# I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 8, 2004)

I mean, I like it and all, but for the past 3 years it's been nagging at me.  A feeling of unease, of discomfort.  A feeling that something is fundamentally wrong.  Then it hit me, tonight, when I was flipping through my AD&D 2e DM's Guide for nostalgia's sake.

FROM AD&D 2e DM's GUIDE:

"The first step in creating a spell scroll (not a protection scroll) is for the wizard or priest to know and be able to cast the appropriate spell--the desired spell must exist in his spell books. . . . If a wizard knows the spell, he can begin fabrication.  His first step is to assemble the appropriate materials: quill, ink, and paper.  These materials can't be commonplace items lest they mar the final product or be consumed by the very magical energies the wizard seeks to enscribe.

       The quill used for each spell must be fresh and unused.  Lingering energies of the spell just transcribed cling to the quill.  If the quill were used again, these energies would flow and intermingle with later attempts, causing them to fail. 

       Furthermore, the pen can't be just an ordinary goose quill.  It must be from a strange and magical creature, perhaps one appropriate to the nature of the spell (the feather of a cockatrice for a flesh to stone, etc.).  The task of gathering the right quill can be an adventure in itself. . . .

       The ink is the final consideration. . . . The ingredients could be simple--the ink of a giant squid mixed with the venom of a wyvern's sting, or the musk of a giant skunk brewed with the blood of a gorgon.  They could also be complex in meaning--the tears of a crocodile and a drop of water from the bottom of the deepest ocean, or a drop of mead from the cup of King Thyas blended with the lamentations of the women from the funeral of a great hero."

--AD&D DM's GUIDE (p.85-86)



FROM D&D 3.0 DM's GUIDE:

"The character needs a supply of choice writing materials, the cost of which is subsumed in the cost for scribing the scroll--12.5 gp per level of the spell times the level of the caster.  All writing implements and materials used to scribe a scroll must be fresh and unused.  The character must pay the full cost for scribing each spell scroll no matter how many times she previously has scribed the same spell.

       The creater must have prepared the spell to be scribed . . . and must provide any material components or focuses the spell requires.  If casting the spell would reduce the caster's XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself.  Likewise, material components are consumed when she begins writing, but focuses are not.  (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused).  The act of writing . . .

[sorry, I would have typed more, but I fell asleep at this point]  

--D&D 3.0 DM's GUIDE (p.245)

And that, in a nutshell, is why 3rd edition is bugging me, even after playing it for three years.

The first passage reads like a fantasy role-playing game.

The second passage reads like an accounting text book.

Siiiiiiiigggghhh . . .     

[Begin Gamer Identity Crisis]


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 8, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> The first passage reads like a fantasy role-playing game.
> 
> The second passage reads like an accounting text book.
> 
> ...



No, actually the first passage reads like an in character description of how to write a scroll, and the second reads like a roleplaying game.

Seeing as how the first is totally devoid of rules and all...

Not to mention the fact that it introduces the question "why the bloody hell would anyone write a scroll if it's that difficult?"

My suggestion? Allow the PC's to collect the stuff to scribe scrolls with and give them a discount on xp or gold for having amazing components.


----------



## shock the monkey (Nov 8, 2004)

The first one sounds like a pain in the ass.

The second sounds like a big time saver.


----------



## ph34r (Nov 8, 2004)

That's why it took forever to level up in 2nd edition. Instead of playing the campaign you had to spend 2 months reading to figure out how to do anything.  :\


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 8, 2004)

Grousing aside, though, we can agree that the 3rd edition rulebooks are a little lacking in the flavor department, right?  I mean, I would've been thrilled if there'd been a page or two in each chapter devoted to explaining how the rules of the game fit into the flavor of the story.


----------



## Breakstone (Nov 8, 2004)

I get the same feeling, Sebastian. Reading the 2e Monstrous Manual, I feel like I'm reading a book written about monsters... reading the 3e Monster Manual, I feel like I'm reading the rules BEHIND monsters.

Now I'm not saying that I dislike the Third Edition books, but I almost wish they had added side-bars with that sort of Second Edition flavor as options.

For example, there would be the base rules for making scrolls, right? And then there'd be an OPTIONS tab that would include, "To add flavor to your character or campaign, you can make the rules more interesting. Instead of the GP/XP requirement, characters can instead..." and a more interesting, flavorfull version would follow.

Oh well... at least we have the 2e Books to look back on for inspiration!


----------



## Pozatronic (Nov 8, 2004)

I understand what your getting at Sebastian. While I stopped playing 2E years and years before 3e, and I do think that 3e is a much better GAME, I do miss that certain feel that 2e gave me for so long, it was a little more...inspiring?


----------



## ph34r (Nov 8, 2004)

Tsunami said:
			
		

> For example, there would be the base rules for making scrolls, right? And then there'd be an OPTIONS tab that would include, "To add flavor to your character or campaign, you can make the rules more interesting. Instead of the GP/XP requirement, characters can instead..." and a more interesting, flavorfull version would follow.




That's what your imagination is for!    

A little bit of flavor could be a great thing in moderation but what Sebastian posted just kept going forever. I'd be really unhappy if I read 2 pages of flavor text on how to do something that takes 2 sentences to explain.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

Yes, this is a great example for the differences in style . The old description sets a wonderful atmosphere and makes the writing of a scroll something special. It even makes my mind wander through lots of potential adventures connected to this "simple act".

Anyway, the 3E rule is much clearer. It keeps you from figuring out the costs of scribing scrolls yourself. But I feel similar as you; reading the stuff can be very boring.

I don't know who wrote these rules for fabricating scrolls, but I have this kind of problem with most of the stuff Monte Cook writes. The rules are clear and sound, but it's hard to figure out the brilliant ideas behind the completely dry writing that makes me fall asleep most of the times. It took me several attempts until I finally appreciated AU (great book, if you manage to stay awake ).


----------



## Dancer (Nov 8, 2004)

The replies to this thread demonstrate the difference between role-players and war-gamers.  I'm sure you can figure out who is who.


----------



## Starman (Nov 8, 2004)

Dancer said:
			
		

> The replies to this thread demonstrate the difference between role-players and war-gamers.  I'm sure you can figure out who is who.




I'd beg to differ. I certainly love role-playing when I'm playing D&D (or any other RPG, for that matter). While the flavor is nice in the 2ed version, it doesn't give you any clear rules. The 3ed version on the other hand does and I am free to create whatever kind of flavor I want for crafting scrolls (or doing anything else) in my game.

Starman


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

ph34r said:
			
		

> A little bit of flavor could be a great thing in moderation but what Sebastian posted just kept going forever. I'd be really unhappy if I read 2 pages of flavor text on how to do something that takes 2 sentences to explain.




Hmm... I see your point. Who wrote the 2E stuff? As much as I see Monte Cook as one extreme, the other cook (David "Zeb" Cook) falls into the opposite category: the rules are shaky, and the flavour text goes for ever and ever and ever...


----------



## DonaldRumsfeldsTofu (Nov 8, 2004)

How the hell do you put women's funeral lamentations in an ink? And isn't crocodile tears and water from an ocean just, you know, water, and not ink? And isn't the nature of the writing what's magical, not the ink? And isn't it immoral to harvest the blood of a creature with human intelligence for ink?

I'll take the accountant textbook, very much.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

DonaldRumsfeldsTofu said:
			
		

> How the hell do you put women's funeral lamentations in an ink? And isn't crocodile tears and water from an ocean just, you know, water, and not ink? And isn't the nature of the writing what's magical, not the ink? And isn't it immoral to harvest the blood of a creature with human intelligence for ink?
> 
> I'll take the accountant textbook, very much.




You know, this is called a "fantasy role playing game", not "soft matter physics" . Just as a reminder .


----------



## Liquidsabre (Nov 8, 2004)

Right, 3.x is but a fully functional game, a rules template, to which our imaginations can drape with the colorful fantasies of dramatic roleplay and high adventure.

Don't listen to those who fed off the 2e flavor like a pack of sordid vampires, but let *your* imagination shape your game with your own style and flavor rather than fed to you page by inumerable page of text...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Nov 8, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> Right, 3.x is but a fully functional game, a rules template, to which our imaginations can drape with the colorful fantasies of dramatic roleplay and high adventure.
> 
> Don't listen to those who fed off the 2e flavor like a pack of sordid vampires, but let *your* imagination shape your game with your own style and flavor rather than fed to you page by inumerable page of text...




I don't know if that was meant to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I agree with it 100%.


----------



## Vanuslux (Nov 8, 2004)

While I enjoy war games, I prefer my role-playing sourcebooks to be straight forward in their presentation for a completely different reason.  I have my own imagination...most fluff is usually rather obvious and bland anyway.  For example, the quoted section of the 2nd Edition DMG tells me nothing that anyone but the most wet behind the ears newbie fan of fantasy fiction should be able to dream up.  When I look to a general role-playing supplement I want the building blocks that I can use as the foundation of my own imaginings.  The only time I appreciate fluff is when it is in a setting specific supplement...and it better not be generic fantasy drivel.


----------



## Creamsteak (Nov 8, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> Right, 3.x is but a fully functional game, a rules template, to which our imaginations can drape with the colorful fantasies of dramatic roleplay and high adventure.
> 
> Don't listen to those who fed off the 2e flavor like a pack of sordid vampires, but let *your* imagination shape your game with your own style and flavor rather than fed to you page by inumerable page of text...



 Wisdom. 

The core books are just that. They are pretty bare bones, except perhaps the monster manual. I think that setting based products are more for what your "missing from 3e."

In some low magic setting (or at least in a setting where crafting a scroll is indeed a great challenge, say perhaps crafting a 6th level spell when your only able to cast 3rd level spells), that "substance text" helps set a mood and provide the challenges of the game.

See, if you look outside the core books (or Gygax forbid, create your own), you can find the same sort of content as that first passage quoted in the first post of this thread. Even stuff like the Eberron CS provide this "flavor text" your looking for. Dragonshards in Eberron are your Gorgon's blood and Cockatrice feathers. The PHB and DMG are just there to set up the mechanical system more than anything else.


----------



## hong (Nov 8, 2004)

shock the monkey said:
			
		

> The first one sounds like a pain in the ass.




