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

[triqui]

You haven't really addressed the idea that it's not just the number of options but also what they do and how they're provided. Fewer options is a good, conservative bet, but (as discussed upthread), there's more to be done.

No matter what they do, there's a point where just number of options become glut. What number is that, it's up to personal opinion. I might find that reading through 3000 feats is too much (even if they are all of them interesting), while you might it a fair number. Maybe you find yourself feeling glut when you read 30000 feats. Or 300000 feats. Or maybe 3 million feats. No matter how much you want options, there's a point where too much options means glut.

Information is knowledge. Excess of information is noise.

 

[triqui]

True, but some excess is not really glut. Glut is an excess of options, many of which are often false choices, poorly made or deceptive. If we have 3 options, and all of them are viable, this is not glut. This is choice. If we have 30 choices and 3 of them are viable, this is glut. If we have 30 of them and 25 of them are mechanically identical, this is also glut.

But if we have 300 choices and 235 are unique, 50 are repetitive, and 15 are poor, this is not glut, this is just a really big amount of choice.

A lot of the debate on this topic really hasn't been about preventing glut, but individual perceptions of what glut is. Some people think giving the fighter more than 3 things to do in a day is glut. Some people think that a Wizard can NEVER have too many spells.

Personally I think that if WOTC can keep the splat and expansion material creative and interesting, then even if there are a million choices it won't be glut, because there'll always be creative and interesting choices for people to make. That's not glut except to the person who wants 4 races and 5 classes and 10 spells EVER.

I disagree partially. Of course, having 300 options, 235 of them are insteresting, is not glut. But having 3000 options, even if 2350 of them are interesting, is glut. When a player (especially a newcomer) has to read through half a million options, including feats, traits, backgrouds, themes, maneouvers, spells, classes, features, races and prestige classes or paragon paths, then there is glut.

I understand that you might disagree, but I think the majority of us have a "maximum" number of options that they want. The number might differ from person to person. Sure, most of us want more than 5 classes and 10 spells. But that does not mean most people want 1000 classes and 100000 spells either. Somewhere between those extremes is where most of us put their limit

 

[Sunseeker]

I disagree partially. Of course, having 300 options, 235 of them are insteresting, is not glut. But having 3000 options, even if 2350 of them are interesting, is glut. When a player (especially a newcomer) has to read through half a million options, including feats, traits, backgrouds, themes, maneouvers, spells, classes, features, races and prestige classes or paragon paths, then there is glut.

I think it's unfair to judge all of these as a group.
10 races
10 classes
20 Paragon/Prestige Classes
10 maneuvers
50 spells
100 feats

That's a lot of material, and collectively may seem to be too much, but when looked at at an actual level, there's a very limited matrix for each class to choose from.

I understand that you might disagree, but I think the majority of us have a "maximum" number of options that they want. The number might differ from person to person. Sure, most of us want more than 5 classes and 10 spells. But that does not mean most people want 1000 classes and 100000 spells either. Somewhere between those extremes is where most of us put their limit

I agree that there is some ceiling, but that ceiling is determined by creativity. If WOTC can remain creative throughout most of the process, offering a few, but meaningful and interesting choices in their never-ending splat, I think that ceiling will take a long time to reach(at least for me). If WOTC quickly dives into repetitious, highly similar material drawn from a pathetically small source, then that ceiling will come quickly.

Basically, I'm fine with trans-finite new material provided that WOTC makes it worth my time and effort to find the exact options I like. Realistically, there will come some point where I'll know what options I want and any more(unless strictly better through power creep) are irrelevant.

Ideally I think glut can be stemmed if WOTC produces interesting material, with a high level of customization ability. If I can easily reskin a spell, maneuver, or ability to more flavorfully fit my character, WOTC won't need to continually produce alt-variants of existing material. I would personally like to see splat books introduce 2-3 new options for each class, and whenever new classes are presented, back-stock them up to existing class levels in options.

One of the most disappointing things about nearly every edition is that early-release classes continue to get new options, and newer classes only come with their starting package. IE: I love the 4e Caviler, but there are basically only 2 ways to build it, tank or backup-healer. The stock 4e paladin however, gained almost all of the options of the Caviler and in addition to it's already prodigious level of material. The result was that while the Caviler was really cool, the base stock was everything the Caviler was and more, making the Caviler fun, but largely irrelevent save for those folks who loved the mounted holy warrior trope.

This is party why I want to see new splat options kept to a minimum, so that it is easier for newer classes to catch up.

 

[triqui]

I think it's unfair to judge all of these as a group.
10 races
10 classes
20 Paragon/Prestige Classes
10 maneuvers
50 spells
100 feats

That's a lot of material, and collectively may seem to be too much, but when looked at at an actual level, there's a very limited matrix for each class to choose from.

