I'm trying to make my wife read it...Wow, you're lucky.
In my house, those three words just can't be put together in that order. Unless perhaps they're followed by a word like mad, annoyed, or somesuch :P
My wife knows who wears the pants in the house! (Please don't tell her I said that)
Cheers! ;)
|
So here's a question: Do you think that Paizo's work on the Pathfinder RPG represents the re-working and improvement of the core D&D rules that was expected with the launch of the OGL? Do you see it as just another branching off of the core OGL?
This got buried right at the end of the first page so I'll repost...
There was a time when I pictured an active community of designers, all grinding away on D&D to make it better. I think that happened, but only in a fragmentary manner. Some people wanted levels gone, others wanted hit points fixed (with "fixed" defined differently for each group).Sounds a lot like what Paizo is facilitating right now with Pathfinder.
The problem with the SRD was that there wasn't really a way to get people's fixes into the official rules, unless you worked for WotC. What Paizo has created is a forum for the 'community of [armchair] designers' that Mearls talks about. Granted, Jason et. al. will still be the final judges of what makes it into the new rules and what doesn't, but the Pathfinder open playtest is a lot closer Mearls' ideal.
And maybe that's the way it has to work. WotC started something pretty cool with the OGL. Now they've walked away from it. And that's good - I think - because it couldn't evolve freely while WotC was in charge of it. And it couldn't evolve without an edition change. The question is whether the OGL can continue to exist or even thrive now that it has truly been given over to gamers. The success of Pathfinder may be exactly the metric that Mearls was looking for.
|
I'm trying to make my wife read it...Wow, you're lucky.
In my house, those three words just can't be put together in that order. Unless perhaps they're followed by a word like mad, annoyed, or somesuch :P
My wife knows who wears the pants in the house! (Please don't tell her I said that)
Cheers! ;)
Heh... Now I know how to start a domestic disupte situation in NO this fall.
J/K
I'm trying to make my wife read it...Wow, you're lucky.
In my house, those three words just can't be put together in that order. Unless perhaps they're followed by a word like mad, annoyed, or somesuch :P
My wife knows who wears the pants in the house! (Please don't tell her I said that)
Cheers! ;)
Heh... Now I know how to start a domestic disupte situation in NO this fall.
J/K
In the immortal words of Scooby: "Ruh roh" *makes shifty eyes*
|
|
I like the damage control idea. Perhaps Mike could run a podcast as to why a game system is better made without the participation of the community than it is with. Even better if they had live phone lines open which Paizo employees could ring in and ask the real troubling questions that pertain to the industry in general. I guess that would be a funny podcast with a lot of quiet pauses of sweat. You could almost feel the lump they would swallow as they consider what they can or can't say. In the end, who pays their bills? Who decides if they promote? You have to fall into the suit folds if you want a future in the company. But what about the game you love? Or is it just plain work now? Agreeing and supporting, nodding your head to decisions that crush people under the company boot. All the while, doing it without the backbone one had before, before becoming a company man. Turning into someone who could blatantly kill the hobby for their company's twisted agenda. It must feel really rotten when you can't speak your heart as you would with your friends. It must feel real sleezy when you defend something that has seriously harmed others (and will continue to do so). A great talent would realize that they have their own power, and to say nothing to something like this, validates an aggressor's action to continue to do more harm. So, there they go, off and goose stepping towards a cliff. They are all parts of a machine and feel small inwardly, so they obeyingly trample over the corpses of the company they once shared the table with. That group of kinsmen is the enemy now, because some power inside their organization deemed them so. Follow. Obey. Do not speak or else retaliation. It is no wonder the "yes" talent is no longer in control. If the talent left I suppose, WotC would come after them wholesale with some massive lawsuit. It isn't just loss of vested time and medical benefits they would lose, but they would suffer legal action if they left in mass. What heroes they would be though. What change they could make.
I re-read this post, and just wanted to share it again. Beautifully written. Begins with dripping sarcasm, ends with a challenge, ...powerful.
IMHO.. I would only add encouragement and a suggestion for this community to support open gaming with their pocketbooks, conversely close purse-strings on all things wotc.
5) Green Ronin, which will be publishing its own version of the Song of Fire and Ice RPG.This will not be an OGL or even D20 game. Go and check out the webpage. there is a lot of information about the new d6 based system.
Sweet! It is already happening, a rebirth of diversity in the systems. Not just one d20 to rule them all!!
|
Hmm?
Wasn't 3.5 an update to the SRD? I mean, the 3.5 ranger is basically Monte's ranger fix from 3.0.