Actually, the first one is telling me stuff that I either knew already, if I wanted to make an activity a central part of roleplay; or is useless, if I just want to get on with other stuff. 2E had a wonderful gift for taking the obvious and making it sound quasi-profound. Clearly David "Zeb" Cook missed his calling as a writer of self-help books.


Hong "is still waiting for the 7 Habits of Highly Effective Munchkins" Ooi


----------



## Naathez (Nov 8, 2004)

Here's my 2 cents...

I DON'T MISS 2nd edition. AND yet I do agree that the 3rd edition rules are lacking in atmosphere.

But... -building up suspence-

It is OKAY that they are. I don't think it's the book's JOB to give me atmosphere, flavor, "fluff", feeling.

It's MY job. The book's job is to give me a set of guidelines (hereafter called RULES) by which I can make so that actions don't succeed or fail at my (or anyone's) whim, but are influenced partly by luck and partly by skill.
More or less, this thread's originating comment (no offense is meant, I partly understand the spirit behind it, and am just trying to explain my feelings on the matter) is like saying 

"How atmosphere-less it is....  the book says that, to determine whether I hit the troll, I just have to have a weapon in hand.. and then proceeds to explain I roll a d20, add some bonuses and subtract some penalties, and then I compare the result to the troll's AC to see if I hit."

Yes, it IS flavorless. But it doesn't need to be any different. 
I like to use MY ideas with the mechanics provided, it's MY world. 

But let's keep this conversation rolling....

(One thing.... I might be touchy. But that comment about "So now you know who's the wargame player and who TRULY plays RPG" sounded a little too elitist to me...  and frankly I always find elitism A) a little offensive, and B) a little out of place in what I believe should be a friendly community. There's already all kinds of people convinced we're nerdy losers OR satan worshippers cause we spend a few hours each week pretending to be magic-casting elves. No need to start setting up separations in between ourselves.)


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Nov 8, 2004)

As an experienced DM/player, I appreciate the more crunch-heavy approach to the 3e books, but I think I would have been done a disservice if I had started with them.  The fluff of previous editions was what captured my imagination.  Now I tend to skim over that stuff and look for the numbers.  In sum, I think the 3e approach makes for better reference/instruction books for the game, but I wonder/worry how attractive it makes the game appear to newbies who are trying to decide if it's fun in the first place.

MC


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> As an experienced DM/player, I appreciate the more crunch-heavy approach to the 3e books, but I think I would have been done a disservice if I had started with them.  The fluff of previous editions was what captured my imagination.  Now I tend to skim over that stuff and look for the numbers.  In sum, I think the 3e approach makes for better reference/instruction books for the game, but I wonder/worry how attractive it makes the game appear to newbies who are trying to decide if it's fun in the first place.




This is a very good point. The 3E books are the clearly superior rulebooks, but they fail to communicate why it is a great thing to play this game in the first place. For a group of complete beginners (DM + players) the entry barrier is very high.

I still dream of a PHB presented as a mix of the two Cook's: clear and concise rules with a bit of atmosphere as an anchor for the memory.


----------



## hong (Nov 8, 2004)

Flavour books in 3E:

- FRCS: "The Western Heartlands cover a vast area between the Storm Horns of Cormyr and the Sword Coast south of Waterdeep, from the Lizard Marsh in the northwest to the Lonely Moor on the fringes of Anauroch in the northeast, down to Beregost and Green Fields in the southwest and Easting on the border of the Dragon Coast in the southeast.
"... The Western Heartlands welcome ambitious adventurers. A dozen crumbled empires have sought to conquer or dominate the region, leaving behind fortifications built upon by waves of subsequent would-be monarchs. Others left behind treasure troves, high and perilous magic, or both. Unlike the densely packed regions in the Heartlands and the North, the Western Heartlands require long stretches of overland travel between destinations -- but at least no one freezes en route."

- Magic of Faerun: "Faerun blossoms with a nearly infinite number of sites of power. From swamps to spring-fed lakes, from bustling city squares to serene private gardens, from statues to remote groves to signposts at major intersections -- these are the remarkable places of Faerun, the ones that people can never forget, that serve as a crossroads to the explorers traveling across the land."

- OA: "Of all the elemental forces that make up the universe, the most powerful and the most difficult to control is the one that lies between and joins the others: Void. Most shugenjas [sic] can call upon and direct only the individual forces of specific elements, while wu jen use them all. But Void disciples understand that everything in the world contains all the basic elements, held together by the least tangible essence. Void is like the silence between notes of music, giving rhythm and shape to the whole. To those who understand the relationship of Void to all other things, and who have the innate ability to personally perceive that relationship, distance and form become inconsequential."

- Eberron CS: "It rises out of the mist to the south of Khorvaire, beyond Shargon's Teeth and the Thunder Sea. Today, Xen'drik is a continent of secrets and mystery, a wild place full of promise and danger. In the distant past, Xen'drik was home to a great civilisation of giants, and the remains of these kingdoms hide within the dense jungles of the continent. Giants of all types still roam the jungles and mountains of Xen'drik, but they are primitive and disorganised compared to the society of the distant past. The elves of Aerenal also trace their origin to these mysterious shores, and the dark-skinned elves called drow still live among the ruins of the giant civilisation."

Etcetera. Tons of the stuff out there.


----------



## Mark_Aurel (Nov 8, 2004)

Divorcing the rules from flavor text makes it a lot easier to adapt said rules to different settings, as you get a minimum of preconceived notions of how to apply them or how things 'should' be. 

I may want a campaign where my characters go search for special quills, I may want a campaign where it's easy to shop for such, I may want a campaign where scrolls are scribed with blood and dust from fine gems and nothing more special than that, or I may want a campaign where scrolls are scribed with special high-quality quills on similarly special parchment, with no magical ingredients. On an off day, I may allow scrolls to be scribed on napkins.

Of course, there's still flavor in 3e; the illustrations certainly hint at a specific D&D-ish genre, and even that might be too much for some.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Flavour books in 3E: _[snip]_
> Etcetera. Tons of the stuff out there.




We had those in 2E, too . As I said, I was talking about all those people who never see anything else than the PHB.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to have the same stuff as in 2E. Just look at d20 books like the "Secret College of Necromancy" (by "Zeb" Cook and Wolfgang Baur). I felt the strong urge to take a big red pencil and shorten the damn thing by at least one third, until I had a closer look at the rules and saw that it was not worth the effort.

Something in between would be nice.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

Mark_Aurel said:
			
		

> Divorcing the rules from flavor text makes it a lot easier to adapt said rules to different settings, as you get a minimum of preconceived notions of how to apply them or how things 'should' be.




I'm still not convinced that D&D as presented in the PHB is really that portable to fundamentally different settings or styles. As you have to rewrite vast portions anyway, the portability effect is not an issue, IMHO.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 8, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I'm still not convinced that D&D as presented in the PHB is really that portable to fundamentally different settings or styles. As you have to rewrite vast portions anyway, the portability effect is not an issue, IMHO.




However, it's not "fundamentally" different settings or styles we're talking about. Eberron is a huge leap for D&D - despite all the D&Disms it uses, there's a lot of things that are different as well.

AD&D 1e tended to assume a mediaeval/Dark Ages setting, whilst Forgotten Realms and Eberron are very different in tone. Where traditional Greyhawk was mired in superstition, such things are not the case in later settings and the more 'enlightened' wizards have a much better idea of how magic actually works.

Cheers!


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> However, it's not "fundamentally" different settings or styles we're talking about. Eberron is a huge leap for D&D - despite all the D&Disms it uses, there's a lot of things that are different as well.
> 
> AD&D 1e tended to assume a mediaeval/Dark Ages setting, whilst Forgotten Realms and Eberron are very different in tone. Where traditional Greyhawk was mired in superstition, such things are not the case in later settings and the more 'enlightened' wizards have a much better idea of how magic actually works.
> 
> Cheers!




Well, I don't know Eberron firsthand, but all I heard reminds me more of standard D&D with trains and sentient golems *shrug*. It's nowhere as different as, e.g., Dark Sun, a 2E setting.

The Forgotten Realms are also a very "modern" setting as far as their tone is concerned. As this was more or less the "official" 2E setting, we should take this as the basis for discussion, IMHO.


----------



## Mark_Aurel (Nov 8, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I'm still not convinced that D&D as presented in the PHB is really that portable to fundamentally different settings or styles. As you have to rewrite vast portions anyway, the portability effect is not an issue, IMHO.




I didn't say 'fundamentally' different. Just different. If I want something that's 'realistic, grim and gritty,' I'll go play with Chaosium's system or something. 

Tying the core D&D rules too much up with flavor text as indicated in the topic initially would make those rules that much harder to adapt to specific D&D settings with different flavors, or even to your own homebrew. There's a lot of D&D and d20 settings out there.

Conjuring up a specific image of how things 'should be,' as the 2e flavor text often did, tends to limit the imagination rather than stimulate it IMO.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

Mark_Aurel said:
			
		

> I didn't say 'fundamentally' different. Just different. If I want something that's 'realistic, grim and gritty,' I'll go play with Chaosium's system or something.
> 
> Tying the core D&D rules too much up with flavor text as indicated in the topic initially would make those rules that much harder to adapt to specific D&D settings with different flavors, or even to your own homebrew. There's a lot of D&D and d20 settings out there.
> 
> Conjuring up a specific image of how things 'should be,' as the 2e flavor text often did, tends to limit the imagination rather than stimulate it IMO.




I suppose that's why AD&D 2E had so few settings, and all of the existing ones were the same .

Edit: Okay, all snarkyness aside, I just say it again: I don't want pages and pages of flavour text in the PHB, but just a little spin on the imagination. The point is that I find it easier to learn the rules with something like that as a fixed point for my memory. I don't have any problems with changing the "fluff" for different purposes/settings.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 8, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know Eberron firsthand, but all I heard reminds me more of standard D&D with trains and sentient golems *shrug*. It's nowhere as different as, e.g., Dark Sun, a 2E setting.




You'd be surprised. The common availability of low-level magic _integrated_ into the setting really changes things. It also makes a lot more sense - I know Gary Gygax was musing last year about how he really didn't take into account the effect of druidical and clerical magic on crop yields - and thus the prosperity of nations.

