. The different kinds of combat powers are based around trying to recharge or reload (dailies require overnight maintenance to set up, encounter powers require minute long reloads, HP is hull points, healing surges are emergency patches, action points are All Power to the Engines.)

"We used up all of our chainsaw fuel so we can't use the giant chainsaw attachment until we refuel it"

Even the lazy skill point system becomes "things you can do with a giant robot" and rituals become "things the crew does requiring 6 hours and a crane."

This makes so much sense. Now I kinda want to break out my extensive 4e library and see how I feel about it with these things in mind.

Tvtyrant
2020-07-16, 01:44 PM
So is there like a homebrew 4e mecha overhauls somewhere, or si it just a case of creative re-fluffing? because I love all things giant mecha, and learning about a new system that can support it is always fun.

I believe there was, I was a player in one about 5 years ago. But a lot of 4E stuff got melted by forums shutting down, I don't know where they are located. I might make a new one, it would take some work but it really was one of the cooler campaigns I have played in.


This makes so much sense. Now I kinda want to break out my extensive 4e library and see how I feel about it with these things in mind.

Go for it!

Quertus
2020-07-16, 01:57 PM
I had a lot of individual replies that got eaten. So… quick version from the PoV of my gaming religion:

Every version of D&D since 2e has felt "less". 5e is glorified e6. 4e wasn't even an RPG. Even 3e lost a few things (like the ability to create a perfectly playable character in 5-10 minutes).

What I want is 6e developers trained to understand the "5d chess" of game design, to be able to *feel* and understand the differences between those (and other) systems, and to be able to create a system that hits all the D&D notes at *all* layers. I want a Beethoven, who can write a symphony, not someone who bangs out a little ditty worthy of a commercial's jingle.

I want someone who will be able to make 6e more.

I want someone who can see the beauty in 4e's muggles. Someone who can see the beauty in 3e mix and match, splat-diving builds & "balance to the table". Someone who can see the beauty in the simple elegance of 2e character creation.

I want someone who can see the ugly in trap options & accidental sidelining of another PC. Someone who can see the ugly in what 4e did to the Forgotten Realms. Someone who can see the ugly in the horrible advice that's been given in D&D books throughout the ages.

Someone who can see the difference between "ugly" and "different style". Someone who knows what well-written rules look like. Someone who knows what math looks like, how it works, and how important it is.

Someone who understands what other people find fun and cool, someone who will stand up to protect that fun even if it isn't their personal cup of tea.

And I know that that's probably asking too much, so I'll add, someone who recognizes their failings, and will outsource responsibility for any elements that they personally cannot handle to another worthy soul.

Thus, to me, "fixing 3e's rules", learning about good and bad and "Zen and the art of motorcycle repair" in the context of an exercise of nonzero value, is simply one step towards producing / vetting such designers / skills as I believe would be necessary to create the best 6e.

LibraryOgre
2020-07-16, 03:50 PM
I believe there was, I was a player in one about 5 years ago. But a lot of 4E stuff got melted by forums shutting down, I don't know where they are located. I might make a new one, it would take some work but it really was one of the cooler campaigns I have played in.


https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?328964-quot-Giant-Mecha-quot&highlight=mecha

Remember: No Thread Necromancy.

Vinyadan
2020-07-16, 04:20 PM
So is there like a homebrew 4e mecha overhauls somewhere, or si it just a case of creative re-fluffing? because I love all things giant mecha, and learning about a new system that can support it is always fun.

I also love this idea, I remember looking up 4ed and thinking "uhm, swordswingers feels like spellswingers", which was weird because we are talking about different archetypes for people with different tastes. But, if it becomes Gundams, then everyone is a big fight-capable robot and everyone also has the tech for the "magical" effects.

I think it might also work for Godzilla & Friends. But Gundams are better.

Morty
2020-07-16, 04:40 PM
If someone wants an 4E-inspired game with mecha, Lancer (https://massif-press.itch.io/corebook-pdf-free) already exists.

