Quote from: gamerGoyf;688970Tell me can you back that up with any hard data, because according to WotC 3e was the best selling edition (and this was during the 4e era when they really wouldn't want to say that) :?

Best selling != cultural phenomenon.

There's a reason why D&D attracted the ire of the Fundies, and it wasn't the sales figures for 3.x.

D&D in the early 80s had a much broader spotlight in society.  It was included in movies like E.T..  Even people who didn't play D&D knew about it.  Then when the religious movement connected it to Occultism and Satanism, even people who would never have heard about it in any other context became aware of it - though not in a positive way.  

But D&D as a money-making enterprise with anything prior to 3rd edition?  That's a whole other ball of wax.  

Even if 3.x sold to half the audience of 1st edition, they sold more books to that audience.  And they sold those books at higher prices.  Benoist, you've posted your shelves of books.  How many are WotC 3.5 edition compared to how many are Advanced D&D prior to 2nd edition?  I'd wager that you have at least 1.5x as many 3.x books (don't you even have some Eberron source books?).  

The number of players isn't the only thing that goes into sales figures.  Anyone who wants to pretend that 3.x wasn't the most successful edition based on total sales is doing just that...pretending.  

Further, in earlier editions, it was pretty common for the DM to have 'all the books', with maybe the more hardcore players having their own copy of the Player's Handbook.  3.x was a big departure as far as reaching out to the players directly to purchase materials.  We had more copies at our table of the Complete Warrior when we played 3.x than we had copies of the Player's Handbook when we played 2nd edition.  

I don't think Paizo will rush into any changes.  There are a lot of people for whom 3.x is a very appealing edition, and winning them over won't be easy as long as they're generally happy.  

I think Paizo will eventually come out with a new edition that is supposed to keep the good of 3.x and provide a lot more simplicity for the DM, but they've already made some of those changes.  Skill points, for instance, in 3.x could take 2 hours or more to make sure you did correctly (which only really mattered if you were releasing your work or are a perfectionist like me) - especially if you make multiple changes (did I boost Int at 4th level or at 8th?).  But Paizo will follow the fans more than it will try to lead them.  

Shitting on what the fans were already playing is the single biggest mistake that WotC made switching to 4th edition.  Even if WotC didn't learn their lesson, Paizo did.

Quote from: Benoist;688975So you really have no idea what it is I am talking about, whatsoever. This is actually very useful feedback. I think it just made me realize something I did not fully comprehend until now.

Ok then motherfucker let's serve up some motherfucking data then

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?254013-PDFS-Of-the-WotC-Court-Case

These are court documents where Wizards says on the record they had 6 million players pre-4e (which sold some nebulous "hundreads of thousands"). In other words 30% of the roughly 20 million figure of "everyone who has ever played the game". That's pretty substantial given hobbies 30 year history and the fact people age out of the playerbase.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688934Well I'm sorry that happened but please reconsider. Don't lets the Piestros or the Sunic's of the world get you down, the fun you have at your table is what matters not the ravings of bitter people on the internet who probably don't even play ^_^

What's to reconsider?  WotC RnD nearly ruined D&D in order to sell more splat.  The fact that I gave them some of my dollars as fuel to do it with is pretty disgusting.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688982Ok then motherfucker let's serve up some motherfucking data then

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?254013-PDFS-Of-the-WotC-Court-Case

These are court documents where Wizards says on the record they had 6 million players pre-4e (which sold some nebulous "hundreads of thousands"). In other words 30% of the roughly 20 million figure of "everyone who has ever played the game". That's pretty substantial given hobbies 30 year history and the fact people age out of the playerbase.

So tell me, where was 3e's Saturday morning cartoon?  Toys in the toy isle?  BADD?

Here's a list of controversies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controversies

How many of those are from the 3e era?

Quote from: mcbobbo;688929I was a pretty solid 3e fan until some groknard on some forum somewhere educated me on the whole 'system mastery' vileness.

