Was thinking last night after the game. Dangerous idea, I know.
There's a lot of people that have been playing 3.x of the most famous RPG since Monte Cook and company released it back in, what 1998? This system has chugged along for a long time. What do you think has kept it going more?
The system mechanics itself? Or Paizo? Would you still be playing the 3.X ruleset were it not for the Paizo development?
Does continuation of a game depend on new content?
I was thinking about this because last night I realized how crazy and convoluted some of the rules are. But I keep playing anyways, because I can't wait till Ultimate Campaigns comes out.
Yep, what he said.
The OGL.
This.
Obviously PF is the (natural) evolution of it, but at this point we might as well consider Mutants & Masterminds a successor and the Base20 system, and basically all other systems derived from the OGL. Unless another universal system comes along that can be freely used, I don't see a reason for (most) games not to just improve on the OGL.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's because of me. When I stop playing 3.X and its various mutations and offspring, the entire thing will come to an apocalyptic end.
You're welcome planet Earth!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's because of me. When I stop playing 3.X and its various mutations and offspring, the entire thing will come to an apocalyptic end.
You're welcome planet Earth!
Thanks Herbo!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But seriously, I gave the new edition a try for a couple years. It wasn't for me or my players. I began running a 3.5 game again when I discovered Pathfinder. Made the switch and ever looked back.
It is absolutely helped by the constant development, but also because of the quality of Paizo products, the focus on Adventures and world building, and the passion of Paizo employees and the Paizo supporting gaming community. The OGL, and all of the third party development, is also good for everyone.
Just my 2cp.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless another universal system comes along that can be freely used, I don't see a reason for (most) games not to just improve on the OGL.
Just a note -- the OGL is *not* the system, it's the license. There's nothing about the OGL that requires it to have anything to do with the d20 SRD.
There is another universal system out there that can be freely used-- it's Fudge, and there is an ecosystem surrounding that. The most famous version of Fudge right now is probably FATE. Fudge is also released under the OGL. It doesn't have anything to do with d20, and it isn't based off the same SRD that Pathfinder is based off of.
It's unfortunate that lots of people have started using OGL to refer to the rules set that Pathfinder is based off of, because it obfuscates the issues. Anybody can use the OGL for their games, even if they have nothing to do with the d20 SRD. I like Paizo's approach of obliquely referring to that rules set as "3.5".
I think the longevity of 3.5 is a combination of the OGL (meaning it could survive even after the company that released it cut it off) plus the fact that it's based off of the game that many of us have been playing since the 1970s or 1980s, but is a version "done right". That's really how I see 3e-- it's D&D "done right". Pathfinder improves on 3.5e, but the basic structure is there, and is much more sane than what we had in 1e and 2e. 4e was a huge change in the style, nature, and feel of the game; some like it better, but for those who liked "classic D&D", it was a far more jarring change than 3e was from 2e. So, more people stuck with 3.5e than stuck with 2e during the 2/3 transition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's as simple as demand. There are a lot of RPGers who like that style of game. The OGL wouldn't help if people didn't want to play it. Brand name probably made a difference too (in terms of establishing market dominance ten-fifteen years ago).
Unless another universal system comes along that can be freely used, I don't see a reason for (most) games not to just improve on the OGL.
Just a note -- the OGL is *not* the system, it's the license. There's nothing about the OGL that requires it to have anything to do with the d20 SRD.
There is another universal system out there that can be freely used-- it's Fudge, and there is an ecosystem surrounding that. The most famous version of Fudge right now is probably FATE. Fudge is also released under the OGL. It doesn't have anything to do with d20, and it isn't based off the same SRD that Pathfinder is based off of.
It's unfortunate that lots of people have started using OGL to refer to the rules set that Pathfinder is based off of, because it obfuscates the issues. Anybody can use the OGL for their games, even if they have nothing to do with the d20 SRD. I like Paizo's approach of obliquely referring to that rules set as "3.5".
