TheRPGSite

Quote from: Sigmund;448503For me it's the Cyberpunk 2020 main rulebook, plus a printout of the Night City map, and whatever adventure material I need and that's it. No splats, expansions, subsequent setting material allowed. Oddly enough, the few times I've run D&D it's the same approach. The only games I've run where I used almost all the published material for were Traveller and Alternity.

Let's face it: there are role playing games out there which did not benefit very much, if at all, from the supplemental lines that followed them.

One such game coming to my mind is AD&D, First Edition, to some extent. I love some of the modules, but the vast majority of its supplemental rules material just alters the game in a way I do not care about. Pre-Unearthed Arcana AD&D is to me vastly superior to AD&D + UA + Survival Guides. I would keep the Monster Manual 2 and Fiend Folio, however, since I'm using these books for my games very much. So it's not an entirely dark picture in this regard.

What games are coming to your mind, and why?

Quote from: Benoist;448509One such game coming to my mind is AD&D, First Edition, to some extent. I love some of the modules, but the vast majority of its supplemental rules material just alters the game in a way I do not care about. Pre-Unearthed Arcana AD&D is to me vastly superior to AD&D + UA + Survival Guides. I would keep the Monster Manual 2 and Fiend Folio, however, since I'm using these books for my games very much. So it's not an entirely dark picture in this regard.

I agree.

For the longest time back in the day, we were frequently playing 1E games using only the three core books (MM1, PHB, DMG).  At the time I didn't bother buying many of the later hardcover books.  (I bought modules instead).  We thought many of the later 1E hardcover books seemed kinda superfluous at the time.

AD&D 2nd edition. In hindsight, you can pick out the rare gems from the torrent of crap and run a great game with them. Back then, you would just be wading around in crap a whole lot. Which is what we did.

Pathfinder.

D&D 3.5

Player: "Hey there is this awesome feat in the Complete Book of..."

DM: "NO!"

Player: "How about this awesome prestige class in..."

DM: "NO!"

The above is how all such conversations will play out at my table if I ever run 3.5 again, which is admittedly not likely.

D&D 2e was great with just the PHB and no splats. I played and ran it that way for the entire run of the product.

Star Wars Saga Edition.

You've got everything you need in the core book. You start adding books, and it's more talents, more feats, more prestige classes, alternate systems for handling basic stuff, etc. until you're needing to carry a dozen books to each session just to keep everything handy.

Quote from: jdurall;448560Star Wars Saga Edition.

You've got everything you need in the core book. You start adding books, and it's more talents, more feats, more prestige classes, alternate systems for handling basic stuff, etc. until you're needing to carry a dozen books to each session just to keep everything handy.

I really like most of the supplements, but I agree with you. The game runs just fine and a whole lot more easily with just the core rulebook.

I'd have given almost anything for a character builder for Saga Edition similar to what D&D 4e had when it was offline. But it was not meant to be....

Quote from: misterguignol;448552D&D 3.5...

Yea, allowing all the splats is how broken characters come about.  I like 3.5 alright but not enough to pore over every splat looking for potentially broken combos.

This is true to some extent with Saga Star Wars as well.  Some of the ships in the splats are also way underpriced.

Some splats are better than others.... That said, I'd certainly never run 3.5 will all of the splats being given free reign. That path would have led to madness for me.

Actually, splats are pretty much necessary for noncasters to keep up with casters in 3.x. There are a few OP options in a handful of them, but they're almost all for casters and they're well written up on the internet (Divine Metamagic, Arcane Thesis and Diplomancy are the only three I can recall that don't look immediately questionable to someone who knows the rules). "Core only" is a terrible idea in 3.x and is sign #1 that the DM doesn't know the rules very well.

Sign #2 is when a DM doesn't swap out monster feats.

On topic>
I don't use supplements for Paranoia and have never noticed the absence. I also don't use Traveller supplements. I find both games are better served by just making shit up.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448573Actually, splats are pretty much necessary for noncasters to keep up with casters in 3.x.