Forgotten Realms during 2E times was doing things that weren't really reflected in the core books, so I don't think it's quite a valid comparison.

Traditional D&D (Greyhawk _and_ Forgotten Realms) makes magic mysterious and not available to the common folk. FR has a much greater number of high-level wizards than Greyhawk, but your average merchant isn't going to have any magic available to him.

In Eberron, that's changed. Primarily because of the Dragonmarks - there are a significant number of people with one or two minor abilities. Thus, House Sivis has the Mark of Scribing - and arcane mark can be cast 1/day by many gnomes in that house. Suddenly, the people of the world have access to a way of saying "this document came from me" that can't be easily counterfeited. It changes the way the world operates in fundamental ways, and open up new opportunities.

1E and 2E make magical tasks mysterious and difficult - and actually go against the way the world is presented in the D&D adventures! Why are there so many magical swords and rings in the D&D world? It makes sense that magic is rare - but it's not backed up by the treasure available to the adventurers. The way the game worked wasn't back up by the settings.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 8, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I suppose that's why AD&D 2E had so few settings, and all of the existing ones were the same .




I do hope that's tongue in cheek... (starts counting the settings in 2E...)

Cheers!


----------



## rounser (Nov 8, 2004)

> I know Gary Gygax was musing last year about how he really didn't take into account the effect of druidical and clerical magic on crop yields - and thus the prosperity of nations.



Hmmm.  Given the exceptionally high living standards and freedom of D&D commoners when compared to their real world medieval counterparts, I think there's a reasonable argument that they _have_ been incorporated (entirely accidentally, and purely because of modern anachronisms being applied).


----------



## Psion (Nov 8, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Not to mention the fact that it introduces the question "why the bloody hell would anyone write a scroll if it's that difficult?"




Just so. If I am going to be venturing to gather water from the deepest oceans, I want some payoff!

I'll note how few players I ever had scribe scrolls in 1e: 0.



> My suggestion? Allow the PC's to collect the stuff to scribe scrolls with and give them a discount on xp or gold for having amazing components.




Which is essentially the power component rule in a nutshell.


----------



## Zappo (Nov 8, 2004)

Why should the core books have flavor text? They are _rule_books. I want them to feature complete, usable and easy-to-find rules. I look for flavor in the campaign setting books and in my own mind. Anyone who says that 3E lacks in flavor may not have realized that D&D isn't composed of the three core books only.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Nov 8, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I don't know if that was meant to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I agree with it 100%.




Not sarcastic in the slightest, I believe in this whole-heartedly. If you want to look for flavor now-a-days in the 3.x era of D&D one must look to Campaign Settings. There you find fllavor in abundance, just look at some of them like Midnight, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc. all just oozing spectacular flavor. The core rule books provide literally the rules-backbone for quality game play within these environs. I love it.


----------



## Psion (Nov 8, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I don't know if that was meant to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I agree with it 100%.




Likewise. The 1e DMG was a nice starting point, but now I have used it for many years and I've come a long ways, going back to some of it's notions would feel so recycled to me. It's time to stretch your creative wings and make your own reasons for things being the way they are.

(Though in some ways, the classics are the best. My Gith still strongly resemble the originals. Non-psionic gith? Pshaw!)


----------



## Psion (Nov 8, 2004)

Naathez said:
			
		

> It is OKAY that they are. I don't think it's the book's JOB to give me atmosphere, flavor, "fluff", feeling.
> 
> It's MY job.




HUZZAH!

<cat-calls>


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2004)

i agree.

my hat of d02 knows no limits.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 8, 2004)

Surely there's some happy medium.  I've read Econometrics textbooks that are more interesting than the 3e corebooks.  While I can appreciate the desire (in fact, I share it) to remove the type of fluff that the example in post #1 shows, I'd think the books could at least be readable.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 8, 2004)

I think that it if both good and bad.  I think that games I ran had a bit more flavour to them because I treated the flavour text as rules.  I like to follow the rules so, I'd say "Sorry, you need to go to the high mountains and start searching for gryphon feathers if you want to start making that scroll."

Nowadays, I just go "You spent the xp and gold?  ok, you get the scroll."

It has shifted the focus back to adventuring though, going to dungeons, defeating enemies, getting powerful artifacts, etc.

Of course, back in the day, when I said "Sorry, magic items aren't for sale, the books say so." and players would say "What happens to all the other adventurer's stuff when they reach 12th level?  What happens to their +1 swords and +2 swords and +3 swords when they have +4 swords?" and I would say "I don't know.  They give them to reletives or bestow them on the captain of the guard of their keep that they have by that point."  And they'd say "That's dumb....you are telling me none of them ever think they can get extra cash by selling them?"

Sometimes there would be an entire adventure because a player refused to give up their quest to find a +1 sword, wandering the streets asking people who might be selling one.  Of course, this often left the other players sitting there waiting while I refused to let a player just BUY a sword.  The books said magic items aren't just sold in stores, each one should be a quest.  I refused to give in.

I am not really sure which one is better, role playing wise.  I do know that the current method gives me much less headaches as I rarely feel I am fighting AGAINST my players.


----------



## Henry (Nov 8, 2004)

I'll agree that 3E core books are less flavorful than 2E core books, but they're certainly not devoid of flavor. While I wouldn't mind seeing slightly more, I certainly don't want a return to making a scroll one of the Twelve Labors of Hercules. If it took me all of that labor to create it, I'd never want to use the thing! (Maybe that's why all those magic items were in treasure troves - their owners died because they waited too late to use them! ) _"What? USE my scroll?!!? You must be joking!!"_


----------



## Gez (Nov 8, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Just so. If I am going to be venturing to gather water from the deepest oceans, I want some payoff!




That's why you aren't. Instead, you buy vials of "deepest  ocean water" from the gnome alchemist of the nearest FLACS (friendly local arcane component shop), along with the other components you'll need for the scroll.

That's why it costs you a certain number of gold pieces, for which a mechanical rule is given.

The Scribe Scroll flavor text of the 2e manual could have been put in a sidebar in the magic item section, entitled "Why Is Magic Item Creation So Expensive":

Magic items require strange and rare components to be created successfully. As an example, <insert the 2e fluff about scrolls>. If the player character prefers to gather the components himself rather than buying them from an alchemist, it may become a quest in itself. As a positive side-effect, however, this personal investment in gathering the components may be enough to make the XP creation cost superfluous. See the Power Component rule variant.​


----------



## UniversalMonster (Nov 8, 2004)

The essential problem with flavor-text saturated roleplaying games is sometimes- the flavor isn't to everyone's liking. Also, you run into the situation where the game designers are making decisions and coming up with things that really should be decided upon by the end-of-the-line GM. 

D&D has never been very popular with that segment of the roleplaying crowd that buys RPGs just to read or collect, or (god help me) theorize about. 

It's a game for groups that actually get together and play. I'd rather have a good rules handbook and come up with the juicy campaign details myself.


----------



## Goblyn (Nov 8, 2004)

*Interesting ... or not?*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've read Econometrics textbooks that are more interesting than the 3e corebooks.




Dude. I want your econonics textbooks.

Anyway, I'd have to agree with the sentiment of leaving flavour to the CS books.  Flavour in the core may be fun to read ... the FIRST time, but when they become used as rules references, all that fluff is just more pages to flip through while looking for what rule(s) you need.


----------



## Psion (Nov 8, 2004)

I think the capability to spin my own tales instead of follow in my own vision is what makes D&D the mainstay in my RPG collection. And the 3e is the best yet at making my visions happen.


----------



## Patlin (Nov 8, 2004)

Heck, I'm a real old timer, I guess.  I got all upset about 2e.  Looked like change for changes sake to me, didn't see any improvements in it.  Refused to play it.  I wrote my own homebrew system and everything, and inflicted it on all my friends...

I came _back_ to D&D for 3e, because I finally saw improvements worth changing for.  The rules are much more elegant, IMO.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think the capability to spin my own tales instead of follow in my own vision is what makes D&D the mainstay in my RPG collection. And the 3e is the best yet at making my visions happen.





d00d,

you need to check yourself into a rehab clinic if d02 is causing you to have visions.

that is some bad stuff.

you know what they said about the brown acid at Woodstock


----------



## D+1 (Nov 8, 2004)

One more thing to remember is that by sacrificing pages and pages of flavor text and verbose ramblings of the designers you get tighter, better rules in a smaller space meaning you get more rules per page than you otherwise would.  Now I hear people out there chanting "more is not better" (Diaglo probably leading) but the point is that 3E simply does require MORE space for its rules.  When it was published things were SACRIFICED because the page count for hardcover books has limitations.

Yes the reading of those rules may get dry but it's easier to interpret dry rules than flavor text.  Half of the "rules" discussions of 2E spells came down to distinguishing between actual rules and FLAVOR text.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2004)

Patlin said:
			
		

> Heck, I'm a real old timer, I guess.  I got all upset about 2e.  Looked like change for changes sake to me, didn't see any improvements in it.





i said the same thing about 1edADnD.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2004)

I still use my 2e core rules CD for flavor text on core monsters. Habitat, ecology, and society were much more fleshed out back then and provided more hooks for me to use than the raw combat stat emphasis of the current set. And I can get the color pictures off the WotC site for the current incarnations.

So while I like the rules of 3.5 creatures, I prefer a bunch of 2e descriptions of the same monsters.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 8, 2004)

I agree with the happy medium people. I'd like to see the third edition rules but with a little fluff in there to "set the mood"

What really annoyed me about 3e was the lack of a "what is roleplaying?" intro...


----------



## KB9JMQ (Nov 8, 2004)

I liked the flavor text of the older editions.
Not so much as a crutch but as examples of how to put flavor into my game.
Which as a beginner DM I needed.
It makes me wonder if the lack of fluff/flavor examples in the PHB and DMG make it harder for new DMs to add those parts to their own game.


----------



## Psion (Nov 8, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I still use my 2e core rules CD for flavor text on core monsters. Habitat, ecology, and society were much more fleshed out back then and provided more hooks for me to use than the raw combat stat emphasis of the current set. And I can get the color pictures off the WotC site for the current incarnations.
> 
> So while I like the rules of 3.5 creatures, I prefer a bunch of 2e descriptions of the same monsters.




