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

[Crazy Jerome]

Technically, they need to fill page count in order to sell books (or online articles, same difference here). That doesn't inherently mean a plethora of classes, feats, tricks, spells, maneuvers, items, prestige classes, powers, races, etc. Rather, repeating those things has largely been their answer to filling the page count for some time.

I have no idea if it would work or not, but in a design meant to cater to a widespread group, why not make some entries considerably longer and/or not the same for everyone? The "sameness" of each widget and what to do about it has been on my mind a lot lately, but I haven't gotten around to writing that post. One way to counter it is to have items in the list produced differently to fill different roles. For example, let's say that out of the 300 odd spells in the PHB, you have a breakdown something like this:

• 25% "Bread and Butter" simple spells, with 4E-style stat block, you pretty much know what it does when you read the name, and thus gets minimal flavor text.
• 25% more esoteric spells, where you need to read the much longer text to know how it works. You've still got the stat block, but it says "varies" a lot.
• 25% that are a bit of a compromise on the two above. Basically, these are "Bread and Butter spells with a twist," that work a lot like some of the less complex AD&D spells. You mostly know how it works from the title, but you need to read the text for the odd exceptions. The stat block gives you the main idea, and then the text refines it.
• 25% very long spells, with some basic information handled in the stat block, but then the text includes a lot of options, which each group can decide to use or not. The spell listing contains a lot of variety, but when a caster makes the a spell pick, they are picking the spell and an option too--possibly limited by campaign considerations.

That many spells sounds ridiculous to combat "bloat"--but then if you've got 9-10 spell levels for multiple casters, even BECMI averages several choices per level. Mix bards, druids, and so on into the list, and it adds up in a hurry.

This could help "bloat" in three ways:

1. Same as a wizard player need not normally worry about cleric spell options and vice versa, and neither need worry about spell levels they can't access, you now have another division. A wizard can do a mix of the four types, but probably has some strong preferences and/or group preferences to guide them.
2. Even if the whole set is on the table, spreading the spell picks out over a wider range of types makes it seem easier. "Hmm, I want a couple of 'bread and butter' picks for general purpose, then I'll go look at the more exotic stuff for one that strikes my fancy."
3. On average, each spell will be longer. It doesn't take as many to fill page count. Maybe this leads to a bit more care in the selection?

Obviously, with something like feats, this is more difficult to pull off. But even there, I see the potential to have a longer listing that consists of a simple feat plus options that change how it works--some quite radical and geared to an expected playstyle. If the distinction between "travel" and "landed" fighter and cleric in BECMI can almost double the class listing, I don't know why the same technique can't be used to make fewer, more flexible elements.

 

[ren1999]

I'm totally with you on this. I keep telling people here that D&D5 has got to think about its feats, powers, traits and features as a collected group.

Redundancy is the result of lack of imagination or greed in thinking you can fill up a bunch of player option books with powers that do near the same thing.

When designing a feat or power, we should think.
Does this power already exist?
Is this power just a scaled up version of a previous power?
Does this spell do the same thing as this other spell?
Why do we have 100 spells for summoning monsters?
Why do we have powers that are absolutely useless in game play and never used or chosen by anyone?

I've already been working on a list of unique and classic 1E, 2E and 3E powers that can be found in the text file included with my game below.

My Dungeons & Dragons Hybrid Game for Firefox and Chrome kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[CleverNickName]

Having a vast amount of separate resources to use, play with, and draw inspiration from is not a bad thing. It only becomes "glut" if you let it.

"Oh no! Everybody is publishing too many supplements for my game!" sounds a lot like "Oh no! Someone keeps cooking bacon for me!"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Having a vast amount of separate resources to use, play with, and draw inspiration from is not a bad thing. It only becomes "glut" if you let it.

"Oh no! Everybody is publishing too many supplements for my game!" sounds a lot like "Oh no! Someone keeps cooking bacon for me!"