Are people honestly wanting a constantly updating 3.x? With computers I get the updates for free and they are seamlessly integrated into my existing computer.
Certainly people here aren't arguing for a YEARLY update/revision?
No, but Mearls appeared to be.
As far as I am concerned the OGL worked exactly as it should. As a method for encouraging multiple campaign settings, with rules tweaked (or cut out totally), to fit the conventions of the genre, as needed.
Sounds a lot like what Paizo is facilitating right now with Pathfinder.
I have not been watching the PF development, how are rules judged? If one contributor says 'HP only reflect physical health, players should only get 1 hp a level' and another says 'HP are morale, a fighter should be able to 'inspire' his fellows and heal them' who wins?
It seems like even fixing something obviously broken to most players will still aggravate the guy who likes it better broken, so it is a majority rules kind of thing?
|
Sweet! It is already happening, a rebirth of diversity in the systems. Not just one d20 to rule them all!!
Shameless Threadjack: This system rocks! If GoOs A Game of Thrones was good, that one is great in capturing the fluff and feeling of Martins novels. If you play in Westeros or want a Grim and Gritty low to no magic RPG. That one is for you!
I might ask again. If six different companies make six different system for how to use magic, where is the justification that any of those are an improvement and should be included (possibly replacing the existing system) in the core rules resource?
Maybe Mearls is jaded because support for Iron Heroes was not as he'd hoped? ;)I hope not, since the support from Mearls himself wasn't as he'd hoped, since in the end it had to be rushed so he could start his new job at WotC
Iron Heroes is badass. Just felt the need to give it some props.
|
|
Sounds a lot like what Paizo is facilitating right now with Pathfinder.
I have not been watching the PF development, how are rules judged? If one contributor says 'HP only reflect physical health, players should only get 1 hp a level' and another says 'HP are morale, a fighter should be able to 'inspire' his fellows and heal them' who wins?
It seems like even fixing something obviously broken to most players will still aggravate the guy who likes it better broken, so it is a majority rules kind of thing?
It's basically a Paizo's (aka Jason's) decision is final. However, we input our thoughts suggestions, improvements, issues, etc. In the end, it's still down to the professionals writing the book to make their decision as to what's in or out.
However, reaction against the Alpha 1 skill system and Combat Feats have got those aspects reworked. Also, they're really looking for playtest based experience reports of issues and commentary rather another set of helpful suggestions and houserules. Although if those fix a problem, I'm sure they'll swipe them into the process.
He's sold his soul, and they have him on a short leash.
He's just a sock-puppet now. Anything he says is like one of those "written Statements" hostages are given to read during times of war. WotC says "jump!", and Mikey says "What DC should I use?"
Corporate retoric and damage-control, nothing more.
He's sold his soul, and they have him on a short leash.
He's just a sock-puppet now. Anything he says is like one of those "written Statements" hostages are given to read during times of war. WotC says "jump!", and Mikey says "What DC should I use?"
Corporate retoric and damage-control, nothing more.
Might want to be a bit careful with rhetoric of that type. It could be considered attacking employees of another company.
You know, WotC earned some serious street cred when they released the OGL and a free compatability license allowing anyone to do anyting with their work. The GSL is a complete reversal of that street cred (since now its a "you write what we permit you to write for as long as we permit you to write it") and Mearls, I feel, is earning a rep of a corporate stooge.
Please note: this is not meant as an attack on either WotC or Mearls, but merely an assessment of the situation and an expression of how I feel.
|
|
I might ask again. If six different companies make six different system for how to use magic, where is the justification that any of those are an improvement and should be included (possibly replacing the existing system) in the core rules resource?
They don't have to totally replace the original rules, but many could be listed in a sidebar or appendix as a variant rule.
EG a Spell-Point system doesn't have to make any of the spell descriptions obsolete. All spells remain the same level, with the same descriptors and effects. The only change is that a DM can say "In my game, we'll be using Optional Rule x.x-Spell Points", and all players can refer to the appendix for details.
A good example of fan-driven design took place on these boards, with 'The Non-Generic Cleric'. Several people expressed dissatisfaction that all clerics looked and played the same, despite their differing faiths, until they were higher level and took a prestige class. In some cases, the change in flavour, after taking the PrC could, and arguably should, have been present in the character from the beginning. Therefore, the cleric was broken down to a bare bones base (poor BAB, one good save, Divine Channeling and spells), and given the option to be rebuilt from a buffet of options, to suit the needs of the setting and the wishes of the player/DM. The best part of it was that the options were costed in such a way that the standard 3.5 cleric was one of the builds, as was the Cloistered Cleric variant. Nothing changed for those who didn't wish to customise, it simply added a lot of options for those who did.
