Avoiding "Glut" (Maneuvers, tricks and other options)

[kevtar]

As I read the design team's blogs and articles about the development of D&Dnext, I feel generally optimistic about the next iteration of the game. However, once in a while, a little "something" will catch my eye and shakes that optimism a bit. Sometimes this is a temporary "jiggle" and sometimes it's a more significant, reoccurring aftershock. I came across my most recent "something" in this blog entry (Goblins only care about your axe).

While the main topic of the entry focused on the use of a grid vs. TotM, one sentence in particular caught my eye and, with the mentioning of things like "maneuvers, tricks and other options available to classes), I'm starting to feel a little tremor...

Here's the sentence:

"For instance, if a fighter uses an ability that seems to make sense on the grid, we should design that same ability to also be useful in the TotM..."​

I like what Bruce is saying in this sentence, but what concerns me is when he talked about designing an ability. This brought me back to the fighter's "maneuvers" and the rogue's "tricks" concept for D&Dnext - that these classes will gain these features as they advance in level, and that made me think of powers and 4e.

Now, I've enjoyed 4e (as I've enjoyed ALL editions of D&D. I tend to think think of them as various versions of a recipe - each edition has its pros and cons), but there is something about 4e that I felt was exciting at first and then exhausting as I continued to play the game: Powers (or more precisely "power glut").

I know this is a subjective topic, but for me, after a few source books were produced, the sheer number of powers became overwhelming - especially when power effects overlapped or became redundant. IMO, there were simply too many powers from which to choose with very little difference between many of those powers to make the number of choices meaningful.

My hope for D&Dnext
My hope is that the designers can manage the distribution, presentation and selection of "maneuvers, tricks and whatevers" in such a way that players aren't confronted with an overwhelming number of options, but rather, are presented with a number of options shaped by the distinctiveness of each element so that the navigation of such options is intuitive and the decision to choose such options is meaningful.

 

[Sunseeker]

That logic should be applied to everything a class can get. Spell glut is equally as huge a problem as too many maneuvers.

IMO: Tricks and Manuevers should be usable more often and be fewer than spells.

 

[AngryMojo]

IMO: Tricks and Manuevers should be usable more often and be fewer than spells.

For my particular tastes, I completely agree with you. I'm particularly curious how they manage to satisfy the players who want highly detailed swordfights with clearly defined powers while satisfying those of us who want a more streamlined system. I like the way Savage Worlds handles such things, with a basic system that gets modified based on DM fiat. I also know plenty of people dislike that system, and would rather have a specific ability for their "downward facing crossed-swords technique" that's very different from their "graceful riposte" or "beguiling feint."

 

[BobTheNob]

A
Now, I've enjoyed 4e (as I've enjoyed ALL editions of D&D. I tend to think think of them as various versions of a recipe - each edition has its pros and cons), but there is something about 4e that I felt was exciting at first and then exhausting as I continued to play the game: Powers (or more precisely "power glut").

I know this is a subjective topic, but for me, after a few source books were produced, the sheer number of powers became overwhelming - especially when power effects overlapped or became redundant. IMO, there were simply too many powers from which to choose with very little difference between many of those powers to make the number of choices meaningful.

Your not alone. Everything you described is alomst exactly where I am coming from as well. 4e was the most expansive, technically accurate and engrossing combat experience ever in a Table top rpg.

But for all of that it lost me. Bloat was definitely one of the factors.

I do acknowledge [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] 's point re spell glut being potentially the same, but in terms of perception I never got the feeling of repetition and overlap from 3.x and earlier that I did from 4e.

I like martial being narrow and repeatable and spells broad and limited.

 

[n00bdragon]

Spell glut is just as awful if not worse. Let both sides be just as glutty or cut the magic down just as much. Face it, glut equals power and if one person gets glut and another doesn't you can't balance them.

I'd rather have balance than preserve whatever flaky "feel" D&D is supposed to have.

Go ahead. Disagree. I give zero ****s.