Vinyadan
2020-07-16, 04:49 PM
If someone wants an 4E-inspired game with mecha, Lancer (https://massif-press.itch.io/corebook-pdf-free) already exists.
And is it good?

Tvtyrant
2020-07-16, 04:50 PM
I also love this idea, I remember looking up 4ed and thinking "uhm, swordswingers feels like spellswingers", which was weird because we are talking about different archetypes for people with different tastes. But, if it becomes Gundams, then everyone is a big fight-capable robot and everyone also has the tech for the "magical" effects.

I think it might also work for Godzilla & Friends. But Gundams are better.

Heck they can still have different power sources and effects. Martials use an old fashioned nuclear power core and projectile weapons/buss saws, Arcane magic becomes fusion cores with more fragile bodies and energy weapons, and Nature becomes Transformers.

Morty
2020-07-16, 04:53 PM
And is it good?

I haven't played it, but I've heard nothing but praise for it from other people.

Aotrs Commander
2020-07-16, 05:25 PM
The issue with 4E is that it is very good at interactive combat, with each character having lots of different resources to use (Daily, encounter, HP, healing surges, action points, utility powers.) It is very grid based, combat is tactical. What it does poorly is imitate human life, so you often feel less like explorers and more like you are playing Final Fantasy (obviously people can disagree on this.)

Switch it to giant robots and it makes a lot more sense. The different kinds of combat powers are based around trying to recharge or reload (dailies require overnight maintenance to set up, encounter powers require minute long reloads, HP is hull points, healing surges are emergency patches, action points are All Power to the Engines.)

So the "why can't a guy swing a sword the same way twice" becomes "We used up all of our chainsaw fuel so we can't use the giant chainsaw attachment until we refuel it" and basic attacks and at-wills are auto-reloading or just hitting things. Even the lazy skill point system becomes "things you can do with a giant robot" and rituals become "things the crew does requiring 6 hours and a crane."

Huh.

That's...

Huh.

*files that one away for future consideration*

DataNinja
2020-07-16, 08:11 PM
If someone wants an 4E-inspired game with mecha, Lancer (https://massif-press.itch.io/corebook-pdf-free) already exists.


And is it good?
Yes, it is indeed excellent. Scintillating review from a satisfied customer here. Gets the 4e feel and tactics, with a much tighter mathematical system. The enemy design tends to be designed to be much more tactical than most of 4e's - definitely takes the best parts of those, too.

Cluedrew
2020-07-16, 08:47 PM
(I abandoned my attempt at writing an RPG from scratch after the first pre-alpha test and went "nah, this is going to require far too much effort for too little gain.")Yeah, its a long road. I tried once and may try again, right now I'm creating a mod for another game which might be the basis of a new system. But I think I put about 2 years of on-again-off-again time into creating the right resolution mechanic. And I might have to throw it out if I try again.

Even though actually enjoy the process I am kind of trying to talk myself out of it.


If someone wants an 4E-inspired game with mecha, Lancer (https://massif-press.itch.io/corebook-pdf-free) already exists.The designer was involved in Kill Six Billion Demons? I feel like that is either a very good or very bad sign but I cannot decide which.

Quertus
2020-07-16, 09:18 PM
Yes, it is indeed excellent. Scintillating review from a satisfied customer here. Gets the 4e feel and tactics, with a much tighter mathematical system. The enemy design tends to be designed to be much more tactical than most of 4e's - definitely takes the best parts of those, too.

So, either no-one has ever explained how 4e is awesome to me, or my senility has won out, and I've forgotten.

However, perhaps I'll remember if you manage to explain to me how the enemy designs of this derivative system are more tactical.

So, uh, how so? What makes the enemy designs cool?

DataNinja
2020-07-16, 10:40 PM
So, either no-one has ever explained how 4e is awesome to me, or my senility has won out, and I've forgotten.

