Has D&D jumped the shark?

Jürgen Hubert said:

Well, this is precisely what I am contesting - I do not think that they help D&D as a whole. Mind you, I'm not against adding new material to D&D - new spells, races, feats, whatever - but I think that these should remain within the existing frameworks of mechanics instead of adding yet another layer of complexity to it all.

Click to expand...

I quite second this opinion.

I don't like that almost every book must have "new feats, spells, prestige classes and magic items" otherwise it won't sell enough. However I think there is always space for new feats because feats are basically the most generic "feature" available, in the simplest format possible: an extra ability to add to a PC, with prerequisites. Sort of plug-and-play

In theory, by just using feats you could create everything. So why aren't they just sticking to such a simple mechanic to "implement" new ideas? I can only guess they have to try keeping more people interested in the new books.

But what are the possible reasons _for a player_ to want other mechanics instead of simply feats? Here I see two reasons:

(1) feats come only once every 3 levels
(2) his PC may not have the prerequisites

What is then the real need of having new mechanics to do the same things after all (because you have to convince me that racial substitution levels or mindset spells give something really new or different...), if not to get a discount on character creation?

Henry said:

You mean this one?

Races of Destiny - has D&D 3.5 jumped the shark?

Ironincally, it's about another "Races" Book.

Click to expand...

So, while jumping the shark may be signs of a show's demise, are "jumping the shark threads" signs of? Other than some poster getting overwrought about something they don't like in a book. (Actually, I'm pretty sure that's it...)

Quasqueton said:

"Whaaaaa! They're killing D&D3 by publishing new stuff for it."

Click to expand...

It's not that they are publishing new stuff for D&D3 that I take issue with. It's the type of stuff that I take issue with...

Good God, my typing gets worse the older I get...

Psion said:

I see one of the mechanics you disdain -- substitution levels -- as being of potential great benefit in crafting a more unique mechanical feel for settings.

Click to expand...

So could feats. Or inherent racial bonuses. Or prestige classes. All are possible mechanics already supported in the Core Rules.

Sure, someone is likely to point out that the DM can always refuse to allow such new additions. But what is he supposed to tell his players? "Sorry, you can't use the new rules from that book you just spent 20 bucks on"?

Click to expand...

"I'm sorry, but WotC's (and every third-party publisher's) production schedule does not drive my game."

I find it totally absurd that a Player would buy a book and expect the DM to automatically allow it in his game. Hell, I've got a ton of D&D3 books myself, but my game uses just the core three -- and I'm the DM.

Quasqueton

KaosDevice said:

The thing about some of the material in the supplements is what I like to think of as 'The Rifts Effect' which is essentially a desire to add more nifty/keen/cool material without a lot of regard as to whether or not its' inclusion would compltely topple over game balance in existing campaigns.

Click to expand...

If you think that the D&D R&D team is as sloppy at letting new stuff into the game as Palladium, you really aren't considering the issue carefully enough.

ZeroGlobal2003 said:

...D&D has to change for every reason that MtG had to change. Like it or not, they have to make new things or stop making books at all.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this. MtG and D&D are both games, but they're entirely different. The fact that MtG is collectable alone throws a major wrench in your logic. Sounds like to me you've "went all in" with the TSR "gotta crank out new rules" approach and we all know how successful that turned out to be.

The Wot$ model is based entirely on what "will sell X00,000" units, and it's clear that crunchy hardbacks is the current hit. In spite of my loathing for Eberon, I'd like to think that Wot$ made a pile of cash on it. If so, maybe we'd see more well-supported setting books from them, complete w/ gorgeous layout and production. At this point, that's though that doesn't seem to be the case.

There are clearly ways that Wot$ could make money off the D&D brand w/out resorting to the current model. However, none of those are as easy and profitable as the crunchy hardback approach. To blazes w/ whether or not it hurts or helps the game, or whether or not it fragments the market, as long as that approach is selling X00,000 units, the bean counters are very unlikely to care. Whether or not some enlightened suit will have the intelligence to realize that this model is not sustainable remains to be seen though.

Well the system jumped the shark once with the Skills and Powers section,
but I dont think these new options have gone overboard - The DM can still dissallow much of the options - saying core plus condtional approval seem fairly common.

Henry said:

Racial sub levels? I'm mixed. I like the "Races broken down as classes" concept, but when you start getting substitutions for class abilities just because a certain race picked it, it doesn't set well with me - it smacks of favoritism.

Click to expand...

I have less of a problem with the idea that some races can do things others can't - but why invent an entirely new set of mechanics for it when there are already perfectly workable ways of doing that straight in the Core Rules?