Has D&D jumped the shark?

[Desdichado]

ditto.

diaglo "in a tie dye with ponytail" Ooi

Now if only you're balding too. Nothing quite like no hair on the front of the head being offset by a ponytail, mullet, or other compensating "big ole bunch of hair" at the back.

 

[scadgrad]

That's logic?

I won't dispute the deluge was a vector. But stating two facts without relating them isn't "logic". There was a lot more involved in TSR's demise than the number of products they put out.

Similarly, the existence of a deluge then does not mean that we are in a similar situation now. (As my gaming budget would attest. My gaming budget is healthy right now because the last two months have been so light.)

The connections whether or not you agree are implicit in the context of this thread. And though TSR had many woes, fragmenting its market with the overproduction of dreck has been singled out by most as being the leading cause of its demise, unless one wants to go even further back and suggest that the systematic "De-Gygaxification" of the brand was the real culprit (I believe that is diaglo's cue).

Wish I could say the same about my game budget. Just because WotC's not getting it doesn't meaning it's gathering dust.

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm rattling my saber RIGHT NOW.

IYKWIMAITYD.

Bwahahahahaaa!!!

Best thing in the whole thread.

-The Gneech

 

[diaglo]

Now if only you're balding too. Nothing quite like no hair on the front of the head being offset by a ponytail, mullet, or other compensating "big ole bunch of hair" at the back.

oh i am. believe me.

diaglo "more hair on his back than on his forehead" Ooi

 

[Kanegrundar]

On your last point, fine we shall leave it at that.

But now, on to those other thoughts...

But the point isn't, and I did not state the position as More Rules=Good Campaign. Rather, and this is what I'm inferring from the posts above, that More Rules=Better, Never-Going-To-Go Stale Game. I fundamentally disagree with this stance because it does make the game more complex.

You're right, the DM should be the final word on the campaign, but in order to make said rulings, he does have to carefully consider the rules, thus making the DM's job, and the game itself, more complex. To me, a better design paradigm for the DM is new releases that make his/her job easier.

Let me clarify my statement. New products keep the line from going stale. Many of those new products lately have been offering new rules and mechanics as an add-on or variant to extisting rules. This is a good thing as it offers new ways to play the game, but doesn't mean that you have to use them. D&D is as complex or as easy as you want it to be. The more rules you use the more complex and vice versa. As the DM, you can say "We're playing with the Core Rules and that's it." All the new releases are doing are keeping people thinking about and buying D&D, which keeps the game around. As long as new product is covering new areas and not totally retreading old areas, it's keeping the game fresh by offering new ways to play. As long as there are book coming out, that means the game is still doing good enough for WotC to put out product. The game will never die for me, but after a while I like to see some new material. Maybe they'll offer up a way to play that really interests me that I wouldn't have thought of before.

Kane

 

[scadgrad]

Depends on what you mean. Are "character options" "rules" in your vernacular? You use a new character option does not mean you are using the old one as well in your current game. Such being the case, they add zero complexity to the game (indeed, if they were a better take on a previously complicated rule, it might make it less complex.)

Certainly they're rules that the DM must consider since his Dwarf player (for instance) wants to play them so badly. You make a good point that in certain instances they could make the game less complex, but by their very nature they do indeed make the game a more complex system of rules since, if for no other reason, one must read and consider their effects on ones game before passing judgement either way.

In essence, I believe I could say that, though I seem to be in the minority here, even if one embraces all the new WotC optional books as a "Good Thing" (thank you Martha) and in no way, shape, or form do they add complexity to the game, one would have to admit that at the very least they do add to the enormity of the DM's task as final arbitrator of the game your particular group is playing.

Whew... what a sentence that.

So, perhaps it's just me, but since I am firmly in the More Crunch From WotC=DMs Job Harder camp, I see this as making the game more complex. Seems logical to me, but as always YMMV...

 

[Odhanan]

More mechanics mean more things for me to keep track of - I need to learn more about the things the PCs are (and are not) capable of doing to keep the adventure challenging and adjusted for their capabilities. And this I do not like. I'm a busy guy, and keeping track of the mechanics in the Core Rules is enough work as it is.

Too much abilities, sub-abilities, exceptions to care about. Yes, I agree utterly. This is a criticism that has been voiced exactly like this by the newbies at my game table. There is just too much stuff on a character sheet.

For me, who's now used to the system and its practical application, this is not so much of an issue, but I do see what you mean (I have copies of every player character sheet for this precise purpose of keeping things challenging while I design my adventures).

 

[delericho]

Funnily enough, despite the fact that only I (the DM) and one player have the PH, several of my players frequently advocate expanding the game from core-rules only. I did run one campaign with extra supplements, but they really couldn't use the full weight of the available options because I wasn't hosting, they don't have the books, and I wasn't carrying them to the game and back. What options were used convinced me that the result was not a better game experience, but it certainly was a different game experience.

Looking at the proliferation of options, though, I am convinced that what I (as DM) need at this time is not yet more options, but rather ways to construct adventures and prepare sessions more quickly and effectively. (I don't have the DMG2 yet; I'm hoping that will go some way to helping in this.)

My suspicion is that the game works best when played with the core rules plus a (small) number of carefully selected expansion options. This may be the entirety of some supplements, parts of others, and house rules, in some combination. Of course, the ideal set of supplements is likely to be different for each group.

That being the case, I in no way mind the generation of new rules in supplements. I don't like many of those options, but that's fine - I just won't use them. The only thing I am very sure of is that when 4th Edition comes around, I most certainly do not want the core rules to be any more complex than they are currently. Indeed, I think I would prefer for the core rules to be somewhat less complex than they currently stand.

 

[Templetroll]

Jumped the Shark - I doubt that it has done that. Trying new things is almost a requirement. If you don't experiment, you can never make the game better.

However, these are examples, I think, of Power Creep. Trying to make the next cool thing even better by upping the inherent power levels. This has a nasty hetrodyning effect because now that they have been introduced, you will start seeing more things like this. Other "nifty" options that make the "specials" more powerful than the baseline. It will only get worse from this point, IMO.

They can design what they want but a good DM can always say no. The people I've played with never had a problem with making up their minds.

 

[Kanegrundar]

My suspicion is that the game works best when played with the core rules plus a (small) number of carefully selected expansion options. This may be the entirety of some supplements, parts of others, and house rules, in some combination. Of course, the ideal set of supplements is likely to be different for each group.

That being the case, I in no way mind the generation of new rules in supplements. I don't like many of those options, but that's fine - I just won't use them.

My thoughts exactly. Keep offering up new material, if I like enough of it, I'll buy and maybe use bits and pieces of it. Beyond that, I just like knowing that should I want new material, 3.5 is still popular enough to ensure that either WotC or a 3rd party publisher will have something out there for me to thumb through and maybe buy.

Kane