D&D rules bloat

[Hussar]

Perhaps you could give some examples of these contradictory rules?

I hear this said, but the word bloat just means an excess, not a contradiction. I'm just curious where that definition is from.

I only really noticed more and more rules, so i'm eager to see 2ed's dirty laudry, as it were. ...I didn't join a rules forum until after 3.5e.

While I'm not sure that this counts as bloat - I do have a pretty decent example of contradictory rules: Clerics.

Compare clerics and specifically specialty priests between the PHB (2e), the Complete Priests Handbook and Faiths and Avatars and even the 2e Dieties and Demigods. There is a huge variance in how the class is defined, even down to what xp tables to use. Hit dice were varied by abilities, and the spell casting limitations were all over the place. A cleric could be a pretty weak class or a power gamers dream depending on which book you decided to use.

 

[sumi]

No.

We have plenty of supplements, but these are PC options: easily included or ignored as you wish. "Rules Bloat" implies that later supplements have rules that are crucial to the running of a normal game. I've not found that to be the case.

Agreed. The group I play with only use the PHB, DMG, MM, XPH. The best thing we use is our imagination.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The best thing we use is our imagination.

What book is that in?

 

[rgard]

Do you feel that D&D 3.x is in the same sort of rules-bloat situation that they claimed 2nd edition was in which led to the creation of 3rd edition in the first place?

Allen

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't feel 3.x suffers from rules-bloat. Assuming you believe it does suffer from rules-bloat, please do plug one of those simple, yet elegant rules systems.

I'll take an honest look at any new system.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Sejs]

What book is that in?

Complete Headcase.

 

[hong]

No. 3.x is far more modular and coherent, and doesn't require constant "upgrades" to be able to use newer sourcebooks.

This is debatable, in that newer splats will often have items, spells or feats designed for classes that appeared in older splats. Eg new items for psionic characters, or feats that increase skirmish damage, etc.

 

[exempt]

It's definitely bloated in terms of options now if you do allow the non-core books. It can be bewildering to look for a good feat, for example.

With these modular additions, my guess is that D&D (2e, but 3e is catching up) is the most complex game ever invented. And for some strange reason, I think that's one of the main reasons I like D&D. Take chess for example. It's an amazingly complex game, one the likes of Deep Blue or Kasparov onlly knows the deep, deep depths of. Nonetheless, the rules themselves are pretty straightforward, and I would contend that D&D still has more possible variety than chess, which in the end has a finite (yet huge) number of possible outcomes. D&D has more, and that complexity is both in the rules and inn the creativity we apply while abiding (or breaking) the rules.

My 2 cp.

 

[pawsplay]

This is debatable, in that newer splats will often have items, spells or feats designed for classes that appeared in older splats. Eg new items for psionic characters, or feats that increase skirmish damage, etc.

I wouldn't call that much of a debate. There is support. However, I have yet to see the new rules or material dependent on other sourcebooks (except in a logical fashion: XPH -> Complete Psionic, and so forth).

 

[JustinA]

Do you feel that D&D 3.x is in the same sort of rules-bloat situation that they claimed 2nd edition was in which led to the creation of 3rd edition in the first place?

Absolutely not, for three reasons:

(1) D&D3 doesn't have nearly the same number of rulebooks released for it as 2nd Edition did.

(2) Even if it did, D&D3 rules are generally more consistent and organized into a comprehensible structure. By contrast, most of the new rules for 2nd Edition were designed on a completely ad hoc structure. If you add a new skill use to 3rd Edition it slots into an existing structure; if you added the same rule to 2nd Edition it would generally be a special case rule.

(3) By the time 2nd Edition was done there were actually multiple, mutually incompatible versions of the rules. Some of these were major instantiations created intentionally, while others were minor screw-ups that perpetuated like memetic viruses through different portions of the product line.

I'd also add that, with 2nd Edition, TSR had a constant assumption in its products that its players were buying every single book they released. How they could have possibly assumed that given the sheer number of books they were producing, I dunno. But it was clearly the case, because no matter what book you picked up from TSR in the later years, it would reference a dozen other TSR products -- and, without those products, you would be unable to use the product in your hand.

(The most egregious example I encountered was Return of the Eight, which featured mandatory references -- i.e., references you had to look up or you couldn't use the module -- which included:

Greyhawk Adventures. A first edition product that had been out of print for at least a decade.
The guide from the 1983 World of Greyhawk boxed set.
The Rogue’s Gallery. A 1980 product that no one has ever heard of.
Monster Manual II. A first edition product that had been out of print since 1989.
The oddest reference was to either The Dancing Hut of Baba Yaga (1995) or “The Dancing Hut”, from Dragon issue #83 (March 1984).

And last, but not least: D&D Original Set Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry. I kid you not.)

By contrast, I've never seen WotC do this with 3rd Edition. There are a few instances where they'll discuss how to use the options in this book with the options in that book over there, or include a few options for use with options found in a similarly themed book. But I've yet to see them require you to have purchased Book A in order to get any meaningful use of out Book B. No module has ever expected you to own a supplement in order to play it and at least 95% of the content in any supplement is usable to anyone picking up the book.

 

[werk]

I wouldn't call that much of a debate. There is support. However, I have yet to see the new rules or material dependent on other sourcebooks (except in a logical fashion: XPH -> Complete Psionic, and so forth).

Except in setting materials. The new Eberron stuff pulls from pretty much every book published for 3.5. Your choices are skip the material that you purchased or learn (buy) the new stuff. I go back to BoVD, I've seen it in lots of books like Forgotten Realms, and Secrets of Sarlona. If you don't have BoVD (which is rated for mature readers) you can't use some of the 'fluff' book that you bought.

I'd call that waste, and waste is excess...I want to change my vote to 'getting pretty bloated.'