I am wondering, how much is too much in terms of rules content? I know that this is pretty individual, but I am wondering about the opinions of people on these board and of Paizo staff on the matter.
I am particularly interested in how much is too much (i.e. it starts becoming rules bloat) in terms of the following:
1) Races
2) Classes
3) Learnable options (feats, spells)
I think the lowest threshold for bloat is in races. Thus far, the Pathfinder RPG has not added new player races. I really think the approach taken is very good, as no new player races are being added, but races that could serve as such are given the basic character treatment in the Bestiary.
Anyway, I think base classes are approaching the point of saturation, but so far so good. As to feats and spells, I think the no-use threshold has already been passes - as in, I don't consider additional options here useful, but it isn't really bloat for me in the sense that it doesn't bother me.
I welcome you thoughts on the matter.
I really don't worry about it, as long as Paizo puts plenty of time and effort in what they make it wont be an issue. I say keep the material coming.
The Bestiaries actually contain a lot of stats for alternate player races, which the PRPG also provides guidelines on how to incorporate into a campaign.
As for classes, you might be right. Right now there are a lot of 20-lvl classes, but I guessit is Paizo's way of adding variety to the game without flooding us with a ton of broken prestige classes.
I don't agree on you take of feats and spells. True that there are many less than useful choices out now, but they are more a matter of flavor. I can easily think of a lot of spells and feats from 3.5 which I would love to see reworked for PRPG.
I think that will always vary from table to table for all 3. I have a good portion of the complete books from 3.5 memorized, even abilities I have never used. At the same time I have a long time player who still forgets core rules.
I think races core races should stay limited, while playable races(with DM approval) can increase.
More classes/archetypes can still be brought in. I want to be close to 3.5's ability to make almost anything using only pathfinder books.
As for feats I would not mind seeing a few 3.5 feats brought over under different names if needed.
I don't think the number of feats or spells determines a threshold. It really depends on the quality of what is brought in and how much room it gives to make new character types. When it gets to the point that feats/spells/etc are being added, just to be added then it is time to call it quits.
|
I am wondering, how much is too much in terms of rules content? I know that this is pretty individual, but I am wondering about the opinions of people on these board and of Paizo staff on the matter.
I am particularly interested in how much is too much (i.e. it starts becoming rules bloat) in terms of the following:
1) Races
2) Classes
3) Learnable options (feats, spells)I think the lowest threshold for bloat is in races. Thus far, the Pathfinder RPG has not added new player races. I really think the approach taken is very good, as no new player races are being added, but races that could serve as such are given the basic character treatment in the Bestiary.
Anyway, I think base classes are approaching the point of saturation, but so far so good. As to feats and spells, I think the no-use threshold has already been passes - as in, I don't consider additional options here useful, but it isn't really bloat for me in the sense that it doesn't bother me.
I welcome you thoughts on the matter.
IMHO, there's no "rules bloat" if the GM controls the amount of allowable content in their campaign. The GM running our Pathfinder campaign, for example, pretty much said "no" to any class outside the Core book whether it's from Paizo (like the APG) or 3PP (like Super Genius. I so wanted to play a warlord).
Rules bloat hmmm I guess there may be some of that coming. Races I would be fine if the added a couple more nothing to extreme Kobold, Goblin, orc. Just a couple more.
I think there should be more spells. I like allot of the APG classes and think the inquisitor needs more unique spells. The bard did wonderful in the APG.
I am not sure, with the ultimate combo 2 pack coming out I guess we will see how bloated we all feel. I hope that in the coming up books, we get more for the APG classes.
From what I have seen in society play there are plenty of alchemists as well as summoners. Most of the rest of the characters were core classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love rules. I love having rules for as many things as possible. My group tends to want to do things by the rules, so rules that open up possibilities make me happy.
From what I've seen, PCs tend to love more options and powers, because it lets them customize more.
And GMs tend to dislike all the extra abilities, because it forces them to learn a ton of new stuff that they aren't personally excited about. (And try to figure out if it's too powerful or not.)
|
Paizo is doing an excellent job not bloating the game out. I'm extremely happy with the quality of the books I've got, the price points on them and how well my FLGS has stocked them.