However, perhaps I'll remember if you manage to explain to me how the enemy designs of this derivative system are more tactical.

So, uh, how so? What makes the enemy designs cool?

4e's strengths come from everything being more-or-less equal in power. The complaint there comes from things feeling same-y, but the same cannot be said for Lancer's system. Even with... basically mix'n'match of parts on a base frame that gives certain traits, you have the ability to have even characters in the same role feeling way different.

The enemies in Lancer, though... they basically do one thing, and do it well, taking the "role" classification in 4e up to 11. And they are scary if you let them play to their strengths. If you let Assault-class enemies clump up, they deal damage reliably to you. Bombard-class enemies punish you at range for clumping up. Mirages don't really attack you, but move around other enemies so that your plans go awry (especially important because initiative essentially alternates between sides).

And how you deal with them really depends on your party composition. Hornets, for instance, are super fast and evasive, but go down to hacking or other e-warfare. So if you rely on guns, it punishes you, while a hacker team will have an easy time. Hives will just stay around, hiding in damaging area swarms, so melee stuff suffers against them, but they fold to concentrated range, and can't attack directly. The aforementioned Bombards are more fragile in close-combat, and can't escape and still shoot (and if they do shoot, they take additional penalties because of how melee works in that game).

It's hard to describe just how different encounters can be, just by a few different enemies being present. And how they're dealt with depends hugely on what tools the PCs have available - but nothing is ever insurmountable.

The other big key is that the game is not entirely focused around killing enemies, so support in various ways - especially positioning - is just as valuable as damage in a lot of cases. You have several encounter types around objectives, others about holding areas, and some about killing. So, depending on the enemy composition, and mission, pretty much everyone gets a chance to shine with their strengths sometimes, and have to think about how to use their tools a bit unorthodoxly at other times. It is at its core, a game about teamwork.

ebarde
2020-07-16, 11:52 PM
Honestly, considering how 5e has become the only thing a lot of people in the community play, and wizards has been just sorta staying the course ever since it came out with somewhat slow releases, I'm not even that sure if we'll even get a 6e anytime soon, much less go back to 3.5. From my experience a majority of 5e's playerbase really doesn't seem to want to migrate or learn any other system, they're pretty satisfied with 5e, which as a system I wouldn't say has changed that drastically since it came out.

For wizards to suddenly support a new edition, there would have probably need to be a clear indicator that it would be more profitable than 5e is currently. And I just don't see that happening anytime soon, their consumer base seems to be fairly satisfied with 5e.

el minster
2020-07-17, 12:41 AM
The issue with 4E is that it is very good at interactive combat, with each character having lots of different resources to use (Daily, encounter, HP, healing surges, action points, utility powers.) It is very grid based, combat is tactical. What it does poorly is imitate human life, so you often feel less like explorers and more like you are playing Final Fantasy (obviously people can disagree on this.)

Switch it to giant robots and it makes a lot more sense. The different kinds of combat powers are based around trying to recharge or reload (dailies require overnight maintenance to set up, encounter powers require minute long reloads, HP is hull points, healing surges are emergency patches, action points are All Power to the Engines.)

So the "why can't a guy swing a sword the same way twice" becomes "We used up all of our chainsaw fuel so we can't use the giant chainsaw attachment until we refuel it" and basic attacks and at-wills are auto-reloading or just hitting things. Even the lazy skill point system becomes "things you can do with a giant robot" and rituals become "things the crew does requiring 6 hours and a crane."

This makes alot of sense Don't think I could fit it in a sig though

Eldan
2020-07-17, 02:40 AM
Yeah, its a long road. I tried once and may try again, right now I'm creating a mod for another game which might be the basis of a new system. But I think I put about 2 years of on-again-off-again time into creating the right resolution mechanic. And I might have to throw it out if I try again.

Even though actually enjoy the process I am kind of trying to talk myself out of it.