That text could easily be incorporated into the SRD, with several sample builds (the 'Jozan', the Cloistered Cleric, etc), with no backwards compatibility issues. No NPCs or adventures needed be changed, all Divine Feats still applied, all PrCs could remain the same. It could improve and expand everyone's game. All the work was done by the posters on these boards, WotC didn't have to do any of the heavy thinking, simply agree that it was cool, and amend their SRD site. And that is how we were told the OGL would work, with a cross-pollination of ideas between the parent company and the 3PP. But it actually requires someone at WotC to be scouting for talent in the wider OGL community, and bringing it back to the Keepers of the Holy Rules, for them to act on it. We can't do it for them. To claim that the OGL community isn't working to evolve the game, or has failed, because Wotc's locked SRD files haven't been amended by outsiders is balderdash.
exactly. if you've ever worked for a company with a valuable brand image to maintain, you have to watch what you say. it's called good business. jeebus. "sock-puppet" is a little harsh dude.
I resent your marginalising and patronising tone. You have a problem with my species? What exactly are you insinuating, meatbag?
I might ask again. If six different companies make six different system for how to use magic, where is the justification that any of those are an improvement and should be included (possibly replacing the existing system) in the core rules resource?
If six different companies come up with six different magic systems that sell well and that are rated well on their magic system someone should be looking at them. Someone should be asking why are we losing market share to these guys? The justification for change is in the market share. It could be argued that WotC made 4e because it was more successful for the community than for WotC.
To an extent WotC, made 4e to regain market share. But the way they are doing it made competition instead of allies. If they win market share, or better yet expand the market, then they did good. If they eventually bring in millions of younger gamers that would never have played 3.5 then they did the right thing. But if they just have everyone fighting over the same size pie everyone loses. For now, they have just made things harder for themselves and 3PP's.
Maybe the problem is I am viewing this as a businessman even more than as a gamer. Whether I like 3.5 or PfRPG or 4e is irrelevant. I am trying to evaluate the markets preference (and with amazingly little data!). As a whole, markets tend to like improvements. Where are you coming from on this?
If six different companies come up with six different magic systems that sell well and that are rated well on their magic system someone should be looking at them.
True, but wouldn't it be more worthwhile to look at a new magic system (as an example), if one company created it and five others adopted it and all six companies sold well? In that case, that is pretty clear evidence that the magic system was "better" or an "improvement" over the previous system.
Frankly, I don't see the point of complaining that WotC didn't include every single mom-and-pop variation on their SRD. It seems to me that WotC probably came to the realization that as long as various 3PP kept fracturing there wasn't much point to changing the SRD. It was unrealistic to include all variants and none of them had any greater wide spread appeal than any other (and certainly not more than the default system).
True, but wouldn't it be more worthwhile to look at a new magic system (as an example), if one company created it and five others adopted it and all six companies sold well? In that case, that is pretty clear evidence that the magic system was "better" or an "improvement" over the previous system.
We agree here. I wish this had happened. I want to take a rest on that note.
Enough rest.
Frankly, I don't see the point of complaining that WotC didn't include every single mom-and-pop variation on their SRD. It seems to me that WotC probably came to the realization that as long as various 3PP kept fracturing there wasn't much point to changing the SRD. It was unrealistic to include all variants and none of them had any greater wide spread appeal than any other (and certainly not more than the default system).
I did not want ALL variants. Just a legitimate effort to improve. And I agree that they came to the realization that the fragmentation was bad. So do you think 4e will solidified the market or fragment it worst?
The problem with the SRD was that there wasn't really a way to get people's fixes into the official rules, unless you worked for WotC. What Paizo has created is a forum for the 'community of [armchair] designers' that Mearls talks about. Granted, Jason et. al. will still be the final judges of what makes it into the new rules and what doesn't, but the Pathfinder open playtest is a lot closer Mearls' ideal.
I'm with Mosaic here, there never was "Open Gaming" the way open source is. How did you submit a 'patch' to the SRD rules? How did changes to the SRD get propagated through the systems?
The rules did change and improve but somehow Wizards continued publishing the same old rulebook with everyone used to play the game.
A perfect example of this is the d20 SRD, it was essentially the 'live' version of the SRD. As new rules came out (for example swift and immediate actions) they were implemented in the d20SRD.