Obviously Paizo has to continue to make new products to continue to build and push the line. That's how one earns their coin after all.
So long as nothing new comes out that I'm obligated to buy to play the game beyond the core rules it's nothing bad at all.
|
I have to agree that rules bloat is much more a good thing than bad if it allows for more options in everyones hands. Personally I want more Prestige Classes, Feats, and Spells. I don't want any more skills, but new (universal) skill uses would be cool.
I really wish that they had kept Sneak Attack as it was with the option to include other creature types through feats or better skill ranks/checks.
Now that i've played with Prestige Classes, 1 - 20 is boring and Pathfinder multiclassing is less desirable. Some of the alternate race/class features are nice, but we really need more in my opinion.
In my own opinion, we hit bloat with the APG on everything except races (which I agree with Roman has been very well handled). There was no time to get comfortable with the new Pathfinder incarnations of the base classes, let alone prestige classes, before the beta testing began (there was what, 4 weeks between release of Core Rulebook and beta test?), and then the APG.
I do appreciate the *methods* that Paizo has used for new options. Archetypes are perhaps the easiest balanced ways of adding options I have ever seen. Of course, effort is still required to actually perform that balancing [trade woodland stride and trackless step for Rage? - okay sounds good...]
I do not fault them for their restraint not being the equal of my own extreme distaste for bloat, but I can still hope. After all - discussions of post-Core Rulebook releases began with the assumption 1-2 major releases per year, not 3-4.
My 3.5 homebrew of Audor started suffering from weight, although I think GM burnout may have had more to do with it than tons of options. So here are my opinions:
1. Races. This was probably the main offender in my Audor campaign because I basically allowed any race except the thri-kreen and later decided to ban the lizardmen. In the game two PCs were played with races I had made up: the beagle and the thra-kraan. (I had made up the thra-kraan because a player wanted to play a thri-kreen, but I did not think it plausible for one to be so far north, so I made an arctic variant of the race.) Another player once played a shape-shifting race from Mythic Legends. And there also was once a kobold, a sprite, and of course halflings and elves and dwarves. And yet, most PCs managed to be human.
But I don't think the problem was really race bloat. What happened was that as the campaign progressed, both because of player decisions and because of encounters they had and because of decisions I made as a DM, I really need to sit down and define how the races fit into the campaign, since I've established that kobolds, hobgoblins, and beagles are integrated enough to make them as likely or even more likely PC choices as the gnomes and elves.
Plus, I figured I never really figured out how gnomes fit into my campaign, so ended up thinking up four different gnomish cultures which also need to be fleshed out.
For Pathfinder, I am considering two campaigns. One is the 17th Century game, which is a humans only campaign. The other is set on a mobius world, in which almost any race that is PC-playable would be allowed.
2. Classes. This hasn't been a problem because most players played the core classes, and I carefully controlled which other classes I allowed. Every class had to have a reason to exist. Prestige classes were handled the same way, except that I allowed myself to randomly throw in a randomly chosen PrC every once in a while.
In a way, perhaps I felt there were not enough classes, because I felt the need to define new classes on my "to do list", including the Mystic Dervish and the Celestial Druid.
What did concern me was all the class optioned opened up with substitution levels and class variants.
For my 17th Century Pathfinder game, I have decided to limit the classes to 20. I probably won't allow all the variants, although some of them I might convert to feats or prestige classes, except that for Rangers I need a non-spellcasting variant.
I might change my mind if I decide I have to have a variant.
3. Spells and Feats. In my opinion, I can never get enough. I frequently give my NPCs spells and feats that are not in the Core books.
Now that i've played with Prestige Classes, 1 - 20 is boring and Pathfinder multiclassing is less desirable.
How so? They did not power multi-classing down. They just made the base classes good enough that it is better to not leave them.
In my own opinion, we hit bloat with the APG on everything except races (which I agree with Roman has been very well handled). There was no time to get comfortable with the new Pathfinder incarnations of the base classes, let alone prestige classes, before the beta testing began (there was what, 4 weeks between release of Core Rulebook and beta test?), and then the APG.