The designer was involved in Kill Six Billion Demons? I feel like that is either a very good or very bad sign but I cannot decide which.

The designer is indeed the author and artist of KSBD, yes.

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-17, 08:26 PM
I had a lot of individual replies that got eaten. So… quick version from the PoV of my gaming religion:

Every version of D&D since 2e has felt "less". 5e is glorified e6. 4e wasn't even an RPG. Even 3e lost a few things (like the ability to create a perfectly playable character in 5-10 minutes).

What I want is 6e developers trained to understand the "5d chess" of game design, to be able to *feel* and understand the differences between those (and other) systems, and to be able to create a system that hits all the D&D notes at *all* layers. I want a Beethoven, who can write a symphony, not someone who bangs out a little ditty worthy of a commercial's jingle.

I want someone who will be able to make 6e more.

I want someone who can see the beauty in 4e's muggles. Someone who can see the beauty in 3e mix and match, splat-diving builds & "balance to the table". Someone who can see the beauty in the simple elegance of 2e character creation.

I want someone who can see the ugly in trap options & accidental sidelining of another PC. Someone who can see the ugly in what 4e did to the Forgotten Realms. Someone who can see the ugly in the horrible advice that's been given in D&D books throughout the ages.

Someone who can see the difference between "ugly" and "different style". Someone who knows what well-written rules look like. Someone who knows what math looks like, how it works, and how important it is.

Someone who understands what other people find fun and cool, someone who will stand up to protect that fun even if it isn't their personal cup of tea.

And I know that that's probably asking too much, so I'll add, someone who recognizes their failings, and will outsource responsibility for any elements that they personally cannot handle to another worthy soul.

Thus, to me, "fixing 3e's rules", learning about good and bad and "Zen and the art of motorcycle repair" in the context of an exercise of nonzero value, is simply one step towards producing / vetting such designers / skills as I believe would be necessary to create the best 6e.

The problem with this entire thing is that aside from "let's make sure the math works," none of this gives valuable game design information that is workable.

Since most new players to D&D since 3.5 came out either played 3.5 or 5e, the idea that they "don't feel like D&D" is entirely moot for the majority of currently active D&D players. The only D&D they know is what currently exists, so pulling it back to 2e would cause exactly the problem for all these new players that you are experiencing. Ie, "This doesn't feel like D&D anymore."

Unless you can quantify exactly what the D&D notes are, that entire paragraph looks sorta nice as a vague wishlist but is entirely useless from a game design perspective except as the most broad-brush goal, which wouldn't be helpful by itself without further breakdown.

And have you considered for moment that the things you consider to be the core of D&D might not be the definitive list? Especially since the designers of modern D&D are generally guys who HAVE played all the editions and who spent a lot of time carefully deliberating on what is core to the D&D brand and what isn't? There's literally an interview out there where they talk about the primary reason for alignment existing in 5e is because removing it would have been slaughtering a sacred cow of what makes D&D iconic, and so they just made it present but entirely unneeded.
They also spoke about their decision to make Fireball available "probably an entire spell level sooner than it should be" to paraphrase, simply because it is iconic and players had so much fun getting that early access to it that they just kept it despite being fully aware that it wasn't balanced, because it was just better that way. And this was a decision that was made over weeks of design and discussion and testing and adjusting until they came down to their final call.

So the issue here is:
D&D wants to be available and approachable to everyone, right now.

1e and 2e probably were not super concerned about that as a design goal.

So the issue isn't that D&D is somehow not true to itself. D&D is different, and doing better now than it ever did during 1e and 2e. Why on earth would any sane designer want to go back to what was objectively less successful as a thing to look towards as the next step forward?

TL;DR
D&D is whatever the majority of its players think it is. The end.

Quertus
2020-07-18, 09:28 AM
The problem with this entire thing is that aside from "let's make sure the math works," none of this gives valuable game design information that is workable.