That's a bigger issue at higher levels and I find 3e tedious by then anyway.  

The 3.5 splats had quite a bit of power creep.  This allows those players who buy all the books able to make much stronger characters than those who don't.

If you want to keep arguing about CharOp "balance" in 3rd ed, power creep etc, create your own thread to do it, please. This thread here is about games that you prefer to play without supplements, and why.

Thanks. :)

I kind of felt that a lot of the White Wolf stuff was best as a raw idea in one book... no splats. I've got a shedload of the things but all inherited, I never bought anything but the corebooks.

Battletech, if we can consider core as the blue-covered Rules of Warfare

(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/51/36/8ff2124128a0b36301707010.L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

 and a 3025 Tech Readout

(http://im1.ebidst.com/upload_big/0/0/4/1191263560-17852-0.jpg)

If you want to go even lower-tech and say just the original BT boxed set, that's OK too.

Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 1e or 2e.

Palladium games are the only RPGs I own where I feel the splats significantly enhance my gaming experience, especially Rifts.

I am huge fan of L5R 1e, but I found the splats got in the way of my vision of Rokugan and sadly, the same happened with 7th Sea.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;448585Battletech, if we can consider core as the blue-covered Rules of Warfare and a 3025 Tech Readout

If you want to go even lower-tech and say just the original BT boxed set, that's OK too.

But...but I like the clans!

'Course that could be because I came into Mechwarrior via Mech2.

Quote from: Peregrin;448588But...but I like the clans!

I'm going to start hitting you now.

Quote'Course that could be because I came into Mechwarrior via Mech2.

Ah, Repomancer (http://www.thedelversdungeon.com/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=140) will be glad to have another fan - he coded most of Mech2.

I think that most RPGs are better served without supplements. There are few games I would say "You need this extra book to enjoy it 100%" Actually, if you need more than the core to enjoy the game, the game may not be very good.

When I write supliments I go for "hey this is fun but it's completly optional" which might explain the poor sales.

Rolemaster. I've got nothing good to say about the Companions, the character classes are seriously imbalanced, to the point that if you choose a character class from the corebooks you're a sucker, the table of related skills is a nightmare, etc. If I played Rolemaster again, I would use the three corebooks (Character Law, Arms Law and Spell Law), and maybe Creatures & Treasures 1, C&T2 is only good to have a good laugh, we used to mock the monsters that appeared there.

Vampire the Masquerade. Some of the first supplements, like Chicago by Night, were very good and inspiring, but I hated how the more information they revealed about the setting and the metaplot, the more the sense of mystery was ruined. I miss the times when there was only the Camarilla, the Sabbath was a mystery, and there were no independent clans.

Quote from: Imperator;448605I think that most RPGs are better served without supplements. There are few games I would say "You need this extra book to enjoy it 100%" Actually, if you need more than the core to enjoy the game, the game may not be very good.

Not that I disagree with you, but that's not what is being discussed in this thread. It's not about supplements that are not necessary, but about supplements that make the game worse. For example, RQ Vikings is not necessary to play RuneQuest, but it's an excellent supplement. On the other hand, the RM Companions are crap.

Quote from: Simlasa;448582I kind of felt that a lot of the White Wolf stuff was best as a raw idea in one book... no splats. I've got a shedload of the things but all inherited, I never bought anything but the corebooks.

I mentioned explicitly Vampire the Masquerade, but it's true the same could be said about the other WW lines.

Quote from: Claudius;448616Not that I disagree with you, but that's not what is being discussed in this thread. It's not about supplements that are not necessary, but about supplements that make the game worse. For example, RQ Vikings is not necessary to play RuneQuest, but it's an excellent supplement. On the other hand, the RM Companions are crap.

Oh, I see :)

Well, I guess that I have been quite lucky with my supplement acquisitions, as I cannot remember having any book worsening the game for our group. We've bought several poor adventures, but in the supplement area the results have only gone from average (the supplement adds something useful, but nothing game-changing) to excellent (the supplement becomes core to us).

