Is 3.5e beginning to suffer from rules bloat?

[shadow]

Ok...I have to ask it. Is the seemingly inevitable rules bloat taking over? We have multiple magic systems (Vancian, arcanum, truenames, shadow-magic, psionics, etc.), each new book seems to introduce more classes and prestige classes, and the number of feats has reached ridiculous proportions. I know that you don't have to use anything outside the core books, but neither did you have to use anything outside the 2e core rules. Besides both Eberron and Forgotten Realms are built around the concept of "everything that exists in D&D exists in this setting."

 

[Crothian]

Nope. It's all optional so one should only use what one can handle. Also, owning all those books is not cheap so there is another easy limit on the game. And the final limit is there is only enough space to fit in so much in a campaign. Like it is hard to use a lot of the psionics stuff if none of the PCs are psionic. Same can go with True name, Arcanum, and any of the other options out there.

 

[MerricB]

Ok...I have to ask it. Is the seemingly inevitable rules bloat taking over? We have multiple magic systems (Vancian, arcanum, truenames, shadow-magic, psionics, etc.), each new book seems to introduce more classes and prestige classes, and the number of feats has reached ridiculous proportions. I know that you don't have to use anything outside the core books, but neither did you have to use anything outside the 2e core rules. Besides both Eberron and Forgotten Realms are built around the concept of "everything that exists in D&D exists in this setting."

No, Eberron has "everything that exists in D&D can exist in this setting." There's a big difference.

D&D isn't suffering rules bloat so much as options bloat... but as the options are totally in the control of individual groups, they're quite controllable. The actual rules you need to know to run the game have really not changed that much since 3.5e - the only real addition being swift/immediate actions.

Obviously, if you use a lot of capstone systems - Psionics, Incarnum, Bo9S, etc. - you need to keep up with more things, but mostly these are just ways of using the existing rules. "As a standard action, you may make one melee attack that does +100 damage" doesn't really change that much.

For the most part, these new systems give more for the *players* to keep track of, a key point. Psionics does add Power Points, Powers and Psionic Focus as things to keep track of... but they're all things well within the capability of the player. The DM really doesn't need to know that much about the system if the player can handle it.

This really isn't old-school D&D where the players just tell the DM what they want to do and the DM handles all the rules; instead the burden of rules-knowledge is shared. For players that don't want the responsibility, they shouldn't play rules-intensive classes... and there are plenty of those!

Of course, when the DM decides to use Incarnum, Psionics or whatever, he needs to learn the new systems (minor though they may be).

Cheers!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Nope. It's all optional IMO beyond the core, so if you have the stones to say "no", you'll never have to worry about rules bloat.

I think the perception comes from the feeling that one has to allow all the rules out there, just because they are published and someone has bought the book. I recommend instead approving individual elements for inclusion in a campaign (feat, spell, etc) individually, so the DM has time to absorb them, rather than being overwhelmed by a massive amount of unfamiliar elements.

 

[takyris]

I see it as a possible source of concern, but a necessary one.

With a limited supply of crunch and fluff -- the core books -- you've got everyone on the same page. Everyone knows that a Fireball works the same way in my campaign as it does in Merric's, unless Merric has a house rule. Everyone knows that when I say "cast a spell", I mean "use one of my limited-use abilities to do one of the effects from the spell section of the Players Handbook." That's the good news.

The bad news is that someone who wants to run a Dark-Sun-style "arcane magic kills wildlife" campaign, or a Spelljammer-style "natural environment is flammable" campaign, or an Agents of Psi-style "psionics instead of magic" campaign has to figure it out for themselves. Some people do it well, and some people do it badly, and it's frustrating.

What we have now is the reverse. If I want to run a seafaring pirate-style campaign, I've got all kinds of resources to pick from. Underwater combat rules in more detail? Yep. Rules for ship-to-ship combat? Yep. Classes, feats, and skills put through a naval alteration so that they work in this campaign? Sure. I've got all of that -- just like I've got something for an Asian-style Kung-fu campaign, a modern-day X-Files campaign, a Star-Trek-style futuristic campaign, and so on. That's the good news.

The bad news is that we've splintered. Some people insist that they'll never go back to Vancian magic. Others have no interest in any game where armor improves Defense and not DR. We're not all on the same page any longer, which means that our collective strength as an industry is splintered. With absolutely no marketing sense of my own, my random guess would be that this is good for very small companies, who can put out a Gemstone Magic PDF that only a few people will buy and still make a profit (though not enough to quit their day jobs), and okay for large companies, who've got enough core customers with them to keep going as long as they can continue to mine a resource (Conan or Babylon 5, for Mongoose) successfully. It's lousy for the mid-sized companies that don't have the size to get the big license and mine it for success OR the flexibility to succeed with niche products.

I figure that the simplest metaphor is a firework. It starts out burning bright and condensed, explodes out into a zillion directions in an enormous flare... and then fizzles.

That's why, though I'm happy with Grim Tales and Mutants & Masterminds (with which I think I can run any game I can imagine), I'll buy 4E when it comes out. I don't want to be so niche that I can't find a group of friends to play with. Even if I stick with M&M or Grim Tales, I want to at least know what the core audience is doing in future editions.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know. Judging by what I see on the OpenRPG boards, vanilla D&D is still by far the most played of any D&D. Granted it might be Eberron or FR, but, compared to Asian Kung-fu, most campaigns are pretty much straight up D&D. I know that if I put up an ad saying that I'm going to run a bog standard D&D game tomorrow, I'll have ten people signed up before the day is out.

I think that there is a very large amount of core players and a very small number of very vocal fringe players.

 

[Glyfair]

I know that you don't have to use anything outside the core books, but neither did you have to use anything outside the 2e core rules.

I'll agree with the general sentiment here, with a caveat. I think we are moving a bit towards the latter 2E "rules bloat."

Yes, the extra rules are all optional (as are the core rules, but there is "optional" and there is "optional"). However, more and more WotC books are adding in parts of those optional rules into books that aren't tied to that rule set.

It's obvious that Complete Psionic will refer to the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Maybe even the Complete Mage should reference the Complete Arcane (although I think the marketing didn't sell it as such). However, it's happening elsewhere. Eyes of the Lich Queen uses the Tome of Battle (incorrectly I might add). A "pseudo core book," Magic Item Compendium, references a gazillion rules sets (incarnum, psionics, Tome of Magic, Eberron).

While it doesn't make those rules less optional, it makes them feel less optional, If I pick up the MIC and see a reference to incarnum, I want to know what its talking about. Why are there no rules covering it in the book? When this happens it seems that a rules is "core" and I'm missing it somehow.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Maybe even the Complete Mage should reference the Complete Arcane (although I think the marketing didn't sell it as such).

It did, didn't it? Not the marketing point, but the actual book, that is. With Warlock PrCs etc.?

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I don't think so. Like multiple people have already said in this thread, there are plenty of options but they are either still based on the core rules (i.e. more classes, feats, spells, magic items, etc.,) or something modular that you can tack onto your game if you want (i.e. Tome of Magic, Book of 9 Swords, etc.,).

I like the fact that there are options beyond the core that, at the same time, don't change the way that the basic rules operate.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Glyfair]

It did, didn't it? Not the marketing point, but the actual book, that is. With Warlock PrCs etc.?

Yes, it did. My side point was, if it was going to be so "hard wired" to Complete Arcane then I feel it should have been heavily marketed as a sequel to Complete Arcane. I feel not enough was done to point out that much of the book required CA to be useful.