That would be too few for some tastes, or reasonable for others. However, compare it to, say, 4e (3.5 has even more glut):
51 races
77 classes
574 paragon paths
3218 feats
9143 powers

For a new player, (or an old player who is not a hardcore fan who spends hours and hours per week reading stuff and planning characters) just *reading* through 14000+ items is an unreasonable effort. Even if those 14000+ items are all of them good choices

I agree that there is some ceiling, but that ceiling is determined by creativity.

the ceiling is limited by the will of the player to spend hours reading stuff. If the player has time/will to read through 14.000 pieces of information and data, understanding those rules, and trying to achieve combos or tactics, then the ceiling is not reached yet. If the player isn't willing to read through several hundreds (maybe thousands) pages of crunchy stuff to build his character, then that's glut. Because he *might* want one, two, or three of those feats/powers, that fit incredibly good into his character. But to find them, he has to read through a huge amount of stuff. 14.000 pieces of data. That much info, is noise. It is what is called infoxication

If WOTC can remain creative throughout most of the process, offering a few, but meaningful and interesting choices in their never-ending splat, I think that ceiling will take a long time to reach(at least for me). If WOTC quickly dives into repetitious, highly similar material drawn from a pathetically small source, then that ceiling will come quickly.

Of course, repetitive stuff gets old quicker, and the ceiling is lower.

 

[GM Dave]

I agree that part of the key to avoiding glut is the provision of interesting concepts and ideas.

Those concepts and ideas need to occur at each branching point of the decision process for character creation and advancement. The ideas also need to be arranged so they can be weighed and judged by the people that will use them.

One of the things that I like with PF splat books is that they are arranged in logical ways to make this sort of decision making easier.

They started with the base classes in 3.5 and then developed a series of choices to branch at levels from the base class.

The branch points are labeled and organized in series around a theme like Thug or Brood Summoner. There is usually additional suggested choices for feat selection that references the printed material (along with guide points to which book that feat can be found in). There is also some fluff text giving clues on the style of play this choice will go best with or what is the aim of the theme.

Finally, each of the themes list what items in the main group are being given up and at what points to get the benefits of the theme.

Even when I am working with brand new players or players unfamiliar with PF it is fairly easy to guide them through the classes and options (the hardest part is sometimes the feats but I can provide help with that). I can usually break the decision down to a limited list of seven to ten things they need to compare and look for a resonance with their personal idea and goals.

I also don't believe that it is required for everyone to know 'everything'. I have some players that know more of the 3.5 feats from various splat books then I do. When I GM, I ask the player to give me the information on the feat/spell and then I decide on what impact that feat will have to the character and the game (there are some things that I look at and say, not for my game).

If the player invests time to come up with the combination and feat should they be rewarded compared to someone who does not want to invest as much time and effort. I'd say only to a limit and I have ways of re-balancing the game if someone is lagging by giving a useful item to one person or another.

 

[Sunseeker]

That would be too few for some tastes, or reasonable for others. However, compare it to, say, 4e (3.5 has even more glut):
51 races
77 classes
574 paragon paths
3218 feats
9143 powers

Really? I never realized there were that many races and classes!

The ceiling is limited by the will of the player to spend hours reading stuff. If the player has time/will to read through 14.000 pieces of information and data, understanding those rules, and trying to achieve combos or tactics, then the ceiling is not reached yet. If the player isn't willing to read through several hundreds (maybe thousands) pages of crunchy stuff to build his character, then that's glut. Because he *might* want one, two, or three of those feats/powers, that fit incredibly good into his character. But to find them, he has to read through a huge amount of stuff. 14.000 pieces of data. That much info, is noise. It is what is called infoxication

I disagree as "how much people are willing to read" is a really subjective and unreliable measure. Some folks may not be willing to read more than 2-3 entries, I don't think "how much the average player is willing to read" is really going to be a beneficial line of reason. Because really, if the material is engaging, people who normally wouldn't read much will be willing to read more. So saying "how much people are willing to read" which has no real definition, added to the fact that "how much people are willing to read" is expanded by how well they are engaged by the material(another thing we can't really measure), and how much exactly that is expanded varies from person to person, I don't think we're really going to get anywhere saying "well there should only be as much as people are willing to read" because what that is could be well, anything.

 

[eamon]

I don't think we're really going to get anywhere saying "well there should only be as much as people are willing to read" because what that is could be well, anything.

The problem with that approach is that it's essentially one of resignation: We can't solve glut so let's just ignore it.

We don't need to solve it completely - some avoidance might help too. A system that emphasizes fewer options that interact with each other rather than an unending list of options is a start.

 

[eamon]

You haven't really addressed the idea that it's not just the number of options but also what they do and how they're provided. Fewer options is a good, conservative bet, but (as discussed upthread), there's more to be done.

