General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
When i sit down and think about it, I don't really get it. 3e had lots of 3pp support, and sure some of it was imbalanced. But IMO, so was some of the 1pp stuff. I do not see how this bloat could really be taken in the negative light that I often see on various message boards. I kind of enjoyed the level of support that the edition received. Sure not all of the products were for me, but several 3pp purchases I made during 3e are still used in my games.
IMO, it's all about the DMs.
Some DMs want to limit options to make the game easier for them to run. I know I'm one of them. I'm loath to allow in 1st-party splatbooks because they make the game more complicated. I just don't have the time to learn a 300 page book because someone wants to play a character using material from it. (If a player wants me to let something in, they're better off asking about a spell or feat than a race, better off with a "basic" race (eg genasi) than a prestige class, and ... well, I hate PrCs, so I'd probably be more likely to allow a base class, if it's not too different mechanically from the 11 core classes of 3.x.)
Some DMs would limit themselves to WotC only. They often get criticized here for that ("WotC isn't guaranteed to be superior, you're shutting out good-quality 3pp", etc) but that's missing the point. The DM wants to keep the amount of material and their rules research time down, and this is a shortcut to do so.* (It also makes research easier. I found out about terrible products and elements of products from WotC's splatbooks here very quickly, but getting the same info on 3pp is a lot harder, in part because hardly anyone buys them. Even some of the more popular 3pp publishers, like Malhavoc, hardly ever get their products mentioned here.)
*Sometimes. And sometimes it only takes a few bad 3pp to make the DM cautious of buying/allowing anything from them ever again.
Quote:
Do you view the "bloat" period of OGL/3e as a bad time for the hobby? Why?
Yes. Due to the difficulty/time of doing research, a lot of DMs bought (or their players bought) terrible products. Note I said bought, as in paid money for, and sometimes tried to use the stuff.
It's not like WotC didn't have stinkers, but they do put out (IMO anyway) good core rulebooks. Even if someone swears never to buy a WotC splatbook again, they could still be using and enjoying the core rules.
Quote:
Which titles during the "bloat" period would you consider to be damaging bloat as opposed to meaningful 3pp content? (I am not looking for responses like this title or publisher is suxxorz, but am more hoping for and actual reason why you feel a particular line, title, or publisher was "bloating" down 3e and negatively impacting the market/system/hobby)
Sine I rarely buy 1pp splatbooks, I avoided buying 3pp stuff as well. Of course I did read a lot of negative buzz about a few publishers. Frequently I was exposed to 3pp because I was a player in someone else's campaign.
I had a bad experience with a Steampunk Fantasy setting. While the setting was cool, it limited options.
One example: my character was a 1st-level cleric, and in that setting clerics really sucked... I used Call Fear (or whatever that 1st-level fear spell is; it was one of the few good options) a lot until using that much necromancy forced me to prep Inflict Light Wounds once per day. Yes, that's in the the rules.
Another example: the "Pain of Healing" nerfed healing into the ground; while that didn't affect my cleric much, it was messing with a massive part of 3.0's balance without much in the way of compensation... I saw lots of 3pps do that, it's like watching a DM try to run a low-magic campaign and insist that they "understand" the issues.
Third example: one character played an "ogrun", an overpowered race. I'm not 100% sure if the DM was following the rules properly, but it seems the race had an LA and ECL of +0, when it clearly shouldn't have.
Even after the bloat died, I saw some much hyped products come out that, IMO, were pretty bad, making me think there just wasn't enough time for playtesting. I've done playtesting for a few products (after the bloat; one 1pp non-core and a few 3pp), and there usually isn't enough time, and only one round of playtesting. (By "round" I mean you get the playtest document, you play with them, you write a report, and that's it. You don't see a second draft of rules that you can playtest.) If (in the bloat period) products were coming off the shelves fast and furiously, I doubt they're going through the multiple rounds of playtesting required to reasonably balance a product.
I'm a bit skeptical about all of this "glut" talk. I'm of the mind that I'd like more periods of glut.
When glut is used negatively, it tends to be used to indicate the writer's* desire for an RPG market filled with products he desires and little else. It indicates a desire for a Platonic ideal of a marketplace in which there are no tiers of quality, no tiers of low to high price products, and in which each subject is covered well the first time it is published. It also tends to indicate a certain confusion with more than a half dozen or so producers.