It completely depends on quality. If your choices are ka-bobs, grilled steak, steak and shrimp, hamburger steak, NY strip, ribeye, sirloin on the backyard grill, steak tips in the pan, and so on -- then adding more choices merely makes more people happy. Then you do the same thing with chicken, pork, vegetarian, seafood, etc. Even better.

That's distinct from choices of steak, chicken, chicken litter in a box, chicken litter in a can, chicken litter in a wrap, chicken litter on a limp salad, and so on. By the time I've sorted through those "options," I may not even have an appetite left for the good ones.

 

[CleverNickName]

It completely depends on quality.

It really doesn't. Just because someone cooks me bacon...whether it is premium or store brand...doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. I reserve the right to decide what I put in my mouth.

The same for splatbooks. A few years ago we had all sorts of splatbooks for 3rd Edition...some of it was good, some of it was downright awful...but I only bought and used the stuff I liked. I never noticed a "glut" of 3rd Edition material, because I was very selective about what I bought.

 

[GM Dave]

Glut is not the problem.

Magic the Gathering produces how many new cards in each set launch? They have a new set launch how many times a year? They've been doing this for how many years now?

If DnD has a spell, martial, tricks glut problem then what does MtG have?

It is un-managed Glut that is the problem.

For example, if you keep dumping everything on the floor of a room then potentially you can see it all and find what you want fairly quickly. That is the theory of un-managed mess (I often use this system in my home life).

The trouble is that the more things in the pile on the floor the more time you have to spend scrutinizing to examine and discard things you want and do not want. A large enough pile in one room and they'll start assigning a number to your level of hoard.

If you can then the improvement is to start to divide things within the one room into more rooms along related lines. Tools go to the workshop. Outdoor items go in the garage. Cookware goes in the kitchen.

You divide things into categories that helps a person look for the item along related lines or themes. In MtG you could divide things by colour, by type of card (creature, artifact, instant), or other.

Multiple labels help you to further keep the pile under control as you now have a section of the kitchen devoted to spices, a section devoted to flatware, a section devoted to cooking pans.

Labels help you keep things in places where you can then look and compare. You could have a card box in MtG devoted to Green cards that have spots for land, spots for creatures (ordered by mana cost), spots for instants, spots for enchantments, etc. Now, when you are looking for a creature card that costs 3 mana to cast then you know where to look and have your choices together for a direct comparison and decision on merits.

Lastly, you need to every so often review your piles and re-order the clutter. MtG has two ways that they do this. They often allow in their regular tournament contests only the more recent sets of cards to be used (other cards are only allowed in special tournaments) plus a set of 'core' cards (that changes more slowly or at least it did compared to the booster sets ~ sorry I have not played MtG in the last few years). While there is a multiple year glut of cards that potentially exist, the active players only have a smaller amount of cards that they really need to be familiar with and proficient in using. Some boosters will bring in a wild new ability for a while but that ability will 'fade' out along with the strategy surrounding it after a number of months.

There is still a core for consistency but this too can grow and evolve but at a slower rate then the boosters that are provided to satisfy people with an interest in the next shiny thing in the room.

What does this teach us of glut in DnD?

1> The designers have to make sure to have some labeling on the information they provide. The word 'feat' or 'trick' is not enough if there are going to be hundreds of things with the same title. Organization by labeling is a designer/developer responsibility and it needs to carry over to any products that are produced after the initial launch and by all 3rd party developers. They all need to use the same label system.

2> Information is best given in themes. Each booster set has a 'theme' that connects the abilities together. This makes it easier for someone to look at the information and decide if it is for them. If 'fire' is a them then have a series of feats, tricks, spells, with that theme. Make sure to label the theme; so, people can know all those items are related.

