I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it's one major crux of an argument I've seen used against D&D for a while. While not techincally true (as I can see some senerios where rules-bloat might occure), the statement above is my feelings about the state of both D&D, and more roleplaying games out today.

I feel that it's a false argument primarily used by people who don't have a good idea of what they're supposed to be doing while playing.

I feel that the argument of people who appreciate the plethora of material coming out of Wizards of the Coast, for example, is a neutral one. They enjoy the additional options.
I have noticed that the arguments against rules-bloat tend to be attacks, as if Wizards of the Coast is doing them a disservice by publishing additional books. I believe this may be because people feel obligated to purchase the suppliments in order to own the whole game, and that if they don't, they haven't gotten the complete game. And, as what they view to be a 'complete' game increases in size, they feel obligated in turn to use or include all of this material into their conceptions of the game and allow it onto the table they play at.

All the 'Don't buy or use it if you don't want it.' in the world doesn't seem to convince them otherwise.

I don't understand the compulsion to buy new material and then complain about it. I don't understand the compulsion to stop running a game because there are more books published then Core. I swear, I've heard of people who used to run 3.0/.5 games and then stopped because Wizards wouldn't stop publishing material for it.

I can understand it being a bit of a false proposition when it comes to games with optional content, but when applied to a system like Exalted, which has ballooned in terms of fundamental systems required for play (combat for example) then the criticism holds water.

I dislike Exalted's rules bloat and I still have a very good idea of "what I'm supposed be doing whilst playing." It's just that I'd only feel comfortable pursuing that kind of play whilst surrounded by others who knew the system at least as well as I. It's a pretty easy gripe to understand, don't you think?

You know ever time someone says "I don't believe in rules-bloat"
A 3.5 book dies

:pundit:

I agree with everything said in the original post, and would like to submit myself as evidence in the form of someone who lives that "don't like it, don't buy it" philosophy.

By and large when it comes to any game I prefer to stick with the corebook, and will generally avoid source material like the plague, and only use it with much consideration.

With D&D I tend to make characters almost exclusively from the corebooks, only occasionally introducing classes or traits from other sourcebooks very infrequently, and tend to make 100% sure the GM will allow it, even in instances where it would seem he'd allow anything.

There have been exceptions to this, mind you.  Back when I played Rifts, for instance, I don't think I ever created a character with just the core, nor do I know anyone who did.  Primarily this was because the core, and the character system, was so incredibly limiting that basically the only way to create a new type of character was finding a new class.  And the corebook is so utterly incomplete as to present practically nothing to work with on a setting or character basis.  

But at the same time, the ridiculous power creep in the Rifts books is part of what led to my present tendency to avoid sourcebooks like the plague.

"Rules-bloat" is a funny two-edged sword.  

On one hand, it's a very real complaint, though not necessarily a problem.  A continuing stream of optional rules commonly encourages different expectations among different players and GMs as to what the "canon" is for the game.  This probably isn't a real problem as often as one might come to expect based on the online arguments over it -- ultimately everyone at the table comes to an agreement on what optional rules they'll allow at the table or not.

On the other hand, there's an expectation among players of RPGs that a continuing flow of new product must be released for a game line, or it is declared "dead".  So, whether the new, optional rules coming out are inspired or necessary or useful or not, there has to be something new out there, or players will vocally abandon the game.  Thus appears to be the opinion of the major publishers.

Now, back in the day, this is all the sort of thing that fan magazines were good for -- issuing new, optional rules variants.  No one considered them "bloat" because they were plainly not published under an official company cover (at least not until some sort of compendium came out).  The confusing thing these days is the appearance of necessity created by publishing optional rules as regular product.  That's where dingleshit and I started having our fall-out -- it's not playing the game poorly if you don't embrace unnecessary rules addenda.

!i!

Quote from: DrewI can understand it being a bit of a false proposition when it comes to games with optional content, but when applied to a system like Exalted, which has ballooned in terms of fundamental systems required for play (combat for example) then the criticism holds water.

I dislike Exalted's rules bloat and I still have a very good idea of "what I'm supposed be doing whilst playing." It's just that I'd only feel comfortable pursuing that kind of play whilst surrounded by others who knew the system at least as well as I. It's a pretty easy gripe to understand, don't you think?

White Wolf, despite my love for some of its products, produces what I consider the closest thing to rules-bloat that I witness on a regular basis. Besides Rifts, which I always forget to include as a living system since it hasn't every changed. >.>

The base system in, say, 1st Ed. Exalted never changes, really. Technically everything after the 1st books is optional unless you want to play a non-Solar. I say 'technically', because the reality of that is bullshit, but that's not rules-bloat. It's just shitty marketing.

Or I should say, 'excellent marketing', because you really can't play Exalted by itself. You need every hardcover they come out with for each Exalt type, or you don't get to interact with those. Even the Dragonblooded, the primary foe of the Solars, don't get any recognizeable standards or rules in the core book and this is something that fills my heart with geek-rage, because it makes Exalted really tough to play.

But it's not rules or suppliment bloat. It's the opposite. It's actually what people accuse D&D of doing all the time; they publish additional books in order for you to have a complete game. The only WW book that doesn't do this in my memory is NWoD's core. You need the suppliments to play Vampires or whatever, but it's a perfectly seviceable system on its own.

The closest thing to rules bloat, besides Rifts I guess, is probably the WW's official fan-club ruling.  That's because it's expected that all published material eventually makes it to national play. But you don't really have to buy someone elses' material for that because someone usually has it and due to the social network setup, it's easy to borrow and only takes a sec.

Quote from: Ian Absentia"Rules-bloat" is a funny two-edged sword.  

