Has D&D jumped the shark?

[Jürgen Hubert]

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.

Actually, I don't see all those extra mechanics as an issue of "powergaming" at all. I'm the DM - I provide the challenges, and as long as the PCs get some action and the players sweat a bit during it, how powerful the PCs actually are doesn't matter much.

For me, it's all about the complexity of the rules. 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.

 

[Desdichado]

Maybe so, but when my players make those puppy eyes and ask me: "Can I use this stuff? Can I? Can I?", I find it hard to resist...

Well, you should just do like the rest of us and play with a bunch of sweaty, hairy (acceptible alternative is balding) overweight middle-aged men. It's not hard to tell guys like that no.

 

[scadgrad]

Where did I say that more rules = a good campaign?...

Just because a player wants to play with the newly published race with a newly published PrC doesn't mean for one second that you have to allow it. The DM should be in control of the game....


I get that way when people twist what I say in directions that it never went and when they assume they know something about me in which they don't. I didn't take it as light-hearted. It didn't read as light-hearted, but if that's how you intended it, fine. Let's leave it at that.

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.

 

[diaglo]

Well, you should just do like the rest of us and play with a bunch of sweaty, hairy (acceptible alternative is balding) overweight middle-aged men. It's not hard to tell guys like that no.

i don't know bout that....

some guys are into bears... ask Argent S.....

 

[francisca]

Well, you should just do like the rest of us and play with a bunch of sweaty, hairy (acceptible alternative is balding) overweight middle-aged men. It's not hard to tell guys like that no.

:\



I represent that statement.....


Mr. Hubert: be assertive. You are the DM, dang it!

 

[Umbran]

You can find a lengthy explanation here. Basically, it means that something - a television series, an RPG line, or whatever - has passed its prime and declining in quality.

Yes, but the indicator that is has happened is that whoever makes the thing resorts to needless spectacle to maintain interest. It is not enough to decline - you must struggle to try to maintain your hold on your market.

I don't think racial substitution levels or mindset spells are particularly spectacular, and so don't qualify as "jumping the shark".

 

[Desdichado]

I represent that statement.....

So do I; that was the point.

 

[Desdichado]

Yes, but the indicator that is has happened is that whoever makes the thing resorts to needless spectacle to maintain interest. It is not enough to decline - you must struggle to try to maintain your hold on your market.

I don't think racial substitution levels or mindset spells are particularly spectacular, and so don't qualify as "jumping the shark".

Now you've got me speculating. Given a rather stricter use of the phrase than is common, as you imply, what would be something that would be a "spectacle" in D&D in an attempt to maintain a hold on the market?

Some could probably make a decent case that Eberron is exactly that. Although personally I think Eberron is a high quality product --whether or not it appeals to you-- so I wouldn't buy that. But I wonder what would qualify as a spectacle?

 

[diaglo]

So do I; that was the point.

ditto.

diaglo "in a tie dye with ponytail" Ooi

 

[Psion]

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.

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.)