I managed to avoid the horrible stuff in Vampire, it seems :D

Quote from: Benoist;448580If you want to keep arguing about CharOp "balance" in 3rd ed, power creep etc, create your own thread to do it, please. This thread here is about games that you prefer to play without supplements, and why.

Thanks. :)

But I prefer to play 3e core only.  The power creep is part of the why.

Quote from: Melan;448516AD&D 2nd edition. In hindsight, you can pick out the rare gems from the torrent of crap and run a great game with them. Back then, you would just be wading around in crap a whole lot. Which is what we did.

Agreed on this. Some of the setting books are good, but ignore all of the rules supplements.

7th Sea is another big one. In this case it's more the setting which gets worse the more books you read. Actually - it's been a while since I read them, but I think 7th Sea may even be best if you use only the PHB and ignore the GMG.

Quote from: Claudius;448616For example, RQ Vikings is not necessary to play RuneQuest, but it's an excellent supplement.

This is the sort of supplement that I like, taking the game in new directions, instead of just piling on more rules.

Quote from: Imperator;448605There are few games I would say "You need this extra book to enjoy it 100%" Actually, if you need more than the core to enjoy the game, the game may not be very good.

I'd say Vampire is one such game, though you can totally enjoy the game from just the core book. If however you start with the core book (say, second edition), and then add in Player's Guide and Player's Guide to the Sabbat, the game becomes different, yes, but by my own account, actually superior (and to be clear, it's not a matter of just adding clans to the mix. It's a matter of reading such supplements, especially PG to the Sabbat. So just getting Vampire 3rd edition -which gathers all thirteen clans with far less limited information- just doesn't cut it). When the game needs some shake up and you know the game well, add in Elysium rules and allow the players to play Elders. The game changes again, and when done right, for the better.

EDIT - maybe there's a case to be made that enjoying Vampire to the fullest actually requires the GM to purchase a good "by Night" book, like Chicago or Constantinople or Montreal or Dark Colony. The tiny example included in the original core book, Gary, just doesn't cut it IMO.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448573"Core only" is a terrible idea in 3.x and is sign #1 that the DM doesn't know the rules very well.

I take issue with this part of your comment.

As Benoist posted in the "3.5 is broken at level seven thread", some of us can't be arsed enough to learn all of those rules. It isn't that we don't know the core rules well enough to play Level one to ten, it is that we don't want to take the time to learn all of the higher level stuff or have any desire to add ALL of the supplement bloat to the game.

There is a difference between "doesn't know the rules very well" and doesn't give a crap about high level play or have a desire to be adding supplemental bloat to the equation.

Some of the supplements were ridiculous. The Book of Exalted Cheese for example. Some of them have some good content. A lot of the third party stuff doesn't play well with the WotC stuff though. It can be a headache. Some GM's don't have the time or the desire to use all of that crap. It has nothing to do with how well they know the core rules or not.

Quote from: PaladinCA;448671I take issue with this part of your comment.

As Benoist posted in the "3.5 is broken at level seven thread", some of us can't be arsed enough to learn all of those rules. It isn't that we don't know the core rules well enough to play Level one to ten, it is that we don't want to take the time to learn all of the higher level stuff or have any desire to add ALL of the supplement bloat to the game.

There is a difference between "doesn't know the rules very well" and doesn't give a crap about high level play or have a desire to be adding supplemental bloat to the equation.

Some of the supplements were ridiculous. The Book of Exalted Cheese for example. Some of them have some good content. A lot of the third party stuff doesn't play well with the WotC stuff though. It can be a headache. Some GM's don't have the time or the desire to use all of that crap. It has nothing to do with how well they know the core rules or not.

I would suggest that if you don't want to learn how to play the entire game, you should play a different game. There are plenty of games that recreate the low-level D&D 3.x experience without the complexity of high level play.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448680I would suggest that if you don't want to learn how to play the entire game, you should play a different game. There are plenty of games that recreate the low-level D&D 3.x experience without the complexity of high level play.

