At what point does the current edition of D&D get overwhelmed by "rules/supplement bloat" to the point that it becomes seriously hampered for play?  And more importantly, in your opinion has D&D 3.5 reached that point already?

In my opinion, the rules/supplement bloat is a serious problem, and the current level is problematic in the sense that it puts a lot of pressure on GMs from players to bring in stuff from the various supplements that he may not want in his campaign.

However, one thing to say in its defense is that the current supplements are formed in such a way that subsequent books don't generally incorporate  what other non-core books have in a way that you have to own those books to appreciate the newer ones.  This was a serious problem in previous editions (as it is in other games).  Generally, very few books get shunted into that kind of "core" status, so the "core" rules bloat is still relatively light.

RPGPundit

Eh.  My personal preference is to stick to the core, just for simplicity's sake, but really my group allows effectively everything, and it's rarely become a problem.

We have more issues with niggling little bits in the core rules, or cross-edition confusion, than we've had with supplement stuff oddly enough.

With the core books alone, D&D is not a particularly complex system for intermediate to advanced players, although it is probably too much for a beginner, both WRT material to digest and cost. But given the common mentality of "if it is official, the DM has a duty to include it", it is no wonder some people get overwhelmed by additional material.

Quote from: RPGPundit... In my opinion, the rules/supplement bloat is a serious problem, and the current level is problematic in the sense that it puts a lot of pressure on GMs from players to bring in stuff from the various supplements that he may not want in his campaign. ...

All the DM needs to do is make it clear to his players what 'optional material' she is willing to allow into her game.  With most of the people that I'm likely to game with these days (in the 25-45 age range), this will not be a problem.  The 'pressure' that new splatbooks put on DMs seems to be a problem mainly for less mature players.

In any case, the reason why  I am not a huge fan of 3.5 D&D has nothing to do with all the splatbooks out there -- after all, no one is holding a gun to my head to buy them, and some of them are quite decent (e.g. Unearthed Arcana is essential if I ever play/run 3.5 again; and Heroes of Horror is quite nifty).  

I prefer other systems over 3.5 for reasons that have nothing to do with 'supplement bloat'.

I agree with Akrasia here. As people gets older, they usually are less worried by having all the new shiny books incorporated to their campaigns, and people are less demanding on that.

On D&D specifically... well, I only know the core rules, and don't think that are bloated (I also think that there are easier games for the newbie player). But I seldom play D&D these days and don't keep updated with the non-core books, so I'm afraid I can't say much more.

For the players: Never.
For the DM: It depends.

Rules aren´t bloated in D&D. There is just more options. The point is: Can you let go as a DM and trust your players? Can you trust WotC?
If yes, then it´s not more complex than it was when 3.0 came out. If a feat is  a feat is a feat, it doesn´t matter if you as a DM know that feat or own that book.

Gameplay also isn´t changed. Everyting worls the same, it´s only more Monsters, Spells and Treasure to chose from. Which really is a boon and not a bane.

The trust that WotC material can be given (barring polymorph) is a milestone for human civilization. Only that human civilization reached that a hundred years ago with DIN and ISO. It´s all about standardization and trust. You also trust in your automobile, you don´t have to know how the brakes work. Same wih current D&D.

Again: Playing the game is not changed, is not more complex. It´s just more options.

EDIT: I play in two all-WotC-books campaigns, one of them weekly.

My experience is similar to Settembrini's: it's not a problem for the players, and while it can become a burden for the DM, but it doesn't have to. If you trust your players and they step up and do their part, learning the rules they use, then the rules bloat isn't a problem.

I originally toyed around with "core only" when my group started our current 3.5 campaign, and I quickly found that it wasn't a problem to just say, "You know what? Use anything." We've been allowing anything WotC for a year now, and we haven't had any problems.

But to dodge having to learn everything as DM, I have continued to apply the original "core only" idea to my own game prep. For me, this is mainly a time management and system mastery issue. I have limited time to master everything, and I enjoy the challenge of setting (basically arbitrary) constraints for myself and working within them. By sticking to "core only" on my side of the table, I'm forced to be creative and really master what's in there. This, in turn, makes me more confident about making rules decisions when questions arise during the game. I've generally stuck to the core only constraint, though I have to admit I've cheated a couple times -- I've allowed myself to use the Draconomicon and Heroes of Horror.

It has worked really well -- I basically only need to master the core books +2, and each player only needs to master the stuff on his sheet, from whatever source he's found it in. As long as each of the players is willing to step up and do his part, there aren't any problems, even when allowing them to use any books they like. That's been my experience.

Rich

Most D&D additions are actually content, not rules.

However, there are two rules that actually changed the entire game for me: swift actions and immediate actions.

But those are very simple concepts, and they open up lots of interesting tactics for players and GMs.

My experience is similar to others in this thread.  Any 3.5 material whatsoever can be used in the D&D game I'm currently running.  However, there are only five players at my table: it doesn't matter how many base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and races have been printed -- I only have to know about the ones that the players are using.

New D&D books seem to introduce enhanced feats, classes, races, etc -- much in the same way that new Magic Card editions do.  Good for the company, good for players who want something new all the time.  I'm not sure it's good for a well balanced game though.  It really depends on what you're looking for.  Do you like CCGs?  Do you prefer non-expandable games?

I agree with Set.  For my own NPCs and critters, no opponent is made with more than the core books plus a single supplement.  It keeps things simple.  Players are welcome to stitch together patchwork mechanical monsters from whatever 3.5 books I own.  I don't even look at character sheets anymore.  I just trust my players to make legal builds and trust Wizards to not hose my game.  It doesn't always work but the group is mature enough that I can make fixes when things go awry and no one feels hurt.

Quote from: RPGPunditAt what point does the current edition of D&D get overwhelmed by "rules/supplement bloat" to the point that it becomes seriously hampered for play?  And more importantly, in your opinion has D&D 3.5 reached that point already?

My current attitude towards the current state of rules-crunch in D&D is one of malaise. I like new supplements, but I am finding less and less I want to add to my game or feel that really adds to it. I am a bit more of a setting fiend (sorry, jrients...) and if there's no place for it in my game, I don't want it.

QuoteIn my opinion, the rules/supplement bloat is a serious problem, and the current level is problematic in the sense that it puts a lot of pressure on GMs from players to bring in stuff from the various supplements that he may not want in his campaign.

This is so true. I like the spells and feats in PHB II but I hate hate hate the core classes in it. But in the last two game I've run, people are begging to run the turds.

Since every GM can allow or disallow anything they see fit for their games, I don't think rules bloat is a problem inherent to D&D.

If you're not comfortable with a shiny new book, just don't use it.

I decided to run a kitchen-sink-style Wilderlands game, and so far it's working out quite splendidly.

-O

Quote from: Abyssal MawMost D&D additions are actually content, not rules.

However, there are two rules that actually changed the entire game for me: swift actions and immediate actions.

But those are very simple concepts, and they open up lots of interesting tactics for players and GMs.

I would argue that any new Feat, at the very least, is both a content and a rule.

Also, I guess I'm including "reference bloat" in the problem; when book x tells you to use feat y in book z, where book z is not one of the 3 core books.

RPGPundit

QuoteAlso, I guess I'm including "reference bloat" in the problem; when book x tells you to use feat y in book z, where book z is not one of the 3 core books.

They really try to avoid that.