Yeah, 3E actually simplified things.  Making everything a roll-high D20 standard was simpler.  Putting things like Rogue skills on that standard was simpler than percentile.  Putting saving throws on that standard and cutting them down to three categories was simpler.  (On the other hand, having to have both bonuses for the character save and different DCs for the attempt itself is greater complexity, but complexity that works; a poison with a high DC is more dangerous than a simple -4 to saves, at least when the PC is over 10th level.)

However the fact that a lot of the mechanics of the system were finally more clear and subject to tweaking by the players is what led to that perceived complexity, not to mention all the splats.

JG

Quote from: mcbobbo;688985What's to reconsider?  WotC RnD nearly ruined D&D in order to sell more splat.  The fact that I gave them some of my dollars as fuel to do it with is pretty disgusting.

You can't ruin something by releasing something else.  Phantom Menace is a terrible movie, but it doesn't make Star Wars any worse due to its existence.  

3.x can't be ruined by the release of additional product - if the core was solid than anyone could choose to use just that.  Even when all the players have access to all the splats, the DM doesn't need to use them all when designing monsters.  Heck, he can make his own material when designing monsters.  

Personally, I think that 3.x had systemic problems (Fighters vs Wizards is exemplary of most of them), but I wouldn't count splat bloat as a problem in itself.  Player entitlement might have been an issue when combined with splat bloat, but that's a people problem, not a rules problem.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688989So tell me, where was 3e's Saturday morning cartoon?  Toys in the toy isle?  BADD?

Here's a list of controversies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controversies

How many of those are from the 3e era?

BADD started up when D&D had ~3 million players, I don't think this proves what you thing it proves.

Edit

Quote from: James Gillen;688991Yeah, 3E actually simplified things.  Making everything a roll-high D20 standard was simpler.  Putting things like Rogue skills on that standard was simpler than percentile.  Putting saving throws on that standard and cutting them down to three categories was simpler.

Yeah let's not pretend the AD&D era was some kind of golden age of accessibility that system was byzantine as all hell ;3

Quote from: James Gillen;688991However the fact that a lot of the mechanics of the system were finally more clear and subject to tweaking by the players is what led to that perceived complexity, not to mention all the splats.

No, I don't think it was organic at all.  I mean, it makes a nice story and it would be nice if it were true, but it doesn't explain the 'broken' aspects of the system, 'trap options', and 'uber builds'.  Those were deliberately seeded in to make those who invested more dollars/time into WotC products feel superior.

It is 'icky' black voodoo, and completely unnatural.

It's also insidious enough that I, for one, may not have ever noticed it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688998No, I don't think it was organic at all.  I mean, it makes a nice story and it would be nice if it were true, but it doesn't explain the 'broken' aspects of the system, 'trap options', and 'uber builds'.  Those were deliberately seeded in to make those who invested more dollars/time into WotC products feel superior.

It is 'icky' black voodoo, and completely unnatural.

It's also insidious enough that I, for one, may not have ever noticed it.

You're assuming a lot. Given subsequent events it's more likely the designers we're just idiots ;3

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688996BADD started up when D&D had ~3 million players, I don't think this proves what you thing it proves.

Which is more culturally significant:

A) When the RMS Titanic sunk, roughly 1500 lives were lost.

or

B) Choking kills roughly 2500 each year.

B is nearly double the size of A.

What was the name of that choking death blockbuster staring Leo and Kate, again?? I forget.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688999You're assuming a lot. Given subsequent events it's more likely the designers we're just idiots ;3

Well, no, I'm actually taking them at their word.  We know that Spike/Timmy/etc were a factor in the design.  We know what WotC's RnD does with that paradigm.  They have said it themselves, Monte said it, and it's pretty damn obvious once you tear away the veil.

The only assumption here is 'how much influence'.  But I wouldn't call that 'a lot' by any stretch.