On one hand, it's a very real complaint, though not necessarily a problem.  A continuing stream of optional rules commonly encourages different expectations among different players and GMs as to what the "canon" is for the game.  This probably isn't a real problem as often as one might come to expect based on the online arguments over it -- ultimately everyone at the table comes to an agreement on what optional rules they'll allow at the table or not.

On the other hand, there's an expectation among players of RPGs that a continuing flow of new product must be released for a game line, or it is declared "dead".  So, whether the new, optional rules coming out are inspired or necessary or useful or not, there has to be something new out there, or players will vocally abandon the game.  Thus appears to be the opinion of the major publishers.

Now, back in the day, this is all the sort of thing that fan magazines were good for -- issuing new, optional rules variants.  No one considered them "bloat" because they were plainly not published under an official company cover (at least not until some sort of compendium came out).  The confusing thing these days is the appearance of necessity created by publishing optional rules as regular product.  That's where dingleshit and I started having our fall-out -- it's not playing the game poorly if you don't embrace unnecessary rules addenda.

!i!

You'll have to explain your concept of canon further. I think I get it, but I'm a little unclear. How games get set up varies, but it's it wasn't specifically allowed before hand, I've usually seen things simply ok'd as they came up.

Publishing crappy material is one thing. Then I'd be unhappy that they published something I'm not interested in, but that problem tends to work itself out...

I don't think anyone's every actually said that not using optional material makes you a 'bad' player, or that you're playing the game incorrectly. And in addition, you do yourself no favors by starting the name calling again. I hope you'll agree that's kind of juvinile.

Exalted is an excellent example of rules bloat.  D&D is not.

Rules bloat, to me, is non-core supplemental material that impacts the core game to the point where it's a different version or requires the supplemental material to complete the game.

Exalted did this with the fatsplat syndrome, and it did it again with Power Combat.  2nd Edition continues the trend of requiring fatsplats for creating mechanically sound antagonists, though it fails on that level as well.  And the ST Companion, which should have eliminated that problem, only compounded it by being a complete mess.

White Wolf has always been awful about this, though.  I think it's because they don't really know how to construct a playable and complete game from the get-go.  Good old Mage, for instance, didn't have a system for magical items until one of the very last books of the last edition of the line, despite them being a core enough consideration to be placed in the main book.  You didn't get a system for the resonance attribute (another core mechanical trait) in revised until a location splat book for Las Vegas!

Then you've got D&D, which is literally playable with nothing but the core three (four, if you count the Epic Level Handbook, so as to play the game continuously through to the end of time) books.  You literally do not need anything else, and any book that changes core game assumptions (Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum) is entirely and distinctly optional.

QuoteThen you've got D&D, which is literally playable with nothing but the core three (four, if you count the Epic Level Handbook, so as to play the game continuously through to the end of time) books. You literally do not need anything else, and any book that changes core game assumptions (Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum) is entirely and distinctly optional.

Word.  One of the things I love so much about D&D is that the core three are all you need.  That's it.  You could play forever and ever with just those books.  I do get a little bored with the core character options occasionally, but that's usually a factor of my own lack of imagination more than anything.  

You can ban every book but those three, and still play just fine.

Yes, I love games like that.  I went through the "gotta collect 'em all" thing about five or seven years ago and man, I am so done with that shit.

I have boxes and boxes of old White Wolf crap outside, and I have a bookshelf weighed down with dozens of Deadlands books.  I really don't want to ever play a game again that has that kind of systematic bloat.  Give me something complete that has optional add-ons instead.  Let me pick and choose from what I'd like, not what I need to finish the game.

I can't comment on the D&D3.X vs Exalted and so forth.

However, in principle a complaint I have heard about is supplements which depend on other supplements.  For example, if a module you buy has a bunch of NPCs who have abilities from sourcebook X, and refers you to there for the description -- then you're in a bit of a bind.  

Interdependent supplements aren't nearly as bad as putting out a set of core books which aren't complete, but depending on your preferences, I can see complaining about it.

Quote from: jhkimI can't comment on the D&D3.X vs Exalted and so forth.

However, in principle a complaint I have heard about is supplements which depend on other supplements.  For example, if a module you buy has a bunch of NPCs who have abilities from sourcebook X, and refers you to there for the description -- then you're in a bit of a bind.  

Interdependent supplements aren't nearly as bad as putting out a set of core books which aren't complete, but depending on your preferences, I can see complaining about it.

This was the one thing I absolutely HATED about GURPS 3e.

I bought the Myth sourcebook, because I was always intrigued by the setting of the games, even though I basically suck at them, and horridly.  

But of course, in order to make actual use out of the rules portions of the book, you would've had to buy a small handful of other books just to understand what the hell the references were.

The whole GURPS line was so interdependent that in order to actually make full use of it, you basically had to buy dozens of books.

And the corebook itself was woefully incomplete, and basically only useful for either modern day, or very low magic fantasy, or medieval settings.  To get more use out of it, you basically had to buy sourcebooks, or make everything up yourself.  

4e is better on that front, though there's still a few things that could've used much better coverage, and clearly didn't get it to insure a market for the sourcebooks that did cover them, like magic.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou can ban every book but those three, and still play just fine.

Not when it comes to prestige classes.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot when it comes to prestige classes.

In what way?

• Prestige classes are optional.  I know, I know...  this goes against the common wisdom, but it's true.
• There are prestige classes in the DMG, as well as some advice on making your own.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot when it comes to prestige classes.

I don't actually like prestige classes that much, and I find the vast majority of them wind up penalizing you more than they help by depriving you of core class levels.  

I seldom, if ever, use them, and prefer to stick with base classes.