I never thought about using it this way. The thing, to me, is that I understand what a dark elf or a hobgoblin or a beholder is.

New imports to the core rules I do frequently find myself either making things up for or seeking other sources. A prime example are nightshades, which came from Mystara (which, after 2e, I never followed closely).


----------



## Rel (Nov 8, 2004)

Patlin said:
			
		

> I came _back_ to D&D for 3e, because I finally saw improvements worth changing for.  The rules are much more elegant, IMO.




Same here.  The (relative) simplicity of the rules makes for a fairly smoothly running game.  In fact, I'd argue that the flavor that is included in the PHB and DMG goes a long way toward muddying the waters on what the rules really are.  How many times have we seen arguments in the Rules forum where somebody says, "The rule says...but the flavor text seems to imply..."?

But that doesn't mean that I think the game should lack flavor and I resent the implication made by some that wanting the rules presented in a more "bare bones" fashion makes me a "wargamer" and not a "roleplayer".  What I think is that the WotC team missed a golden opportunity to publish a separate "Flavor Guide" where they could give a few options for flavor to go along with some of the rules.  I think that such a tool would be invaluable to newbies and handy for us veterans to draw new ideas from as well.

Unfortunately we'll probably never see the game laid out in this format (i.e. Rules Compendium, Flavor Guide) because the designers are, and probably will remain, married to the PHB/DMG paradigm.  But at least they've broken away from the "give you the Flavor without much in the way of Rules" mode of 1E, etc.  I'm in the same camp as Psion:  Nobody ever even tried to scribe a scroll in our 1E games.  And yet they were laying scattered throughout every adventure ever released.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 8, 2004)

DonaldRumsfeldsTofu said:
			
		

> How the hell do you put women's funeral lamentations in an ink? And isn't crocodile tears and water from an ocean just, you know, water, and not ink? And isn't the nature of the writing what's magical, not the ink? And isn't it immoral to harvest the blood of a creature with human intelligence for ink?
> 
> I'll take the accountant textbook, very much.




This was the mythological feel of the game. I remember one time players needed the 'Breath of a Mountain' to complete some magic item they were working on, I think a ring of elemental command, so they had to find a place in a mountain range that simulated breathing. They tried a volcano, and a few other locals before I decided that the hissing between two peaks equalled breath. Fun stuff.

Back in the day, magic items usually weren't made by PC's unless heaven and earth moved. Heck, I remember you used to GET xp for finding magic items and treasure.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 8, 2004)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Dude. I want your econonics textbooks.



Well, keep in mind that I have a degree in Economics; I may just be more interested in it than most people.  

But yeah, the core books were actually, extremely difficult for me to read.  I think the MM was the only one I actually did read more or less cover to cover.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 8, 2004)

There is still some fluff in the core rulebooks - the illustrations, the general class descriptions that precede the game rule information in the PHB and spell names such as 'Mordenkainen's Lucubration'.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But yeah, the core books were actually, extremely difficult for me to read.  I think the MM was the only one I actually did read more or less cover to cover.




I read the 3.0 PH cover to cover, and I was really angry that my first print pre-order was missing 32 pages from the combat section, it really delayed me figuring out AoOs for a while and reinforced that I had to look up every spell as they were being used because so many things had changed, like lightning bolts not being a back rank use spell anymore.

The 3.0 MM was neat for the mechanics, but the descriptive text really left me unsatisfied. Everyone pretty much seemed to be described as either vicious or "although normally mild mannered and peaceful, they are formiddable opponents when roused." and for some if there had not been a picture I would not have had a description for them at all.

I mostly used it as a reference book, looking up the stats of the ones I planned to use that night/adventure and using the srd more often than the book in planning things out ahead of time.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> What I think is that the WotC team missed a golden opportunity to publish a separate "Flavor Guide" where they could give a few options for flavor to go along with some of the rules.  I think that such a tool would be invaluable to newbies and handy for us veterans to draw new ideas from as well.





i've been pestering the heck out of (T)Ed Stark for years now to produce:

The Complete Idiot's Guide to d02 Roleplaying.


----------



## francisca (Nov 8, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> That's why you aren't. Instead, you buy vials of "deepest  ocean water" from the gnome alchemist of the nearest FLACS (friendly local arcane component shop), along with the other components you'll need for the scroll.
> 
> That's why it costs you a certain number of gold pieces, for which a mechanical rule is given.



Well, that's fine if you have "Magic Shacks"* dotted througout the world.  Some of us run games where such things are non-existent, or incredibly rare.  

So, where do the spellcasters get their components?  They either go find them, or they are ignored.  Of course, given the whole Holy Grail view of balance in 3E, I can't help but wonder if costly material components are a mechanism for making certain spells harder to cast.



*For Gez and other non-US readers: This is a play on Radio Shack, a chain of stores which used to sell lots and lots of electronic components, but mostly sell consumer electronics and cell phones now.


----------



## Narfellus (Nov 8, 2004)

Yes, there are oodles of difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. The best way to have played the game, lucky for us older fogies, is to have played in all the incarnations, learning the ins and outs so we can pass it on, hopefully, to new players. Yeah, the 3rd edition is more rules-oriented and lacking in flavor, but the older rules were sort of clunky and less streamlined. It takes experience to meld together what one likes most out of the gaming genre.


----------



## Gez (Nov 8, 2004)

I've something to say about that magic shack comment.

To me, there is a huge difference between an alchemist's shop that will sell components to alchemists and spellcasters; and a +2 Swords 'R' Us shop where you can buy completed magic items.

The existence of the former seems justified -- after all, you can buy a "spell component pouch" for what, 5 gp?

The existence of the latter, I do not like.


----------



## francisca (Nov 8, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> I've something to say about that magic shack comment.
> 
> To me, there is a huge difference between an alchemist's shop that will sell components to alchemists and spellcasters; and a +2 Swords 'R' Us shop where you can buy completed magic items.




Agreed.  Enormous difference.  And you know what?  The Swords 'R' Us shop is perfectly valid too, for some groups.  (Personally, if I want that, I'll play NetHack  or Angband.)



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> The existence of the former seems justified -- after all, you can buy a "spell component pouch" for what, 5 gp?



Meh.  I always like the idea of a Magicuser's robe being filled with a multitude of folds and hidden pockets to hold the components.  But I can certainly understand some wizards may not like hopping about the multiverse dressed like Arthur Dent.    

However, we are hitting around one of the aspects of 3E that rub me the wrong way: the implied/assumed level of magic in the CR/EL level system.  I agree that based on the reading of the PHB and DMG, that the alchemist shop with spell componenents is reasonable, etc..  But the CR system breaks down (even more than normal) when you are running some 10th level guys with hardly any magic items.  Note that this isn't some sort of crusade I'm on, and I realize that those of us who like gritty low-magic settings are the exception rather than the rule.  I just don't like the idea of assuming an X level party is going to have a certain amount of magic.


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 8, 2004)

Heh.  I knew, when I started this thread, that a lot of people would follow-up saying, "Dude, I'm *glad* there's more crunch in 3e! Who needs flavor text? Add your own!"

The problem that I've experienced these past three years is that although we can *say* we're going to add our own imaginative flavor, it seldom happens.  3e seems to play more like a strategy/war game.  

The following exchange is typical:

PLAYER: I want to scribe a scroll.  I've got X gp and I can afford to lose Y experience points.

DM [trying to add flavor]: Uh, okay.  You need to track down an elusive old hermit who lives somewhere at the base of the Barrier Peaks.  He's the only known alchemist in the area, and has reportedly created a magic ink from the blood of a dead beholder.

PLAYER: Why do I have to do that? That ain't in the RULEZ!

DM [sighs deeply]: Fine.  You create your scroll.

PLAYER: Kewl! More POWERZ!

====

I'm exaggerating, but seriously, if you tone it down a notch, the above description fits my experiences with 3e thus far.  This is over a span of three years, playing in different groups.  

[Shrug] Maybe colorful flavor and vivid imagination are going out of style, being replaced by painfully precise mathematical rulesets and strategy-and-tactics.  I don't know.  I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## francisca (Nov 8, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> The problem that I've experienced these past three years is that although we can *say* we're going to add our own imaginative flavor, it seldom happens.  3e seems to play more like a strategy/war game.



Well, that is your experience.  Prepare to be indunated with others telling you that they have had different experiences, and that you seem to have a mis-match between DM/Player expectations.

I will say this:  There is nothing in the 3.x rulesets that forces you into a wargame mentality.  There is nothing in the rules that force you into a videogame-ish sprint from one power up to another in search of more power.

But, the 3.x rules sure make it easy to play those sorts of games.  Or at least easier to play those kind of games, when compared to older editions, at least in my experience.


----------



## Incenjucar (Nov 8, 2004)

An idea:

Translate GP value required for CR level required.

That is, to make magic item X, you have to spend GP value Y, or deal with adventure CR Z to get the goods for free.


----------



## Psion (Nov 8, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> The problem that I've experienced these past three years is that although we can *say* we're going to add our own imaginative flavor, it seldom happens.  3e seems to play more like a strategy/war game.




My experience differs.

I have seen some truly fascinating characters in my game.

Just last night, I was reading through Valus, a d20 product based on a homebrew campaign and MARVELING at its depth.

I disagree with your assassment. If it plays like a wargame, IME that is because your players wanted to play a wargame. Plenty of us out there are using it to build an intriguing fantasy roleplaying experience.

You supposed exchange is so sarcastic, I don't see how you have the testicular fortitude to claim it's "typical." Only once in my entire roleplaying experience have I ever encountered a player who had the attitude "how dare you embellish the rules." And if they do, you can always refer them to step 0.


----------



## smetzger (Nov 8, 2004)

I think it would be helpful if a 3rd party publisher stepped in and made up flavor text for what is needed for every standard magic item.  It should of course be cross-listed by monster.


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 8, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> You supposed exchange is so sarcastic, I don't see how you have the testicular fortitude to claim it's "typical."




I meant only that it is typical of what I, personally, have experienced in the past three years.  I'm sincerely hoping to be shown that my typical experience is in fact far from typical for others!


