Has D&D jumped the shark?

[ZeroGlobal2003]

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.

The problem with this is one that Wizards will tell any one about: sales. Think about it. You have how many people in an average gaming group? 4-7? Out of those who has the PHB? Maybe 90%. Now who has all the MM and DMGs? Maybe the DM. Players don't need this info and players make up 4/5s or more of all gamers. When a product, such as "adventures and supplements, GMing guides, NPC sheafs, and other such things", fails to appeal to all players, not just GMs then sales drop to nil and its the same as if they stopped making books.

WotC has to make books that players, not just GMs want to buy, and that means rules.

Zero

 

[Odhanan]

I don't agree on the whole "powergamers are evil" idea, personally. People have fun playing role-playing games. As long as it involves some form of role, whether violent, powerful, not powerful etc doesn't bother me. Powergamers should to have fun at my game table too, but that's just my take as a DM here.

Now, I think that 3E is too complex for newbies to RPGs. Not because the mathematics are complicated (they aren't) but there is too much of them. There is too much information on a character sheet, and too many numbers to track during the game.

There is also a problem of choices. When you do not translate every possibility in rules, you leave the possibilities open. If you translate and codify them, it only confuses things more and weakens the characters on the long run.

Let me take an example: a feat should have remained a special ability, in my opinion, but now, feats are used to represent things mundane in the game. For instance, the investigative feat of Eberron: it "allows" you to use Search to put clues together on a crime scene. The consequence is that it does not autorize this use for other characters who do not have the feat. At least in the mind of lots D&D players. By translating options of the game into rules you frame them and close the possibilities instead of opening them.

I think this is why so many players, and old schoolers among them, are so frustrated with the third edition.

 

[Psion]

Just because someone else is less discriminating about their purchases doesn't mean any of it relates to the Core Rules in a significant fashion.

And why not? Just because you aren't getting a benefit from supplemental rules does not mean that in other people's game, those rules benefit (or detriment) the core rules in their games. Just because it's optional does not mean the rules don't exist and aren't used.

Not that that means I agree with Zero. AFAIAC Jürgen has every right to post his viewpoints based on one book. The rest of us are perfectly capable of making our cases of why its a beneficial mechanic based on other books. Nobody is forbidden from posting an opinion because they don't have a book... they just get to listen to the rest of us rattle on about them.

 

[Psion]

The problem with this is one that Wizards will tell any one about: sales. Think about it. You have how many people in an average gaming group? 4-7? Out of those who has the PHB? Maybe 90%. Now who has all the MM and DMGs? Maybe the DM.

IMG, every player owns the three core books.

Supplements are another matter entirely.

 

[Kanegrundar]

In my old group, I was the only person with any books. I did buy one of them the Revised Star Wars Rulebook for X-Mas just to lessen the amount of wear and tear on my copy.

I do realize that my group is beyond the norm, though.

Kane

 

[Rasyr]

With reguards to the orginal poster, you've really got not much of a right to start randomly popping off about disliking new mechanics when you aren't even aware of all the places these mechanics exist. If you don't know the full context then you don't really know anything.

That said, I like substitution levels. They are in a number of books and offer a very quick way to modify a class in a clear way. With Planar Subsitution Levels it offered a quick way to tweak the classes to fit better in a non-material plane setting. With the Racial Subsitution Levels it gives a good show of what the differance is between gnome and elf wizards or any other combonations. Think where they can go with this simple mechanic: in setting books different cultures can have Cultural Subsitution Levels, and thus explain why the plains nomad fights differently then the city guard even though they are both fighters, and can do it without having to create a completely new 20 level class. It saves space, saves redundency, and makes things clear and simple. For the guy that said "just play them differently" I respond that the only class we need is commoner. If you want wizard, "just play them differently". There are lots and lots of times that mechanical differences are what is critical to make the character work.