I do appreciate the *methods* that Paizo has used for new options. Archetypes are perhaps the easiest balanced ways of adding options I have ever seen. Of course, effort is still required to actually perform that balancing [trade woodland stride and trackless step for Rage? - okay sounds good...]
I do not fault them for their restraint not being the equal of my own extreme distaste for bloat, but I can still hope. After all - discussions of post-Core Rulebook releases began with the assumption 1-2 major releases per year, not 3-4.
If they did not do the playtest like that you would end up with 3.5 quality splat. I may be missing something, but how is the playtesting interfering with anyone's games and the ability to learn a previous book?
I was thinking about the rules thing, and I think what might be better would be to have optional rules, that GMs could use if they wanted to, but the GM would be able to say "we will be using this, this, and this" rather than having to say "We're playing Pathfinder, but we're not using this, this, and this."
For example, I would like to see good rules for bards in which the choice of instrument had an effect. A bard with a two-handed instrument might get better use out of bardic abilities than one with a one-handed instrument.
But other GMs might see that as yet another example of rules bloat, and would prefer not to care whether the bard was carrying bagpipes or whether she was singing a capella.
Some GMs like tactical rules that give PCs and monsters options on the battlefield. Others prefer not to worry about things like flanking and attacks of opportunity. Perhaps Paizo could publish a set of combat rules like BESM D20 had, where one on one combat was emphasized and miniatures would not be used at all. GMs could then decide whether they want the regular tactical combat rules, or the more stylized anime-type rules.
Anything more than core feels bloat to me and it was the same for 3.5. I just felt the flavour of all the additions (except FR specific domains/spells) was lacking, and that most of the rules felt as artificial, trying to force certain concepts to fit within 3.5. The Complete [class] line of books was just awful to me.
I always thought "why couldn't we just do this with the normal classes we have and with the customization we have for those in feats, skills and multiclassing?" About the warlock, for instance, I thought that the warlock is already thematically present as a cleric with deity: any demon/devil. It just felt like an artificial move to input those mechanics of Eldritch Blast and Invocations. I've always felt (and experienced with actual play) that the more rules and (similar) choices you had, the less creative you had to be with RP to make something unique out of it. I feel that even though ADnD was a mechanically horrible ruleset, it did promote a certain style of RP precisely because the rules were so awkward in certain respects you had to make something with it. For instance: you couldn't be a paladin as non-human, so how great was it to play a halfling fighter that desperately wanted to be a paladin. Not that it cannot be done in 3.5, but it is a concept spawned from the limitations of the ruleset.
Pathfinder was great in the sense that it allowed a great deal more customization in the core classes. Rogue talents, Rage powers, Bloodlines, Schools, those were all totally awesome additions. They allow customization within the already available options. With the APG I felt it was getting bloaty already. Why isn't the Witch just a wizard with a familiar and a feat or two to turn spells into spell-like abilities? Why isn't the Cavalier just a fighter or a fighter/cleric with mounted combat feats? Why isn't the Summoner a Conjurer Wizard with summoning feats? Why aren't there options to make the Core classes more customizable to allow Core classes to fill those concepts? This wasn't helped by the fact mechanically many archetypes and added talents, powers etc. and some types of the classes were mediocre at best and some were generally too powerful(so it feels like the APG is a rushed product with too little feedback to it before release, even more so than Core with all its 3.5/3.0 leftover inconsistencies and ambiguities).
In the houserules I'm working on I'm trying to add customization in the way I described above. A handful of classes with PF-like customization through class features like talents, a few prestige classes for those combinations that are not possible with multiclassing, and a good selection of rebalanced feats and traits (like the Fallout traits that people can select at lvl1). For races I've converted the FR base races; most are subraces so only tiny variations on the PF core races, and the other 6 fill some niche that wasn't filled before. So limiting bloat is an important thing to me.
