What exactly is OGL bloat?

[malkav666]

Before I get started, I would like to state that this topic is not intended to be a snipe at any particular publisher (past or present), nor is it a stab at any particular edition, and I would appreciate it if the folks replying could be respectful of one another's opinions, as it is opinions that I wish to discuss, and we all the lines along which they so divide. And this is my one of my first threads here so don't trash it!

So on to the point:

I keep seeing the these of "OGL Bloat" being tossed around, and I am kind of confused about the concept on a few levels.

Firstly, what does it mean to you?

When i sit down and think about it, I don't really get it. 3e had lots of 3pp support, and sure some of it was imbalanced. But IMO, so was some of the 1pp stuff. I do not see how this bloat could really be taken in the negative light that I often see on various message boards. I kind of enjoyed the level of support that the edition received. Sure not all of the products were for me, but several 3pp purchases I made during 3e are still used in my games.

Is the idea that there was so much the problem? The way I see it (and this is of course my own opinion), is that such an environment was created by it being easy to publish with OGL. I think this is a good thing as it allowed smaller shops to try their hand in the market. Sure some of them did flop, and some of the little fish will got eaten by bigger fish, but the overall effect IMO, was that there was a whole lot of new talent sneaking into the hobby in various forms, and many of those 3e houses are now full blown houses doing their own things. It seems to me that this period of bloat is what enabled that on some levels. And it seems as a result the hobby grew because of this bloat. At least that is how I am seeing it. But if you see it differently, I would love to hear your take.

I guess a few of the other questions I would like to have community opinions on would be:

Do you view the "bloat" period of OGL/3e as a bad time for the hobby? Why?

Which titles during the "bloat" period would you consider to be damaging bloat as opposed to meaningful 3pp content? (I am not looking for responses like this title or publisher is suxxorz, but am more hoping for and actual reason why you feel a particular line, title, or publisher was "bloating" down 3e and negatively impacting the market/system/hobby)

Any other opinions about this "bloat" and its impact on the 3e/3.5 publishing cycle and the publishing/hobby environment are welcome as well as long as they aren't hostile.

What is NOT welcome, are attacks at 3e or any other edition in the guise of discussion on this topic, or the trashing of writers and publishers. If you don't like their work, thats cool. Tell me what you don't like about it from a rules or presentation standpoint. Just telling me that they suck is mean spirited.

love,

malkav

 

[Remathilis]

OGL bloat refers to IMHO to three things

1.) Topics covered multiple times (how many drow books were there?) or dealt with so thoroughly, it was almost impossible to keep straight (demon/Abyss books were so popular, the Abyss is laden with 40,000 different types of demon to torment your PC)

A sub-element to this was the "now 3.5 compatible" reprint books with 25% new content and 75% redone skill points and here you go.

2.) Topics covered poorly; this was a feature of early 3.0 (and again at the 3.5 switch) where designers didn't understand the rules. However, some companies made a career of released broken game elements and untested game mechanics in order to sell books.

3.) New Systems: Sure, not everything fit D&D's assumed worldview and new settings (along with new rules) seemed natural, but after a while there was a giant bloat of every-new-setting-gets-its-own-OGL-compliant ruleset. Thus, as the games became more-and-more specialized, they became less-and-less inter compatible and thus created unique "D&D-wannabe" sub-games that had their own compatible supplements. For example, I couldn't pick up Trued20 sourcebook or a Conan adventure and run it in 3.5 because of the multitude of rule-changes from the 3.5 system.

All of this lead to lots of niche products lining the shelves and bloating the market.

 

[Erik Mona]

I have never heard the term "OGL Bloat". I have heard the term "d20 Glut," which covered most of the topics mentioned above.

Is this the same thing?

--Erik

 

[Crothian]

The OGL and d20 are different and it seems like you are as Erik says talking about d20 glut.

The biggest problem was not so much with each indivdual book but how they got used together.

 

[Mark]

I think that there is also the problem, as evidenced above, that some folks falsely equate OGL with D&D or D&D/d20.

 

[Aus_Snow]

However, some companies made a career of released broken game elements and untested game mechanics in order to sell books.

