Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Where does this idea come from? (Forked Thread: The still "complete" list)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 4858056" data-attributes="member: 70709"><p>If I had to guess I'd say it is a combination of 1) the nature of 4e crunch, 2) the total number of game elements revealed quantitatively by the compendium, 3) some of the many interpretations of "everything is core" plus other variations of the completist urge, and 4) the fact that WotC is clearly concentrating on making every book have close to the maximum potential audience. Let me attempt to develop that picture, and you can judge whether it adds up.</p><p></p><p>First, whatever its merits or demerits, 4e crunch is pretty uniformly distributed across all classes and, taken as a whole, somewhat bulky. I don't necessarily mean individual pieces of crunch (a single power, feat, or monster is pretty darn compact) but supporting an entire class with new options (particularly powers) grows the page count pretty rapidly. All the books we've seen so far that provide new powers are also accompanied (to my knowledge) by a new build or something similar that demands adding many powers at once. In other words, we don't often get a "trickle of crunch."</p><p></p><p>Contrast this to 3.5, where spells (for example) were usually individually bulky but could be introduced piecemeal and only needed to support a fraction of the classes. The page counts between editions might not change much, but in 3.5 the amount of crunch applicable to a given player could change wildly depending on the types of classes they preferred to use. The net effect for 4e is that no class is as inherently compact as a 3.5 rogue or fighter, so players gravitating to those types are more likely to be aware of the growth of 4e options. I'd also guess that a disproportionately large percentage of 3.5 spellcasters (particularly wizards) were played by precisely the people that enjoyed the growth of crunch inherent in constantly introducing new spells, and would have greater tolerance of it. In other words, a self-selection effect. That is a very broad characterization, but it certainly fits the encyplopedic feel of the 3.5 wizard that some people think is missing from 4e.</p><p></p><p>The second point is pretty simple, the compendium has really made it clear how many game elements have already been introduced in the first year of the game. For most of us, I think, the "size" of the game is estimated from the crunch available to us. With the compendium we can be quite accurately aware of just how much stuff there is...and those numbers are pretty large. For example, I kept track of a decent percentage of 3.5 feats in a spreadsheet, and by the end had around 1600 from 34 books. At this moment the compendium reports 998 4e feats from all sources, and 729 from 8 rulebooks. Whether this greater pace in the number of feats is "too much" or makes building characters that much harder could be endlessly debated (generally 4e feats have simpler prereqs, simpler effects, characters gain more of them, and a great many apply only to a specific class or race) but the number feels huge.</p><p></p><p>Third, "everything is core" has been intrepreted by some people to mean that new crunch is "less optional" than in previous editions. Even if this is an unconscious response I think it tends to enhance the completist urge among consumers taken as a whole. The individual who resents these implications is probably more likely to think the amount of material is inappropriate, even if nothing else had changed from 3.5.</p><p></p><p>Fourth, and related to the last point, is the business model underlying 4e. Roughly, maximize the number of potential buyers for every book by reducing setting-specific material and emphasizing "generic" material whenever possible. Whether this is a good choice (financially or from the hobbyist's perspective) has been discussed pretty thoroughly in other threads, but it can enhance the "too much too quickly" perspective. In short, even if the total amount of material produced were precisely the same as in previous editions, every consumer that isn't a completist already is being marketed more material than before. From the perspective of the individual consumer that can feel like more material has been produced, and it potentially influences the perspectives of a large percentage of the total D&D audience.</p><p></p><p>These points aren't exhaustive, and they aren't immune to nit-picking, but I think the basic thrust is sound. Putting them together, it doesn't surprise me that the "too much too quickly" perspective is oft repeated.</p><p></p><p>I don't have a settled opinion on the topic, but I'd lean toward thinking the amount of material produced is reasonable given the structure of 4e. I like a lot about 4e, but my greatest reservation is the "sameness" of classes from a mechanical perspective -- that diversity was something I absolutely adored about 3.5 even if it caused the occasional problem. With respect to the current topic that is somewhat ironic, since even if 4e has a far greater number of possible options than 3.5 it generally feels to me like the possible differentiation is less.