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> I meant only that it is typical of what I, personally, have experienced in the past three years.  I'm sincerely hoping to be shown that my typical experience is in fact far from typical for others!





no. it is typical of my experience with the new editions also over the last 4 + years.


----------



## Psion (Nov 8, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> I meant only that it is typical of what I, personally, have experienced in the past three years.  I'm sincerely hoping to be shown that my typical experience is in fact far from typical for others!




Fair enough.

Let me ask, though: what is your GMing style like? Do you find yourself fairly passive?

I mean, I consider myself fairly flexible. I try to let my players run their characters how they like, but there are certain boundaries I won't cross (eg., NO dragon disciples, no kenders or other races from speicific campaign settings without approval, if you are a half dragon you ARE from the dragon kings, etc.) Is it possible that you are just getting stepped on, or not approaching the situation proactively enough.

Just wondering, presuming that the audience that we have to work with doesn't differ substantially, if there is a difference in our approaches to the game that might be at the root of the problem.


----------



## Incenjucar (Nov 8, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> no. it is typical of my experience with the new editions also over the last 4 + years.




Thats your own fault from straying from the only real game:  Chainmail.  Everything else is just a poor imitation.

But yeah, they do need to have some books... flavor suppliments, you might say, that are add-ons to the core books for people who want to put more emphasis on certain things.  But there is that hinted-at magic item book.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Nov 8, 2004)

Problem is, for newbies who don't know about role-playing, 3e doesn't give the flavour and atmosphere that previous editions did. Part of that, no doubt, is due to the increased emphasis on rules structure. For those with active imaginations it's not a problem, but for those without 3e looks pretty much like the instruction book to a console game.

Personally, I really like 3e. I love how the actual system has been explained and can be tailored to so many different uses. But I do miss the flavourful stuff of ages past.

To me, that leaves the perfect niche market for a D&D role-playing guide. Seriously, if you were new to the game and weren't introduced to the role-playing (vs. rule-playing) aspects of it, by the time you met role-players you'd have already established in your mind what the game is (for good or for bad). Such a sourcebook could be a great opportunity for the legends of the game (designers) to contribute little excerpts of (in)famous role-playing encounters they're had over the years. It would make for a great read while showing how much potential the game has, beyond merely the rules.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 8, 2004)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> To me, that leaves the perfect niche market for a D&D role-playing guide.




We have those. They are in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. They are also called "novels".


----------



## Henry (Nov 8, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> I meant only that it is typical of what I, personally, have experienced in the past three years.  I'm sincerely hoping to be shown that my typical experience is in fact far from typical for others!




I'm telling you, not beating those players hard enough! 

Seriously, I've experienced some of each, and our games are more lax than a hard-core RP campaign, but I've only had one or two players over the years really bust my chops over rules, and when I'm DM I make the final call, so if I say it needs manticore blood, then it needs manticore blood. But largely, I don't make it hard because I WANT my players making scrolls and potions - I WANT them spending those resources to make items, because it shows a deeper level of interest in the game world rather than what "fate just hands them."

One PC in our Eberron game is an artificer, and magic item creation is his lifeblood - if I made it so every item component had to be quested for, he'd be unfairly disadvantaged. As it is, it's a big sacrifice to decide what to make and when, because time can be more precious than resources in the campaign we are playing. If a psychotic Warforged, let's say, is planning to blow up the world in twenty days, do you stop for 3 days and make scrolls? 

What if you are the only one who can cast war-magics on a large scale, and the party desparately needs those three scrolls? Do you search for someone who can make them, or do you take the time and effort yourself? I think he's secretly rueing taking the artisan feat that saves money instead of taking the feat that saves time, because every time he turns around he's blowing off scrolls to save the party's bacon, and only has precious few days to make more


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Nov 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> We have those. They are in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. They are also called "novels".




Great attitude there.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

I'd be happy if they let first someone compile the rules who actually knows them and then someone else make a readable text out of this. I think this would appease both sides in this argument, as it would protect us from, on the one hand, endless ramblings with wonky rules and, on the other hand, dry as dust rules lists, triggering sleep spells on the reader, as we have them now.

However, this will never happen, as this is an expensive approach. Ideally, both aspects are combined in the same writer, but this is unfortunately a rare gift.


----------



## Rel (Nov 8, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> One PC in our Eberron game is an artificer, and magic item creation is his lifeblood - if I made it so every item component had to be quested for, he'd be unfairly disadvantaged.




Or, worse yet, unfairly given an advantage in that the WHOLE STORY must revolve around his character's quest for power components.

See, that to me is the problem that I perceive as the crux of all the Item Creation discussions.  At either end of the spectrum you have one group going, "I've got XP to burn and GP that I can spin into magic items!  The Rules say I can do it so screw you, GM!" and the other end says, "Magic Items are only ever FOUND in my game (and then only rarely!).  No crafting!  And damn sure no BUYING!"  The problem with the first is that it lacks flavor.  The problem with the second is that it lacks verisimilitude.

The first house rule that I implemented with 3E was that you couldn't simply spin gold into magic items with the creation feats.  You had to have components to do it.  BUT then I (gasp) allowed the purchase of these components using the same general guidelines presented in the DMG for the buying and selling of stuff.  In other words bit cities were places where it was easy to buy these components and little hamlets would likely have none for sale.

The effect this had on my campaign was that I had just created a new kind of treasure.  So now I was in the position to say things like:

"Amid the Wizard's belongings you find some Wyvern Blood, Ground Wyvern Stinger and some Manticore Quills.  The first two are worth 200 GP toward crafting magical Wands and the Quills are worth 75 GP toward scribing Scrolls."

"You find some strange flakes of metal that radiate faint magic.  You believe (Knowledge - Aracana check) that if disolved in acid these might provide you with some components for crafting Magical Arms and Armor.  That would require some time and an Alchemy check however."

"A search of the magical oak grove reveals some magical mushrooms (Knowlege - Nature/Wilderness Lore for knowing about their possible presence and finding them).  If they were ground and boiled in a bit of Holy Water (Alchemy or Craft Brewing check) then they would be worth 150 GP toward brewing any sort of healing potions."

It would have required multiple pages of explanation and examples to add that kind of flavor in the PHB so it is (IMHO) better left out.  But it isn't that hard to add it in and I think that a book giving these sorts of examples would be very useful for GM's old and new.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 8, 2004)

I think one could describe the 3E rules as "D&D for D&D Players"

I'm not alone in having coming BACK to D&D as a result of 3E -- 2E seemed like just a simple cash grab, lots of changes for no real reason, no vision, lots of "DM - play THIS way" sort of products, so I bailed and made up my own games, played Fantasy Hero and so on, or just stuck with 1E AD&D.

3E was just what I wanted -- a sophisticated, nicely integrated ruleset that applied a very small number of simple mechanics across a wide variety of applications. It felt like 1E but without all the impossible to understand or even use rules that filled the 1E texts.

I don't need flavour -- my games are full of flavour, they're as far from wargaming as you can imagine -- since because the 3E rules are so straightforward, I don't need to remember them much. Whatever I rule on the spot, basing my judgement on the basics of the rules, is pretty likely to be close to the actual rules. So I can spend my time on what's FUN about DMing for me -- coming up with a rich campaign full of fun details, crazy NPCs, cool schemes and plots for the heroes to foil (or not).

BUT....

I think it's fair to say that having read Gary Gygax's wonderful, imagination-stirring material in OD&D and 1e AD&D had a big impact on me. He was a good writer, there's no denying it, and it was to no small degree that skill he possessed that got so many of us hooked.

3E doesn't have that "hookability" that the earlier games had, I think. I'm not sure about that, but I can see where some people are coming from in this. The rules are clear, and I LIKE that, and it makes the game easier (and thus more fun) to play, but is it all really as attractive to the unwashed masses as earlier editions? I don't know.

I do know that 1E PHB CALLED to me. I HAD to have that book. I HAD to play that game. I wonder if the 3E PHB does the same to inexperienced players.


----------



## Quasqueton (Nov 8, 2004)

PC wizard wants to write a scroll. He studies up on what is required for the scroll: "feather of cockatrice, ink of giant squid, venom of wyvern." Gets his party together to go kill a cockatrice, giant squid, and wyvern.

Once each creature is slain, the wizard thinks, "Hmm. You know, I only need one feather off this '. Only an ounce of the squid ink and 'vern poison. Wonder if I could sell any of the extra to other wizards wanting to write their own scrolls?"

Wizard makes a deal with a local shop to sell individual ' feathers, and special ink and poison by the ounce. As word gets around the small, tight mage community, the local shop gets some wizard patrons looking for special items for their scroll scribing. Few want to go to the trouble of hunting cockatrices just to scribe a single scroll. Heck, many wizards have died (or been petrified) trying to obtain such a quill.

While the wizards are in the shop, they ask, "Do you have any blood of gorgon? I need a howler's quill. How about a mummified elf hand?" The shopkeeper realizes that he could make a lot of money if he could have more magical ingredients. 

The shopkeeper puts out word among the adventurous crowd, that he will pay money for odd bits and pieces of monsters. He pays 1gp per gallon of gorgon's blood; sure that's a hefty amount, and he needs to get some investors (maybe the local wizard guild) to help him out. Then he sells the blood for 1gp per ounce. He buys whole cockatrice carcases for 10gp, then sells the quills for 1gp each; the heart for 5gp; the beak for 2gp; etc.

The shopkeeper, having proven the magical market to be lucrative even on the small scale, forms a guild with some other interested merchants. They open a few magical shops in other large cities and towns throughout the land.

One day, a wizard wants to write a scroll. He studies up on what is required for the scroll: "feather of cockatrice, ink of giant squid, venom of wyvern." He knows of this little "curiosity shop" in Big Town. He stops by and buys the supplies he needs. A friend of his, an older, more experienced wizard, mocks him saying, "Back in my day, we actually had to go hunt the cockatrice, squid, and wyvern ourselves. This idea of just buying magical supplies 'over the counter' takes the excitement out of scribing scrolls."

After a couple years, the shopkeeper has contacts all over the country among various adventurers, wizard's guilds, even the king's court wizard. When a warrior stops by his store inquiring about an enchanted weapon, well, the shopkeeper thinks, "Hmm. I wonder if I could work out a deal with some mage to embue an item for me?"