Admin here. You don't need the preemptive, pugnacious defensiveness. Of course some folks will agree and some won't, it's the internet. That's okay. Just state your opinion and let that stand on its own. -- Piratecat

 

[grimslade]

Glut happens. Feats, themes, backgrounds, spells, tricks and races will all become a giant unwieldy pile if 5e is successful. I hope that there will be a package delivery system for maneuvers and even spells to evoke a particular style of class/character. If feats are tied to theme, but can be decoupled, hopefully there is a school or style that corrals up different but thematic spells or maneuvers.

 

[Lanefan]

Glut happens. Feats, themes, backgrounds, spells, tricks and races will all become a giant unwieldy pile if 5e is successful.

Classes too.

BUT: only if we buy them and-or buy into them.

The only way to discourage glut is - wherever possible* - not to buy it. And I don't mean go out and steal/pirate it either; I mean completely ignore its existence, don't use it, and don't allow it in your games.

* - it's inevitable that some otherwise-useful products will add their bit to the glut e.g. an adventure module that introduces a few new spells - that sort of thing isn't as big a deal, as if a DM is going to run said adventure one assumes she's cool with adding those new elements to her game.

I hope that there will be a package delivery system for maneuvers and even spells to evoke a particular style of class/character. If feats are tied to theme, but can be decoupled, hopefully there is a school or style that corrals up different but thematic spells or maneuvers.

But where will this come from?

A splat book may have half a dozen really cool class ideas and ten great new feats; but if you're also getting 96 pages of other stuff you don't want is it really worth it?

Lanefan

 

[grimslade]

Classes too.

BUT: only if we buy them and-or buy into them.

The only way to discourage glut is - wherever possible* - not to buy it. And I don't mean go out and steal/pirate it either; I mean completely ignore its existence, don't use it, and don't allow it in your games.

* - it's inevitable that some otherwise-useful products will add their bit to the glut e.g. an adventure module that introduces a few new spells - that sort of thing isn't as big a deal, as if a DM is going to run said adventure one assumes she's cool with adding those new elements to her game.

Fish got to swim. Birds got to eat. Nature of the business, splat, splat, splat. I think having a clear packaging of the glut works to contain it, while allowing WotC to sell more books. Campaign specific splats help create more immersive and useful 'glut'. More stuff and power creep for Random class books are pure glut and should expire slowly in a conflagration.

A splat book may have half a dozen really cool class ideas and ten great new feats; but if you're also getting 96 pages of other stuff you don't want is it really worth it?

Lanefan

No. A Campaign setting book that has the glut might be worth it, but only other option is to have some sort of DDI subscription to get the whole firehose of glut.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The only way to stop an RPG company from making books is to pay them not to!

 

[kevtar]

That logic should be applied to everything a class can get. Spell glut is equally as huge a problem as too many maneuvers.

IMO: Tricks and Manuevers should be usable more often and be fewer than spells.

Yeah, there were a lot of spells in previous editions as well. I guess what made that seem more manageable and less of a headache was that I didn't feel "confronted" by the number of spells every time I leveled up. For example, in previous editions, if I played a fighter or rogue and I increased in a level, I didn't have to sort through 100+ spells. If I was playing a spell caster, I had to "find" those spells as opposed to having them automatically presented as a choice.

Now that sounds like I'm bashing 4e, which I'm not. I like the idea of PCs have options and features when leveling, but what I didn't like was, as I leveled, I had to sort through hundreds of powers - with many of those powers failing to really serve a particular niche or be demonstratively different from other powers in the game (or even in that class).

So perhaps my definition of "glut" not only includes the sheer number of elements (be they spell, power or maneuver), but also the quality or distinctiveness of that element. It seems that, in a system where a PC automatically gains an element at leveling, the greater the number of elements from which the player has to choose also means the greater the probability for less-meaningful options for the player (due to overly-similar powers, etc.).

In short, I agree with you (lol). IMO, a PC with 24 maneuvers isn't necessarily going to be more interesting to play than a PC with 8 well-designed maneuvers. I hope that in D&Dnext, maneuvers, tricks and the like will be fewer in number, with multiple uses, and provide the PC with qualities that define that class.