*Shrug* You call it deja vu; I call it selective memory. I don't recall anyone claiming that third edition was "too simple."
I took those examples from the linked article - check out the response from jpowers regarding how it was too simple due to getting rid of Thac0
"Not D&D anymore," I'll grant you.
And a valid reaction - that's kind of the point of a new edition is to change things up (except 2e which was more to "clean up"). However - my point is that it is a reaction to both 3e and 4e.
"I don't like change" is a totally valid statement, and it's silly to hold it up as some sort of example of hypocrisy.
Wow - how is "I heard this last time" suggesting hypocrisy?
I'm not suggesting hypocricy - I'm suggesting that I've heard this all before, and that the complaints on 4e are to a large extent not significantly different than the complaints about 3e - whether valid or not.
People are absolutely allowed to not like change - hell - it's human nature.
"I spent too much on the current edition" is also a valid complaint
No question. I also spent too much on 3rd, 2e, 1e, basic - but when I think about how much enjoyment I've had out of the system - still probably cheaper than going to the movies all those times
Personally, I've come to realize that roleplaying is NOT a one time investment. I could be - if you want to play the same thing for the rest of your life - and your friends want to play the same thing for the rest of their lives. One guy I roleplay with goes to Gencon and plays 1e there every year. For them - one time investment - for me - ongoing.
; the fact that there are people now with a substantial investment in 3.5 doesn't invalidate the fact that there were people with an equally-substantial investment in second edition.
Yep - I had substantial investments in both (actually - my 2e investment wasn't that big - I was more into GURPS at that time) - however, the complaints repeat themselves. If 5e is the creates RPG possible - there will be complaints about investment in 4e. It's natural - but nothing to dwell on.
As for "the final nail in the coffin of D&D," that's a particularly subjective recollection, as there was a very real fear immediately post-TSR that there would be no D&D at all. The general opinion when 3e was announced was relief. "Thank god, D&D isn't dead" was far more common than "This will kill D&D."
Actually - the most common reaction to 3e in my group was,
"Why 3e? 2e is just fine thank you. I had to replace my entire collection when they did that, I'm not doing it again to fix something that isn't broken."
All those people (and I mean every one) has an extensive 3.0 and 3.5 collection now. They did resist for
months though.
Wow - dejavu again.
2. A lot of the complaints were fundamentally different. "It's just a money grab!" was not a major criticism of 3e; "It's too soon!" was not a major criticism of 3e.
Well - I think we can all agree 4e is a financial decision. WOTC of course, is a business - and business decisions tend to be financially motivated on some level.
The way it seems to work (or has in the past) is you release an edition and it sells well. You release a set of splatbooks and they sell well, you release a 2nd set of splatbooks and they sell OK. You release a 3rd set of splatbooks and they sell so-so, and so on until the books stop making money at all (see any of your 2e books in blue - or the "player option" series. . Eventually the system gets so saturated - that the market for new support material just isn't there anymore.
Refusing to update killed TSR - and if WOTC did not go to 4e, it would eventually kill them too. The survival of D&D requires change to unsaturate a saturated market.
3e definitely wasn't too soon - but it was too late for TSR.