I think the longevity of 3.5 is a combination of the OGL (meaning it could survive even after the company that released it cut it off) plus the fact that it's based off of the game that many of us have been playing since the 1970s or 1980s, but is a version "done right". That's really how I see 3e-- it's D&D "done right". Pathfinder improves on 3.5e, but the basic structure is there, and is much more sane than what we had in 1e and 2e. 4e was a huge change in the style, nature, and feel of the game; some like it better, but for those who liked "classic D&D", it was a far more jarring change than 3e was from 2e. So, more people stuck with 3.5e than stuck with 2e during the 2/3 transition.
There is an OGL version of Traveller from Mongoose as well. And I agree with pretty much everything you said :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 point # ? , I play 1.0 thank you very much! Since 1978!
Then I believe the question wasn't pointed at you sir/ma'am =)
|
I think it's as simple as demand. There are a lot of RPGers who like that style of game. The OGL wouldn't help if people didn't want to play it. Brand name probably made a difference too (in terms of establishing market dominance ten-fifteen years ago).
Exactly. The d20/3.x rules may have been published under the OGL, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The OGL is simply a short legal appendix that some games include. Including games that bear absolutely no resemblance to d20/3.x.
And the OGL hasn't magically made those games best-sellers. So attributing 3.x's success to the OGL is rather silly, in my opinion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's as simple as demand. There are a lot of RPGers who like that style of game. The OGL wouldn't help if people didn't want to play it. Brand name probably made a difference too (in terms of establishing market dominance ten-fifteen years ago).
Exactly. The d20/3.x rules may have been published under the OGL, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The OGL is simply a short legal appendix that some games include. Including games that bear absolutely no resemblance to d20/3.x.
And the OGL hasn't magically made those games best-sellers. So attributing 3.x's success to the OGL is rather silly, in my opinion.
Except that without the OGL 3.x would have died an untimely death back in 2008... as opposed to being top of the heap in 2013. Which pretty much makes the OGL a major reason for the longevity of 3.x if not it's popularity.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. 3.x would still have adherents, as does 1e and 2e. However, it's an active and thriving game (in the form of Pathfinder), still supported, and with (probably) the largest base of gamers out there playing it. That would not be true now, 5 years after the line was terminated by WOTC, if the OGL hadn't allowed other companies to continue supporting it.
I predict that 5-6 years from now, 4e has its adherents much as 1e and 2e do, but they'll be fringe folks who just happened to like the old version and so keep playing it. I predict, however, that 3.x is still living and evolving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't understand why you'd ascribe that success to the OGL though. You can use the OGL to produce a 4E clone, just like its been used to produce 0E, AD&D, BECMI, 2E and 3.5 clones.
PF/3.5 will thrive if its popular. If nobody wants to play it anymore, lots of 3PP support won't help prolong its life.
I just don't understand why you'd ascribe that success to the OGL though. You can use the OGL to produce a 4E clone, just like its been used to produce 0E, AD&D, BECMI, 2E and 3.5 clones.PF/3.5 will thrive if its popular. If nobody wants to play it anymore, lots of 3PP support won't help prolong its life.
The fact is that none of the current clones of 0E, 1E, 2E or 3.x could exist without the OGL. They can be popular / unpopular only because of the OGL. In short, the prerequisite for any level of popularity is the existence of the system at all. Courtesy of the OGL and 3.5 SRD.
|
|
FATE, Fudge, RuneQuest, and Traveller have also all been published under the OGL or similar licenses. There have also been attempts to create licenses that are much more open than the OGL, which all were relative failures. To Average Joe roleplayer, the OGL are those few bits of legal mumbo-jumbo at the back that he doesn't read or understand or give two $#|+$ about.
The fact is that none of the current clones of 0E, 1E, 2E or 3.x could exist without the OGL. They can be popular / unpopular only because of the OGL. In short, the prerequisite for any level of popularity is the existence of the system at all. Courtesy of the OGL and 3.5 SRD.
I just don't understand why you'd ascribe that success to the OGL though. You can use the OGL to produce a 4E clone, just like its been used to produce 0E, AD&D, BECMI, 2E and 3.5 clones.PF/3.5 will thrive if its popular. If nobody wants to play it anymore, lots of 3PP support won't help prolong its life.
That seems more or less right to me. However, i figured the point of the thread was "in comparison to other editions". So it seemed odd to list something which they all potentially have in common.
