Quote from: mcbobbo;688841Lisa actually cites it as the biggest reason that TSR failed.

But likewise, abandoning the simplicity and openness of the original games (OD&D, B/X, Mentzer D&D) to default with 3e onward on the notion the only version of the game there is is AT LEAST as complex as what was before labelled the ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons game (which by the way is a notion that has become so ingrained in the mentalities at WotC you'll notice that each time they talk about the game or print reprints they talk about the 0e/1e/2e/3e/4e sequence as if the other versions of the game somehow didn't happen or even exist!), is in my opinion a HUGE MISTAKE and a cardinal sin of RPG design on WotC's, and subsequently Paizo's, since they just went on with that 3.x paradigm, parts. And the hobby's been paying for it ever since, because the game is just too complex as it is presently conceived and envisioned, and appeals to people who fundamentally already are hardcore gamers.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688841Lisa actually cites it as the biggest reason that TSR failed.

I understand the concept as deliberately limiting the audience for your products.  So instead of having more/new customers, you actually just split the ones you previously had.

I don't necessarily agree, particularly with something like the BBox, but they do believe it in general oved at Paizo.

I suppose. But looking at it as an outsider TSR was most successful when it had two lines going and had all but completely abandoned Basic by the time they went into serious decline (I think the last BD&D product was released in '93 and the line didn't get a lot of attention for several years prior).

TSR's death came years after Basic was in the dustbin so it seems odd to blame it.

Quote from: Benoist;688843But likewise, abandoning the simplicity and openness of the original games (OD&D, B/X, Mentzer D&D) to default with 3e onward on the notion the only version of the game there is is AT LEAST as complex as what was before labelled the ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons game  is in my opinion a HUGE MISTAKE and a cardinal sin of RPG design on WotC's,

Yet somehow 3e was still one of the greatest success stories in RPG history :?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688850Yet somehow 3e was still one of the greatest success stories in RPG history :?

3e was successful I think because it catered to a lot of different tastes at the same time.

The original game was of middling complex and pretty easy to "wing-it" and most groups I knew played it that way. Pretty loose, pretty fast.

The edition then kind of followed the overall trajectory of the industry of chasing the hardcore consumers. More splats, more feats, more classes, more rules, more, more, more...

In my experience most of the "lapsed gamers" that came back to role-playing in 2000 (and there were a lot in my neck of the woods) were gone by '03-'04. Put off by the growing complexity of the game and the 3.5 switch.

Quote from: Piestrio;688854In my experience most of the "lapsed gamers" that came back to role-playing in 2000 (and there were a lot in my neck of the woods) were gone by '03-'04. Put off by the growing complexity of the game and the 3.5 switch.

That describes me pretty well. I came back to gaming after a hiatus when 3e was released, but bailed out to Castles & Crusades because DMing D&D was becoming a chore. From there it was a short step to OSR stuff.

As for why TSR failed, I think will always be difficult to disentangle things from their overall atrocious business practices.

When you're selling products for less than it costs you to make them, it hardly matters what else you do.

Quote from: Piestrio;688854In my experience most of the "lapsed gamers" that came back to role-playing in 2000 (and there were a lot in my neck of the woods) were gone by '03-'04. Put off by the growing complexity of the game and the 3.5 switch.

Piestrio confirmed for never playing 3e ;3

None of the splats for 3e raised the games complexity in a meaningful fashion. At the game table it doesn't matter that 500 new shitty feats exist, because each player only cares about the 3-7 feats on their character sheet. The number of Classes and Prestige classes is irrelevant for much the same reason -_-

Quote from: Dimitrios;688858That describes me pretty well. I came back to gaming after a hiatus when 3e was released, but bailed out to Castles & Crusades because DMing D&D was becoming a chore. From there it was a short step to OSR stuff.

I suspect that would sound familiar to many, many gamers out there. I tired of the 3.x complexity and increasing "the rules are the game" mentality around 2006/7 myself. It was to the point where every conversation about the game revolved around "overpowered" this, "balance" that, "feat" this and "build" that. I think 4e basically proved that this approach is alienating to a lot of D&D gamers, and it started earlier, during 3.x's run.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688841Lisa actually cites it as the biggest reason that TSR failed.

I understand the concept as deliberately limiting the audience for your products.  So instead of having more/new customers, you actually just split the ones you previously had.

I don't necessarily agree, particularly with something like the BBox, but they do believe it in general oved at Paizo.

You have to be careful about how far you go or wind up with the situation that GURPS has. The core product requiring way too much investment in time compared to similar competitors.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688860None of the splats for 3e raised the games complexity in a meaningful fashion.

OK. GamerGoyf confirmed as delusional.

Quote from: Benoist;688864OK. GamerGoyf confirmed as delusional.

Um, yeah.  I like 3.x, and I'll freely admit that there's a lot of crunch out there that got added on by the constant "more more more" out there.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688860Piestrio confirmed for never playing 3e ;3

None of the splats for 3e raised the games complexity in a meaningful fashion. At the game table it doesn't matter that 500 new shitty feats exist, because each player only cares about the 3-7 feats on their character sheet. The number of Classes and Prestige classes is irrelevant for much the same reason -_-

I know you'll never listen because 3e is you're precious baby but believe it or not I did play 3e. A lot of 3e. From about 2001-2006 I played d20 nearly exclusively (with some GURPS here and there).

And you're right as far as it goes that I can run core 3e until the end of time. but here's the problem that folks ran into. Culture.

I can run it but will people play it? When I first started it was easy to find folks willing to just play with the core and not care about anything else. But sometime around '03-'04 those people started disappearing, either not playing D&D or (more likely) not playing RPGs at all.

Who replaced them? People with "pre-built" characters, people who show up to play with a dozen splats, people who insist on playing some deeply stupid new race, etc...

Entitled players. Hardcore players. Players that made spreadsheets. Etc...

Players who would never even think about just sitting down to play. People who had the most fun "building" characters and obsessing over rules.

The cult of RAW, the cult of the 'build'.

I put up with that shit for a couple years and saw it get worse and worse until I quit.

Groups of normal folks, families, professionals, etc... slowly disappeared and were replaced by obsessive nerds.

Quote from: Benoist;688864OK. GamerGoyf confirmed as delusional.

Benoist confirmed for illiteracy ;3

Each player is only ever going to be interacting with the small slice of the splat pile the have on their character sheet, a character sheet that has the same amount of stuff on it if use no splat books or all of them -_-

Quote from: Piestrio;688869And you're right as far as it goes that I can run core 3e until the end of time. but here's the problem that folks ran into. Culture.

No the problem was you all along, correct yourself -_-

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688875Benoist confirmed for illiteracy

You are learning from the wrong posters, dude.

3e was a huge success because it brought d&d back in from the wilderness as a brand, the existing player-base was on anti-depressants due to White Wolf and the OGL opened the game up to anyone who fancied turning their hand to game-writing for the biggest brand in the business, which coupled with improved opportunities for self-publishing resulted in the brand being front and centre and revitalising a moribund market.

3e brought back our group to playing rpg's after a long hiatus.  After several months slogging through 3e, we went on another hiatus for a few years.

All that being said, I think you have to look back at the time.  In 2000, D&D was dead- then this bright shining lamp appeared in the gloom, and all those people who were forgotten came out.  Then we got to the lamp and tried reading the instructions manual and we crawled back from whence we came.