Note that I'm fine with people who do use the stuff, I just don't see the point to use it myself. I feel that limitation is a good way to get people to RP more. I also felt that the Words of Power concept was a great way to increase customization without adding additional material. I realize I'm fairly critical about Paizo in my post, especially considering the positive vibe on the forum (and in this thread). Let it be clear I'm here because PF had many awesome improvements and is certainly better than 3.5 (which I really liked). That doesn't mean there aren't things to complain about. Take this post as criticism of a good customer and most importantly an opinion. ;)
I feel that limitation is a good way to get people to RP more.
People that are going to RP are going to RP and the one that won't will not. Some people just want to stab things, and others don't want to do so much stabbing. I using to be Mr.Stabbity Stabbity, but I am more of an RP'er now. It has nothing to do with limitations though since I can still use 3.5 stuff if I want too.
I didn't say that people that weren't going to RP are now going to because they are more limited. So I don't see the validity of your point. I do get the idea, but I think it is misrepresenting what I'm trying to say. So let's get to the point. It is simply this: the mechanics are part of the process of forming ideas for RP.
By allowing more options and ever expanding classes, feats and whatnot you are putting the choice of the player more in the mechanics than in what they have to add creatively. If a player sees a certain class that fills in the concept he has he's going to go for it and as a consequence have everything mechanically filled in. While otherwise he might come up with an original build for a core class and fill in the deficiencies with RP. I think a good DM will stimulate such play and give the player special abilities based on her actions. That constitutes quality RP interaction to me.
Take the example I posted about the halfling fighter. In 3.5 it is more likely to just be a halfling paladin, because the whole concept of trying so hard to become a paladin for a halfling is partly (possibly) created by the fact that the rules limit it. It rests on the idea that if she really wanted to be a paladin and it is possible, why not actually be a paladin (eventually)? I think it is less likely the whole concept would have originated without the limitation by the rules.
Certainly people who are extremely creative RP'ers are going to be creative regardless of the rules, and likewise totally mechanics focused people will focus on the mechanics. Those aren't the only two flavours, and are in my experience a minority.
By allowing more options and ever expanding classes, feats and whatnot you are putting the choice of the player more in the mechanics than in what they have to add creatively. If a player sees a certain class that fills in the concept he has he's going to go for it and as a consequence have everything mechanically filled in. While otherwise he might come up with an original build for a core class and fill in the deficiencies with RP. I think a good DM will stimulate such play and give the player special abilities based on her actions. That constitutes quality RP interaction to me.Take the example I posted about the halfling fighter. In 3.5 it is more likely to just be a halfling paladin, because the whole concept of trying so hard to become a paladin for a halfling is partly (possibly) created by the fact that the rules limit it. It rests on the idea that if she really wanted to be a paladin and it is possible, why not actually be a paladin (eventually)? I think it is less likely the whole concept would have originated without the limitation by the rules.
Certainly people who are extremely creative RP'ers are going to be creative regardless of the rules, and likewise totally mechanics focused people will focus on the mechanics. Those aren't the only two flavours, and are in my experience a minority.
If I want to mechanically do X and rules don't allow it then I will just go on to my next choice if I can fill the first idea to satisfaction. It won't make RP anything. This is speaking from my observations of people who wanted to do ____ and could not do so, and my former Stabbity persona.
Now of course all of us have different experiences so you may see have seen a limited player fill in things with RP, but I have never seen it. I am sure other posters will weigh in with their experiences of the player who want X, Y, and Z to make a build work, but could only get X, and Y as an example.I see what you are saying, but I don't think it is mechanically feasible since the core classes are not enough to represent every idea that could come up.
PS:Your second explanation was much better :)
PS2:The core rules don't provide enough options to facilitate the multitude of ideas out there, and while a lot of the complete series was crap, not all of it was bad, and it helped to inspire a lot of idea.
PS3:These will stop eventually. :)
The summoner can't work with feats because the idea was to have a pet focused class, with the Eidolon being the actual focus. There is no core feat that makes that work. You can try to use the druid, and power up the animal companion, while powering down the druid but it still leads to more rules.
When I read the title of the thread I tought it was about "rules" and I dislike a lot of new rules, I just prefer all my rules in my Base-book.