Ultimately someone has to make a decision about what rules get committed to that core (with Linux that is Linus Torvalds and a committee of trusted lieutenants). Wizards never had ANY provisions for improving the core rules over time, the only way this happened was by forking the SRD. It was forked multiple times and many of the forks contained significant improvements but these never propagated back to the source tree.
Hopefully PfRPG will be different, I would love to see a living ruleset that changes as problems crop up. Iterative updates to the core rules as they are improved would be awesome. How you would update the core book is a challenge but I think Paizo has the talent to do this.
* Keep a central set of the core rules which are always current
* Accept changes to the core rules from 3rd parties
* Allow 3rd parties to republish the rules (heck who can compete with your layout and artwork in any case?)
* Occasionally republish a new version of the rules in print form so we have a single sourcebook at the table.
* Don't be afraid to drift away from backwards compatibility over time
-- Dennis
I did not want ALL variants. Just a legitimate effort to improve.
Of course, but then who gets to decide which variants to include and which not to? How are they decided? Market sales? I don't know, does anyone here?
And I agree that they came to the realization that the fragmentation was bad. So do you think 4e will solidified the market or fragment it worst?
I think that the products that will eventually be produced for use with 4e (and let's not kid ourselves, there will be people/companies that will make 4e products) will give consumers more confidence that they will actually be able to use the product with 4e. As a consumer, until I actually have the product in hand, there is often a question as if I can actually use it in my 3.5 game, despite indications on it and about it that I SHOULD be able to. The fact that I am not necessarily confident about 3PP, keeps me from buying alot of them. When I buy a product I want true compatiblility, not convertibility.
As for those companies/individuals that don't produce 4e products, I think we will continue to see fragmentation. Here is the fundamental issue, what do "Game Designers" do? They try to (re)design games, it is what they are drawn to. Do "game designers" want to continue using an established system? No, they all want to make their own mark. And so there will continue to be a greater diversity in game systems. It is just like in politics, what do "law-makers" do? Make laws, and so when placed in a position to do, they all want to change things.
I might remind people that there was stated 2 goals for the OGL.
1) To aid consumers and companies by allowing there to be a borderline system that everyone was reasonably familiar with, which made learning individual games easier since they were all drawn from the same foundation.
2) To make advances in the game system as a whole by seeing what variations were the most successful and adapting them.
In the second case, I think it was a pretty much a failure due to every company trying to do things their own way (which from a business standpoint was probably best for them, at least in the shortrun). In the first case I think, at least initially, it was a success. I think as time goes on and people change their systems more and more the benefit of #1 will dimish, but for the present and previous to now, I think one was a success.
EDIT: I guess you could say there was a third goal, to revitalize the gaming market, which I think we can agree it did (largely due to #1 initially).
|
|
I might ask again. If six different companies make six different system for how to use magic, where is the justification that any of those are an improvement and should be included (possibly replacing the existing system) in the core rules resource?
The OGL and the SRD don't create "one" open content project to be improved. They set up the conditions for the creation of many different projects. These projects created alternative campaign settings and tweaked and completed the game mechanics to support these campaign settings.
I fail to see where it is specified that the tweaks and redesigns are meant to be reinserted back to the core.
I fail to see where it is specified that the tweaks and redesigns are meant to be reinserted back to the core.
I fail to see it as well. Yet that hasn't stopped some from blaming WotC from not doing it.
|
|
I might remind people that there was stated 2 goals for the OGL.
1) To aid consumers and companies by allowing there to be a borderline system that everyone was reasonably familiar with, which made learning individual games easier since they were all drawn from the same foundation.2) To make advances in the game system as a whole by seeing what variations were the most successful and adapting them.
Can you point to the source of these goals?
Can you point to the source of these goals?
Sure, I posted it on page 2, third post down from the top.
Linkerrggg. I wish someone would delete/edit aberzombie's exclamation post on page 2, it makes it hard to read.
I fail to see where it is specified that the tweaks and redesigns are meant to be reinserted back to the core.
I fail to see it as well. Yet that hasn't stopped some from blaming WotC from not doing it.
Yes, I am 'some' body!!!!!!!!!! (exclamation points to agrevate pres man) It is their SRD. Who else can change it? No one can but WotC. It was their mission from God. Was everybody supposed to wake-up one day and only write Arcana Evolved stuff? NO! The SRD had to change for progress. How else could it have progressed? The only alternative was creating branches off the tree.
WotC should have done what Jason is now doing for Lisa and PfRPG.