Indeed. Including the two biggest names in the industry, for example. And that hasn't changed there, either. Not that that is (always) an 'end of the world' type of problem in the first place. But it is annoying, and somewhat disappointing, at best.

Thus, as the games became more-and-more specialized, they became less-and-less inter compatible and thus created unique "D&D-wannabe" sub-games that had their own compatible supplements. For example, I couldn't pick up Trued20 sourcebook or a Conan adventure and run it in 3.5 because of the multitude of rule-changes from the 3.5 system.

Um, that was the idea. They're not meant to be compatible. The reason (or one of the reasons, at least) that the d20 system was chosen as a base to work from, is familiarity, not compatibility. Although, in the case of, f'rex, Arcana Evolved, it is basically compatible, but then again a replacement, so you might not want to mix and match anyway. But yes, you can, with that one (and a few others).

True20 though, is very much its own system. Likewise, Conan (even if it is rather less radically different [from 3e], really). They are *not* '"D&D-wannabe" sub-games'. Not all RPGs want to be D&D, claim to be, try to be, or pretend to be. No, not even quite a few of the OGL games out there.

Aside from that, yes, the d20 glut was pretty bad for a while. But then again, the OGL flipside was (and still is) tons of excellent stuff to choose from, and use (selectively, duh) for any given campaign.

 

[Mostlyjoe]

Too many unsupported books that payed little attention to balance or rules presented in the core 3.X products basically.

 

[Remathilis]

Um, that was the idea. They're not meant to be compatible. The reason (or one of the reasons, at least) that the d20 system was chosen as a base to work from, is familiarity, not compatibility. Although, in the case of, f'rex, Arcana Evolved, it is basically compatible, but then again a replacement, so you might not want to mix and match anyway. But yes, you can, with that one (and a few others).

True20 though, is very much its own system. Likewise, Conan (even if it is rather less radically different [from 3e], really). They are *not* '"D&D-wannabe" sub-games'. Not all RPGs want to be D&D, claim to be, try to be, or pretend to be. No, not even quite a few of the OGL games out there.

Aside from that, yes, the d20 glut was pretty bad for a while. But then again, the OGL flipside was (and still is) tons of excellent stuff to choose from, and use (selectively, duh) for any given campaign.

Here was my point.

Hyper-specialized items like OGL setting/systems are great for the consumer since they give them more options. They're hell on sellers since they never know if its going to have an audience (and sell out) or not (and sit on the shelf collecting markdown stickers). Maybe something like Trued20 might sell, but to heck if my FLGS is going to buy loads of the latest Td20 supplement and let it sit on the shelf while under-selling the latest WotC book or DCC.

Come 2006, my FLGS was selling box sets of whole systems (Dragonstar, Midnight, etc) at 75% below cover-price. He was refusing to support C&C, True d20, Mutants & Masterminds, and other products like that because they would sell 3-4 copies (if even) and sit on the shelf while D&D compatible items (DCCs, Paizo modules, etc) did brisk business.

That is what I meant but glut in the OGL game front.

 

[Nikosandros]

3.) New Systems: Sure, not everything fit D&D's assumed worldview and new settings (along with new rules) seemed natural, but after a while there was a giant bloat of every-new-setting-gets-its-own-OGL-compliant ruleset. Thus, as the games became more-and-more specialized, they became less-and-less inter compatible and thus created unique "D&D-wannabe" sub-games that had their own compatible supplements. For example, I couldn't pick up Trued20 sourcebook or a Conan adventure and run it in 3.5 because of the multitude of rule-changes from the 3.5 system.

Personally, I'm glad that the OGL allowed for such innovative systems as True20, Conan, M&M, etc... to be released. They were far from D&D wannabe, but rather complete games that evolved from the common d20 baseline. All those games are still currently active in the market.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Yeah, Malkav666, I don't get it either.

I started this thread a few days ago:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...uct-glut-d-d-4th-edition-d-d-3rd-edition.html

But I didn't get much more than the somewhat ephemeral responses you have.

I hope you get some good answers that are more specific, as I think you've asked the question far better than I had, and I remain curious as to the answers.