I think PF rules the roost because more gamers want that kind of system than others. (No doubt a combination of branding, market share, mechanics, aesthetic considerations, peer pressure, history, quality, etcetera - I buy it because I value paizo's corporate culture, weird as that is).
Some people like it because of its embrace of the OGL, but I don't think that does much to explain its dominance. Granted, I may have just missed the point of the OP.
The OGL wasn't mentioned in my question, but it was in my mind when I was thinking about the question of what factors are contributing to the 3.X system life cycle.
It appears Paizo would not be the Paizo that we all know today without the OGL (not saying it wouldn't still be great). Maybe just not as big.
I think the OGL is as aspect that is inseparable from 3.X. I mean, it was baked in from the first release. It's fair to assume that the "modularity" of the design might be playing a huge role now, as the game continues to live and thrive.
Paizo of course plays a huge part in all this, so if I'm allowed to take a stab at my own question I would argue that the modular nature of 3.X + Paizo (culture, great devs, marketing) is what is keeping the torch going. The OGL was the door everyone had to walk through and we're all lucky there was no way to close it.
Notice I said modular nature, and not rules themselves, because I'm still wondering why I'm playing 3.X cause there are a lot of "wtfs" in the rules as I see it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the longevity of 3.5 is a combination of the OGL (meaning it could survive even after the company that released it cut it off) plus the fact that it's based off of the game that many of us have been playing since the 1970s or 1980s, but is a version "done right". That's really how I see 3e-- it's D&D "done right". Pathfinder improves on 3.5e, but the basic structure is there, and is much more sane than what we had in 1e and 2e. 4e was a huge change in the style, nature, and feel of the game; some like it better, but for those who liked "classic D&D", it was a far more jarring change than 3e was from 2e. So, more people stuck with 3.5e than stuck with 2e during the 2/3 transition.
To me, this is the core issue - 3.0/3.5 was such an improvement on the versions that had gone before. I began playing D&D when the very first boxed set of small pamphlets came out in the mid-'70s, and played off and on for several years before our group drifted away to Traveller, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu and other systems. About 10 years ago I began playing again with a friend who was a true 2E/AD&D devotee, with a bookcase literally filled with rulebooks and a campaign world developed over decades of DM-ing. He was (and is) a great DM and his campaign world marvelously well thought out, but the restrictive and needless complexity of many of the rules that had accumulated around core D&D since last I'd played were a frequent irritant (to me, anyway. ;D)
3.0 (and subsequently 3.5) changed all that, and finally got me DM-ing again. The iconic "landmarks" of old-time D&D were there, but the simplifications and improvements to the magic system, combat system, weapons rules and dozens of other minor tweaks streamlined the game so that it was once again as much fun to play as it had been back in first-1st Edition days. Heck, we eventually even got my 2ED/AD&D buddy to switch over (after much screaming, kicking and gnashing of teeth ;D), and now he's running several campaigns simultaneously.
Pathfinder has taken the 3x legacy and carried it onwards, improving as they go. While the OGL may have been the vehicle that made that possible, I think it was the excellence of the basic 3.0/3.5 rewrite that has ensured the continued success of the game. If the rules weren't any good very few people would be playing the game, and I think the increasing popularity of the system shows how the rules are viewed by the RPG public at large.
Just a note -- the OGL is *not* the system, it's the license. There's nothing about the OGL that requires it to have anything to do with the d20 SRD.
There is another universal system out there that can be freely used-- it's Fudge, and there is an ecosystem surrounding that. The most famous version of Fudge right now is probably FATE. Fudge is also released under the OGL. It doesn't have anything to do with d20, and it isn't based off the same SRD that Pathfinder is based off of.