For Classes and spells, there is no real threshold, if everything stays balanced, everything seems okay.
For races, the biggest problems: if they exist they have to "be" there. I prefer no new races, perhaps subraces that look very similiar if anyone needs other ability scores or whatever. (my gnomes normally have +2int instead of +cha)
The most important thing is that everyting introduced, stays supported in the later books. And this has been discussed in the class-bloat thread a while ago, and I'm confident that Paizo won't step over my thresholds.
|
|
How so? They did not power multi-classing down. They just made the base classes good enough that it is better to not leave them.
Now that i've played with Prestige Classes, 1 - 20 is boring and Pathfinder multiclassing is less desirable.
Because PCs tended to feel more special, focused (as a character concept), and more fun. Personalization tends to die down after the first few levels in my opinion with base classes. Prestige Classes allow for that later on, as well as giving the character something to work towards that they can partially control.
Multiclassing is almost a must for groups that don't have a full 4-5 players, or want to try out something that doesn't fully cover a base, or whatever other reasons. I feel it is less desirable and useful in PF as is.
I fully agree with what JrK said about the new base classes, and mentioned that in the playtest. Would much rather have options to play a Clc, Drd, Sor, AND Wiz Witch than a new class. Same with nearly all of them. It is not a bloat issue, nor is it that I dislike the APG Classes. I just don't like that it robs the existing classes of some amazing alternates/"kits"/Archtypes.
I think it's a non-issue.
I've been playing 3rd since it came out and frankly there comes a point when you've run so many rogues that you're running out of new and interesting combinations. Or fighters. Or wizards. Or, or, or. Things get recognizably repetitious. With introduction of new rules that presents us more options to keep the game fresh.
Additionally, rules bloat doesn't actually exist for people who don't buy new rules.
Or allow them.
Additionally, rules bloat doesn't actually exist for people who don't buy new rules.
+1. I like options and new rules, and unless/until someone comes in and forces you to use each and every new rule/race/class/woobie that comes out, you have as much bloat as you allow there to be.
While I will not argue that WOTC supported all of their expanded rules equally, or even well, they did support at least some of their expanded rules.
I never saw much in the way of "official" WOTC adventures, but I do know that the Dungeon adventures were "official" as well, so in that case it was Paizo that wasn't doing much to support additional content. I'm not saying they should have, but just pointing out that until that last, say, two years of 3.5's existence, most of the 3.5 adventures were created by Paizo.
On the other hand, throwing Dragon into the mix, there were actually quite a few "official" articles supporting expanded classes in the Class Acts articles.
Beyond that, alternate class features for almost every class appeared in the Player's Handbook 2, warlocks and wu jen got exclusive content in Complete Mage, and there was more warlock material in Dragon Magic. New vestiges appeared in Cityscape for the Binder.
There was an NPC in Expedition to Undermountain that had a Book of Nine Swords class.
I think there were dual issues with WOTC's support. One was that there were options that they put out that didn't turn out as well as they would have liked, so they didn't want to support them. The other was that there were so many options being introduced that it was nearly impossible to support them even with WOTC's aggressive publishing schedule.
The more extra material you put out, the harder it is going to be to support and expand on that material, both because you are using resources that could be used to expand to make new material, and because you don't have infinite space to do everything you might want to do.
Which means when you have, say, one book that expands rules options, you can reasonably expect a good amount of support for those options. When the number of optional rules grows, the available space and time for supporting those optional rules is going to shrink, unless the marketplace allows of an infinite expansion of purchases of new material, and even then, there will be a limit until a company can expand to make that much material.
And then, when the amount of material hits saturation point, you have a lot more employees than consumers are willing to support, and lay offs happen.
So just as many people are admonishing GMs to carefully expand their game, game companies sometimes need to carefully manage their growth in order to match long term sustainability.
|
+1. I like options and new rules, and unless/until someone comes in and forces you to use each and every new rule/race/class/woobie that comes out, you have as much bloat as you allow there to be.Or allow them.
Additionally, rules bloat doesn't actually exist for people who don't buy new rules.
