Has D&D jumped the shark?

[Psion]

So could feats. Or inherent racial bonuses. Or prestige classes. All are possible mechanics already supported in the Core Rules.

Which would be a fair point if it acheived everything that substitution levels do. Feats add; they do not take away.

Your resistance to the notion strikes me as odd coming from someone who has, as I recall, expressed a liking for GURPS.

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

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

These aren't even compairable to D&D. The only way that this could be possible is if WotC made its money off of selling dice and character sheets for rules set that was completely open and established. That and TV stations would have to pay millions for the rights to broadcast your home game. Beyond that, these are games of competition... rules have to be established so each team can be come better at what they do without doing something they aren't supposed to do. D&D is a game of cooperation and storytelling, people need to be able to do new things in order to come up with new solutions. Sports are games of skill... your personal effort to increase your abilities always counts, in D&D no matter how hard you try there is still the 1-20 swing of chance... thes are in no way compairable.

Easy - focus on expanding the settings as opposed to the rules.

And that right there is why they would have to stop selling books. I stated earlier that I don't have the ECS... nor do I have the FRCS or any FR book or any Eberron book (other then the supposedly non-Eberron Races of Eberron). I don't want settings. I don't give a scrap about established settings. I want new rules and new innovations so I can makem my own settings, my own stories. I hate Eberron because its chessy in a new way, and I hate FR because its chessy in an old way. I can use their rules to make world I actually enjoy. The day WotC makes nothing but setting books is the day I stop buy WotC books, and I'm sure I'm not the only one with that opinion.

Beyond that, what do you want in these setting books? Eventually a setting is going to be played out, just like FR is practically played out... there is only so much to detail in a world and leave room for people to change things. So eventually you hit a point where they are making lots of settings, and in order for these settings to be unique, they need unique things, which always mean unique mechanics. Touchstones are a perfect example... in a setting that was designed for them they would be essential, and thus need a new mechanic to be created, thus starting the new mechanic engine again. There is no new D&D without new rules.

Zero

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

"I'm sorry, but WotC's (and every third-party publisher's) production schedule does not drive my game."

Have you ever told a player this?

I find it totally absurd that a Player would buy a book and expect the DM to automatically allow it in his game.

This is as things should be - but there does seem to be a huge market for these books, and a harried DM might allow these things simply for preventing friction with his group.

 

[scadgrad]

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

These aren't even compairable to D&D...

You did notice where I said I was just kidding. Still, on a fundamental level, if one wanted to argue philosophy, the broad concept of whether or not a form of entertainment must become more complex over time lest it stagnate would be an arguable point. Surely the form would be better if it took advantage of new technology, but change for change's sake is not an absolute necessity.

But, as I said, I was really only kidding.

 

[Kanegrundar]

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 get your point, but I don't agree. Man professional sports tweak the rules of the game from time to time. I can't comment on soccer, since I don't like it and don't watch it, but baseball and football add and revise rules every couple of seasons.

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!

It's really hard to take your arguements seriously with not-so-witty remarks like Wot$. However, I never said they have the make the game more complex. Adding in new, or variant as I like to see it, mechanics doesn't mean they are making the game more complex. They are simply giving DM's and players a possible new way to play. There's nothing wrong with that. I like seeing the designers playing with the mechanics to offer up interesting new ways to customize the game. Nowhere does any book say that you have to add these new mechanics to your game, but they are there if you do choose to utilize them. That's excellent, it shows to me that there are still unexplored areas in the D&D ruleset.

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.

You don't know jack about me, so don't assume that just because I defended the presentation of new rules as being an WotC fanboy. Try to stick to the conversation instead of making ignorant attacks. Just for your information, to educate you on my buying habits, I've only bought a few WotC books this year. Most of my purchases are based not on crunchy goodness, although I'm interested in variant rules that could do things maybe a little bit better than how I currently handle them. I've bought far and away more setting material over the last year than anything else, and more often than not the books and pdf's I buy are from 3rd party publishers.

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.

So you like it when 3rd party publishers push the envelope of what the D20 system can do, but when WotC does it, it's just them adding complexity to the system?

Kane

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

You did notice where I said I was just kidding. Still, on a fundamental level, if one wanted to argue philosophy, the broad concept of whether or not a form of entertainment must become more complex over time lest it stagnate would be an arguable point. Surely the form would be better if it took advantage of new technology, but change for change's sake is not an absolute necessity.

But, as I said, I was really only kidding.

I know, and sorry to go on the attack I really pounded that point out because I know its one that someone else reading the thread would need to have made to them. WotC can't stop making rules because that is what they do... the fundamental structure of what a D&D game is would have to change to allow for that.

Zero

 

[Psion]

Have you ever told a player this?

Speaking for myself, I am not the same sort of killjoy when it comes to nixing new material that some forum members seem to delight in being.

But I have said, and take no shame in saying "uh, no." A player's investment is a pretty weak excuse considering I probably spend more on the game than all my players combined.

 

[Allandaros]

Beyond that, what do you want in these setting books? Eventually a setting is going to be played out, just like FR is practically played out... there is only so much to detail in a world and leave room for people to change things. So eventually you hit a point where they are making lots of settings, and in order for these settings to be unique, they need unique things, which always mean unique mechanics. Touchstones are a perfect example... in a setting that was designed for them they would be essential, and thus need a new mechanic to be created, thus starting the new mechanic engine again. There is no new D&D without new rules.

In response to Zero's argument, I'm not entirely sure that a game will stagnate without new rules. It's still possible to create generic-setting adventures and supplements, GMing guides, NPC sheafs, and other such things. These don't require issuing new rules.

Edit: added quote to clarify what the heck I was talking about.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

There are clearly ways that Wot$ could make money off the D&D brand w/out resorting to the current model. However, none of those are as easy and profitable as the crunchy hardback approach. To blazes w/ whether or not it hurts or helps the game, or whether or not it fragments the market, as long as that approach is selling X00,000 units, the bean counters are very unlikely to care. Whether or not some enlightened suit will have the intelligence to realize that this model is not sustainable remains to be seen though.

I love walking through the zoo every now and then to watch the anti-corporate folks rattling their cages.

 

[Quasqueton]

"I'm sorry, but WotC's (and every third-party publisher's) production schedule does not drive my game."

Have you ever told a player this?

Usually don't need to. I did have one Player, a couple years ago, that kept asking for stuff outside my "approved list of books". I had to say "no" to about a dozen things (psionics, prestige classes from the web, etc.), all before he created his first character. I no longer DM for him.

This is as things should be - but there does seem to be a huge market for these books, and a harried DM might allow these things simply for preventing friction with his group.

If a Player is creating friction in a group because of wanting to use supplimental/optional books, the problem is the Player, not the books.

Quasqueton