Ostensibly, D&D is supposed to be in the middle ground, with abstract combat and equivalency rules (like a throwing knife, a stiletto, and a bowie knife all count as a dagger, mechanically speaking). However, as the years go by, D&D has slipped farther and farther towards the Rules Heavy extreme, and it is affecting the quality of gameplay.
Now, for starters, it is important to say that the rules do not dictate the way the game is played. By that, I mean that just because a game is rules heavy does not mean it can't be played heavy on the roleplaying, and a rules light system can suffer from munchkins and power gamers just like anything else. However, the way the rules are handled *DO* affect the basic way the gameplay is viewed. Generally speaking, the more complex the rules, the more time must be spent on mechanical aspects in order to realize a character completely. In a rules light system, a few minutes and a lot of imagination are what is required.
So, as a general trend, the more complex the rules get, the more the overall mindset of the masses trends towards playing the numbers on the sheet. Again, this isn't true across the board in every game, and it’s not difficult to fight that trend, but it does exist. A good example that I'm sure everyone here has seen is a thread about "I want to be an assassin" that think they are required to have the PrC before they can kill people for money. And every new book that comes out only makes this problem worse by adding more and more layers of crunchy mechanical rules, instead of ways to adapt what we already have to fit the need. The Knight class does this. It takes the idea of the combatant in full plate, sword and board, with a code of honor and chivalry, and slathers mechanical rules for essentially yelling "Hey you, ugly, lets fight!"
Of course, this has a very simple explanation. Money. There is more money in filling a book with page after page of new mechanics than there is in simply saying "Use what you already have." Or in putting new weapons (all of which seem to be exotic) that have the same stats as PHB weapons with some small extra (such as a bonus to tripping or disarming).
However, I would like to make the case that more rules, and more rules systems, are not the answer to keeping the game fresh and exciting. The answer is to change the way you look at the bare bones rules that we already have, and recognize them as such. A bare skeleton from which to build what we want to play. Don't worry about the flavor that is written into something, if the mechanics are a good match for what you want, just ignore the contradicting flavor and use it. If you want a fighter that goes berserk, simply use the Barbarian mechanics, and ignore the "uncivilized" flavor text. If you want an ornate serrated sword, you don't need special mechanics for it, simply take a masterwork longsword and describe it as being covered in precious metal and having a jagged edge.
A spell that shoots cactus thorns, or jagged teeth, it doesn't matter, its all just flavor. If they don't need an attack roll, they're just Magic Missile. Change and adapt what you have, instead of thinking you need to wait until WotC or anyone else prints what you want to use. Stinking Cloud could easily become an Ecstasy spell, by simply changing the fluff around and leaving the mechanics as is. Instead of calling it Nauseated or Sickened, simply describe the effect as being so overcome with physical pleasure that its hard to concentrate. Its the same exact spell, but you've made it into something totally new by simply shedding the excess baggage and going down to just the base rules, then building something new on top of those rules.
Don't fall into the subtle trap that a rules heavy system presents. More rules are not conductive to better play, they are merely tools. When you find that you are focusing on which rule to use, that is a sure sign that you've wandered away from the idea of a roleplaying game. Stop and think what effect you want to replicate, then find a mechanic that will fit it, regardless of what the fluff says.
The more rules you use, the more likely you are to begin using those rules as crutches to your roleplaying, by simply playing the sum of the parts you put together, and not a unified character as a whole. When you intentionally restrict the amount of rules you use, you force yourself to stop thinking that way, and instead start looking at things with an eye for how they can be adapted to fit the situation. One spell, or one feat, can become a virtually unlimited number of things, depending on how you use them. Power Attack turns into a Called Shot feat so easily, it can be scary that you never realized it. The fluff says you make a reckless attack, and that image gets stuck in your brain, but when you stop to look at the mechanics beneath it, you realize you are just getting more damage for making a more difficult hit. A little fluff change, and suddenly you are making called shots by aiming at more well guarded but vulnerable areas. Power Attack turns into Called Shot without a hiccup, not because somebody gave you new rules, but because you took what you already had and adapted it to your need.
So please, the next time you are making a character, or planning what to do next with a character you already have, don't just go thumbing through books to see what strikes your fancy. That’s fine for if you have no idea what you want to do, but use it for inspiration, to figure out what you want, and then see if there is an easier way to do it without having to add new rules. A Stinking Cloud and Ecstasy are two totally different spells, thematically speaking, but they both use the exact same mechanical base. So stop and ask yourself, "Can I do this idea with something I already have and some roleplaying, instead of bringing in this new rule?"