Oops, rknop: you're right. There is an important distinction that I failed to make: the OGL is the legal framework under which material is released and the d20 system is an open system that can been modified for some level of proprietary property.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the longevity of 3.5 is a combination of the OGL (meaning it could survive even after the company that released it cut it off) plus the fact that it's based off of the game that many of us have been playing since the 1970s or 1980s, but is a version "done right". That's really how I see 3e-- it's D&D "done right". Pathfinder improves on 3.5e, but the basic structure is there, and is much more sane than what we had in 1e and 2e. 4e was a huge change in the style, nature, and feel of the game; some like it better, but for those who liked "classic D&D", it was a far more jarring change than 3e was from 2e. So, more people stuck with 3.5e than stuck with 2e during the 2/3 transition.To me, this is the core issue - 3.0/3.5 was such an improvement on the versions that had gone before. I began playing D&D when the very first boxed set of small pamphlets came out in the mid-'70s, and played off and on for several years before our group drifted away to Traveller, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu and other systems. About 10 years ago I began playing again with a friend who was a true 2E/AD&D devotee, with a bookcase literally filled with rulebooks and a campaign world developed over decades of DM-ing. He was (and is) a great DM and his campaign world marvelously well thought out, but the restrictive and needless complexity of many of the rules that had accumulated around core D&D since last I'd played were a frequent irritant (to me, anyway. ;D)
3.0 (and subsequently 3.5) changed all that, and finally got me DM-ing again. The iconic "landmarks" of old-time D&D were there, but the simplifications and improvements to the magic system, combat system, weapons rules and dozens of other minor tweaks streamlined the game so that it was once again as much fun to play as it had been back in first-1st Edition days. Heck, we eventually even got my 2ED/AD&D buddy to switch over (after much screaming, kicking and gnashing of teeth ;D), and now he's running...
Bwaaa haaaaa haaaa! That's some hilarious trolling, dude. 2e may have gotten the ball rolling on overly complicating the system and way too many supplements, but that art got pretty well honed for 3.0's release, and utterly perfected by the time of 3.5. Seriously, putting all adventure, mini, and setting material aside, WotC released a bare minimum of one D&D product per month. Each one adding to the count of "pure" rulebooks, the complexity of the already overly bloated system, and the ridiculous amount of power creep.
If 2e was a man with a weight problem, 3.5 was a guy who couldn't leave his house because he couldn't fit through the double doors to leave that house.
Every long-running game system I've seen inevitably winds up producing shelves full of rulebooks, supplements, and what have you. Earlier editions of D&D did it, 3.0 and 3.5 did it, and PathFinder is well on it's way to doing it. Nothing new there... publishing and selling printed matter is how most gaming companies make their money, and more power to them. It's up to us as gamers and consumers as to how much we buy and use in our games, and no one has to buy every single thing published unless they're completeist collectors or are running in a group that has to play using every single new rule and last bit of equipment.
That wasn't my point. No matter what extraneous optional stuff may have gotten hung onto it, it was the basic rewrite of the system in 3.0 and 3.5 that drew me back into really enjoying D&D again. PathFinder is carrying that forward, and I'm greatly enjoying the journey..... and am doing so as a player and DM owning only the Core Pulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, and access to the SRD. You don't need a library full of rulebooks if the core system is done correctly and fun to play. 3.0, 3.5 and PF fill that bill for me, but 2ED and AD&D didn't. YMMV.
|
|
Every long-running game system I've seen inevitably winds up producing shelves full of rulebooks, supplements, and what have you. Earlier editions of D&D did it, 3.0 and 3.5 did it, and PathFinder is well on it's way to doing it.
I'd argue that 0e, AD&D, and the various Basic editions were never even as remotely splat-happy. 0e has a grand total of 5 supplements, and one of those was so widely ignored it barely counts (not even being put into the upcoming reprinted boxed set).
AD&D had a whopping total of 8 supplements beyond the three core rulebooks, released over a period of a dozen years. And two of those were just monster books.
The core rules of the Basic editions remained even more untouched by supplements than those of the Advanced line...further rules supplements were only added to extend the range of levels, add rules to play as an immortal (effectively just raising the level cap again), or in the case of one single release, to add more monsters.
Splats didn't run out of control until 2e, but even then it was a faucet that dripped compared to the fire hose of 3.x.
As for the dumping of the existing system and it's replacement in 3.x, opinions will vary on whether it became simpler or not. I personally can't understand how anyone would see it as simpler or better; to me it is a system that is horribly crippled by the excess of modifiers, the removal of any semblance of balance between spellcasters and non-casters, the abysmal concept of system mastery and trap options, the over abundance of feats that leads to the denial of more options than it provides, the neutering of traps and poisons into minor annoyances at worst, and the rather inane fact that even purely roleplaying encounters are decided by a roll of the dice.