In principle I agree.

In practice, I've found that it didn't work out so well (in my particular situation).

During the 3.5E era, I found that it was very difficult to find anybody locally who was interested in playing a regular 1E AD&D game.  (ie. Want ads at gaming stores, online ads, etc ...).  Frequently the individuals interested in 1E AD&D I found, were either total flakes or people who I've had bad experiences with previously.  It was much easier to find non-flaky individuals who were interested in playing a regular 3.5E (and later 4E) game.

Gradually over the years (since I got back into rpg games shortly after 3.5E was released), I've found that I prefer to play regular rpg games at nearby gaming stores (or at a community/recreational center) with strangers.  There's no personal crap and/or "friend" issues.  The games are more or less "strictly business" (for lack of a better term).  People who were undesirable and/or behaving badly, can be easily kicked out without any emotional baggage involved.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448680I would suggest that if you don't want to learn how to play the entire game, you should play a different game. There are plenty of games that recreate the low-level D&D 3.x experience without the complexity of high level play.

I have actually moved on from D&D 3.5 for reasons of complexity and bloat.

I still think, however, that someone can stick to 3.5 core rules or something like an E6 and still have an enjoyable time playing within those parameters.

I don't believe that 3.5 or any game system is take it all or leave it all. There is a happy medium between all or nothing and those tastes are certainly subjective to the individual and the group they game with.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448680I would suggest that if you don't want to learn how to play the entire game, you should play a different game. There are plenty of games that recreate the low-level D&D 3.x experience without the complexity of high level play.

Yes, I can see how learning every facet of everything that could come into play over 20 levels of 3.x D&D should definitely be necessary.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: misterguignol;448693Yes, I can see how learning every facet of everything that could come into play over 20 levels of 3.x D&D should definitely be necessary.  :rolleyes:

"Just because I don't know what a knight is doesn't mean I can't play chess."

Yes, yes you should learn the game as completely as possible in order to play it as well as possible. It's not even particularly hard, since a quiet afternoon searching the internet will inform you of almost every problematic build, exploitable feat and underlying mechanical issue. You can use this same astounding resource to discover plenty of well-written, interesting information about the mechanical side of the game that will improve your play and the experience of everyone around the table. If you choose not to do this, there are a couple of possibilities:

1) You are stupid and lazy
2) You are pugnaciously ignorant and enjoy inflicting the consequences of your ignorance on others
3) You have different priorities which could be better realised by playing another game with different rules

tl;dr

L2P, dummy

Quote from: PaladinCA;448686I have actually moved on from D&D 3.5 for reasons of complexity and bloat.

I still think, however, that someone can stick to 3.5 core rules or something like an E6 and still have an enjoyable time playing within those parameters.

I don't believe that 3.5 or any game system is take it all or leave it all. There is a happy medium between all or nothing and those tastes are certainly subjective to the individual and the group they game with.

E6 is OK, but the kinds of expectations about the play experience that gave rise to it are really better satisfied by other games. I'm sympathetic to those expectations, so I play Openquest and WFRP, for example, which are both deadlier games where experienced characters never really transcend the highest level of human capability.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448695It's not even particularly hard, since a quiet afternoon searching the internet will inform you of almost every problematic build, exploitable feat and underlying mechanical issue.

If that's the best use of an afternoon you can come up with, I pity you.

Nothx, I'd rather play games than have to study them on the Internets like a chump.

My solution to the war that has been raging over 3.x lately was simple:  I did play core, but I played core with NWN.

There was a handful of sourcebook material added in the expansions, but the nature of a video game meant they removed many of the spells everyone's whining about being problematic to roleplay, because they weren't practical to implement on a computer. Wish, teleport, and so on, all gone.

Problem solved.  Fun had.  The end.

Quote from: misterguignol;448700If that's the best use of an afternoon you can come up with, I pity you.