I'm certain you'll find that the game will be easier to play and more enjoyable once you realize that you don't have to be led around by the nose, and can instead take charge and truly be creative in your own right.
Of course, this has a very simple explanation. Money. There is more money in filling a book with page after page of new mechanics than there is in simply saying "Use what you already have."
I'm certain you'll find that the game will be easier to play and more enjoyable once you realize that you don't have to be led around by the nose, and can instead take charge and truly be creative in your own right.
I could not agree more with the entire thrust of the OP's arguments. This why all the "I won't play core only as it stifles my imagination" posts get little positive response from me.
Sure WotC is about making money - but some game companies used to make decent money by producing QUALITY product, not just pushing out more product.
For example, recently I designed an encounter with a creature who basically spent time probing into the PCs thoughts and eventually tried to convince them that they were all out to kill each other. My original thought was to try and use an existing mechanic--that beyond charm and dominate. I secretly made saves for the PCs, and if they failed then their thoughts became more and more extreme (this was greatly facilitated with secret notes and great role-playing on the part of my players). However, later I looked at one of the new published books and found a mechanic for a creature that deals WIS damage until it gains control over the target. This struck me as a much better mechanic for how I wanted to game to work. So while I used a mechanic from the Core system, a mechanic from the supplements would have done the job, but better.
My point is, while you can take existing mechanics and change the flavor to get the effect you want (and indeed you often should), occasionally new mechanics can do what you want better. I don't believe that the way the Core mechanics are written provides for all situations. There is some benefit in creating new rules if the new rules improve the function of the old ones. Thus we don't need another "energy-damaging" spell, but there is nothing wrong with reevaluating and implementing changes to polymorph.
While I use few books and often end up simply looking through the plot hooks and pictures to get my own creative gears working, I allow my players unlimited access through all of our books in order to create their character and feel I am a better DM (in a general sense, not in comparison to others) for insisting that they make the character they want. It is extremely frustrating to ask a little bit of leeway to somebody with unlimited power and get denied, so if my cleric wants to take Divine Metamagic, or if somebody wants to play a Duskblade, I let them.
I enjoyed your modifications to Power Attack and Stinking Cloud, but creativity like that only comes after years of playing. The first year of playing is mostly a blitz of exploring the hobby and that entails buying things. After a while things calm down and you learn that you just don't need that crap. It works every time.
On books...
Wizards paid a lot of money for the license and its development, and they didn't do it to make the game better. They did it to make money. Nobody ever quit because there was too much stuff floating around. Like smoking, TV, and porn, it’s up to an officiating party (DMs) to keep a handle on how much is too much. I don't mind Wizards printing book after book. I may even buy a few, and I now we've got plenty of bored yuppies with good college memories who buy most or all of them.
Good article, I just don't think most groups have a problem with the amount of material in their game.
There are simple and incomplete rules, such as at least some of the old version of D&D. They assume the play will be mainly about creatively avoiding the use of those, often deadly, rules. Amber diceless fit here, too. These games have very powerful GM as a necessity for playing.
Then there are very heavy rules that try to model a lot. GURPS, JAGS and 3rd edition of D&D fit here, IMO (and many others). Lots of detail, lots of rules. These, too, have quite powerful GMs, but more on the arbitration font.
There are also very simple systems that encompass pretty much everything, such as Over the Edge, Risus and FATE. They have a simple resolution mechanic that can handle everything from combats to negotiations to car chases. There are also games with very tight focus that will not venture outside that. My Life with Master is an archetypal one. The categories are not entirely mutually exclusive, of course.
Problems arise when people try to drift games from one category to another. D&D started as a very focused wargame. It has drifted into more-or-less all encompassing monster. Still very good at its niche (tactical fantasy combat), but quite poor outside it. Character generation as a minigame is another niche.
Using abilities but changing the colour/fluff/flavour? It detracts from character building minigame, one of the two strongest areas of D&D. Doesn't hurt the other significantly. So, why should I do that and not use, say, Savage Worlds which does the tactics and has colourless abilities?
On the economic side, this is my feeble knowledge on the subject: D&D sells splats for dwindling population of hardcore gamers. Their products compete with their own products.