Then in a few years, the guild is buying, selling, trading, and brokering magic *items* as well as components.

After a couple decades, adventurers (or anyone with the need and cash) can buy magic components and items "over the counter". And the old timer adventurers moan. . .

Quasqueton


----------



## Faraer (Nov 8, 2004)

Peter said:
			
		

> The essential problem with flavor-text saturated roleplaying games is sometimes- the flavor isn't to everyone's liking.



Yes. Where 1E was a world, play style, and ruleset in one, 3E is clearly sold as a fantasy roleplaying game suitable for running a range of different kinds of fantasy campaign, and commercially it balances that broader appeal with putting enough in the game to give it some appealing imaginative content and identity. For me, D&D divorced of 'flavor text' has little appeal. The very term 'flavor text' discloses a particular attitude to the relationship of story/world content and rules, in which the former is a superficial gloss for the latter. While 3E's approach is more mechanics-focused than most games, those mechanics contain *implicit* world detail that is in some ways quite specific, and hence offputting to some, just as the original AD&D ethos did not appeal to all.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> After a couple decades, adventurers (or anyone with the need and cash) can buy magic components and items "over the counter". And the old timer adventurers moan. . .





after a couple days... someone else gets the idea there is money in the business and kills the first guy.

or better yet... the monsters revolt. and kill the first guy.

or even more... the adventurers kill the last ' and no more scrolls can be made.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> or even more... the adventurers kill the last ' and no more scrolls can be made.




Ah! Maybe the cockatrice will fall under the endangered species act ! Oh no, that's for Eberron .


----------



## Greg K (Nov 8, 2004)

*My problem with 3.X is not the core rules or lack of fluff. It is WOTC*

My disappointment with 3.X is not the mechanics themselves, but until now I really couldn't put my finger on the problem.  Thanks to the people over on Andy's boards, I think I figured out my dislike for the majority of WOTC's non-setting 3e supplements in comparison to 2e.  3e, imo, has better core mechanics, but 1e and 2e non-setting supplements as was pointed out were really about helping DMs and players tailor their campaigns and creating campaigns that capture the feeling of novels they read.

3.x class supplements just throw lots of Prc's, feats, and spells.  2e supplements gave you lots of rules options to tailor the game itself (e.g., kits, specialty wizards, optional combat rules, optional spell casting systems.)  Granted, the kits in the majority of the 2e handbooks were problems either do to power creep that began to show up in later supplements or just had lame special abilities (e.g., the savage fighter acted as if he had an alarm spell when asleep). but there were some books with well written kits (the Complete thieves  and Complete Druid's handbooks come to mind).  More importantly, the kits at least gave an example of how to tweak the existing classes, we don't see really see this until Unearthed Arcana.  Until Unearthed Arcana, everything is pretty much prestige classes despite customizing characters (i.e., class variants) actually being in the PHB (p.94/3.0 and p.110/3.5) and PrC's being listed in the DMG as completely optional.

However, kits aside  I generally found much more useful material in the 2e Handbooks on the same topics of their 3e counterpoints.  I look at The Complete Thieves handbook and The Complete Bard's Handbook and each had much more useful material than Song and Silence.    Same for The Complete Handbook Druid's and Ranger's Handbook in comparison to Masters of the Wild.

While Tome and Blood was on par with 2e's Complete Wizard's Handbook, it, imo, does not come close to matching PO: Spells and Magic.  PO: Spells and Magic not only gave several new wizard specialists (e.g.,  alchemist, artificer, song mage, elementalist, force mage) based primarily on creating unique spell lists based either on effect or a non-standard casting method and playable at 1st level, it also gave a point based magic systems (not to mention it gave several variations on the spell point system. Both, the new specialist wizards and the spell systems really gave DM's options for thinking about magic their campaigns. Even Complete Arcane, based on the previews, looks as if it will fall short of PO: Spells and Magic in this regard.

The only 3.x class book that I really felt was better than its counterpart was Complete Warrior.  Despite cool things like the tight and broad weapon groups, combat styles and new equipment, Complete Fighter kits were often ruined by the special abilities as was the case of many kits in the the complete series.  Furthermore, Complete Fighte still had that stupid table to resolve unarmed combat.

Looking at what I like about the 2e supplements, it was no surprise that people on Andy's boards realized that I enjoyed Unearthed Arcana, because it gave the campaign altering options that were found in the 2e book, but lacking in thier 3.x counterparts.  As they pointed out, WOTC appears to not be really interested in giving DMs and players things in the splat books  to really alter the game in the sense that 2e was-- the exception being a book like UA.  To me this is the real problem of 3.X at least as far as Wizards is concerned.  WOTC appears to not really be interested in helping DMs tailor the rules to create truly unique campaigns. So, until things change, I will continue supporting third party companies.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 8, 2004)

oops double post.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 8, 2004)

*My problem with 3.0 is not the mechanics nor the lack of fluff.  It is WoTC*

sorry, triple post


----------



## Henry (Nov 8, 2004)

Now THAT's an idea! Cockatrices are being hunted to extinction, and the local wizards want to capture a bunch and create wildlife preserves - now how do you capture something unharmed whose very touch can kill you? Time to break out the otiluke's spheres and the flesh to stone spells!  (Or maybe just the 'spheres - don't want those cockatrices failing a fort save...)


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 8, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'm not alone in having coming BACK to D&D as a result of 3E -- 2E seemed like just a simple cash grab, lots of changes for no real reason, no vision, lots of "DM - play THIS way" sort of products, so I bailed and made up my own games, played Fantasy Hero and so on, or just stuck with 1E AD&D.



A feeling I have also for 3.5...

But maybe I better not go there.  As to the rest of your post, I totally agree.  1e had the flavor to hook me, but didn't have the rules to keep me.  I actually left D&D _before_ 2e to do the same types of wanderings in other games and systems that others here have described, before being brought back by 3e.  2e was just an incremental step from 1e's already kludgy ruleset.

But again, my experience is perhaps odd.  I run d20 games that have little in common with D&D in most respects anymore.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 8, 2004)

!!! OUT NOW !!!

COCKATRICE FARM by Natural Verisimilitude Games (TM)

Free the last cockatrices of the world from the claws and cages of the cruel Wizards' Supplies Unlimited syndicate! Will those beautiful monsters be able to roam the realms freely again, or will your statues finally serve as resting place for the city's pigeons? The adventure begins here! Complete with a totally new full 10 level prestige class, the Cockatrice Juggler, new feats like Mirror Eyes, lots of new spells plus a whole lot of crunch to please everyone's heart! Available now at all good book and hobby shops!


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Nov 8, 2004)

Both descriptions supply the player with something, but both leave something out.

The first one tells you exactly what you'd see if you looked that wizard over the shoulders - it visualizes the whole affair for you, but it doesn't give you any rules base.

The second one tells you exactly what the rules say about the matter, but it doesn't give you any flavour.

What does that tell you? In the first example, we have to think of the rules for ourselves. In the second, we have to visualize the stuff for ourselves. 

Personally, I prefer to imagine stories instead of rules. Hand me that D&D 3 Book.


----------



## Savage Jim (Nov 8, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> While Tome and Blood was on par with 2e's Complete Wizard's Handbook, it, imo, does not come close to matching PO: Spells and Magic.



I've found, for magic, PO: S&M remains one of my most valued books.  Spell Components, Magic Item Creation, and a host of other features far outmatch 3E's quick-play take on these elements, and as such the book remains a major influence on my gaming.  Indeed, I still consider many 1E/2E books to be an active part of my RPG library, rather than just an "archive".

UA really was a step forward for WotC in regards to how they treat D&D.  I hope to see more like it from them in the future, as it seems to embrace the _fact_ that many groups (most?) make such changes, often for no reason more than "flavor".


----------



## tonym (Nov 9, 2004)

I lean towards preferring clearly written rules over flavor text...for one major reason: Sometimes 'specific' flavor text bugs me and I don't want to read it more than once, let alone five or ten times.  On the other hand, I never mind reading a plain-and-simple 'rule' a hundred times.

For example, here's a single flavor-text sentence about the Osquip from the 2E Monstrous Compendium that bugs me... 

"Some wizards have trained packs of osquips and let them loose at stone fortresses during seiges; this tactic hasn't worked as well as the wizards hoped, chiefly because the tunnels dug by the osquips are almost always too small, and the osquips don't always move in the desired direction."

I don't mind reading text like that once.  But when I'm in a hurry to find some information out, that kind of text not only bugs me, it wastes valuable DM prep-time. 

I mean, doesn't that sentence really translate into: "Use osquips as a fancy seige tactic, but it won't work...so nevermind."

I love well-written, mostly-useful flavor text, though.  That stuff Hong posted... PURE GOLD!




Tony M


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 9, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I think it's fair to say that having read Gary Gygax's wonderful, imagination-stirring material in OD&D and 1e AD&D had a big impact on me. He was a good writer, there's no denying it, and it was to no small degree that skill he possessed that got so many of us hooked.



IMO Gary Gygax was a genius. At game design. But he's an abysmal writer.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 9, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> The following exchange is typical:
> 
> PLAYER: I want to scribe a scroll.  I've got X gp and I can afford to lose Y experience points.
> 
> DM [trying to add flavor]: Uh, okay.  You need to track down an elusive old hermit who lives somewhere at the base of the Barrier Peaks.  He's the only known alchemist in the area, and has reportedly created a magic ink from the blood of a dead beholder.




See, to me you're getting more than a little silly here. Especially when the wizard says "I have alchemy. I killed a beholder the other week. Why can't I make the bloody stuff?"

Or something similar.

Generally the answer is "because you suck. Only NPC's can do the good stuff"

Not to mention the groans of the other players when the wizard says "We all need to go on an adventure so I can get a scroll of magic missile, a spell that I could potentially cast 10 times between now and when we get the components. And then I need to make the thing".

And the other players, most of whom couldn't care less about the scroll prepare themselves to be left out of the game for the next hour and a half.

Face it - introducing flavour is good when it's good, engaging flavour that interests the whole party. Otherwise you're in danger of "sandwich syndrome", where each of the players have to roleplay the exchange to buy a sandwich, and then have to roleplay eating it.

