Has D&D jumped the shark?

[ZeroGlobal2003]

Well, this is precisely what I am contesting - I do not think that they help D&D as a whole. Mind you, I'm not against adding new material to D&D - new spells, races, feats, whatever - but I think that these should remain within the existing frameworks of mechanics instead of adding yet another layer of complexity to it all.

With all the talk of MtG mixing in with D&D, this is an especially appropriate place to point out the reason why MtG started making new mechanics every sit. They did it because they have to. You say they shouldn't add complexity... then where should they be going? There is only so much you can do with what is there at base. In MtG it came when there were only so many possible combonations of creatures with flying or trample or X mechanic. In Magic you soon had "Cool Elf 1" with attack/defense 1/2 for 2, "Cool Bear 1" with 2/1 for 2... and then what do you do? You have all the combonations of a powerless 2 cost creature over with. There is no more. If you hope to make new cards (and thus more money, which is the point of the business), you have to invent new things for these creatures to do in order to make anything new at all.

So, if D&D shouldn't make new mechanics, because it complicates things... where should it go? I mean isn't every single new feat added to D&D a complication? Every rule added complicates things, why not make them interesting and really different. I'd rather see a radical new way to look at things then remaking the same spell 82 billion ways. I'd rather see a book with Mind Set and other innovative ideas then one that simple made a fire spell for every level within the exisiting rules.

D&D has to change for every reason that MtG had to change. Like it or not, they have to make new things or stop making books at all.

Zero

 

[diaglo]

Clearly, the concept - the pivotal moment at which something good starts to go bad - can be applied to much more than tv shows. Before "jumped the shark" there wasn't a word or phrase (in english, at least) to describe this.

they had words for it prior to fonzie jumping the shark in happy days.

edit: just like they had words for shellshocked, battle fatigue, post traumatic stress disorder, etc...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yup. Totally.

Both great games, but in terms of how rules are handled, they aren't peanut butter and chocolate, if you take my meaning.

Well, some folks make take you to mean that sum is greater than the parts. They really do taste great together, you know?

Why do you think they are more complicated? The Mark spells have durations in hours, which means across an adventuring day you have to keep track of when the spells expire, if they are dispeled and what not. With Mind Set you just memorize them and they are there until cast. No duration book keeping, not worrying about if the spell is still there or not. Simple.

The usual game effect of spells with a duration in hours is that you cast them and forget them: they're likely to last until dispelled or the party retreats to rest. The number of times that a spell whose duration is measured in hours is actually likely to expire in a critical situation (such that the actual, careful book-keeping of their duration is necessary) approaches zero.

So on the whole, the book-keeping effect of a Mark spell is about the same as a Mindset spell, with the significant difference that a Mark spell doesn't introduce a new mechanic (ie, a spell which has an effect when it is prepared as opposed to when it is actually cast).

The new mechanic of a Mindset spell is actually a significant departure from the well-established "laws" of D&D magic.

 

[scadgrad]

I'm all for trying out some new stuff. Otherwise the game will stagnate...

Kind of like the way soccer or perhaps chess has stagnated over the years right?

Just kidding there Kane, but you get my point.

...I'm all for trying out some new stuff. Otherwise the game will stagnate. After all, you don't have to use all the new rules and mechanics in your game, let's face it that would make it an unruly beast of a system to run. Pick and choose the parts you like and scrap the rest.

I also like the interconnection we're seeing in the new releases. It's good that psionics is starting to see more mention in book rather than being treated like something that is part of D&D, but not really recognized part. Plus, I like it when I read a new bok and they reference back to other books for ideas on how to implement them in new ways. It gives me a lot of ideas that I may not have thought of before.

Has D&D past it's prime due to any of this? Not hardly. They are still putting out interesting books that will get my gaming dollar. When we get to the point that new product isn't offering up any new ideas, that's when we can talk about D&D, or 3.5 specifically, being past it's prime or "jumped the shark" if you will.

Kane

I think D&D jumped the shark with Thieves and Thieving Yumminess or whatever it was called; same dark and twisty road that we went down w/ 2nd ed Complete Book of Craptasticness <shudders>. Look, the assumption that the company MUST continue to add to the complexity of the game lest it become stale is flawed by my way of thinking. I'm sure there is a growing legion of customers who are actually quite sick of this trend and have moved onto other things (certainly TLG and Green Ronin are hoping so). I believe that through the seemingly endless procession of feats, ubermind spell of death, PrCs, etc. that Wot$ is fracturing its market just like TSR did. To my mind, there's really no difference between Races of Stone and <insert stupid TSR-produced box set from the 90s here>. The only difference being that some clever MBA had the good sense to realize that hardbacks are easier for gamers to store/carry than box sets. Genius!