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 4858056, member: 70709"] If I had to guess I'd say it is a combination of 1) the nature of 4e crunch, 2) the total number of game elements revealed quantitatively by the compendium, 3) some of the many interpretations of "everything is core" plus other variations of the completist urge, and 4) the fact that WotC is clearly concentrating on making every book have close to the maximum potential audience. Let me attempt to develop that picture, and you can judge whether it adds up. First, whatever its merits or demerits, 4e crunch is pretty uniformly distributed across all classes and, taken as a whole, somewhat bulky. I don't necessarily mean individual pieces of crunch (a single power, feat, or monster is pretty darn compact) but supporting an entire class with new options (particularly powers) grows the page count pretty rapidly. All the books we've seen so far that provide new powers are also accompanied (to my knowledge) by a new build or something similar that demands adding many powers at once. In other words, we don't often get a "trickle of crunch." Contrast this to 3.5, where spells (for example) were usually individually bulky but could be introduced piecemeal and only needed to support a fraction of the classes. The page counts between editions might not change much, but in 3.5 the amount of crunch applicable to a given player could change wildly depending on the types of classes they preferred to use. The net effect for 4e is that no class is as inherently compact as a 3.5 rogue or fighter, so players gravitating to those types are more likely to be aware of the growth of 4e options. I'd also guess that a disproportionately large percentage of 3.5 spellcasters (particularly wizards) were played by precisely the people that enjoyed the growth of crunch inherent in constantly introducing new spells, and would have greater tolerance of it. In other words, a self-selection effect. That is a very broad characterization, but it certainly fits the encyplopedic feel of the 3.5 wizard that some people think is missing from 4e. The second point is pretty simple, the compendium has really made it clear how many game elements have already been introduced in the first year of the game. For most of us, I think, the "size" of the game is estimated from the crunch available to us. With the compendium we can be quite accurately aware of just how much stuff there is...and those numbers are pretty large. For example, I kept track of a decent percentage of 3.5 feats in a spreadsheet, and by the end had around 1600 from 34 books. At this moment the compendium reports 998 4e feats from all sources, and 729 from 8 rulebooks. Whether this greater pace in the number of feats is "too much" or makes building characters that much harder could be endlessly debated (generally 4e feats have simpler prereqs, simpler effects, characters gain more of them, and a great many apply only to a specific class or race) but the number feels huge. Third, "everything is core" has been intrepreted by some people to mean that new crunch is "less optional" than in previous editions. Even if this is an unconscious response I think it tends to enhance the completist urge among consumers taken as a whole. The individual who resents these implications is probably more likely to think the amount of material is inappropriate, even if nothing else had changed from 3.5. Fourth, and related to the last point, is the business model underlying 4e. Roughly, maximize the number of potential buyers for every book by reducing setting-specific material and emphasizing "generic" material whenever possible. Whether this is a good choice (financially or from the hobbyist's perspective) has been discussed pretty thoroughly in other threads, but it can enhance the "too much too quickly" perspective. In short, even if the total amount of material produced were precisely the same as in previous editions, every consumer that isn't a completist already is being marketed more material than before. From the perspective of the individual consumer that can feel like more material has been produced, and it potentially influences the perspectives of a large percentage of the total D&D audience. These points aren't exhaustive, and they aren't immune to nit-picking, but I think the basic thrust is sound. Putting them together, it doesn't surprise me that the "too much too quickly" perspective is oft repeated. I don't have a settled opinion on the topic, but I'd lean toward thinking the amount of material produced is reasonable given the structure of 4e. I like a lot about 4e, but my greatest reservation is the "sameness" of classes from a mechanical perspective -- that diversity was something I absolutely adored about 3.5 even if it caused the occasional problem. With respect to the current topic that is somewhat ironic, since even if 4e has a far greater number of possible options than 3.5 it generally feels to me like the possible differentiation is less. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Where does this idea come from? (Forked Thread: The still "complete" list)
Top