Actually a game that can be "mastered" in a single afternoon, exploits and all, is a pretty fucking simple game in terms of tabletop "hobby" shit.

QuoteNothx, I'd rather play games than have to study them on the Internets like a chump.

Yeah man, normal people would never buy anything, like say, a strategy guide for a video-game.  Or look up walk-throughs on GameFaqs.

Oh wait.  Normal people do.  All the time.

Quote from: Peregrin;448740Actually a game that can be "mastered" in a single afternoon, exploits and all, is a pretty fucking simple game in terms of tabletop "hobby" shit.

Do you really feel the need to "master" a game before you play it?  Honest question; I'm actually curious because I feel no such need and would be turned off from a game if that was the expectation.

QuoteYeah man, normal people would never buy anything, like say, a strategy guide for a video-game.  Or look up walk-throughs on GameFaqs.

Oh wait.  Normal people do.  All the time.

I wouldn't know; I don't play video games.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448697E6 is OK, but the kinds of expectations about the play experience that gave rise to it are really better satisfied by other games. I'm sympathetic to those expectations, so I play Openquest and WFRP, for example, which are both deadlier games where experienced characters never really transcend the highest level of human capability.

D&D from 1st-6th or 10th level plays differently from BRP (of which in particular I am a big fan, don't get me wrong) or Warhammer. It's entirely reasonable to prefer "the first half" of (d20) D&D to BRP or Warhammer, and just not enjoy as much the higher levels for whatever reason.

The player who thinks "I like the way 3e plays, just not as much after level X," and "I like this character and would like to keep playing him in much the same way" isn't imaginary. I have played with lots of guys who feel this way, and I don't think they are assholes for thinking so.

The mode of play in 3E D&D changes a lot over the span of levels, and given that change, there are going to be people who really like the start and not so much the finish. Just staying with what you like is a MUCH easier fix in that case than switching to an entirely different game. I don't believe in a perfect game, and especially given the convenience of playing/running any given version of D&D for a given group of players, with its great familiarity to a broad base, it's a good compromise game.

I don't see the benefits of approaching gameplay with the attitude of "master high level play or GTFO."

Quote from: misterguignol;448741Do you really feel the need to "master" a game before you play it?  Honest question; I'm actually curious because I feel no such need and would be turned off from a game if that was the expectation.

Me personally?  No.  Especially not with 3e.  I find that type of number-crunching/system-mastery boring.  I'm just saying that in terms of "mastering" something, an afternoon is trivial.  And if mastering something can affect actual play in a positive way, I can't say it's a bad thing.

QuoteI wouldn't know; I don't play video games.

Well, let's put it this way.  An 8-10 billion dollar industry has proven that everyday people will grind away hours for arbitrary "achievement" points that have no affect on actual play, so I'd hardly consider spending an afternoon reading about the mechanics of 3e a waste.

Quote from: Cole;448742D&D from 1st-6th or 10th level plays differently from BRP (of which in particular I am a big fan, don't get me wrong) or Warhammer. It's entirely reasonable to prefer "the first half" of (d20) D&D to BRP or Warhammer, and just not enjoy as much the higher levels for whatever reason.

The player who thinks "I like the way 3e plays, just not as much after level X," and "I like this character and would like to keep playing him in much the same way" isn't imaginary. I have played with lots of guys who feel this way, and I don't think they are assholes for thinking so.

The mode of play in 3E D&D changes a lot over the span of levels, and given that change, there are going to be people who really like the start and not so much the finish. Just staying with what you like is a MUCH easier fix in that case than switching to an entirely different game. I don't believe in a perfect game, and especially given the convenience of playing/running any given version of D&D for a given group of players, with its great familiarity to a broad base, it's a good compromise game.

I don't see the benefits of approaching gameplay with the attitude of "master high level play or GTFO."

I completely agree.

