RPG bloat...

[Username17]

Every time you add content to a game it strains the game as both a storytelling milieu and as a tactical puzzle. But depending on what you're adding, it may not strain things very much. So let's say we have generic Fantasy Heartbreaker #634 and are considering adding two classes: The Corsair and The Heart Thief. The Corsair is a pirate who runs around with a sword and has some luck manipulation abilities and acrobatics. The Heart Thief pulls humors out of the reflections of people, causing them to have unbalanced chi and explode.

The Corsair doesn't strain your typical fantasy heartbreaker much at all. You sort of presumed that there were pirates around somewhere even if they were never explicitly mentioned. There might not have been any luck manipulation powers before, but it pretty much definitionally doesn't do anything that wasn't otherwise possible in the setting. Similarly, people do acrobatic shit all the time, so again whatever. It's not that this sort of thing can't strain a plot - maybe we earlier saw children moving gold around long distances in rowboats and it implied that there weren't any pirates, or the whole piracy experience was established to be the province of giant sea serpents or something. And it's not that someone who can cash in chips to guaranty a possible but unlikely result doesn't change the tactical arena - such a character existing makes expensive attacks and defenses less valuable by definition. But the strain is on the whole pretty mild.

On the flip side, the Heart Thief is a major WTF. Until he showed up, you didn't even track what your Humor levels were doing, and fucking no one has any defenses that interact at all with whatever the fuck that is. So you've introduced a major overhaul into how the universe apparently works, you've totally changed how offenses and defenses interact, and we've still not even addressed how we're going to explain this shit in terms that are at all explicable to the readers of your fantasy heartbreaker.

Bottom line: adding more things to your setting puts strain on that setting. The amount of strain is variable based on how well it fits with the narrative and tactical assumptions already present in your game. Your setting collapses when there is too much strain on it, not when you hit some magical number of things.

-Username17

[shadzar]

dont like them thematically as an element of the game, same with bards.

Well unless I misinterpreted "thematic", isn't stuff like theme/flavor something that can easily be changed? Reminds me of how there was a Psionic thread (on Wizards years back), of changing the flavor to another form of magic, rather than it being "sci-fi mind stuff" or whatever. That way, someone who enjoys the rules of Psionics, can still play them, and everyone else isn't bothered by the "no longer Sci-fi" theme.

if it is just another wizard...then just play a wizard...in regards to bloat converting all those psi-powers into spells is redundency.

also referring to WotC board will not gain favor or appeal to me in any way, because odds are they were discussions directed by someone trying to sell more product.

you can do whatever you want, but i will not run nor play in a game with psionics or bards, because it is not a game i am interested in. just cutting out the parts that i am not interested in helps with dealing with alleged bloat.

someone once also tried to get me to play eBerron and told me to just tos out what i didnt like form it...so i tossed their book back to them and told them ok i tossed out what i didnt like.

not everyone wants to play with the 3 moons of Krynn so they dont play Dragonlance.

a rule of life...when someone doesnt like something trying to get them to like it often jsut makes them pissed off at you because who the hell are you to tell them what to like or not? you have no right or authority, and are plainly telling them they have no right to decide for themselves...so best thing to do is shut up and deal with it.

i dont like psionics in ANY form, and changing them only makes them another wizard, so jsut play a wizard instead. end of story/discussion.

As for implementing new stuff, does sound like the base game should even hint to future material in its setting. Maybe it spoke of Warlocks, or a certain fighting style far in the east... Also, I've seen no big deal in adding something to a setting, so what it wasn't there before..it is now! That, as K said, can come up with simple justifications, especially if it's a PC here, they're all about being super special, unique, and what not.

no. the base game should have NO setting, that is where problems come in. 4th edition adding the eBerron classes or races/whatever ruins the game for many. the company wanting to add it again, doesnt make it belong. Monstrous Manual having monsters from all over in one book without loose pages to lose and such was good, because you can skip the ones you dont want to use.

for the base game you want World X. pretty much just flavor for the races and such...no deities, but room for people to make their own. if you want setting based stuff then that should be open for people to choose which setting if they have not created their own.

the reason Greyhawk was the general setting for AD&D was simply because it really had no setting specific intricacies to remove. the world was Oerth (Earth) afterall. as generic a world as you could get.

as for hinting at thing to come downt he road...well this is dealing with settings, and unless playing a published one the base game need not reference it at all. this is how you make the game so that groups of players can add things themselves, rather than force them into your game that they might not want to play and force them to remove crap you might think is best but they do not want. heck even monster fluff like ecologies, may be something that someone wants to change, but having something generic is better than nothing for those that like the norm for certain monsters, and those wanting to change them are welcome to do so.

forcing the warforged into all games, serves no purpose. it is jsut a tie-in for another product you hope to sell later. have you ever seen kender in the "core game"? no because they are just a special halfling and do not belong in every game, just as warforged dont belong in every game.

so keep setting specific stuff OUT of the core game, and leave the "BASIC" game as BASIC with room to grow an add, not having to take away extra that never should have ben there. that only causes fluff bloat by adding stuff that isnt going to be seen as wanted by all.