So, a "glut" is not a natural consequence of a free market's self-correcting contractions and expansions. It's not a situation in which shop owners have to make informed decisions about the products that they sell. The customer cannot solve their difficulties by reading online reviews or flipping through the book in the store. It's a call for a market in which producers, distributors and consumers do not make mistakes.
And a glut is certainly not responsible for giving RPG writers enough opportunities to get better at their craft and publish better materials later. Gluts don't provide employment opportunities for freelance writers and designers.
So, yeah, give me gluts where writers practice their craft, companies compete, and customers have a wide variety of products from which to choose. Gluts are good for the game, good for the industry, good for the artistry, and good for the consumer.
* Not you. That other guy. Over there. You? You're all right.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
Some DMs want to limit options to make the game easier for them to run.
Now, THAT's a good point. Another facet of this dynamic is that DMs are both collectors and synthesizers. They love to have a library of stuff "in case I need it," but it's also hard to synthesize all this information into an internally consistent world.
But they have to use the materials, or they'll feel guilty. They bought all this stuff and didn't use it, which makes them feel guilty about their collecting. Or they fear that they're just not good enough at DMing to synthesize all of this stuff, or not committed enough (which is worse) which makes them feel guilty as well. So they project the bad feeling onto the "glut" that made them buy the library which now makes them feel bad. That allows them to rationalize their collecting behavior. It's _____ that's to blame, not them.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
I think there was a d20 glut that lasted a few years, from its release until 3.5, but frankly 3.5 did two great things...
(1) Winnowed the D&D-compatible field down to pretty much the best companies, and
(2) Spurred the development of a lot of good OGL games, in large part because they're much more protected from another 3.5 apocalypse.
I don't think we've ever had an OGL glut, per se. I think that the massive amounts of crap in early 3.0 hurt the hobby, overall, but the OGL stuff since has largely been excellent. The lack of crappy stuff didn't seem to impede the production of great stuff whatsoever.
As a DM, I'm as much of an inventor as a collector. When I think to add new material, I have to choose between pulling it out of a book, cobbling it together from material I already have, or building it fresh out of whole cloth. Why should I have to spend my money on something that can be created by me for free?
Admittedly, my games are heavy RP, and I don't let the rules dictate the story, so it might be a function of my style. However, this attitude makes most 3pp material less useful. I haven't bought extra rulesets because I haven't needed to buy them. Sure, I might read some reviews, but even if the review is glowing... do I need it for my game?
I've started looking at Pathfinder, and that's interesting, but I haven't spent anything yet. I've picked up some bits from other game worlds (Arcanis, Fading Suns, Kalamar). Some of it's good, some less so. But really, I haven't used any of the options to expand my game mechanics, so really there's not that much to it.
Sometimes, I think I should just rebuild the entire system--4e made me yearn for 1e/2e and understand what was good and what was bad about the system. Now I have to determine what to keep and what to change. I might just write a new RPG based on all this.
My observation as a customer in game stores across the state of New York (and a few other places) has been it's not just the "d20/ogl glut" items I see taking up space on the shelves and bargain bins, but core books and non-d20 games as well.
It makes me wonder if the reason our traditional FLGSs have so much unsold back stock is more a result of the Amazon.com/Wal-Mart model of massive volume discounts, which is driving the small business FLGS (as well as other small, local businesses) to the point of extinction.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, or even what is actually happening, but it might be worth looking at, if someone is interested.
Before reading the thread, I would have guessed that the term "OGL Bloat" referred to the lengthening copyright notice in Section 15, required by the terms of the license itself.
Actually, my first thoughts related the tendency to avoid declaration issues by putting all the open stuff in one set of chapters and all the closed stuff in another resulting in larger books due to the increased textual and layout demands and occasionally having crunch content in different places (feats relating to a closed system being with that system, rather then with the rest of the crunch for example).
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
I think it was good for the hobby to have well supported games, well supported alternate styles, lots of choice for materials, and lots of writers able to get stuff out there.
People interested in niche items could get stuff for their niche (drow fans, steampunk, supernatural horror western, demon sourcebooks, specific classes or races, etc.). Often lots of material in their interest area (Slayer's Guide to Demons, Book of Fiends, Encyclopedia of Demons and Devils I & II, Encyclopedia Arcane Demonology, Book of Hell).
People interested in core D&D stuff could get tons of core D&D material (vanilla fantasy settings, modules, magic item books, monster books, spell and feat sourcebooks, core race and class books).