As much as I was arguing on another thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=19708) for actually playing the game as a whole and learning the ropes instead of bitching about the game being "broken," I also argued for this side here of the issue from the start: that if for any reason you feel that "hey, I want to play up to 6th level and that's what I like," there is basically nothing wrong with that, because you like the aesthetic, the way the characters relate to the world, you are in familiar territory, whatever the case may be.

The whole notion that one should focus on the mechanical aspect of 3rd ed and learn the ins and outs of the system to even be "worth" playing with is really not something I think is right, or constructive, for that matter.

Quote from: Grymbok;4486317th Sea is another big one. In this case it's more the setting which gets worse the more books you read. Actually - it's been a while since I read them, but I think 7th Sea may even be best if you use only the PHB and ignore the GMG.

Oh, I forgot this, probably because I didn't get any supplement. But you are right, the metaplot here sucks donkey balls and destroys the game.

Quote from: J Arcane;448705My solution to the war that has been raging over 3.x lately was simple:  I did play core, but I played core with NWN.

There was a handful of sourcebook material added in the expansions, but the nature of a video game meant they removed many of the spells everyone's whining about being problematic to roleplay, because they weren't practical to implement on a computer. Wish, teleport, and so on, all gone.

Problem solved.  Fun had.  The end.

A very interesting idea. Thanks fo sharing :)

Quote from: Peregrin;448740Actually a game that can be "mastered" in a single afternoon, exploits and all, is a pretty fucking simple game in terms of tabletop "hobby" shit.

True. But I call bullshit on the assertion that D&D3 can be mastered in one afternoon. Or ten afternoons. I'm not saying you claimed it.

It takes true talent to know which Rifts supplements to pick from the vast sea of them. There are some true diamonds (Arzno, Mercenaries), most of them are alright, and some that just suck giant donkey dick (Africa, the entire goddamn Siege on Tolkeen series).

There is also the eventual power creep from supplement to supplement with each new one trying to outgun all the previous ones and giving you M.D.C underpants.

Quote from: Claudius;448780True. But I call bullshit on the assertion that D&D3 can be mastered in one afternoon. Or ten afternoons. I'm not saying you claimed it.

Learning optimisation in 3.x mainly involves reading about two dozen short articles, absorbing and then applying the concepts contained within. There's also handbooks for each class, and a few miscellaneous references. Unless you really want to reinvent the wheel, it's not hard to read and remember most of the important stuff, especially since you can immediately start applying it in games.

Knowing this stuff doesn't constitute "mastery" of the game, since as Beno's been hammering on across multiple threads now, there's more to the game than just its mechanical elements interacting, but it strikes me as odd that ignorance of this stuff is somehow considered preferable. I won't deny feeling contemptuous of anyone who both plays D&D 3.x and claims it's too hard to learn all the rules.

Quote from: Peregrin;448743Me personally?  No.  Especially not with 3e.  I find that type of number-crunching/system-mastery boring.  I'm just saying that in terms of "mastering" something, an afternoon is trivial.  And if mastering something can affect actual play in a positive way, I can't say it's a bad thing.

I learnt char op and the rules of the game to effectively apply them to create interesting situations and characters without merely relying on DM fiat or luck. Knowing how to build interesting characters is applicable to NPCs as well as PCs and leads to more dynamic, exciting fights where more things happen than just swarming the big boss and full attacking every round until he's dead.

Quote from: Claudius;448614Rolemaster. I've got nothing good to say about the Companions...

I agree, although I would make an exception for the first Companion, which is pretty solid (as it was written by a single author, it has a clearer overall vision, and is not a hopeless mishmash of different things, like the later companions).

I also would say the MERP is better than RM, at least for lower level adventuring (it keeps most of the cool things of RM, but cuts back on the detail).

Quote from: Ramrod;448781It takes true talent to know which Rifts supplements to pick from the vast sea of them. There are some true diamonds (Arzno, Mercenaries), most of them are alright, and some that just suck giant donkey dick (Africa, the entire goddamn Siege on Tolkeen series).

