D&D rules bloat

[werk]

Maybe you should define what you think rules bloat is...but in direct answer to your specific question, no, I don't believe there is any sort of 'situation' with the rules like there was previously.

WotC are continually adding things, but the level of exess is relative to each consumer. I don't use BoNS or complete scoundrel or the one with the binders/truenamers, largely because the new, additional rules that I don't think I need yet IMC. Extra, optional materials aren't bloat.

The real test is if these optional materials start creeping into 'core' books in the future (e.g. a Monster Manual with monsters in it that use stances or tricks), much like BoVD/BoED has...If that trend continues, IMO, yes, that's bloat and should be poked with a sharp stick.

 

[phindar]

The defining trait of "rules-bloat" for me were the number of blatantly contradictory rules that were coming out in various 2e supplements. I don't use all the 3.5 material (mainly because I don't own it), but I still feel its a pretty coherent system. Supplements tend to add more options or flesh out areas not previously covered, but they aren't rewriting the base system.

 

[werk]

The defining trait of "rules-bloat" for me were the number of blatantly contradictory rules that were coming out in various 2e supplements. I don't use all the 3.5 material (mainly because I don't own it), but I still feel its a pretty coherent system. Supplements tend to add more options or flesh out areas not previously covered, but they aren't rewriting the base system.

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.

 

[Flynn]

I tend to think of bloat as having too many options, too much to keep track of. The D20 system is pretty stable, all things considered, but there's a lot of options. To me, options such as evocations, invocations, incantations, stances, and other splatbook fun are all new rules, even if they are only limited to new player options. I think there's bloat. It's better controlled than previous efforts, but there's still bloat going on... in my opinion. (And I'll be the first to admit that sometimes my opinion does not reflect reality.)

Hope that helps with where I'm coming from,
Flynn

 

[hong]

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.

Well, for starters vanilla 2E defined a combat round as 1 minute. Then Combat & Tactics redefined it as 6 seconds.

 

[Nail]

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?

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.

 

[mvincent]

I don't allow extra supplements into my game, so the core rules (i.e. the SRD) still seems trim to me.

 

[Flynn]

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.

Heck, I could run 2nd Edition on just the PHB, the DMG and the Monstrous Manual, and that's all I considered crucial to running a normal game. Yet many of us agree that rules bloat was an issue with 2nd Edition. All of the Complete handbooks and supplemental sourcebooks (aside from the Monstrous Compendium folios) were PC Options, easily included or ignored as you wish. The whole Player's Option sideline of books was something akin to a mini-version enhancement, and I do not consider them necessary for running a normal game.

So, to me, 2nd Edition and v3.5 share many similar characteristics, and I'd even go so far as to say that v3.5 has much more in the line of PC Options than 2nd Edition.

Now, truth be told, the killing factor for 2nd Edition was power creep. With each supplement, things just got more and more powerful. With v3.5, WOTC is keeping a somewhat better reign on that aspect, which in turn allows them to keep a more balanced game in general with all the books they've released.

But there's still a lot of rules and PC options, and with each new mechanic, with each new approach to some cool class ability that gets features in a sourcebook, there's rules bloat of the same style and fashion as what happened in 2nd Edition. v3.5's saving grace is simply that power creep is being monitored pretty well, especially in comparison with 2nd Edition.

Hope That Helps,
Flynn

 

[pawsplay]

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

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

 

[Sejs]

Yes, the sky is falling.