To be blunt, the only advantage I see in d20 based systems is the abundance of gamers you can find for a d20 game; who haven't yet realized that there are so very many systems out there that are far superior to d20.
But, like I said, opinions will vary.
* dons asbestos underoos *
0e has a grand total of 5 supplements, and one of those was so widely ignored it barely counts (not even being put into the upcoming reprinted boxed set).
Which supplement is that?
|
|
At any rate, I recently noticed another somewhat obscure system that I dunno if the OGL has helped at all, the Wanton Role-Playing (WaRP) System.
|
|
One of the reasons it's so widely ignored is that it assumes that the players are using the default Chainmail rules to resolve combat, instead of the "alternate combat system" introduced in Supplement I...and used as the only combat system in subsequent editions.0e has a grand total of 5 supplements, and one of those was so widely ignored it barely counts (not even being put into the upcoming reprinted boxed set).Which supplement is that?
Cheers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was never terribly familiar with AD&D/2e, but I was extremely familiar with AD&D/1e, and I assert that Pathfinder and 3e is far less complicated than AD&D/1e.
Not in terms of supplements released; yeah, 3e was extremely splat-happy. There were so many options that one's head spins trying to keep up with all the various new classes, etc.
However, the core of the rules system is far more coherent in 3e than it was in 1e. 1e had a different system for everything. There was a special skills system just for the thief class. Multiclassing was a gigantic series of special cases. The Bard class was layered on top of the special-case multiclassing system. There was a separate table you had to consult to figure out if each and every class was a able to hit in combat, and another one that was different for saving throws for each class. It was completely out of control.
The core "d20 vs. DC" mechanic that covers most of 3e makes it a much simpler and more coherent system at its core. This is what I think people mean when they say that 3e removed the nightmarish complexity of the earlier systems. The handling of initiative and timing of actions in combat was also highly simplified relative to 1e and 2e. (In 1e, it wasn't even coherent at all; I never could figure out if a spellcaster could get a spell off before he was hit by an attack, and had to invent my own system that actually used all those "segments" casting times that were listed with the spells.)
|
|
Incidentally, that was one thing I liked about 4e, at least sometimes. The mechanics were futher simplified so that the same rules applied to each class. In the long run, that may have been to its detriment; the different classes started to feel too much like each other, and I think that mechanical truth took some of the flavor out of having different classes; you could almost guess what an attack encounter power would practically mean in terms of dice of damage, without having to know what kind of class it came from. However, while in the long run I decided I didn't like it, it did mean that it was easy to learn the rules of a new class.
Of course, all of that started to creep with later rulebooks, as new rules systems were introduced to layer on top of the core "At Will/Encounter/Daily" system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was never terribly familiar with AD&D/2e, but I was extremely familiar with AD&D/1e, and I assert that Pathfinder and 3e is far less complicated than AD&D/1e.
Not in terms of supplements released; yeah, 3e was extremely splat-happy. There were so many options that one's head spins trying to keep up with all the various new classes, etc.
However, the core of the rules system is far more coherent in 3e than it was in 1e. 1e had a different system for everything. There was a special skills system just for the thief class. Multiclassing was a gigantic series of special cases. The Bard class was layered on top of the special-case multiclassing system. There was a separate table you had to consult to figure out if each and every class was a able to hit in combat, and another one that was different for saving throws for each class. It was completely out of control.
The core "d20 vs. DC" mechanic that covers most of 3e makes it a much simpler and more coherent system at its core. This is what I think people mean when they say that 3e removed the nightmarish complexity of the earlier systems. The handling of initiative and timing of actions in combat was also highly simplified relative to 1e and 2e. (In 1e, it wasn't even coherent at all; I never could figure out if a spellcaster could get a spell off before he was hit by an attack, and had to invent my own system that actually used all those "segments" casting times that were listed with the spells.)
The reason I find AD&D much simpler is because it doesnt try to cover as much ground. There are self-confessed gaps that you're just expected to fill if you think it matters.
.It's much easier to know the whole system of AD&D than it is to learn the whole system of PF though - even though the PF subsystems are more similar to each other. It doesnt matter that most subsystems are "a bit the same" it still means you need to look stuff up when something unusual comes up - just in case.