There is also the eventual power creep from supplement to supplement with each new one trying to outgun all the previous ones and giving you M.D.C underpants.

Welcome to theRPGsite, and quoted for absolute blinding brain-searing motherfucking truth.

As a rule of thumb, starting with South America 1 it's mostly crap. Which is a pity, because you have some books with excellent world info, and crappy, broken or ridiculous classes and toys (WBs 10-18, some of the last purchases I've made, spring to mind). Again, Rifts is not a game for the faint of heart, and the GM should put on the Viking hat and tell players who want to play Anti_monsters and Mega-Juicers to bugger off (unless of course it's one of those campaigns we keep hearing about :D).

If I had to choose 5 books, for a North American campaign, I'd go with Sourcebook 1, Vampire Kingdoms, Conversion Book 1, Atlantis and Mercenaries. Vampire Kingdoms in particular is my gold-standard for a Rifts setting book, Rifts needed less ridiculous toy books like Coalition War Campaign, and more world info and locales crawling with adventure hooks like Ciudad Juarez.

Quote from: Ramrod;448781There is also the eventual power creep from supplement to supplement with each new one trying to outgun all the previous ones and giving you M.D.C underpants.

Thanks to you, my RIFTS game's NPC headhunter now has MDC underpants.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;448580If you want to keep arguing about CharOp "balance" in 3rd ed, power creep etc, create your own thread to do it, please. This thread here is about games that you prefer to play without supplements, and why.

Thanks. :)

Does anyone else read this as "Please derail the shit out of this motherfucker!" or is that just me?

Quote from: Aos;449293Does anyone else read this as "Please derail the shit out of this motherfucker!" or is that just me?

I'm sure you're not the only one. By all means, go ahead.

Quote from: Aos;449293Does anyone else read this as "Please derail the shit out of this motherfucker!" or is that just me?

One of the nice things about theRPGsite, as opposed to that other heavily-moderated forum, is that threads are allowed to grow "organically", which sometimes includes being derailed into something else entirely.

This can be really annoying at times (e.g. it's nearly impossible to start a thread on 4e without incendiary results), but often allows interesting and meaningful discussions which pop up unexpectedly and are not 100% relevant to the thread's original topic.

To Benoist's credit, though: (1) the "3.5e is a CharOp wankfest" argument is a dead horse, and (2) he did say "please". :D

The organic growth is something I like about theRPGsite too.  As long as the movement of a thread really is organic, ie. veering off into branches, and not artificial (ie. someone throws in a totally unrelated subject just to fuck up the thread).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;449417The organic growth is something I like about theRPGsite too.  As long as the movement of a thread really is organic, ie. veering off into branches, and not artificial (ie. someone throws in a totally unrelated subject just to fuck up the thread).

That's a mighty thin line between the two, Pundy, if one exists at all.

I (and a few others) still want the bat-slap back, BTW. :D

Quote from: Imperator;448773A very interesting idea. Thanks fo sharing :)

Problem spells stop being problems at all when the GM has the balls to just ban them outright.

Quote from: The Butcher;449470That's a mighty thin line between the two, Pundy, if one exists at all.

No, there really isn't.  One is conversation that grows out of what is being talked about on the thread. The other is some douchebag or douchebags jumping in and trying to change the thread to an entirely different topic with no continuity.

QuoteI (and a few others) still want the bat-slap back, BTW. :D

That isn't a branch at all, that (and other kind of "Hur hur lets show our disdain for the subject by posting drivel" material) is a dead-end.  Usually an intentional one, meant to shut down all conversation in a flood if inanity.

RPGPundit

(Double post... sorry)

I think that most games that publish supplements with enough frequency eventually get to the point that they become unmanageable or dysfunctional.

Mongoose Traveller is a recent example to me. Though there are a few supplements I find very valuable (central supply catalog, 760 patrons), and I almost always enjoy new career sequences, the material beyond the career sequences in the "Green Stripe" books seem too specialized to use more than one of in a given game fitting that specialty, or not worth using altogether.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;449693I think that any game that sees continual publication is more than likely to reach the point where additional supplements are more trouble than it's worth.

