Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Poll] Do You Like The Direction D&DN Is Heading In?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6082326" data-attributes="member: 6688937"><p>I think there's a lot of things historically and culturally that contribute to that conception/problem. As far as I recall, 2e had plenty of splat, but fewer DMs seemed to feel like they had to include or allow all of it. To the contrary, it seemed like most DMs were very picky about what they allowed or not in their games (even if they were collectors otherwise.) To a large extent, I think it was because supplements seemed targeted at DMs more than players (even the "Complete" books, IMO.) I didn't know very many 2e players with huge libraries that weren't also DMs. For me, this indicates that [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] is basically correct in his assessment. Additionally, many 2e supplements (non-Realms anyway) contained alternative classes that were strictly weaker than their "core" counterparts but much longer on flavorful abilities relevant to their setting.</p><p></p><p>That seemed to change with 3e and the OGL. I'm not sure why, but I think it was the vast modularity of things like spells, feats, prestige classes, etc. that were so over-produced in 3pp. A setting or campaign guide for 3e could and usually did include vastly more discrete units than a similar book in 2e. It was much harder to look at a book and analyze all those fiddly bits, and after all it was all <em>supposed</em> to be compatible. I'd imagine that would apply to authors as well. There really wasn't any good objective way to tell if a feat or spell was "too powerful" or not. Also, many of the books were obviously aimed at players, not DMs. Socially, people didn't want to tell their players "no" after they'd spent $20 on a new splat book. Additionally, "stronger" options have much broader appeal to players than DMs. IME, it was very easy for "kitchen sink" or "sandbox" campaigns to get wild very quickly. I had much better luck when doing things like "core + book X" and strongly enforcing an atmosphere or attitude on the campaign. I'm not suggesting that you needed to railroad, but you did need to recognize that the core books made a lot of assumptions about setting that would lead to a pretty gonzo game, especially for the so-called "tier 1" caster classes. (Which was only made clear in the fine print.)</p><p></p><p>I can't personally say too much about splat bloat in 4e. It would seem to me, as others have perhaps suggested, that 4e splat was much more about adding "breadth" rather than "depth" or power. Given that 4e (uniquely for D&D) had a fairly clearly defined power curve, that makes some sense to me. I imagine it <em>could</em> be, if the the group divided for and against some aspect of relevant flavor. Whether that was problematic for groups or not, I dunno. I haven't really heard of it being so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6082326, member: 6688937"] I think there's a lot of things historically and culturally that contribute to that conception/problem. As far as I recall, 2e had plenty of splat, but fewer DMs seemed to feel like they had to include or allow all of it. To the contrary, it seemed like most DMs were very picky about what they allowed or not in their games (even if they were collectors otherwise.) To a large extent, I think it was because supplements seemed targeted at DMs more than players (even the "Complete" books, IMO.) I didn't know very many 2e players with huge libraries that weren't also DMs. For me, this indicates that [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] is basically correct in his assessment. Additionally, many 2e supplements (non-Realms anyway) contained alternative classes that were strictly weaker than their "core" counterparts but much longer on flavorful abilities relevant to their setting. That seemed to change with 3e and the OGL. I'm not sure why, but I think it was the vast modularity of things like spells, feats, prestige classes, etc. that were so over-produced in 3pp. A setting or campaign guide for 3e could and usually did include vastly more discrete units than a similar book in 2e. It was much harder to look at a book and analyze all those fiddly bits, and after all it was all [I]supposed[/I] to be compatible. I'd imagine that would apply to authors as well. There really wasn't any good objective way to tell if a feat or spell was "too powerful" or not. Also, many of the books were obviously aimed at players, not DMs. Socially, people didn't want to tell their players "no" after they'd spent $20 on a new splat book. Additionally, "stronger" options have much broader appeal to players than DMs. IME, it was very easy for "kitchen sink" or "sandbox" campaigns to get wild very quickly. I had much better luck when doing things like "core + book X" and strongly enforcing an atmosphere or attitude on the campaign. I'm not suggesting that you needed to railroad, but you did need to recognize that the core books made a lot of assumptions about setting that would lead to a pretty gonzo game, especially for the so-called "tier 1" caster classes. (Which was only made clear in the fine print.) I can't personally say too much about splat bloat in 4e. It would seem to me, as others have perhaps suggested, that 4e splat was much more about adding "breadth" rather than "depth" or power. Given that 4e (uniquely for D&D) had a fairly clearly defined power curve, that makes some sense to me. I imagine it [I]could[/I] be, if the the group divided for and against some aspect of relevant flavor. Whether that was problematic for groups or not, I dunno. I haven't really heard of it being so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Poll] Do You Like The Direction D&DN Is Heading In?
Top