As for Mind Set spells, I really like the mechanic. These spells are slightly weaker for their level and so remain balanced. Its a cool flavor mechanic, and one that I only take fault with because Sorcerers can't participate. Someone already mentioned that Malhavoc has similar types of spells, which is proof that they aren't that unbalancing. The person liked the implimentation of that system better, but I disagree. In Eldritch Might you have to cast the spell ahead of time, then release it for the second effect, which leads to lots of spells floating around on a player and a lot more book keeping about when the durations pop, where as with this you just let it sit until you use it.

Zero

First thought that popped into my mind rading this was "d20 Synnibarr"...

Oi!

 

[MadMaxim]

- Racial Substitution Levels: I always liked about the core classes that they were relatively generic. That you now effectively have "variant racial core classes" rubs me in a very wrong way. Could we please limit the "special powers" to feats or prestige classes?

- Mindset spells: These are spells that give characters special boni to skill checks and other things as long as they have prepared them, but not cast them. Do we really need yet another way of buffing characters? I personally think that running D&D characters involves far too much math already (not difficult math, but there is a lot of it...) - and introducing things like this just makes it worse.

Do you agree or disagree with this? And if you agree, when exactly do you think that D&D has jumped the shark?

Well, to get this thread back on track: I like the racial substitution levels for many of the reasons that other posters have expressed. I don't see them as getting the different races back into their "stereotype" classes. They help add mechanical flavor to your character instead of "just" going straight dwarven fighter for example. Yes, it does add another level of complexity to the game, but I don't mind that. I think they're excellent.

As for the mindset spells, I think they're an excellent mechanic as well, whether people think that M:TG is intruding on D&D or not. If you don't want to do the extra bookkeeping (which is minor, I think) then you don't pick them. It's as easy as that. D&D is evolving and so it should just like all other games.

To answer your final question: No, I don't think that D&D has jumped the shark. New rules will always add another layer of complexity to the game, but as others have expressed, if you don't like it as a DM, you don't include it in your games.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Just because you aren't getting a benefit from supplemental rules does not mean that in other people's game, those rules benefit (or detriment) the core rules in their games.

It means THEIR game suffers. The Core Rules do not suffer unless the Core Rules themselves are significantly altered. Races of Stone/Destiny/Blue Skin might affect your game if you use them, depending on how you use them, but it doesn't affect the game in and of itself because it is optional.

Just because it's optional does not mean the rules don't exist and aren't used.

True. But those supplements don't change the core rules. They just add to them. The core rules are unchanged - and you should change or add to them with supplements or house rules at your own risk.

AFAIAC Jürgen has every right to post his viewpoints based on one book. The rest of us are perfectly capable of making our cases of why its a beneficial mechanic based on other books. Nobody is forbidden from posting an opinion because they don't have a book... they just get to listen to the rest of us rattle on about them.

But in this case we're talking aobut the book being a sign that the sky is falling rather than the merits of the book. Thus, nobody needs to actually know a thing about the book because the book itself isn't the matter at hand, but a larger question about the health of the game.

Now I DO think that there are things to be concerned with regarding the health of the game, but it hasn't "jumped the shark" which implies that its continuation should have been ended.

 

[Psion]

It means THEIR game suffers. The Core Rules do not suffer unless the Core Rules themselves are significantly altered. Races of Stone/Destiny/Blue Skin might affect your game if you use them, depending on how you use them, but it doesn't affect the game in and of itself because it is optional.True. But those supplements don't change the core rules. They just add to them.

I don't think I've said otherwise. My point was that yes, there is definitely something that can be said about how those rules realte to (benefit or detract from, is redundant with, does(n't) work well with, etc.) the existing rules in games where it is deployed. So saying there "is no relationship" seems a bit off to me.

 

[Desdichado]

To be fair, I think RPGs often do stagnate without something to keep them fresh, be they rules supplements or otherwise. But the type of supplements that might keep some games alive might not work so well for others, depending on the tastes of the audience.

Well, that depends on exactly what you mean by stagnate, I guess. My game won't stagnate due to lack of new rules. I've got more rules than I could use for decades to come yet. I suspect that's true for most gamers.

Now, if you mean sales will stagnate without something to keep it fresh, then yes, that's certainly true. But somehow I don't think that's how it's being used here. Maybe you can clarify a bit on this point?