Too true. It's simple statistics, really, no matter how high the writing and publishing standards for a given game line, the more stuff you put out, the higher the probability that bad material sees print.

There's no shortage of great games and settings which have collapsed under the weight of their own supplement treadmill.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;449693I think Mongoose Traveller is a pretty good game with 3 or 4 of the supplements, but beyond new chargen sequences, most of the "green stripe" supplements don't really add all that much to the typical game. Some are good for specialized campaigns, but you still wouldn't want to use all the supplements (or a major portion of them) at once.

I've been avoiding the career supplements like the plague, having been warned off of splatbooks by the Old World of Darkness and D&D 3.5e. From my cursory readings, I'm not sure the new career paths actually add anything significant to the core character generation charts.

I am curious, though, as to what supplements you prefer for Mongoose Traveller. You mention 760 Patrons and Central Supply Catalogue (which seem to heap a lot of praise everytime MongTrav supplements are mentioned). What else?

Quote from: The Butcher;449768Too true. It's simple statistics, really, no matter how high the writing and publishing standards for a given game line, the more stuff you put out, the higher the probability that bad material sees print.

There's no shortage of great games and settings which have collapsed under the weight of their own supplement treadmill.

At what number of supplements, would be the "breaking point"?

(ie.  How many splatbooks does it take for a game/setting to collapse under its own weight?).

Quote from: ggroy;449771At what number of supplements, would be the "breaking point"?

(ie.  How many splatbooks does it take for a game/setting to collapse under its own weight?).

I'm not sure you can actually derive a number, or even a range. Especially since "good supplement" or "bad supplement" is a value judgement. Some games are saddled with bad writing right form the start. Some have great writing but never playtest. Others have great teams, but change writers or editors and start to suck, until the new people get a hang of the game (and/or its fans) and strat putting out good material again. It's complicated.

Imho, the closest example I can think of offhand of a game/setting just reaching a "breaking point" without collapsing under its own weight (subjectively) could be Scarred Lands.

Imho, a game/setting which is just beyond the point of no return and already in the process of collapsing under its own weight (subjectively) could be the Pathfinder rpg + Golarion setting this year (2011).

Quote from: ggroy;449771At what number of supplements, would be the "breaking point"?

(ie.  How many splatbooks does it take for a game/setting to collapse under its own weight?).

I don't have a number, but I do have a principle: If I have to consult more books during play than I can comfortably have open on the table, then I'm playing with too many supplements. This in practice means 2-3 books including the corebook. Supplements consulted "off the table" (during character or adventure creation or during downtime between adventures) don't count.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;449693I think that any game that sees continual publication is more than likely to reach the point where additional supplements are more trouble than it's worth.

Yes. I think the reason is that there is a finite amount of "interesting things" you can say or write about anything. You can't churn out supplement after supplement and have all of them be good, interesting and engaging.

Quote from: The Butcher;449768I've been avoiding the career supplements like the plague, having been warned off of splatbooks by the Old World of Darkness and D&D 3.5e. From my cursory readings, I'm not sure the new career paths actually add anything significant to the core character generation charts.

I am curious, though, as to what supplements you prefer for Mongoose Traveller. You mention 760 Patrons and Central Supply Catalogue (which seem to heap a lot of praise everytime MongTrav supplements are mentioned). What else?

Well, if you don't see value in new careers, that may be just about it. 1001 Characters is nice if you like a ready-made packet of NPCs, and Traders and Gunboats is pretty much what's on the tin--I got the PDF version and use it to print and laminate ship plans for players to use.

Beyond that, the content of the green-stripe books is, as I alluded to, highly dependent upon the sort of game you run. Psion would be useful, for example, if you want a game where psychic powers are a feature, perhaps not so much otherwise. Scout would be good for a survey/exploration game, etc.