A rules heavy system can provide moderation for both, it can also provide a lot of details when run well. That said, GURPs has a very popular following and they put out a quality product. There is truth to their approach, needless to say it caters to a different kind of gamer than the average D&Der. It is more about customization and authentication than ease of use.
Rules in an RPG is like code, for those computer science literate. A rules-lite RPG covers all angle, but with no detail. It is very abstract, and not very customizable. Everything seems generic, because all the variables essentially do the same thing. It is like Notepad. Or Basic. You can describe anything in the abstract, but there is little ability to go deeper. IF you want to make your own rules, you're floundering with a lot of unplaytested stuff and creating methods that have perfected by countless others.
Get into the D20 System (Because D&D in reality is an offshoot of the d20 system). The D20 system itself is a mess of a bunch of jumbled mechanics. That's okay, because no one actually plays the D20 system, they play D&D or D20 Modern. Those setting/systems provide a tight streamlined focused with a lot of power but little room for customization. Think of it as an application. Word or Excel with you will, with a little wiggle room for macros and VB. Windows. The application is powerful, occasionally clunky, but in general it does the task very well.
Now take GURPs. GURPs is like the D20 system. It's not really a fit game to play by itself because it's a jumbled mess of random rules. And there are –a lot- of rules. Making your own setting out if it is a painstaking process, full of bugs. However once done, it runs beautifully- lots of power, lots of speed. If you want to change it though, you have to go mess around with it again. It's like assembly or Linux. Pain to setup, but it can perform one task, very well.
The analogy for rules and code works, because RPG mechanics is essentially code carried out by humans instead of computers. It's an abstract mechanical simulation designed to represent, or reflect, reality. It's physics and probability distilled into mechanical formulas that humans can easily grasp.
Bigger rules create a better simulation and are more realistic, but take a lot more brainpower to process. Same thing with computers. Doom 3 takes POWER to run, but it's beautiful. Even then, the original Doom shines in its abstract simplicity with focus on elements not pertaining to mechanical simulation of reality.
Unfortunately, unlike computers, humans do not upgrade quickly. You are often stuck with the same model for several years. So, lighter rules appeal more. The idea of the 'trade off' remains. Needless to say, the most realistic RPG would have us doing physics equations to determine the speed of bullets, social statistics wizardry for NPC interaction, and so on. Many computer games actually -do- that. You'd argue that isn't very fun, but some people would find that appealing. That doesn't make them any less 'real roleplayers' than you are.
The idea of a real roleplayer being some kind of thespian is absurd. You'll have to note that the majority of roleplayers have none of this skill or any inclination toward it at all--doesn't make them any less. When you determine what your rules are and the extent to which they will factor into the game, the objective is to find a satisfactory level of abstraction for all parties.
Wizards' new way of formatting spells and monsters in its supplements is actually, for me, an improvement since books now describe what a spell effect looks like, what happens when you first encounter an unknown monster. When I read Hordes of the Abyss, I only gleamed through the feats section but read voraciously on the "fluff" on demons and the Abyss.
I still think supplements can be useful for character development, but only when it comes to specifics like "my character comes from the northern wastes", or "my character is descended from a fiend; I want him to have demon-like powers" -- there need to be mechanics to represent these character quirks. But on the whole, it's far easier (and less expensive!) to quickly modify something already extant (mechanics or no) than to generate something new altogether.
With all of its supplements, D&D would collapse under its weight. Already we are presented with new core classes here and different races (Raptorans, Goliaths) there. What I think we need more of is fluff that elaborates on all the standard tropes and expectations of D&D -- haunted forests, damsels in distress, etc. etc. I would prefer a fleshing out of the skeleton that you describe, rather than an assortment of jumbled bones.
I run a gaming group at my college where almost all the players have little to no experience. I am probably the player with the most knowledge of the game, perhaps with one exception, among 30 people, and I have only been playing for 3 1/2 years. We have generally only played D20 systems (D&D, Starwars, Modern, etc) and most of the players are intimidated by character creation, let alone another system.
We try to offer 8 games each semester to our players and I was a little short on DMs this semester, so I received an offer from one of the newer players to fill the game slot. I was a bit hesitant due to his lack of experience, but what really worried me was that he was hellbent on using the Ghostwalk setting. However, my viewpoint changed when I realized how he was utilizing the book. He read it to the point where he knew the mechanics of almost the entire book and has been able to assist his players with it more than I could dream to.