Different play styles could be accomodated (low magic high fantasy adventure Iron Heroes, different magic systems in Arcana Evolved or Everquest RPG or Sovereign Stone, no hp or AoO in True 20/M&M/Blue Rose, armor as DR in Arms & Armor 3.5, etc. Super Heros with no magic items in Deeds Not Words)
There was a range of stuff for various price points from high end premier products like Ptolus, Rappan Athuk Reloaded, World's Largest Dungeon, and War of the Burning Sky Complete Campaign, to cheap pdfs and free srd material.
I think it was good for the hobby to have well supported games, well supported alternate styles, lots of choice for materials, and lots of writers able to get stuff out there.
(snip)
I think it enriched the hobby.
I agree that it's great for the hobby and I especially love having obscure topics explored. However, from what I've heard from those more experienced than me, the traditional distribution system doesn't handle that sort of variety and niche products very well - at least for physical books.
But RPGNow arose and provided a distribution system that could handle that, and it did remarkably well from what I understand.
Unfortunately many products that would have thrived as PDF only went to print, as well as many customers called for print copies of many products that should have PDF only.
So that variety was awesome, and I loved it. It's just the practical distribution/printing side of things that didn't do so well. Now with PDFs well accepted (and even preferred by many) and the rise of Print on Demand, the industry can handle obscure products much better. Unfortunately, PDFs & POD pretty much cut the FLGS out of the loop*, and so many publishers have gone under that the stream of products is a trickle compared to the height of the 3.x/d20 era.
But it would be nice to have that variety back. Yeah, some people didn't really care for having 3 different drow books, etc. But I agree with you, that variety is great for the hobby and customer, if only the production and distribution side could manage it better.
* If someone can find a practical solution to providing PDF and/or POD services at thousands of game stores, there would be an believably massive resurgence in the 3pp market.
Some DMs want to limit options to make the game easier for them to run. I know I'm one of them. I'm loath to allow in 1st-party splatbooks because they make the game more complicated. I just don't have the time to learn a 300 page book because someone wants to play a character using material from it. (If a player wants me to let something in, they're better off asking about a spell or feat than a race, better off with a "basic" race (eg genasi) than a prestige class, and ... well, I hate PrCs, so I'd probably be more likely to allow a base class, if it's not too different mechanically from the 11 core classes of 3.x.)
Some DMs would limit themselves to WotC only. They often get criticized here for that ("WotC isn't guaranteed to be superior, you're shutting out good-quality 3pp", etc) but that's missing the point. The DM wants to keep the amount of material and their rules research time down, and this is a shortcut to do so.* (It also makes research easier. I found out about terrible products and elements of products from WotC's splatbooks here very quickly, but getting the same info on 3pp is a lot harder, in part because hardly anyone buys them. Even some of the more popular 3pp publishers, like Malhavoc, hardly ever get their products mentioned here.)
Good luck with that. even just t rying to limit it to WOtc only in 3.5 you STILL had a ton of books.
And given that 4e is modeling itself as everything core, your going to have the same bloat in rather quick fashion.....another year or 2 is going to have a metric ton of books......
*shrug*
The DM never necesarily has to get the books. A player can and sit down with the DM and see about letting a spell, race, class, or wahtever. Thats what we do....
Thanks for all the replies folks. I am sorry for my confusing term. But just to clarify the term "OGL Bloat": I was referencing the large number of d20/OGL pruducts that were in support of D&D and new settings/systems in and of themselves. I had heard it called bloat and glut, and I used the term bloat, as in bloated (meaning full of). I did not mean to confuse folks.
Thanks for all the replies folks. I am sorry for my confusing term. But just to clarify the term "OGL Bloat": I was referencing the large number of d20/OGL pruducts that were in support of D&D and new settings/systems in and of themselves. I had heard it called bloat and glut, and I used the term bloat, as in bloated (meaning full of). I did not mean to confuse folks.
love,
malkav
I don't think it is as problematic to use bloat instead of glut as much as it is problematic to use OGL instead of d20.
Good luck with that. even just t rying to limit it to WOtc only in 3.5 you STILL had a ton of books.
That's why I kept out even most WotC splatbooks. In 4e, I'll just be using the three core books: PH1, DMG1 and MM1. I don't count anything else as core.
Quote:
The DM never necesarily has to get the books. A player can and sit down with the DM and see about letting a spell, race, class, or wahtever. Thats what we do....
Books like Book of Nine Swords and Magic of Incarnum made this very difficult.
27
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