As for supplemental material, if it's not stuff like "Compete" series of books, doesn't obligate players to use it. If it's something like Cityscape, Demonomicon, situational supplemental stuff, although nice, doesn't feel required for the game. Whereas 4th edition, it started rather empty, basically requiring supplements to make things more exciting, and not as barren of an RPG.

not really sure what you are saying here...are you saying people NEED complete series books while demonomicon would be just nice to have, or what?

[shadzar]

Bottom line: adding more things to your setting puts strain on that setting. The amount of strain is variable based on how well it fits with the narrative and tactical assumptions already present in your game. Your setting collapses when there is too much strain on it, not when you hit some magical number of things.

-Username17

so again, dont just add things to add things, only add what actually adds to the game, rather than some player want. if your setting doesnt have bards, then a player coming along all lovey-dovey for bards, just needs to play something else and accept this game doesnt have bards.

you simply dont need to add everything just because it was made. bloat then boils down to personal restraint and will power and understanding an RPG isnt going to exist that will work well with EVERYTHING made for it.

the new Ford Taurus has 30 sets of rims you can choose from, but how many sets can you use at one time? only use what you need, rather than try to use stuff just to use it. you dont need Class #187 just because it exists in the real world for the game, you have to ask if it exists in the game world you are playing.

so there really is no problem with material bloat, just player will power to accept not trying to use everything.

[tussock]

so there really is no problem with material bloat, just player will power to accept not trying to use everything.

Well, when a player turns up with the officially "core" new book of super-bards, a new bard character, and a big smile on his face, and you have to say "actually, no, because a bard would fuck over the campaign", that's not a good gaming moment.

I'd go so far as to say that is a real problem. The spending money on something cool and then getting nothing problem. Awkward.

[shadzar]

so there really is no problem with material bloat, just player will power to accept not trying to use everything.

Well, when a player turns up with the officially "core" new book of super-bards, a new bard character, and a big smile on his face, and you have to say "actually, no, because a bard would fuck over the campaign", that's not a good gaming moment.

I'd go so far as to say that is a real problem. The spending money on something cool and then getting nothing problem. Awkward.

well that is a problem with the term as it has come to be used about "core". when i first used it i meant the simple 3 books for D&D PHB/MM/DMG. they have been around for all editions in one for or other, even the MM took forms of several books before a compilation was made to try to have a single book, then expanded.

of these books the player should have only been using one...the PHB...so nothing new to the "core" would have been for the players, they would all be add-on and supplemental material...supplemental..to supplement. otherwise known as accessories rather than necessities.

wherein with cars, you would call this "stock" or "factory parts"...the term core best applies for D&D when not diluted in its meaning by new age marketing strategy.

that bard class, then is in no way "core" tot he game, but just an add-on that may or may not be able to be used.

the problem again comes to people thinking they have a right to use anything they bought in any game. it will just never be that way unless it is some LGS trying to sell product and just kiss customer buttocks.

to correct the problem is to understand that getting use form something you bought, doesnt mean you have the right to force it onto everyone. you can wait for a game that will allow it. so again player will-power and i would go so far as to say maturity then plays a part in that.

i had a player once insisting that they refused to play in games i ran unless i let them play a bard, and my response was simply, "ok no problem with me. i dont allow bards, so hope you find a game that does allow them".

if the material is not something a DM wants to allow, then trying to force it will only make the DM disinterested in running the game...and everyone will lose. this goes not only for bard psionics, warforged, Netbook of Carnal Knowledge (good read, but never would i use it in a game), or whatever material isnt welcome by that DM. it becomes hard to do the job of making the game stable with all the posible things player can do even with well-balanced material than to throw something in that the DM doesnt want to deal with.

sadly, you dont always get what you want, no matter what 4th edition item wishlist concept has tried to set as precedent. DMs always have final say on everything as is their job and it requires thus.

i know of MANY books i bought for AD&D that never intend to use in the game, but were good reads and great for inspiration. so that book of uber-bard only goes wasted as a purchase if the player lets it. he/she wasnt told to spend the money, and wasnt told not to.

buy anything you want, but dont think just because you buy it others will want it also.

too much medicine in me...hope that made sense.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I don't particularly like Shadzar either, but why are people busting his chops for not allowing bards in his campaign?

Also, I find it's interesting that people are griping about him not allowing psionics, when if someone said they allowed psionics people would be bitching about that?

Just curious.

[MGuy]

I theorize that after looking down and bashing someone for so long it becomes hard to not just bash everything that person does/says as long as its not something you agree with.