Lol. To put it your way, I don't want people developing 6e who would say what you just did. If "don't mess up the Forgotten Realms the way 4e did" is not clear enough directive, they don't belong on the 6e design team.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

But, since you need things spelled out, else you deride them as not workable, let me spell out what I mean by that.

Take, for example, "characters can be made in under 10 minutes". This is something 3e lost, it is one way 3e feels "less" than 2e.

More specifically, in 2e, you can make fully functional characters with minimal investment, *or* you can splat dive for races, kits, proficiencies, items, and even build with Skills and Powers. 2e scratches either itch. 3e feels "less" than 2e, because you can't just throw together any old character in 5 minutes with just the core book and assume it will be fine at most tables.

That has nothing to do with either "feeling like D&D".

I want developers who can map out and grok the play experience, who can understand how to make a game that is "more" rather than a game that is "less".

And, if some sacred cows (like whatever it is some people like about the Forgotten Realms) get resurrected along the way, so much the better. But that's just incidental, and not what I'm talking about.

I want 6e to be developed by people who can get that.

(EDIT: actually, the bit about 5e alignment being vestigial and optional technically qualifies as 5e having one spot of "more", I suppose. Not a terribly meaningful version of "more", compared to how much "less" 5e has, but it's something, and technically relevant to the conversation.)

Mutazoia
2020-07-18, 09:41 AM
<Majority of thread> TLDR.

Look. WOTC support 3.5 is over. It's been over for a good decade now. That doesn't mean you have to stop playing it. That doesn't even mean you will never get additional content. Players make their own content all the time and release it online. Make your own content. Keep playing to your heart's content. 1st and 2nd ed ended an ice age ago and people still play. Your 3.X books are not going to disappear into piles of pixie dust in the moonlight and blow away on a sad wind. Just because WOTC has moved on, doesn't mean you have to.

Expecting WOTC to keep supporting a product decades old, that was riddled with loopholes large enough to sail the Exxon Valdez through, is unrealistic. They have new products that they need to support. Their resources need to be focused on those.

I get it. I wasn't too happy when WOTC killed off 2nd ed and launched the hodgepodge madness of 3.X. I didn't hop on an internet forum and call for the torches and pitchforks brigade to storm WOTCs email server. I kept my 2nd ed books and still played when I found people who enjoyed that edition or were curious to try it.

Expecting Rich to ride in and force WOTC to change their tune is just unrealistic. You expect one sub-contracted employee to change the mind of Hasbro? Not in a million years. Hasbro listens to things like the market, and the market says 3.X book sales are close to non-existent. They, and quite rightly so, have decided to move on and put their resources into the new product that is still making money and has the room to grow (and make even more money).

And in the end, that's all this is really about. Money. 3.X isn't making it anymore and 5e is. So naturally, a business in the business of making money is going to follow the money and leave the old, dried up cash-cow dead on the side of the road.

NigelWalmsley
2020-07-18, 04:27 PM
If "don't mess up the Forgotten Realms the way 4e did" is not clear enough directive, they don't belong on the 6e design team.

Again, that's not really the standard you want. You don't need your whole team to know the ins and outs of the Forgotten Realms. The vast majority of work they are going to be doing is class balancing, and general mechanical frameworks, and iterative testing. You certainly want a guy who is in charge of the Forgotten Realms (and Eberron and Dark Sun and so on), but that guy does not belong on the core team. The problem with D&D's design process is not that the people working on D&D are not enfranchised enough.

AdAstra
2020-07-18, 07:37 PM
Lol. To put it your way, I don't want people developing 6e who would say what you just did. If "don't mess up the Forgotten Realms the way 4e did" is not clear enough directive, they don't belong on the 6e design team.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

But, since you need things spelled out, else you deride them as not workable, let me spell out what I mean by that.

Take, for example, "characters can be made in under 10 minutes". This is something 3e lost, it is one way 3e feels "less" than 2e.

