The thing I disliked about where 3rd eventually went - and to be clear, I liked a lot about it - was that by the end there were some many options and combinations of options that whenever I built a new character or levelled up I felt like I was doing it wrong.
"I'm going to take "X" feat so I can do "Y", but there is probably a book somewhere that has the feat I should REALLY be taking to do Y much better and I'm just too stupid to find it."
The thing I disliked about where 3rd eventually went - and to be clear, I liked a lot about it - was that by the end there were some many options and combinations of options that whenever I built a new character or levelled up I felt like I was doing it wrong.
"I'm going to take "X" feat so I can do "Y", but there is probably a book somewhere that has the feat I should REALLY be taking to do Y much better and I'm just too stupid to find it."
2d edition was 13 years old when 3e came out. That's as long as 3.0, 3.5, and 4e combined. I'll take the 2e rate of bloat over 3e and 4e's rate of bloat any day.
Can't argue with that. I think we were responding to the person who mentioned starting playing in the late 90s who was romanticising 2e. By then it was as bloated as any edition ever was.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
Bloat is only a problem when you accept the invalid idea that anything released, must be included as an option in your game. I play every edition of d&d and use core rules with the occasional suppliment that works well within any given setting, never had a problem with bloat.
Bloat is also a problem when they put out so many things that the decent options are drowned out by the sludge.
Bloat is only a problem when you accept the invalid idea that anything released, must be included as an option in your game. I play every edition of d&d and use core rules with the occasional suppliment that works well within any given setting, never had a problem with bloat.
Actually, I think bloat becomes a problem when you accept the invalid ide that anything released must be included and you don't like it but feel that putting limits on your characters also ruins the game. I DM 4E a lot and I pretty much allow any and all supplemental material into my game. I've yet to have a problem with the multitude of options presented. I DO ask for a compelling backstory in which the PC should be including the reason WHY he choose Race/Class and perhaps some information on background and theme. Additionally, I'll let them know where we're adventuring in (if it's a specific setting) so they can get a better idea of where their character came from and what-not.
The the TONS of options and supplemental material is balanced for the most part (I don't expect a 1:1 ratio of balance nor 100% efficiency) then I'll probably allow it. Just have a good reason for using it in the context of the adventure/setting and we're good to go.
2d edition was 13 years old when 3e came out. That's as long as 3.0, 3.5, and 4e combined. I'll take the 2e rate of bloat over 3e and 4e's rate of bloat any day.
Can't argue with that. I think we were responding to the person who mentioned starting playing in the late 90s who was romanticising 2e. By then it was as bloated as any edition ever was.
I think one of the things to remember is that in 1e/2e, most of the DM-independent choices a non-magic using player could make were done at 1st level. If I wanted to make a Fighter with an 18/XX Str, I needed to do that at 1st level or hold myself at the mercy of whether or not a DM would give me a Girdle of Giant Strength or Gauntlets of Ogre Power - in many games, if you didn't roll an 18 for Str during character generation, you simply didn't play a character type reliant on using Str for hitting. And if I made a mistake, the penalties of the mistake were permanent unless the DM intervened. So while there might be a lot of options in late 2e, the majority of the choices were usually limited to 1st level. Unless you were a caster.
i.e. there might have bloat, but the DM quite literally had no choice but to control it unless he wanted to open up magic mart stores. The players didn't usually see the bloat because they had no choices. In 3e/4e, there's player choice, so if the 5e system ends up having bloat, it affects the players unless the DM has the capability of saying, "You will only use options from X, Y, and Z" and the online generation system easily grants the players the ability to follow the DM's dictates(something the 4e online character generator does not)
It seems reasonably likely that 5e will have bloat as there are already 12 2nd level spells available for Wizards in just the playtest as an example and Wizards in 4e had a total of 18 3rd level encounter spells period after all the 'bloat'.
@wrecan- said it in the Gen Con pannel, I belive the 2hr pannel on 5e DMing... I watched it on youtube.
I watched that panel. I don't remember them saying they thought there would never be a 6e. I remember them saying they thought if the game was solid, it could last a logn time, but I can't imagine anybody in the gaming industry saying there would be no need for a new edition at some point, and I certainly don't remember them saying that.
I just listened to that (behind on my panel podcasts). He did not say there wouldn't be a 6e. He said they wanted to get away from the assumption there had to be a new edition every 5 years and instead they could just rerelease the books with smaller updates, essentially incorporating the errata.
I guess finanically, it turns out having a really popular well-selling edition (or okay selling edition) is better than releasing a new edition.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
Actually, I think bloat becomes a problem when you accept the invalid ide that anything released must be included and you don't like it but feel that putting limits on your characters also ruins the game. I DM 4E a lot and I pretty much allow any and all supplemental material into my game. I've yet to have a problem with the multitude of options presented. I DO ask for a compelling backstory in which the PC should be including the reason WHY he choose Race/Class and perhaps some information on background and theme.