And while our friends such as Kanegrundar will continue to drop their coin on virtually anything that Wot$ trots out, as long as it has interesting crunch, there are plenty of folks like myself who are decidedly "off the reservation." I used to be a huge customer of Wot$, but I've bought only 1 book this entire year and am now a bit disappointed that I even bought that one. I do continue to support other publishers, particularly those that put out quality adventures, but at this point, I think I've plenty of crunchy bits to choose from.

Oh, a bit OT I know, but I couldn't help but ring in on Monte's Mark spells; love those. Monte's Eldritch Might series is the definitive spell supplement imho.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So, if D&D shouldn't make new mechanics, because it complicates things... where should it go? I mean isn't every single new feat added to D&D a complication? Every rule added complicates things, why not make them interesting and really different. I'd rather see a radical new way to look at things then remaking the same spell 82 billion ways. I'd rather see a book with Mind Set and other innovative ideas then one that simple made a fire spell for every level within the exisiting rules.

D&D has to change for every reason that MtG had to change. Like it or not, they have to make new things or stop making books at all.

You raise a very good point; I just happen to disagree with your conclusion.

The big difference between D&D and MtG is that MtG is a card game. It is the means to its own end.

D&D, on the other hand, is a ruleset that provides a means to another end: roleplaying, cooperative storytelling, etc.

So where should D&D be going? A lot of folks would quite simply say that you reach a point where you don't need any more rules to tell the story. What you need are interesting settings, ideas, characters, and worlds to help tell those stories.

Not that I haven't been responsible for the proliferation of new crunch myself; not that I don't perhaps enjoy playing with rules design more than writing stories; but I acknowledge the difference. I would never suggest that D&D's only avenue of growth is to continue making new rules.

EDIT: points to post above this one.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

So, if D&D shouldn't make new mechanics, because it complicates things... where should it go?

Easy - focus on expanding the settings as opposed to the rules. If you have to invent new mechanics, you should weld them tightly to settings - or to option books exploring certain genres (where they might replace some of the old mechanics to reduce excess complexity). Every time a new mechanic is introduced, it should only be done for a damn good reason related to a specific setting (or presented as true variants that change some of the core assumptions of D&D - such as the magic variants from Unearthed Arcana - thus requiring the DM to choose between the new mechanics or the old ones).

What we have now is essentially: "Here are new ways for your characters to gain Cool Powers!" It all adds and adds to the complexity of the rules without substracting any complexity from them. The temptation to use them all is great - after all, who doesn't like more "options" and "flexibility"? But D&D was never designed from the ground up to be as flexible as some other rule systems (such as GURPS) - and in trying to be able to do everything by adding new mechanics instead of focusing on what it is good at, it only ends up getting smothered by its own rules.

Sure, someone is likely to point out that the DM can always refuse to allow such new additions. But what is he supposed to tell his players? "Sorry, you can't use the new rules from that book you just spent 20 bucks on"?


To sum it up: Don't do new mechanics as rule additions, but as rule variants.

 

[Henry]

I seem to remember a thread with this exact same title about a year ago....

You mean this one?

Races of Destiny - has D&D 3.5 jumped the shark?

Ironically, it's about another "Races" Book.

The Mindset spells? Yeah, I had the same thought about Magic: the Gathering, too... I also felt the same way about Monte's "mark" spells, too, but I don't think either one is a bad idea.

Racial sub levels? I'm mixed. I like the "Races broken down as classes" concept, but when you start getting substitutions for class abilities just because a certain race picked it, it doesn't set well with me - it smacks of favoritism.

It's the same reason I don't like the "Elf blood" option for Arcane Archers, and the like - what's so darned special about mixing Archery with magic that one MUST be an elf, no if's, and's, or buts? I can understand if, in the campaign, the Elves have a monopoly on it, but someone who takes the time to ingratiate themselves, immerse in elven culture, please the arcane archery master, and take tuteledge from him/her, that the human STILL can't learn the secrets? I just don't like the concept.

 

[Psion]

Easy - focus on expanding the settings as opposed to the rules. If you have to invent new mechanics, you should weld them tightly to settings

I see one of the mechanics you disdain -- substitution levels -- as being of potential great benefit in crafting a more unique mechanical feel for settings.

 

[KaosDevice]

The thing about some of the material in the supplements is what I like to think of as 'The Rifts Effect' which is essentially a desire to add more nifty/keen/cool material without a lot of regard as to whether or not its' inclusion would compltely topple over game balance in existing campaigns. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of nifty/keen/cool stuff, but I also am extrodinarilly lazy and would rather just be able to dump something in with the least amount of effort and worry possible.

 

[Quasqueton]

Hmm. Let's see.

WotC stops producing for AD&D2.

"Whaaaaa! They're killing AD&D2 by not publishing any new stuff for it."


WotC produces a bunch of stuff for D&D3.

"Whaaaaa! They're killing D&D3 by publishing new stuff for it."


Meanwhile, some folks still play expanded AD&D2 regardless of there being no new stuff for it. And some folks still play core D&D3 regardless of there being a bunch of new stuff for it.

Quasqueton