/thread
I think one of the things that is helping Paizo keep the rules bloat down is that they don't have several settings along with a separate core line. When people started mixing Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Core, and other favorites, they started really seeing a problem with the ways the rules interacted with each other. By keeping things to a minimum, they are able to better focus on quality products.
Another thing is the play-tests. I can imagine how frustrating it must be for a developer to throw something out there for people to test and then have them rip it to shreds (sometimes not very politely). Paizo knows that this is actually a great way to make sure that any new rules they introduce are as balanced as they can make them when they are finally released. This helps avoid problems like the Truenamer from Tome of Magic.
I always like seeing new rules. I don't allow everything under the sun but I do keep it in mind. Right now my campaign is using only core races plus a drow. My next campaign will have many more options. I also only allow classes that fit with the campaign. If someone wanted to play a gun slinger in my current campaign, I would have to say no. If someone wants to play one in my upcoming campaign, it may be an option I am open to.
Rules bloat only happens when the GM allows everything without vetting it first. The GM is in control over what he allows or not in his campaign.
Bloat is when there are more rules than I have system mastery, concision is when I have more system mastery than the rules have novelty.
Tongue firmly in cheek.
I don't think it is ever too much. The only really annoying thing to me is a reset to an entirely new edition.
What one group wants to use, another group will dislike, but this does not make it bloat. To me, when stuff gets published that basically duplicates previously published material, perhaps with just a slight change or a different name or a slightly different look, that is bloat. And I do not mean two competing 3PPs putting out similar products, but rather when the Core publisher, WotC or Paizo or whoever, does it. I can also see it as bloat when a 3PP puts out a product that directly competes with a product from the Core publisher, like say if a 3PP puts our their version of the Magus and just calls it by a different name, or like the 3PP that put out a Witch class even though Paizo was including one in the APG. That would be unneeded and be bloat to me, as I prefer material from the Core publisher over that of 3PPs when the material is similar.
I think one person's bloat is another person's essential addition.
To take Enevhar Aldarion's comment about the core publisher and 3PP putting out variants of the same concept, sometimes the 3PP is either better or sometimes just better suited for my purposes than the Core's version of the concept.
An example would be the Shaman class. WotC came out with a Shaman class for their Oriental Adventures book, but I think the only Shaman class I really liked was the one put out by Green Ronin publishing. Is this bloat? On the one hand, I have three or four different Shaman classes for 3.5, plus the option of reflavoring the Druid. On the other hand, this allows me to pick the best Shaman for my purposes.
One comment about WotC at the moment is that right now they just seem to be doing variations of a theme. This makes their material perhaps less worth buying than material from other publishers who can look at the material with a fresh eye. Compare the fact that there were umpteen different types of elves, vs other publishers who produced books of entirely new playable races.
But bloat, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'd rather see a bunch of new concepts being put out than just see only "Age of Worms" stuff, expecially since I didn't care for "Age of Worms" and if that was all that was put out, I probably wouldn't buy it.
|
|
Here is what I have in my current game.
Amras Lindenwood, an elven Kirthfinder fighter using Tome feats.
Lyra Pike, a half-elven Kithfinder ranger.
Julian Drakescale, a draconic changling druid/warshaper with the PHB2 wildshape variant.
Ti'al Drakescale, a catfolk Kirthfinder monk/tattooed monk.
Zokaze, a lizardfolk warlock using Tome feats.
Qainam, a Savage Species ghaele eladrin.
So let's see.
Kirthfinder houserules.
Tomes houserules.
Complete Warrior
Complete Arcane
PHB2
Savage Species
Races of the Wild
Races of the Dragon (I think that's where the draconic template is)
Eberron CS
Is this too much?
Palladium Rifts = too much.
I do not fault them for their restraint not being the equal of my own extreme distaste for bloat, but I can still hope. After all - discussions of post-Core Rulebook releases began with the assumption 1-2 major releases per year, not 3-4.
Actually since the releae of the core rules, the Statement on releases from Paizo was 3 hardback books a year with one of them being a bestiary. Unless I have missed something they have stuck to that.