Agreed, and an anecdote about player entitlement. The last 3.5E game I played in had five currently-active DMs and three past DMs (plus a few other people) sitting at the table. We finished the campaign and chose to switch to 4E for the next campaign (and shrink the group a good bit - four active DMs, two former DMs, and two other people remained), just as 4E PHB3 came out. That is the book that has hybrid rules.
Two of us *asked the DM's permission* to use hybrids.
Now I woudn't ask about anything in the PHBs, unless the DM has offered guidelines and I'm stretching them. However if I wanted to play something setting-specific and the DM hadn't specified the correct setting, I'd ask.
(Demand? I have too frigging many character ideas. If one character doesn't fit in the DM's worldview, I'm quite confident that I have another that does.)
-----------------------------------
Regarding the comment about not needing 6E:
According to the quotes above, Mearls said the players don't need a 6E.
He's right.
Quite a lot of us don't need a 5E. So why are we getting one?
A good share of us don't need a 4E. So why do we have one?
Some of us don't even need a 3E. So why do we have one?
Answer:WotC needs a 5E, because in any given year there are more people who have already played D&D and will buy a fairly-new edition at least to have a look at it than there are people who have never played D&D and will buy the existing edition. Eventually (unless Hasbro stuffs the brand in a drawer and leaves it there) the current brand owner will need a 6E, for the same reason.
So, WotC needs to make 5E enticing enough that we regular players will buy it, and preferably more than just the basic books. Then, eventually, someone will need to do the same with 6E.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Besides being a monster huge goal and an achievement that no other really successful RPG has ever succeeded in, It makes me wonder... what is the largest cause of failure of long running successful RPG systems like 2.0,3.0, and yes now PF that many are calling for a new edition for that game.
I think PF fans are calling because it's assumed. Expected. As geeks we are conditioned to buying and upgrading on a regular basis.
1) Defining "System Bloat" First, how do we define system bloat? Its a word a lot of people use when describing an older and successful rpg system that has become over burdened with rules, options, and errata from a seemingly endless sea of splat books. I looked for a fast and quick definition but couldn't find one. So, I'm working from the definition above. A system which has too many options, too many optional rules, too much source material to read, too many rules and errata to easily put in play without creating long lists of what is and isn't allowed in a home game, or house rules to deal with it.
I would add limiters to your definition "expected rules and options". System bloat happens when all the options overlap and compliment and are usable at all times. When you can pay with everything in every book.
2) How does system bloat happen and what does it look like. For a perfect example of how an edition eventually gets infected with the potentially terminal system bloat disease I'd point to what Pathfinder is going through right now. PF started out with the idea that if you make (or copy) a system that players want to play, it will be wildly successful, and they have been. First and foremost they wanted to give there players a large amount of options, and since their inception, the system has grown and grown. Every month an official pathfinder chronicle comes out that adds new feats, uses for skills, spells, magic items, prestige classes and archtypes. Not to mention books like the advanced race guide, advanced character guide, etc,. etc.. and setting books that all add scores to the above. thats a lot of reading and study to be able to create a character, it also presents a near endless number of OP munchkin builds a player can choose from. Its also a tremendous amount of info for a DM to have to memorize, rule on, and implement. A lot of minor rule changes to be remembered for each character.
PF does have some heavy bloat, but it can be ignored. The only assumption made is the hardcovers. The Player Companions and Campaign Setting books are optional add-on (with a heavy fluff content). 4e is a better example, which had monthly releases for half it's lifespan plus the e-zines and all of it was assumed to be "Core".
3) How does an RPG make money month after month and still avoid system bloat? This is the biggest question I think WotC has to ask if they want to be successful with their goal of "no 6e" but honestly I don't know.
This is a big problem. It's one thing to point out a problem, it's another to offer solutions. Without advice and options, your post is half-finished. Without a solution the post is just a complaint and praising of your favorite edition. You actually toe onto a possible solution later in your post. The solution is books with a higher fluff:crunch ratio, with fewer mechanical options. 4e is already doing this, as seen by their last year's book and 4e seems to be on the same track. Another solution, which 5e is doing, is optional options. And not just options you can stack, but mutually exclusive options that change and allow the game to be customized. They can release books of all new content and only half the crunch is potentially usable in your game, but also with fluff that makes the books a good read.