More specifically, in 2e, you can make fully functional characters with minimal investment, *or* you can splat dive for races, kits, proficiencies, items, and even build with Skills and Powers. 2e scratches either itch. 3e feels "less" than 2e, because you can't just throw together any old character in 5 minutes with just the core book and assume it will be fine at most tables.

That has nothing to do with either "feeling like D&D".

I want developers who can map out and grok the play experience, who can understand how to make a game that is "more" rather than a game that is "less".

And, if some sacred cows (like whatever it is some people like about the Forgotten Realms) get resurrected along the way, so much the better. But that's just incidental, and not what I'm talking about.

I want 6e to be developed by people who can get that.

(EDIT: actually, the bit about 5e alignment being vestigial and optional technically qualifies as 5e having one spot of "more", I suppose. Not a terribly meaningful version of "more", compared to how much "less" 5e has, but it's something, and technically relevant to the conversation.)

What about this does 2e itself not deliver? So far you’ve yet to explain a single thing that 2e fails to do that should happen in 6e or whatever. Every other edition so far has been in some way lesser to you, but what is lacking in 2e that a whole new edition needs to be made to resolve it? If 2e is the perfect edition of DnD, then any new “perfect” edition would either just be copying it or be making something worse.

And again, in my opinion, DnD has far more to learn from outside its past editions. There are tons of games out there that are constantly doing new things, and you can learn a lot more from their failures and successes than forever looking backward.

Alcore
2020-07-19, 12:23 PM
There is no point in continuing 3.5. It is done. It would be nice for them to go in and do some light editing, clear up any miscommunication, make it more PDF friendly and sell them for a few bucks as a PDF. It would be nice but you are talking about corporate. Corporate only sees the world in dollar signs. individuals might want to keep going but they have to convince the masses; it didn't happen then it won'r happen now.


The system has so much content (more so if D20 modern material is thrown in) that you could run hundreds of games and still not use it all. Does it have problems? you bet. If we did find the holy grail (the magic fix-it button) the game left over would be hardly recognized by fans. I don't want more 3.5; I want better formatted 3.5. It is old, it looks old and i've retired it (mostly).


I just don't run 3.5 or even play. I discovered it six years ago and is the first RPG I played. I will keep returning to it simply because of all its clones; it is light work to translate a system to 3.5 and then from 3.5 to another different system to give me tried and true mechanics that have not only been play tested but used.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-07-19, 03:49 PM
What about this does 2e itself not deliver? So far you’ve yet to explain a single thing that 2e fails to do that should happen in 6e or whatever. Every other edition so far has been in some way lesser to you, but what is lacking in 2e that a whole new edition needs to be made to resolve it? If 2e is the perfect edition of DnD, then any new “perfect” edition would either just be copying it or be making something worse.
That's... kind of true, come to think of it. Have you checked out any of the dozens of retroclones out there?

RifleAvenger
2020-07-19, 04:11 PM
[Lancer] is at its core, a game about teamwork. It's a game about solidarity.

But yeah, Lancer is great. Its enemy design is so, so very far from the "cube of HP and damage" that too many RPGs field, and it encourages objective based sitreps in individual encounters over deathmatches!

To add to Lancer's description, and bring up something that readers may heavily dislike, Lancer is a game with a sharp divide between narrative play and mech combat. It does not attempt, at all, to the use the same systems across the two. Mech combat is focused on being balanced and providing a tactical challenge, full stop. In narrative, a railgun can fire at targets kilometers away. In mech combat, it shoots a 20-space line. How long is 20 spaces? Whatever the GM feels fits the scale of the map. Likewise, it's possible to create a character who is a masterful hacker in narrative, with no hacking skill in their mech, or vice versa.

This doesn't bother me at all, since it's up to the players and the GM to explain the abstraction, but I know some people are turned off of the system by it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the original topic of the thread, I'm throwing my hat in with the "why bother?" crowd. D&D 3.5e has been officially discontinued for some time, had a lot of splatbooks produced for it when it was active, and has a multitude of spiritual successors and homebrew sources.