Quote from: mcbobbo;689000Which is more culturally significant:

A) When the RMS Titanic sunk, roughly 1500 lives were lost.

or

B) Choking kills roughly 2500 each year.

B is nearly double the size of A.

What was the name of that choking death blockbuster staring Leo and Kate, again?? I forget.

Than I don't follow your argument in 1981 D&D had 3 million players, BADD was founded in 1982 and the 80's D&D boom peaked around 1984, the story those numbers tell seems to be opposite of the one you were spinning

Quote from: mcbobbo;689001Well, no, I'm actually taking them at their word.  We know that Spike/Timmy/etc were a factor in the design.  We know what WotC's RnD does with that paradigm.  They have said it themselves, Monte said it, and it's pretty damn obvious once you tear away the veil.

The only assumption here is 'how much influence'.  But I wouldn't call that 'a lot' by any stretch.

Your're referencing Monte's "Ivory Tower Game design" post aren't you. Given how he literally can't write balance material unsupervised I think that was the designer equivalent of

and he wasn't even on the team for all of 3.5

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688996BADD started up when D&D had ~3 million players, I don't think this proves what you thing it proves.

Sure it does.  More people listen to heavy metal today than in the 80's, but who got Tipper Gore so riled up that they had Congressional hearings on it?  80's metal.

Just because there were fewer absolute players doesn't mean that it was a thing.  And believe me, D&D was a cultural touchstone.  A haven for nerds and geeks and social outcasts of all sort.  Parents and Ministers --particularly in the South and Midwest-- were certain that something sinister was going on with that game, and the Pat Pulling campaign and the Michigan State steam tunnels only confirmed it.  ("Why don't you go out and play some sports instead?" my parents once asked me, forgetting that I sat on the bench in grade school basketball for four years.)

By the time D&D 3e had come out, the edginess of D&D had long since come and gone.  Vampire was the new edgy, and it got a lot of unwelcome press due to Columbine.  By comparison, D&D was rock music:  it got more listeners, but was no longer the phenomenon it was back in the 50s.

Quote from: Benoist;688966See this is this sort of remark that makes you sound very young dude. The 3rd ed era was successful for some time, but its success is nothing compared to the enormous cultural phenomenon that (A)D&D was in the 80s. I mean... nothing like. Really. We're talking of a scale of apples to peanuts, or Boing 777 to remote control model airplane, here. Wake up.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;689006Sure it does.  More people listen to heavy metal today than in the 80's, but who got Tipper Gore so riled up that they had Congressional hearings on it?  80's metal.

Just because there were fewer absolute players doesn't mean that it was a thing.  And believe me, D&D was a cultural touchstone.  A haven for nerds and geeks and social outcasts of all sort.  Parents and Ministers --particularly in the South and Midwest-- were certain that something sinister was going on with that game, and the Pat Pulling campaign and the Michigan State steam tunnels only confirmed it.  ("Why don't you go out and play some sports instead?" my parents once asked me, forgetting that I sat on the bench in grade school basketball for four years.)

By the time D&D 3e had come out, the edginess of D&D had long since come and gone.  Vampire was the new edgy, and it got a lot of unwelcome press due to Columbine.  By comparison, D&D was rock music:  it got more listeners, but was no longer the phenomenon it was back in the 50s.

There is no entertainment of the last 10 years that compares to D&D as a 'cultural touchstone', but Benoist's quote up above seemed to be saying that D&D was bigger in the early 80s.  It wasn't.  It was more noticed, but there really wasn't a lot going on.  

By the time Seinfeld went off the air in 1998, you couldn't count on finding people at the watercooler talking about the same TV shows.  There are more options, so there are more niches.  D&D was a niche hobby in 1982; it is still a niche hobby now.  The difference is that there are so many more niche hobbies, and while most people are aware of D&D on SOME level, it doesn't get as much attention as MMORGs.  But in absolute terms, it's certainly 'bigger'.  Or at least, was during the height of 3.x.