Personally I dont have a problem with more rules, because i dont mind allowing or disallowing what I want in my game. As a whole my group generally works out on a case by case basis what to allow in. So there are only as many rules in the game as we decide to use. And since non-core material is presented to the dm first, he doesnt have to know everything, just what the players choose, which even in a big group like mine, is less then the contents of the core rulebook.
Rules bloat is only a problem if the quality is low. The APG was full of stuff I really liked and want to use as a player and in my NPCs. I have no reason to believe the quality wont be there for Ultimate magic and ultimate combat.
First of all: LOL @ "there is no such thing as bloat." It's fine to disagree about what constitutes bloat, but to declare that there is no such thing is just...well, silly.
To answer the question: In my opinion, the "Ultimate" books are firmly in the realm of bloat. Ninja = rogue. Samurai = fighter. Heck, I think APG flirted with bloat (Cavalier?), but I acknowledge that that battle has been lost. I'd personally prefer Paizo focus on adventures and setting, with the RPG existing to support them, as was the stated plan. Unfortunately, I knew that all best were off once the core rulebook sold the way it did.
|
|
For me rules bloat occurs when it impacts the flow of play.
Most of the rules we are seeing don't (once your past the learning curve) as they are just alternatives to existing elements of play. Swap out a race, or a class, or a feat, or a spell. All of them don't increase the time for a character act, just a different way to act. Same goes for the new combat maneuver types, like dirty trick.
Hero points would qualify as rules bloat, but it is so limited by the number you have that it isn't really.
Maybe what I'm saying is there isn't rules bloat their are just unwieldy rules, and I don't want more of those. I say more, because I think it is a commonly vocalized complaint that > level 12 the combat system can be unwieldy to the point of dragging to a halt.
First of all: LOL @ "there is no such thing as bloat." It's fine to disagree about what constitutes bloat, but to declare that there is no such thing is just...well, silly.
It isnt silly if you reject the connotation of rules bloat. Rulesbloat is the concept that there can be too many rules, and that after a certain point additional published rules is automatically a negative. It is entirely possible for a group to never get to that point. I have played with groups that openly used 3.0 and 3.5 material without limit. To that group there is in fact no such thing as rules bloat, more rules = more fun, period.
To answer the question: In my opinion, the "Ultimate" books are firmly in the realm of bloat. Ninja = rogue. Samurai = fighter. Heck, I think APG flirted with bloat (Cavalier?), but I acknowledge that that battle has been lost. I'd personally prefer Paizo focus on adventures and setting, with the RPG existing to support them, as was the stated plan. Unfortunately, I knew that all best were off once the core rulebook sold the way it did.
Given that they are still printing 2 APs a year, and keeping up with chronical and companion releases as well as the newly christened big book of golarion(new campaign setting book), it seems to me that focus has not been lost. They have simply expanded to cover a new group of customers. There are now quite a few paizo customers who dont use published adventures and dont play in golarion. The RPG books are the only products that directly serve those customers. It seems to me that after the initial growing pains of taking on the rpg line, paizo is up to the task of supplying material for both customer groups.
For me rules bloat occurs when it impacts the flow of play.
Most of the rules we are seeing don't (once your past the learning curve) as they are just alternatives to existing elements of play. Swap out a race, or a class, or a feat, or a spell. All of them don't increase the time for a character act, just a different way to act. Same goes for the new combat maneuver types, like dirty trick.
Hero points would qualify as rules bloat, but it is so limited by the number you have that it isn't really.
Maybe what I'm saying is there isn't rules bloat their are just unwieldy rules, and I don't want more of those. I say more, because I think it is a commonly vocalized complaint that > level 12 the combat system can be unwieldy to the point of dragging to a halt.
This is an interesting idea. I would definately say that at high level things get more complicated, and things slow down. So I would ask, would additional rules that are unwieldy but replace other unweildy options for characters be bloat in your opinion?