Is that fun? No. Is making a scroll of a spell you can already cast the sort of thing that warrants a quest? no.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 9, 2004)

One of my big problems with the 1e/2e item creation method of "find some rare stuff and put it all together" was that there was absolutely no balance on rarity.  Yes, it had some great flavor, but it was nigh-impossible to balance and make fair, items were either insanely hard to craft and you had to wonder why anyone would go to the trouble for something so simple, or they were so easy that one wonders if there were wizards and clerics who did nothing but make them all day every day and flooded the world with them.

A DM could mean to make something very hard to obtain, but the PC's get it through ingenuity much quicker than the DM imagined, or the DM underestimates the power of the potion or scroll so he gives it easy requirements.  Also, if you made a requirement something like "water taken from ice of the suchandsuch glacier" or "a platinum piece that has touched the lava of the suchandsuch volcano" or the like, once PC's get to the dramatically appropriate location they can stock up on the components.  

If it's so insanely hard to make scrolls and potions, why were there so many of them?   With by-the-book treasure even by 2e standards, we always had entire libraries of scrolls lying around by high levels.  If mages were as rare as some DM's like to imply and scrolls as insanely hard to scribe as many DM's liked to make them, then a few people were going to herculean lengths to craft all those scrolls.  It seems unlikely to me.

Not to mention the fact that you recieved XP for creating items in 1e/2e, instead of the other way around.  If you found an easy recipe that the DM came up with and you could fulfil without much effort, you could sit down and just level up.  Abusive?  Yes.  But completely by the book by 2e's magic item creation rules.

That's why I like the 3.x version of magic item creation, they have a fixed cost, they have a personal cost that cannot be circumvented even by the wealthy or lucky (XP) and they are easy enough to make (1st level spellcaster and a feat, and all Wizards can automatically do it it for scrolls and 3rd level and a feat for Potions).


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 9, 2004)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> As an experienced DM/player, I appreciate the more crunch-heavy approach to the 3e books, but I think I would have been done a disservice if I had started with them. The fluff of previous editions was what captured my imagination. Now I tend to skim over that stuff and look for the numbers. In sum, I think the 3e approach makes for better reference/instruction books for the game, but I wonder/worry how attractive it makes the game appear to newbies who are trying to decide if it's fun in the first place.
> 
> MC



 This post reminds me of taking the ACT and SAT tests and such.  Instead of wasting your time reading all of the story, you quickly skim thru for keywords from the questions, answer them and move on.  Just a test of your reading comprehension yes, but it was effective.  I dig fluff in setting books.  Knowing taht in X city they all have a siesta time from Noon-1 and taht the night watchmen all wear a burgundy tunic and cape is cool.  Don't bother with that in the core rules tho.  Give me descriptions that are effective, non-confusing and makeme go "AHA!  That's how that works." *coughAoOscough*

 Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 9, 2004)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> There is still some fluff in the core rulebooks - the illustrations, the general class descriptions that precede the game rule information in the PHB and spell names such as 'Mordenkainen's Lucubration'.



  Commonly misread as Mordenkainen's Lubrication of course *grin*  Handy spell for a sorceror involved in a lil porn tho heh.

 Edit:On the whole Sword R Us store, I'm a big fan of the Myth series by Robert Asprin and it just feels like the Bazaar at Deva for me.  For the unread, the Bazaar is in the dimension of Deva, which is populated by Deveels (not to be pronounced Devils).  Plays on words are VERY common in this series as its a humor fantasy series. If you can't find it at Deva, it probably doesn't exist is a popular phrase. 

  Hagen


----------



## Gez (Nov 9, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> 3.x class supplements just throw lots of Prc's, feats, and spells.  2e supplements gave you lots of rules options to tailor the game itself (e.g., kits, specialty wizards, optional combat rules, optional spell casting systems.)




Given that PrCs, feats, and spells are all optional, and often features new spellcasting systems or combat options...

You've already cited Uneathed Arcana.

But what do you do of all the "Beyond the Curtain" and "Variant" sidebars in the DMG ?

I disagree with you that the non-setting sourcebooks of 3e do not leave room for customization. The Manual of the Planes is a toolbox for creating a cosmology. It features the Great Wheel only as an example, as well as the drafts of a few others. That book is all about options and customization.

Likewise with the Psionics Handbook. There again, it features psionic rules, and gives you the options to make psionics a different kind of magic or something altogether different. Likewise for Oriental Adventures, which uses Rokugan as an example, but features lots of things that are not present in Rokugan, because it's a toolbox to create an oriental-themed setting. Deities & Demigods, despite its low usefulness, is another example of such a toolbox.

What makes you think the contrary is the greater emphasis on "balance", which is hard to do when the rules aren't set. That's why all sourcebooks are written assuming you use the core rules unmodified.


----------



## knifespeaks (Nov 9, 2004)

Well, I have been a critic of 3.x - still am, in a few areas.

I am a die-hard 1st edition - second edition was totally bypassed.

But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.

That said, I wouldn't ever purchase anything beyond the core rules (DMG/PH/MM) - I am a DM, not a player - if players wish to use extra rules, they are welcome to submit them for consideration. As an example, one player in the current campaign is playing a Healer (from some Miniatures add-on rulebook). 

I prefer to integrate my own stuff - the less official rulebook/campaign source I invest in, the happier I am.


----------



## Starman (Nov 9, 2004)

knifespeaks said:
			
		

> But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.




And I feel the exact opposite. I think 3.0/3.5 is much more flexible than previous editions. Does your "perception" that the new edition is unflexible come from the fact that it is a tighter, more cohesive rules set?

Starman


----------



## knifespeaks (Nov 9, 2004)

Perhaps....I haven't really thought about that, to be honest. The presumption within the ruleset is simply that everyone plays the same way - consider those folks who post here with different approaches, and how much ire they draw! 

For example, the el/cr system is less flexible, simply because it makes encounter design a mathematical equation. 

My issue boils down to simply this - the paradox that MORE rules actually restricts flexibility. Of course, it exactly that which allows the game to be successful as a business venture - so it is understandable, if regrettable.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 9, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> The first house rule that I implemented with 3E was that you couldn't simply spin gold into magic items with the creation feats.  You had to have components to do it.  BUT then I (gasp) allowed the purchase of these components using the same general guidelines presented in the DMG for the buying and selling of stuff.  In other words bit cities were places where it was easy to buy these components and little hamlets would likely have none for sale.
> 
> The effect this had on my campaign was that I had just created a new kind of treasure.  So now I was in the position to say things like:
> 
> ...



Awesome.


----------



## Ranes (Nov 9, 2004)

knifespeaks said:
			
		

> But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.



Only if you have a really poor Will save.

I came to 3e after a long absence from 1e. Now, after playing (ok, DMing) 3e for a few years, I've been reunited with some of my old 1e books, which I've been having fun re-reading. I love the nostalgic feeling I get from so doing and I also still find the 1e DMG inspirational, despite the fact that Gary Gygax, to whom I mean no disrespect by saying this, can't write for toffee. I'm not trying to make any comparisons. First edition was written for a different audience and a different time.

Every edition of D&D has been an exercise in creativity. Nevertheless, with 3e I feel like my creativity is less arbitrary than it was under earlier rulesets and that's thanks to the cohesion of the rules and the clarity of the guidelines. There is more of a gearhead approach and there is a heck of a lot of game data in a stat block now but I must confess to prejudice of my own; I like that aspect of the game.


----------



## Akrasia (Nov 9, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> ... Nevertheless, with 3e I feel like my creativity is less arbitrary than it was under earlier rulesets and that's thanks to the cohesion of the rules and the clarity of the guidelines. There is more of a gearhead approach and there is a heck of a lot of game data in a stat block now but I must confess to prejudice of my own; I like that aspect of the game.




You are conflating two very different things here.

(1.) "Less arbitrary" or more consistent rules.  
(2.) More game data, i.e. a "gearhead approach".

I applaud 3E for accomplishing (1.).   
I loathe it for accomplishing (2.). 

(1.) Encourages creativity and DM innovation.
(2.) Discourages creativity and DM innovation (as any change affects many other aspects of the game, and has all kinds of "unintended consequences").

Given my limited time and natural inclinations, (2.) has proven to be a major pain.  Others with far more free time than myself, and/or a more "gearheady mindset", obviously disagree.

From a marketing perspective, though, I can see the benefits of (2.) for WotC.


----------



## Ranes (Nov 9, 2004)

I don't think so.

I just made the point that the gearhead approach encourages my creativity. I also find that it leads to fewer unintentional consequences.

Also, I claimed that 3e rules have the quality of consistency. You agree with this and assert that this quality 'encourages creativity and DM innovation'.


----------



## Faraer (Nov 9, 2004)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> IMO Gary Gygax was a genius. At game design. But he's an abysmal writer.



Gary is a professional author, and he reads these forums. The least you can do if you're making accusations of professional incompetence is to try to substantiate them.


----------



## Rel (Nov 9, 2004)

knifespeaks said:
			
		

> Perhaps....I haven't really thought about that, to be honest. The presumption within the ruleset is simply that everyone plays the same way - consider those folks who post here with different approaches, and how much ire they draw!




I think that you are off the mark here.  I've been around these boards for quite some time and I've found folks here to be very receptive of new ways of handling the rules (or ditching them altogether in some cases).  But it all depends on how the subject is broached.

If you say, "The skill system for 3E sucks and completely crushes any creativity by making you roll for everything." then you are going to get plenty of people who respond with counter examples and refutations of your premise.  If you say, "I am finding that the 3E skill system works at odds with the feel I'm trying to generate for my game.  Can anybody suggest ways of handling it differently or possibly an alternate skill system?" then I'll bet people will come out of the woodwork with plenty of helpful examples.

To cite an example, I'll use your EL/CR point:  I have on a number of occasions posted an alternate Experience Point system that I use that completely ditches the concept of EL/CR.  I do no math whatsoever in coming up with encounters for my group and EL/CR plays no part in how much XP the characters get for defeating their foes.  I have not in any way been derided for using this approach.  Several people have loved the idea and adopted it.  Some of these have even taken it in new directions and given me feedback on it, which I, in turn, have adopted into my use of the system.