OFF TOPIC
I'm trying to make my wife read it. She almost always likes books I recommend her but is always stubborn about actually taking my suggestions. Give me something to hook her!
Cheers! :)
David,
This is what I've said to my friends, to get them hooked into SoFI.
"Just read the first one-hundred pages. Trust me. When you read the sentence: 'The things I do for love...', you will not want to put the book back down."
Hope you get her to read.
(exclamation points to agrevate pres man)
Exclamation points don't bother me, making it unnecessarily bothersome to read a thread does.
David,
This is what I've said to my friends, to get them hooked into SoFI.
"Just read the first one-hundred pages. Trust me. When you read the sentence: 'The things I do for love...', you will not want to put the book back down."
Hope you get her to read.
Thanks! I'll try your approach and see if it sticks. So far I've tried to get her to read Shannara, Dune, Elric, Song of Ice and Fire, Wheel of Time (and probably a few others I can't think of).
She read WoT and is in my Elric right now, but the rest just hasn't appealed to her. Hopefully I can turn things about! :)
Edit: Quote-wonkiness corrected.
5) Green Ronin, which will be publishing its own version of the Song of Fire and Ice RPG.This will not be an OGL or even D20 game. Go and check out the webpage. there is a lot of information about the new d6 based system.
I might ask again. If six different companies make six different system for how to use magic, where is the justification that any of those are an improvement and should be included (possibly replacing the existing system) in the core rules resource?
Why not include at least some of the ones that are viable though? They could have added at least some extras.
Why not include at least some of the ones that are viable though? They could have added at least some extras.
And how do we define "viable", to decide which ones to include and which ones not to?
Why not include at least some of the ones that are viable though? They could have added at least some extras.And how do we define "viable", to decide which ones to include and which ones not to?
Which ones have the most potential and innovation for developing the D20 game.
If we are thinking WotC would update their SRD, then I would assume that their R&D staff could recognize a good idea or at least one with potential. I would hope so at least.
Forgive me if this has been said already, but it seems that updating the OGL SRD wouldn't have been--necessarily--in the interest of 3PP's... It would have been changing the rules all of the 3pp material was based on...
I just don't think its a good idea to be villain-izing (ok, so it's not a word) WotC for this...
Forgive me if this has been said already, but it seems that updating the OGL SRD wouldn't have been--necessarily--in the interest of 3PP's... It would have been changing the rules all of the 3pp material was based on...
I just don't think its a good idea to be villain-izing (ok, so it's not a word) WotC for this...
I am suggesting adding processes more than changing old processes. Reverse compatibility is required. Just do what Jason is doing. For example:
1- People like the maneuvers in Iron Heroes. Lets add mechanics something-like-maneuvers to the SRD. Add some feats and rules.2- People like the ability to modify spell levels like Arcane Evolved. Lets add mechanics something-like-modify-spell-levels to the SRD. Add some feats and class abilities.
3- People like don't like iterative attacks. Let's add the Vicious Strike feat.
Maybe I am villain-izing a bit. I blame Ford for making GM. I blame Blockbuster for making NetFlix. I blame WotC for making PfRPG. These were all cases of not adopting to the market.
I need to shut up. I am obviously not communicating well. I will try to be quiet per pres man's request.
I will try to be quiet per pres man's request.
Huh? What request is that?
(exclamation points to agrevate pres man)
Exclamation points don't bother me, making it unnecessarily bothersome to read a thread does.
I will try to be quiet per pres man's request.
Huh? What request is that?
Was this bait for me to repost? Seriously, I am not adding any value to this thread I am just repeating myself. Repeating myself is a good sign that I am not communicating well.
I think there's an additional layer to why the OGL system didn't work out like open-source software, and I haven't seen it mentioned here.
Open-source software is permanently open source. If you use open-source code to create something, then that end result must also be open-source under the same license, in its entirety. OGL content is selectively open-source; the publisher says exactly what is and isn't OGL.
But that's the way it has to be. Because here's the other difference between the two: open-source software is always free. If all content created under the OGL had to be free, there would be no solvent OGL publishers. Everything in any book they published which cost money could, by definition, be transcribed and re-released freely on the internet - or just cribbed by some other company with better distribution and marketing.
That's why all OGL content is selectively open; if it wasn't, nobody would have any reason to buy it. But that's also why the open-source software system never took hold.