My roundabout point in this anecdote, is that the expansions on D&D (while perhaps just a scheme to make money that rivals only MtG in genius) have the potential to help inexperienced DMs who can't write up entire system modifications by themselves. By utilizing the appropriate materials, experienced and inexperienced DMs alike can enhance their games.
In addition, I've noticed that several of the books that have come out more recently have been encouraging DMs to make their own modifications. Unearthed Arcana, PHB2, and DMG2 all provided examples and explanations on system modifications.
Perhaps experienced gamers who have played many years, many editions, and many systems might not need these new books. I know that I'm not overly fond of them myself at times. But I know that newer, less experienced players (and especially DMs) need little nudges to get caught up to those who understand the systems better than themselves.
Personally, in times of my life that I am short on personal (planning) time I always appreciate having splat books around. I have two or three present every session for idea theft. When I have more personal time I spend lots of time sifting through the PHB2, DMG2 and UA. Then I typically re-evaluate elements of splat books. All very insightful.
It is only in times of readily available quantities of 'free time' (Is it ever really free?) that I can actually get around to planning, building and thinking things through well enough.
I'm no genius, but I always enjoy things the most that are insightful results of new perspective. (as per the OP's statements about "called shot" and "ecstasy") Unfortunately, after the spouse, kids and career I seldom have time for this. So I agree with all the perspectives shared to some degree, and appreciate the insight illuminated by each of you! Bravo!
Just please keep in mind that for some people (i.e., the time constrained) that less is more when you have to invest less time and thought-energy for higher and faster return on your gaming experience!
In my profession I do a lot of thinking for a living. Coming home from work some days and looking forward to some good gaming, I thank Wizards that there are enough options and crunch available for the "professionally brain-fried" to still enjoy the game on bad days!
Bravo! An excellent article. However, I would like to make the suggestion that sometimes a new mechanic is a better mechanic.
I'm not saying that new mechanics can't be better than old ones, or that you should never use them, I'm saying that you should always see if the *IDEA* can be done with existing mechanics before you do anything else. If it can, but not very well, you should stop and ask if the benefit of having the new mechanic outweighs the potential problems.
You need only go as far as the character optimization board to see where having a lot of new mechanics can translate into an absolute nightmare, with the invincible Pun-Pun reigning supreme.
Does your game really need extra layers of complexity and potential abuse just so a character gets an extra 5% (+1) chance of tripping somebody?
The thing is that people like to have options, and they can get them from a variety of sources:
1) They can make them up or modify existing rules to cover situations. (House Rules) Heck, the authors in the core books note +2/-2 for things you don’t know, so the flavor of the option is still there.
2) They can buy them as optional rules from WotC or 3rd party sources. What's nice about that is it allows a 3rd party versed in rule-making offer suggestions to your game. And really, it isn't like everyone is using every single rule in every single rule book in print. In practice, people take what they like and discard the rest.
Really, to make up rules that fit one's campaign requires as much dedication and enforcement of the concept as to house-rule out an expansion that either doesn't fit ones campaign - either due to flavor or mechanics. So, at the end of the day, IMHO there's just no "fire" to worry about.
Why go uniform? For a world of isolated cultures, such as mine, it only makes sense that each culture would develop radically different ways of using arcane magic. Sure, I could employ cosmetic changes to core material, but it just doesn't have the same punch. Finally, one should always bear in mind that a campaign doesn't fall or fly on the basis of one issue. Less could very well be more, but it's not a silver bullet; it will not improve poor DMing or snuff optimization on its own.
I'm certain you'll find that the game will be easier to play and more enjoyable once you realize that you don't have to be led around by the nose, and can instead take charge and truly be creative in your own right.
Very nice, Edymnion! I've said the same thing to my players :D
You put it very well.
I mean before the binder or warlock came out creating something like them would have been nearly impossible. It's still difficult to work out how to create new vestiges or invocations because it's so easy to screw them up.
However, I also realize that too many rules can make the system clunky and create these super combos because of 30 separate abilities running at once. I've played in Palladium which is probably the largest rules system I've ever seen. Quite comprehensive but things can slow down to a crawl.
I guess what I'm saying is that yeah, we might not need a new ruleset with every book but new material and concepts are always useful. If the focus of the game is becoming the rules and mechanics then I believe that the issue is with the group, not the system.