Both due to the OGL and because of the strength of the system's mechanics. Former ensures a solid player base, latter ensures they'll actually want to keep playing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like the others here, I've played and DMed just about every version of D&D in existence, bar none, and I have to say that so far, Pathfinder is my favorite. The only things I don't like about PF are:
1 The game world. WAY too anime-riffic outfits, armor etc. Not enough political complexity.
2 The near total lack of traps in the PF modules. Really people! And those poisons should have higher DC's, although I do like the change in how often the damage is dealt.
3 Some of the classes, like Alchemist, Gunslinger, Monk, Summoner, "Ninja", Samurai. Get your 1800's and Wuxia/Japan crap out of my fantasy game!
4 Many of the posters on this forum are obsessed with "optimization", which essentially means munchkinism. Make yourself all offense but fragile as heck in order to create the ultimate combo of feats to "win" the game. Oh, and they whine about "minor" inconveniences like food, water, traps etc. We used to laugh our butts off at people like these on the old AD&D forum; and now because of WoW and the like, they are the norm!
5 The hate on for the venerable Rogue and Fighter here on the forum.
I find that unlike the previous editions, this game's complexity lies in character creation and possibly leveling up, but not in the actual gameplay. That is wonderful, imho, wouldn't trade it back for the world.
|
OGL, Sizable library, most importantly years of experience with the system. I been playing RPGs for sometime now. I never really dove in head first until 3E. That's when I stepped up to GM and really got a look under the hood. The system may not be perfect but I know it inside and out from both sides of the screen. That lands big time in its favor.
Another thing in 3E's favor is the D&D feel. I play D&D not because it does fantasy but because D&D became an iconic game in and of itself. Alignment, resource management, and combat as war are all essential to my D&D experience. When 4E was announced I looked into it with some curiosity. Unfortunately, it didn't end up going in a direction I hoped for. I chose not to move on so that meant sticking with what worked best for me, 3E.
Now that 5E is in development 3E has another test before it. I was really excited about them removing magic items from being expected. I am absolutely sold on bounded accuracy as well. However, there has not been much of anything to really get me interested besides that. I'll keep an eye on development but 5E will have the same things going against it that 4E had. It's got to give me the experience I expect better than 3E. That might be a bit unfair to 5E since I have years of experience with 3E. I know how to fine tune it to run just the way I want it.
Gotta throw in some love for Paizo while I am at it too. I love their gaming tools and adventures. It has really helped keep my love for 3E alive. That coupled with experience, pretty much sums up why 3E has lived so long from my perspective.
The OGL.
But would the OGL have been enough without Paizo and Pathfinder? I think it is far to simplistic to say it is solely the OGL that keeps 3E D&D alive. Dedicated companies producing quality products that people enjoy has to play some part.
Without a great rules system, the OGL wouldn't have mattered much, either.
F.A.T.A.L. could be entirely open sourced (hell it could be, for all I know or care) and freely available. No one's going to play it even so.
Without a great rules system, the OGL wouldn't have mattered much, either.
F.A.T.A.L. could be entirely open sourced (hell it could be, for all I know or care) and freely available. No one's going to play it even so.
It is not Open sourced, but it is freely available (well Alpha and Beta versions are). You have to buy the completed versions.
Really? I'd always assumed it was a joke. :o
Without a great rules system, the OGL wouldn't have mattered much, either.F.A.T.A.L. could be entirely open sourced (hell it could be, for all I know or care) and freely available. No one's going to play it even so.
You are right that a good system was a big part of 3.x longevity. There are however, several other systems that use the OGL. There is an OGL Traveller from Mongoose for example. Whether or not the d20 system succeeded, the OGL would have been useful for non d20 based games. The point most have made though is that without the OGL d20 would have pretty much died with D&D 3.5 and the other OGL based games (True 20, Blue Rose, Castles and Crusades, etc.) would not have existed. 3.5 D&D would be an isolated ghetto of "old school" gamers as would all the previous versions of D&D that have survived and been revived through various old school clones. I'm kind of fond of the OGL myself...
Are there many people still playing 3.5? I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other. (I know it's compatible to a pretty large degree, but it isn't identical. And presumably Pathfinder is more compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 is with Pathfinder?).
I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?