Core and PrC Class Proliferation

[tigycho]

Many people, like me, are disturbed by the sheer number of new classes (both Core and Prestige) that are coming out of Dragon and WotC lately. You hear them point to the proliferation of splat books in 2e as something that almost broke the game system.

This problem, though, is not entirely new. I was amused to find the following in a letter to Dragon*.

Dear Sirs,
Allow me to congratulate you on your new magazine, as well as to order a copy of The Dragon #1. Although not a D&D player myself, I still find many of the articles and rules most interesting. However, I begin to wonder where it will all end. My meaning is this: I fear you are going to become bogged down in such a plethora of rules, sub-classes, etc. that, if all are used, the game could easily become practically unplayable. I wonder how many players use more than a tithe of them now? Overcomplication can be as bad as oversimplification.
I’m not saying it should be a game for the lowest common denominator, but it’s not impossible to foresee a loss of interest in it due to its becoming almost incomprehensible. The most successful games are those which do not require one eye on the game and the other on a rule book. They’re also the most enjoyable.

For the record, that was published in March 1977, Issue number 5.

Tigycho

* - Back then, Dragon was titled The Dragon. <- ObTrivia

 

[pogre]

LOL - reminds me of the ancient Greek parent complaining about the kids of the next generation and wondering how civilization could continue.

Thanks for sharing this bit of history.

 

[Turanil]

When you also consider third party publishers, there has been more than 1000 classes published in commercial supplements. Well, that number (with all references) was just before 3.5, so it could be that of now we have reached more than 2000 D&D/D20 classes published in commercial supplements.

 

[RandomPrecision]

You don't have to use every single class. I probably wouldn't allow every class in my games. If someone had a 3rd-party book they found in the back of a rare books store, and wanted to use a class from it, I'd probably look at it, but strongly urge them to play a different class. The standard 11 classes can represent pretty much any character concept, and with the prestige classes in the DMG, you can carefully approximate even more characters. On the other hand, if a player is truly interested in making a divine character, I might suggest/allow a base or prestige class from the Complete Divine. Same for Complete Arcane/Complete Warrior/Complete Adventurer. If none of my PCs are interested in controlling undead, then Libris Mortis is effective primarily for monsters to throw in front of them (there is the occasional anti-undead class or item that I might borrow from it, but if the campaign doesn't focus on undead, I simply wouldn't use that book). However, if I have characters who are intrigued by the notion of commanding undead, or possibly being undead, I'll use some of the rules, spells, classes, and creatures within. I just omit irrelevant books. Since my parties seem to have alignments with more shades of grey than 50's television, I usually don't use anything from BoED or BoVD. And furthermore, if you simply don't want the extra options, don't allow them at all. It's perfectly acceptable to use only the three core books. If one of the PC's wants to use something from another book, too bad.

 

[Darkness]

Ah, yes - this topic again. It usually comes up every month or so.

Points for style, though, with quoting that letter.

 

[tigycho]

Ah, yes - this topic again. It usually comes up every month or so.

Points for style, though, with quoting that letter.

Thanks. I'm a little dissappointed that so many people can't just be amused, though and move on.

Obviosuly, I can't control others, and wouldn't if I could (usually), but I didn't intend for this to be another "Let's-Rant-About-PrC-Proliferation' thread.

Ah well. I'm off to see if I can find a letter in the Early Dragon's about being misunderstood =)

 

[Darkness]

Yeah, I get what you were trying to say. At least, I think I do.
It's just that I suspect this thread will end like others commenting on a similar topic (even though those were more intended for that than this one).

Heh. Don't mind me and feel free to carry on, though - maybe I'm just too jaded.

 

[tetsujin28]

I love those old letters. Gotta dig up some of the old "dwarven women" ones, too

 

[Odhanan]

Since the beginning of RPGs as we know them, it has been a hobby promoting creation. OD&D was made for people to adapt it to their own tastes through houserules, variants and so on.

AD&D was then just one way among others to see a more complex, personal set of rules. D&D3 and the d20 system were also based on this concept. Anyone blends stuff and creates houserules and variants. The goal is to make D&D our game. Thus, I see the proliferation of crunch as a very good thing, because it inspires other creators out there, it allows anyone to choose campaign components with wide variety of choice, and so on. And as said above, no one forces - God forbid - anyone to include everything at the game table. That would be absurd.

Only those willing to have a canon D&D and a strictly "official" lecture of the game may want diversity to come to an end. This is in contradiction with the OGL and the very purpose of the game since 1974.

 

[VirgilCaine]

This problem, though, is not entirely new. I was amused to find the following in a letter to Dragon*.

For the record, that was published in March 1977, Issue number 5.

Reminds me of the letter from a rich Roman woman to her country cousin recounting her shopping trip to a mall [Yes, a real mall--an enclosed block of a variety of shops], in which her husband was bored stiff and went to sit with the other husbands who complained that their wives were spending all their money. Art History I was definitely worth taking.