3> Have a core and a series of themes. The core should change slowly and may accept popular ideas from the theme (for example Fireball is Core and Bigby's Burning Fist might be theme). Powers in the theme should have an open play value in Living Campaigns, Encounters, and other play settings of a limited period. People can then choose to keep or reject a theme from their home campaign game based upon their or a GM ruling. The official ruling would be the themes are only connected to published adventures and other things within a set period (This avoids the trouble of someone new to the hobby being told that to run an adventure they need to try and acquire 20 different sources of material).

4> The core should stay to a constant size of main ideas. It is all too easy to start adding everything in themes to the core but that is the way to quickly bloat the core. The core has to remain a steady point on which people can get their bearings and achieve results without having to master hundreds of specialized books. The core may change over time and it should evolve but that should be through a decision to replace something with something else rather than by constantly adding.

If WotC uses something like these four ideas then they can have a large amount of glut but still keep it lean and manageable for players to use. It can also have plenty of flavour for the player that likes to buy the new shiny for something to add to their next character concept.

 

[CM]

I'm fine with a glut of material, as long as a few criteria are met:

• Material opens up interesting new options and/or fills a hole in character concept possibilities.
• Material has been vetted for exploitability.
• 5e DDI character builder allows for easy filtering by source.

I know there's a lot of concern with the paradox of choice in 3e and 4e. I think it would be cool if players were able to rate feats, spells, maneuvers, items and such in the future character builder on a 0-5-star basis like online retail stores have for user product reviews.

It could even include a little bit of AI and determine some suggestions for you--Playing a high-strength sorcerer? Here are some suggested feats, themes, and spells that other high-strength sorcers chose. Playing a charismatic fighter? Here are the options suggested by players of similar characters. Of course, you'd be free to ignore these or even disable suggestions in the builder options.

 

[Stalker0]

I personally believe that glut is inevitable, an edition will continue to gain content, and eventually the mechanical weight of that can create problems....if you use all the content.

With that in mind, I think some of the solution is tools to help us cull down the content.

For example the 4e character builder is a great tool to provide all of the content in an organized way. If we could take it a step further, and let me cull down the content to just what I want, then we can reduce the impact of bloat.

Lets take a current example, there are so many feats in 4e from the older days that have been replaced with better feats. It would be great if I could cull out all the old feats and just see the newer ones, or vice versa if I want a lower powered game.

 

[kevtar]

It really doesn't. Just because someone cooks me bacon...whether it is premium or store brand...doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. I reserve the right to decide what I put in my mouth.

The same for splatbooks. A few years ago we had all sorts of splatbooks for 3rd Edition...some of it was good, some of it was downright awful...but I only bought and used the stuff I liked. I never noticed a "glut" of 3rd Edition material, because I was very selective about what I bought.

That's certainly true, but think about how DDI works. You have a PC that gained a level. You log on, add the level and find out you get to choose a new element (i.e. a power, maneuver, trick - what ever we want to call it). On the screen are jabillions of elements, with some elements for that class similar to other elements for that class (as in feats that are highly redundant), or elements that closely resemble elements for other classes (as in powers that minimize the distinctiveness of each class), and some elements that might not "fit" your PC concept or deliver as good of an effect as you might have wanted. While you certainly aren't obligated to choose any of those, you are obligated to sort through them.

My point in the thread isn't so much avoiding glut in terms of the number of elements offered to players, but in eliminating "glut" through a better management of the resources that are available to players. This, just brainstorming a bit here, could include a more careful approach to element design, delivering elements through a specific system (maybe through backgrounds, themes, etc...) instead of "broadcasting" them, and stuff along those lines.

 

[triqui]

Excepting DDI, If DDN is my cup of tea I will probably re-subscribe unless the articles and content are found lacking.

Articles and content lead to glut as well. When they make an article about Gladiators, and they add a few Gladiator themes, maneouvers, tricks, feats, powers, prestige classes, paragon path, epic destiny, exotic weapons, special arena rules, and a new tactical module for 1vs1 fighting, you get a bloat of new options, which lead to glut.

It's inevitable.