Consider this. What was the single most open d20 book? If I recall correctly, Green Ronin's "Ultramodern Firearms" was almost entirely open content, and was virtually transcribed into the d20 Modern "Weapons Locker" supplement. The Player's Handbook was almost totally open, and every different line that spawned had their own modified PHB. The Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook was the closest thing to a universal PHB; we never would have seen everybody adopt some other book. Why? Because everybody had a D&D PHB, and at $30 each, not many people were willing to try out all the alternatives.
Why is Firefox a success? Because it costs you exactly nothing to use it in its entirety, and you lose exactly nothing (except maybe ten minutes of your day) if you try it and you don't like it.
|
I re-read this post, and just wanted to share it again. Beautifully written. Begins with dripping sarcasm, ends with a challenge, ...powerful.
IMHO.. I would only add encouragement and a suggestion for this community to support open gaming with their pocketbooks, conversely close purse-strings on all things wotc.
Thanks Pax, I agree with just about everything you post too. I used to be a completist WotC fan and was rather irked they abandoned the 3.5 version. Not that there quality was so great, but rather they could have done so many more things but decided to rehash everything I already owned with a new version. With this new 4.0 system they shut down any possibility that Code Monkey would make RPGFoundry using all the WotC supplements (which really sucks), wiped out Dragonlance under Margaret Weis and killed my adventure paths with Paizo in Dungeon Magazine. They also killed their ability to sell to me as well. And for what? Trendy 16 year olds that want something new? If 3.5 goes down, just about everything I have invested in for the past 7 years goes with it. I am not sure how many thousands of dollars of mine that WotC has, but I am not going to just standby and watch them create a new system that will invalidate everything I have been saving for years to share with my family. I plan to have a lot more time to explore all this content fully in the future, but I will not tolerate some 16 year old friend of my son coming around pimpin' D&D 5.0 saying the stuff I own is no good anymore. The hell with that!
Paizo truly took up a banner that was unjustly thrown down in the heat of greed. I hope Paizo carries the torch beyond the corporate reach and one day plunges a sword deep into several wizards who live by the coast and reclaim what belongs to everyone, our beloved Dragon who sleeps in the Dungeon of our hearts.
Cheers
Zux
Mike Mearls is measuring the success of the OGL based on his own perception of what the goals were; personally I'd be much more interested in hearing Ryan Dancey tell us whether *he* thinks the goals of the OGL have been met yet. (I suspect he'd share some of Mike's conclusions and disagree strongly with others.)
Also, it really is a bit presumptive to be doing the whole "OGL in retrospective" shtick. We've just hit the start of a new chapter here, not the end of the book.
I was thinking exactly this a few hours ago and came home to search the thread for someone who mentioned it.
That OGL and open source programming have the same goals is nonsense. More rhetoric to ease our gag reflex while we try to swallow the GSL.
...Also, it really is a bit presumptive to be doing the whole "OGL in retrospective" shtick. We've just hit the start of a new chapter here, not the end of the book.
What else would they say?
Despite the patent absurdity of Mearls' claim, it's in WotC's interest to portray the draconian GSL as an appropriate (and necessary) successor to the OGL -- so the OGL has to be shown to be flawed and dying.
I'm increasingly impressed by 4e. I'm also impressed by the quality of their online 4e supplements. But I'm tired of their corporate rhetoric.
They need to preserve and build on that goodwill -- not continue to make claims which assume I'm an idiot.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've often wondered when the sea change happened at WotC. Was it when 3/5 came out or after? Look at some of the products
MM II, as other mentioned, included (and praised) two mosters from the creature collection.
psionics (and later the XPH) added to the SRD
The original Tome of Horrors with the opening of yummy 1&2e content.
Unearthed Arcana, basically WotC's answer to Monte's 'Year's best d20'
Something changed, and not for the better, I feel.
Pathfinder RPG is spurring a local change in our group. We've adopted the Pathfinder cleric, the Pathfinder sorcerer and soon (hopefully) will be rebuilding with the pathfinder skillset. As someone else posted, WotC never added options to the SRD like Maneuvers, or goodies from other people.
As to referencing other materials, my Arcane Legionary and Spellstalker both have spell lists from Books of Eldrich Might, Roguish Luck and Eldrich Sorcery, and if I ever actually publish it I'll include (with permission) hypertect links to Malhavoc and Necromancer. When the licensing and beta are finished, I'll likely revise both to keep even with Pathfinder.
Heck, even the failures (Tome of Magic, (in)complete Psionic) of closed content spawned awesomeness to fill the slack. Secrets of Pact Magic and Untapped Potential are incredible books, and I'll take their balance against anything WotC ever made.