Also going to back Aotrs Commander's statement that protest takes organization and dedication to work. I'm coming from a worker's union and activist background here. It takes months of failed negotiations before we arrange a strike authorization vote, which takes 5-6 weeks and requires us to inspire workers to get engaged (all year round really, since the employer is always putting out anti-union propaganda). If we do go on strike, we need to make sure: people turn out; we can keep benefits going for an extended period; we promote good optics to get the wider community behind us; and reach out to other unions that might back us in solidarity.

This requires a LOT of effort and time, esp. from the organizers, but potentially from individual workers too. Furthermore, the workers are responsible for producing the value the company is profiting from; no work, no business. This is not the case at all for a niche product that has been officially discontinued for over a decade, and where the majority of the company's profit is coming from a newer, more-successful, product.

Any successful protest, whether appealing to an organization or standing against them, requires planning, manpower, and some form of leverage (labor, public opinion, etc.). I see none of that here for 3.5e.

Sir_Chivalry
2020-07-19, 04:47 PM
I'm just wondering where el minister and BartManHomer were when 3.5 actually was discontinued? They may well have been too young but honestly if the edition has been out of print the WHOLE time you've been playing that's even less reason to get it continued

Especially as 5e and PF are both very similar to 3.5 (in different ways) and can be easily learned if you can manage 3.5

Azuresun
2020-07-19, 05:04 PM
Lol.

No argument worth reading has ever started with that phrase.

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-19, 05:34 PM
Lol. To put it your way, I don't want people developing 6e who would say what you just did. If "don't mess up the Forgotten Realms the way 4e did" is not clear enough directive, they don't belong on the 6e design team.
In what ways did it mess it up?
Messed up according to Quertus or messed up according to most fans?
It's an entirely vague point that you believe makes some perfect objective sense but is just an opinion elevated to the level of truth, which is an endemic plague upon this hobby that I can't seem to get away from.



But, since you need things spelled out, else you deride them as not workable, let me spell out what I mean by that.

Take, for example, "characters can be made in under 10 minutes". This is something 3e lost, it is one way 3e feels "less" than 2e.

Feels "less" to YOU.
Hence the problem. For those of us who began at 3.5 and beyond, this isn't a "less" we experience.



More specifically, in 2e, you can make fully functional characters with minimal investment, *or* you can splat dive for races, kits, proficiencies, items, and even build with Skills and Powers. 2e scratches either itch. 3e feels "less" than 2e, because you can't just throw together any old character in 5 minutes with just the core book and assume it will be fine at most tables.

This wasn't a problem at all at most tables, in my experience.



That has nothing to do with either "feeling like D&D".

See the point about "less" and "more" being needlessly confusing, meaningless words below.



I want developers who can map out and grok the play experience, who can understand how to make a game that is "more" rather than a game that is "less".
Defin "more" and "less."
These terms are meaningless in this context. You give an example, but it's clearly not the extent. So please define these terms in a way that they can be used to judge something with some measure of accuracy.

As it stands? They currently seem to mean: More = "Quertus likes" and Less = "Quertus no likes."

And I'm sorry for not buying that your personal opinions are what will lead to a well-recieved 6e.



And, if some sacred cows (like whatever it is some people like about the Forgotten Realms) get resurrected along the way, so much the better. But that's just incidental, and not what I'm talking about.

I want 6e to be developed by people who can get that.
Translation as I see it:
"I want 6e to be developed by people who want the same thing out of the game that I do."



(EDIT: actually, the bit about 5e alignment being vestigial and optional technically qualifies as 5e having one spot of "more", I suppose. Not a terribly meaningful version of "more", compared to how much "less" 5e has, but it's something, and technically relevant to the conversation.)

Since "less" and "more" are entirely undefined meaningless terms... the only response I can give is:
K.