Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RyanD" data-source="post: 2393692" data-attributes="member: 3312">Those are all excellent things worth testing under controlled environments.  My gut instinct is that you are right in general that there are two many kinds of modifiers.  I suspect that some of the modifier proliferation is directly linked to power inflation (how can I get some more stackable bonuses on this stat...) and controlling modifier bloat would also reign in power inflation.I suspect that Monte, or Bill, or Mearls ( <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> ) could chime in here and tell me that the modifiers in the system are all needed for some completely reasonable mechanical reasons though, so I'd still advocate for "Test" rather than "Assume".What if one of the goals is "complexity that increases over time"?Reducing to minimum complexity is a great goal for pure math.  It may not be a great goal for game design.I'd like to answer the reverse question:  "How should players deal with the inevitable rules accretion?"  My answer is "ignore it".  Stop buying and using new rules unless they fit a well defined need in your campaign (Rules for sieges.  Rules for underwater warfare.  Rules for a unique culture (samurai, neanderthal, etc.), etc.)There are so many more valuable things that could be sold to players and GMs beyond new rules that I get greatly irritated by how many "rulebooks" I see in the marketplace.The first wave of D20 successes defined a certain expectation for new P-Classes and new feats, and we're still riding that set of defined success well past the point of diminishing returns.  I wish it would stop.Here's an answer to your actual question:As designers, we have to scope our efforts into a constrained space.  If I worked at WotC on core D&D, I could only consider those rules published in core products when constructing content.  I couldn't assume that the FRCS existed, for example.  (If I wanted to use something in the FRCS, I'd have to import that rule system en toto.  I can't just expect the reader to buy an FRCS so some feat or spell would be usable.  That constraint tends to cut down on the amount of non-core stuff that finds its way into core books.)I think the smart thing for 3rd party developers to do is to take a similar approach.  Make a list of the books you think your target customer actually owns and is willing to use, and write content that uses that material exclusively.  Better yet, tell the buyer what is on that list of assumed materials and then they can decide if they have the resources to match your design scope.I'll also put in a plug for playtesting here.  Way too much stuff is released without playtesting.  And when you base other material (that is not playtested) on non-playtested content, well, things just spiral out of control quickly.  If you don't know that a given work in your "scope" was playtested, incorporate that work into your playtest as well.</blockquote>

Verification