No matter what they do, there's a point where just number of options become glut. What number is that, it's up to personal opinion. I might find that reading through 3000 feats is too much (even if they are all of them interesting), while you might it a fair number. Maybe you find yourself feeling glut when you read 30000 feats. Or 300000 feats. Or maybe 3 million feats. No matter how much you want options, there's a point where too much options means glut.

Information is knowledge. Excess of information is noise.

(previously)

The point isn't that I think 3000 feats is OK - far from it! It is worth addressing the issue because it's a real problem. In a previous post you suggested that "Glut is inevitable" and that "Controlling it might help to slow the effect, but you'll have glut, always". From which you seem to draw the conclusion that it's hopeless and nothing should be done.

Well, as you say, they can try to control the rate of bloat. Yes, some amount of glut is inevitable. But just because some glut is inevitable doesn't mean the scale of the problem is irrelevant. This isn't black and white.

For example, if the Elves of Ravenholme have a signature underhanded twirling dagger throwing style, it's less problematic to explore how that can arise from a combination of feats rather than add a new feat with prerequisites "Elf, Rogue, origin Ravenholme, wielding a dagger". Rather than introduce 20 new feats for Ravenholme, it'd be better to discuss one feat that twirls weapons and can be used in many interesting combinations. Sure, that means that the crunch magazine articles need to be structured differently (around a technique, not a fantastic location), but it allows the same number of interesting choices while having far fewer options.

 

[erleni]

That would be too few for some tastes, or reasonable for others. However, compare it to, say, 4e (3.5 has even more glut):
51 races
77 classes
574 paragon paths
3218 feats
9143 powers

For a new player, (or an old player who is not a hardcore fan who spends hours and hours per week reading stuff and planning characters) just *reading* through 14000+ items is an unreasonable effort. Even if those 14000+ items are all of them good choices

Well, once you've chosen a class and race then PPs, feats and powers available to you will be much less than that. And usually class and race will be based on the idea you have of the character.
You'll really have to read everything only if you're doing optimization all over the board and then I agree it may be a little too much for a single player (that's why the CharOp board is great).

 

[eamon]

That's a lot of material, and collectively may seem to be too much, but when looked at at an actual level, there's a very limited matrix for each class to choose from.

The limited matrix is part of the problem. Because prerequisites are so limiting, it means that to achieve a particular feat, you need to plan ahead extensively. So while limiting the number of immediate choices seems to help, it doesn't in practice. It just means that people end up reading a lot of stuff they never intend to use, which is boring, plain and simple.

What if I want to build a character that throws around his enemy by hitting them with a hammer? There's likely racial feats that interact with hammers and with pushing, and possibly with pushing hammers. There are several weapon-wielding classes, and some will likely have key powers and feats to enable this build. I'll never find the right rules without a significant system mastery. Especially if it turns out that I should be using a pole-arm for some feats (is there a weapon that's both?) or that this particular combination for sliding is a little easier so if I'm not too picky about pushing vs. sliding I could look at that...

So the limited immediate choices for a particular existing PC doesn't really prevent the problem; rather it's an excuse to release a glut of hyper-specialized feats. It's better to release fewer feats that combine in interesting fashions (retaining the fun of making interesting builds) while limiting the total number of character options rather than limit the interactions with unlimited numbers of options.

One of the most disappointing things about nearly every edition is that early-release classes continue to get new options, and newer classes only come with their starting package. IE: I love the 4e Caviler, but there are basically only 2 ways to build it, tank or backup-healer. The stock 4e paladin however, gained almost all of the options of the Caviler and in addition to it's already prodigious level of material. The result was that while the Caviler was really cool, the base stock was everything the Caviler was and more, making the Caviler fun, but largely irrelevent save for those folks who loved the mounted holy warrior trope.

Here too: more general feats & powers would help. If the feats & powers available to the paladin were largely also available to the cavalier this would be less of a problem.

[sblock=For exampleSo: fewer powers & feats, but no fewer choices by virtue of more generally applicable rules. Side benefit: this means that the individual rules can be worked out in more detail. Want to make a lightning bolt with an area of effect that doesn't quite fit the standard areas? Now you have space to describe those specifics. Want to describe the effect of a powerful strike on nearby objects? Want to make a tactically interesting surprising roundhouse strike by forcing attacks to resolve in clockwise or counterclockwise fashion, allies included, but without the ability to strike through solid terrain so that the user needs to take into account the state of the battlefield? You've got the space.

I'm advocating fewer feats but with fewer prerequisites. Rather than limit a roundhouse strike to a club wielded by a gnomish monk, let it take a penalty to hits equal to the armor check penalty, and reward high speed and small stature somehow, but leave the implementation flexible enough to be broadly usable.[/sblock]