3a.) What did 2.0 do right? 2.0 seemed to do very well in this in my eyes. there were no archtypes, no prestige classes really, so there wasn't a lot to contribute to bloat. 2.0 had "the complete" line of splat books which had "character kits" that while giving a lot of great background, fluff, and suggestions, most often didnt really alter much; for example the duelist. There was a solid two pages of fluff, but the only rule that changed was if wearing light armor, the duelist character got +2 ac. and that was it (far as I remember)
I love how you say there were no "archtypes" or "prestige classes" the line before you praise kits, which are pretty much the exact same thing, only with a different fluff:crunch ratio. The problem isn't the option but the implementation. Personally, I found 2e hard for bloat. Kits were a big part of the game and customization of half the classes, but you needed to buy extra books to get that content. It was kinda optional but quickly became expected. Someone walking into the game with books of kits had more options and often more powerful characters than someone without kits. It was the same problem but with the bloat automatically requiring extra books, rather than kits being in the core books.
the 2.0 splat books also covered many genres of fantasy RPG. there were books on theives guilds, castles, books on greek myth campaigns, books on vikings, pretty much everything.
These are great examples of options that are exclusive. You only needed a couple of the era books, and most just expanded. They were nice but not required.
I guess 2.0 went down hill with the skills and powers line of books, though appreciated by DMs who knew how to say "no" (I for one loved the pick and choose building class and innate power rules) many suffered with the new rules and soon 3.0 was in the works, but all in all, a highly successful long running edition, and my personal favorite.
Given TSR went bankrupt during 2e and the company was repeatedly in dire straits I would hardly call it "highly successful" and given it's longevity was partly the result of being unable to produce and release a 3rd edition it's longevity is also questionable. Much of that can be attributed to bad management and business decisions, but low-selling books were also a factor.
3b.) What can we learn from 2.0? Again an assumption here, but increase the amount of fluff and background while changing almost nothing about the core system. In my mind the core system should stand alone, if done right, there should not be any reason to release new feats, new prestige classes, new archtypes, new optional rules etc. Those are the things which people and players will be most interested in buying, but more than anything else they also contribute, and cause system bloat.
I agree with this. To a point. More fluff means you can release more books before bloat becomes a factor. Continued books and products are needed to sustain the company and brand, but the less crunch the less development time and potential errata is needed. I would pair this with optional rules and non-mandatory options that DMs can choose to add or ignore. However, crunch is what sells books. Fluff makes it readable, but pure fluff books are a hard sell. In theory player books also sell better because there a more players (although that "fact" is itself debatable). And, for many people, the enjoyment of the game comes from pouring over feats and options, building a disgusting character. That's how they pay, that's how they win, and that's how they had fun. I think what 5e needs to do is experiment more with format and access to crunch. The e-zines are a great place for niche content, as the production costs are lower. It can be the testing ground, seeing what the reaction is to options as well as getting them out for play testing. From there, popular options can be republished in hardcover books. I quite like Paizo's release schedule of of "monster" book a year (but, really, after 2-3 they become less necessary and need to do something different) and two big hardcovers, one in the spring and one at GenCon. I can afford two or three big books a year and can incorporate that into my game. The rest of the year is smaller books expanding monsters with fluff or smaller player books. One could be more module orientated, more focused on DM options. The other could be more PC orientated with class and race options (new and old). Most of the role of the small books can be handled by the magazines, but the softcover perfect bound books (the equivalent of the campaign expansion, monster, and AP books) could be how they add fluff and options to races and classes, filling the gap of the Power books from 4e, the class & race books from 3e and 2e. Small and cheap yet visible on the shelves. Mostly fluff but enough crunch (with a low enough price) that the mechanically inclined with buy.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
According to the quotes above, Mearls said the players don't need a 6E.
He's right.
Quite a lot of us don't need a 5E. So why are we getting one?
A good share of us don't need a 4E. So why do we have one?
Some of us don't even need a 3E. So why do we have one?
Answer:WotC needs a 5E, because in any given year there are more people who have already played D&D and will buy a fairly-new edition at least to have a look at it than there are people who have never played D&D and will buy the existing edition. Eventually (unless Hasbro stuffs the brand in a drawer and leaves it there) the current brand owner will need a 6E, for the same reason.
So, WotC needs to make 5E enticing enough that we regular players will buy it, and preferably more than just the basic books. Then, eventually, someone will need to do the same with 6E.
WotC also learned, especially with 4E, that a new edition creates a risk of breaking the base, with a consequent loss of profits. For this reason, if for no other, I can actually believe Mearls when he says he doesn't want to need a new edition five years down the line. I wouldn't want to roll the dice like that any more than I could help it.
Optimally, I think D&D should update itself in the manner of 4E's Essentials line: revisit the basic classes with the benefit of more experience designing for the system, but presenting them as options, keeping the system itself the same and everything remaining compatible.