For instance, wild shaping for a druid, even in its simplified form it can be complicated. Sure you can record a bunch of different forms ahead of time, but what happens if you suddenly realize that animal x is better then y in these specific circumstances. Especially at high levels I think that wildshape can get unwieldy. What if a druid archetype (or similar replacement ability) switched out wild shape, but was equally unwieldy in itself. So there is no overall addition in slowdown, just replacement, would that be considered bloat?
Note: I am asking because i find the perspective interesting, and am merely curious.
The release of additional rules, or choices that support those rules are always a challenge to track, and keep up with, but the real problem lies in the power creep. That is when certain choices (feats, etc.) become staples of a class, becaues if you don't choose them, the class seems to be lacking. This probably applies the most to feats in reference to pathfinder, or 4E. But certain races, classes, feats, and a little bit of cheese, can often cause alot of heartache.
Bloat comes when the company starts putting out material it cannot properly quality test and support into the future. WotC had a lot of great ideas in the Complete and Race series, but instead of supporting and fleshing out what they already had, they kept putting out more and more options, often untested or poorly tested, that barely supported core material and forgot the that the previously released non-core material existed. As for Paizo, I'll have to wait until the Ultimate books are out, but they seem to be a better grasp of what they can and cannot handle in terms of released material.
|
|
For me rules bloat occurs when it impacts the flow of play.
Most of the rules we are seeing don't (once your past the learning curve) as they are just alternatives to existing elements of play. Swap out a race, or a class, or a feat, or a spell. All of them don't increase the time for a character act, just a different way to act. Same goes for the new combat maneuver types, like dirty trick.
Hero points would qualify as rules bloat, but it is so limited by the number you have that it isn't really.
Maybe what I'm saying is there isn't rules bloat their are just unwieldy rules, and I don't want more of those. I say more, because I think it is a commonly vocalized complaint that > level 12 the combat system can be unwieldy to the point of dragging to a halt.
This is an interesting idea. I would definately say that at high level things get more complicated, and things slow down. So I would ask, would additional rules that are unwieldy but replace other unweildy options for characters be bloat in your opinion?
For instance, wild shaping for a druid, even in its simplified form it can be complicated. Sure you can record a bunch of different forms ahead of time, but what happens if you suddenly realize that animal x is better then y in these specific circumstances. Especially at high levels I think that wildshape can get unwieldy. What if a druid archetype (or similar replacement ability) switched out wild shape, but was equally unwieldy in itself. So there is no overall addition in slowdown, just replacement, would that be considered bloat?
Note: I am asking because i find the perspective interesting, and am merely curious.
The druid in our campaign opted asked the GM to retire his character because he got sick of wild shape... If I wanted to play a druid I would probably in the future use a nature oracle, and maybe talk to the GM about swapping the Druid/Cleric spell list.
To speed things up at those levels you have to look at some of the stuff that 4e does (seriously.) They manage to keep the time per persons turn to scale much less severely then 3.5 does. One of the ways they did that was by recognizing character tiers. We might be able to do something like that in 3.5/PFRPG without to much damage to the fundamental system.
Ideally saying, when your a young'n you have to worry about that kobold spear, but when your in your middling levels your really only worried about brutish monsters. In the end your either dead, or dueling with ancient dragons and outer worldly powers like arch demons and gods. Each tier has a different flavour, and maybe the rules/classes can be streamlined by tiers.
I'm not a game designer, but I am a GM and high levels just suck the energy from the game some nights.
It isnt silly if you reject the connotation of rules bloat. Rulesbloat is the concept that there can be too many rules, and that after a certain point additional published rules is automatically a negative. It is entirely possible for a group to never get to that point. I have played with groups that openly used 3.0 and 3.5 material without limit. To that group there is in fact no such thing as rules bloat, more rules = more fun, period.
*looks at bookcase*
+1
I own 95 DnD 3.5 books and I never limited my group to using them. I only asked for common curtsey to not purposely break the game and in case of doubt to ask me. I never really had a problem though.
Honestly, when Ultimate Combat + Ultimate Magic have come out, I think I am all done for "core" rules, unless they finally bring out a decent Swashbuckler base class.
After that, only setting stuff and rules for non-standard situations would be of much interest to me.