But if you come in blazing with declarative sentences about how:



> But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.




then you are basically saying that those who feel otherwise are simply wrong.  It's condescending and you are going to take some flak for it.  If you weave the criticism you get from this into the perception that this community is in lockstep with the "rules as written" and unwilling to consider alternative approaches then I'm afraid that your tenure here at ENWorld is going to be more frustrating than is warranted or necessary.


----------



## Savage Jim (Nov 9, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> ...I have on a number of occasions posted an alternate Experience Point system that I use that completely ditches the concept of EL/CR.  I do no math whatsoever in coming up with encounters for my group and EL/CR plays no part in how much XP the characters get for defeating their foes.  I have not in any way been derided for using this approach.  Several people have loved the idea and adopted it.  Some of these have even taken it in new directions and given me feedback on it, which I, in turn, have adopted into my use of the system.



Got link?  

[/Off Topic]

I must agree with Rel, here.  True, there are a dozen or so folks that will post again and again and again and again and [ehr...  You get the point] about the sanctity of the Core Rules, throw the buzzword "balance" around, and so forth, but over-all this site is _highly_ receptive to alterations to the game for what-ever-reason despite the rantings of a very small vocal minority.  There are other sites where such ideas are responded to as if some form of heresy has been committed (indeed, many people "reside" here because of the attitudes found elsewhere).

It's all a matter of approach.


----------



## Rel (Nov 9, 2004)

Savage Jim said:
			
		

> Got link?
> 
> [/Off Topic]




Ask and Ye Shall Receive 

Skip down to Post #11 and read the quoted section.  The rest of the thread is additional information about the system.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 9, 2004)

knifespeaks said:
			
		

> Perhaps....I haven't really thought about that, to be honest. The presumption within the ruleset is simply that everyone plays the same way - consider those folks who post here with different approaches, and how much ire they draw!



If we do draw ire, it's typically only from a handful of individuals who somehow feel threatened by radically different approaches from someone on the other side of the world.  I don't get it, but it's hardly a standard reaction around here; I've actually had pretty encouraging responses in general with my galimauphry of a ruleset.

Oddly enough, in older editions of the game, it was specifically stated from time to time that if you deviated from the rules you weren't playing D&D anymore.  So, I think your perception is exactly opposite of what the designer's intent is.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 9, 2004)

Faraer said:
			
		

> Gary is a professional author, and he reads these forums. The least you can do if you're making accusations of professional incompetence is to try to substantiate them.



Huh.  I certainly didn't read that as an "accusation of professional incompetence", merely an opinion on his writing style.  Personally, I'm not that fond of either his game design or his prose, both of which contributed to my leaving D&D like a prodigal son for over a decade.  And I don't feel inclined to offer substantiation, since it's nothing more than my personal preference.


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 9, 2004)

Savage Jim said:
			
		

> Got link?
> 
> [/Off Topic]
> 
> I must agree with Rel, here.  True, there are a dozen or so folks that will post again and again and again and again and [ehr...  You get the point] about the sanctity of the Core Rules, throw the buzzword "balance" around, and so forth, but over-all this site is _highly_ receptive to alterations to the game for what-ever-reason despite the rantings of a very small vocal minority.  There are other sites where such ideas are responded to as if some form of heresy has been committed (indeed, many people "reside" here because of the attitudes found elsewhere).




If you think it's bad at that "other site"    you should check out rec.games.frp.dnd.  *Those* guys are the biggest rules-Nazis I've ever seen.  And downright nasty, a lot of them.  Usenet has always been the wild west.  Brrrrr....


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 9, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> Usenet has always been the wild west.



And not in a cool way either...


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 9, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And not in a cool way either...




Exactly. More like in a "Mad Max for real, duck for cover" way.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 9, 2004)

I'll just say this, one last "But seriously!" for EGG -- he wrote the books that hooked me, and he DIDN'T write the books that drove me away.

OD&D
1e AD&D PHB
1e AD&D DMG
1e AD&D MM

Those were the books that captured my brain and got me here today. His writing changed my life, no kidding.

I believe that the best writing is the one that gets the job done as effectively as possible. I cannot imagine those books having had a BIGGER impact on me than they did, so to say that he's a crappy writer is just, well, nonsensical to me. He wrote exactly what was needed to get the job done, and I say good on him.

Now some smarty-pants is going to post the writing credits for those books and point out that EGG didn't even write them and I'm going to look stupid. I just know it.

Sigh. Some days, it's hard to work up the energy to gnaw through the straps.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 9, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Now some smarty-pants is going to post the writing credits for those books and point out that EGG didn't even write them and I'm going to look stupid. I just know it.
> 
> Sigh. Some days, it's hard to work up the energy to gnaw through the straps.




Quick! Everyone! To the Time Machine to invalidate everything barsoomcore has stated by making hong the writer of those books


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 9, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'll just say this, one last "But seriously!" for EGG -- he wrote the books that hooked me, and he DIDN'T write the books that drove me away.




I remember that same feeling. The feeling of "wow, this is fantastic, this is something I want to be a part of".

The problem is that I also remember the exact same feeling with regards to the fighting fantasy books (including advanced fighting fantasy), and a system called maelstrom which has since vanished off the radar. I also remember that feeling with some of the very first computer programming books I ever read.

I also have the same feeling when I look at my 3.0 rulebook.

Looking at them nowadays - they don't have that feeling anymore, and some of them I look through and think "damn, how did I ever think this was great".

I think part of it is that when you're new to something you have no idea of what consitutes quality.


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 9, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> I remember that same feeling. The feeling of "wow, this is fantastic, this is something I want to be a part of".




I had that same feeling back in 1980 when I first saw Intellivision.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 9, 2004)

Those are perfectly valid points -- and there's plenty of stuff I liked once that doesn't do it for me now -- and I haven't reviewed the writing in those books in a long time.

To be honest, I suspect it's somewhat purple, somewhat overwrought, and somewhat cliched. But _it did the job_ and I'm not sure that isn't the only quality that counts in this case.

I DIDN'T care for _Fighting Fantasy_, and I still think that computer books like _The C Programming Language_ are great, great books. Not liking the C book is like not liking Strunk and White -- they're classics.

Wow, can I ever derail a conversation.

I'd love to read the old books over again, but in a sense I don't need to, because I know the effect they had -- and that's all the proof I need that EGG did the job he needed to do with his words. If the prose had been crisper, more polished, would I have loved the game more? Or less?

All I know is, I loved it a lot. And still do.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 10, 2004)

*A not so imaginary conversation...*



			
				Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> FROM D&D 3.0 DM's GUIDE:
> 
> "The character needs a supply of choice writing materials, the cost of which is subsumed in the cost for scribing the scroll--12.5 gp per level of the spell times the level of the caster.  All writing implements and materials used to scribe a scroll must be fresh and unused.  The character must pay the full cost for scribing each spell scroll no matter how many times she previously has scribed the same spell.
> 
> ...




It's important to remember that the 3.0 DMG rules were written to prevent this conversation:

DM: So, you all home now in Greyhawk, what do you want to do Mouse?

Mouse's Player: You know, I've always wanted to scribe a scroll. It might be useful to have a few scrolls of Magic Missile on hand. What does it take to make one?

DM: (No one's ever asked this before, he needs to refresh his memory) Ummmmm.... ok. Hold on. (Looks through 2e DMG.) You need to know the spell.

Mouse's Player: Check.

DM: Ummmm... (read, read, read, read) You need a quill, some ink, paper, and magical components. 

Mouse's Player: Great, I'll buy the componets in morning. How much will they cost.

DM: Well, that's the problem, they need to be special.

Mouse's Player: Ok, what do you mean?

DM: Well, the quill can't just be a goose quill, it has to come from something like a roc.

Mouse's Player: I thought you said roc only lived in the mountians on the Norther Contentent ran by the Invincible Overlord? 

DM: Ummmm, well it dosen't have to come from a roc. It could come from some other magical creature. 

Mouse's Player: Will a cockatrice's feather do?

DM: (Unsure, a cocatrice dosen't seem like it would fit the flavor of Magic Missile.) I don't know. Maybe.

Mouse's Player: Well, I can by the paper right?

DM: No. That has to be special too.

Mouse's Player: Ink?

DM: Specialy blended with teas from a vergin bride.

Mouse's Player: So, I have to go several adventures to scribe a scroll for a first level spell, so I can be better prepaired for future adventures?

DM: Ummmm, yeah.

Mouse's Player: (resigned to his fate) Well, guys, whant to help me while I search the surndings for scroll components. (The other players agree.)

DM: Don't for get you need to be back in time for the Coronation. Then you need to go back to Blackmoor and settle the debt with Old Man Higgins. 

Mouse's Player: Forget it. (Mouse never, ever, ever tries to scribe another scroll. He does wonder why there are so many magic items lying around in treasures, who has the time to make this stuff?)

I don't know about anyone else, but this conversation (quite common in 2e) isn't exactly riveting.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 10, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I DIDN'T care for _Fighting Fantasy_, and I still think that computer books like _The C Programming Language_ are great, great books. Not liking the C book is like not liking Strunk and White -- they're classics.



No, you don't seem to understand. I'm talking about computer programming books that dealth with BASIC and LOGO and had cartoony, bright coloured pictures of little boxes that had letters on them with anthropomorphic numbers being dropped into them to explain the concept of variables.

I don't think they classify as classics...


----------



## Greg K (Nov 10, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Given that PrCs, feats, and spells are all optional, and often features new spellcasting systems or combat options...
> 
> You've already cited Uneathed Arcana.
> 
> But what do you do of all the "Beyond the Curtain" and "Variant" sidebars in the DMG ?"




Gez, I should have been more clear in my initial post (Heck, with the pain meds I was on when I typed the post, I am surprised that the post was much more coherent than I would have expected).
Anyway, I should have wrote that my problems were:

1. Lack of system changing alternatives.  Yes, UA and the DMG give some real alternatives to changing the system, but outside of these books such options such as replacing major aspects of the system are not given.  Examples of what I mean include Green Ronin's Skill and Feat system for Psychic Powers or  Unearthed Arcana's introduction of Armor as DR, replacing HP with WP/VP) that can really define a campaign.  
 Is it too much for a book called *Complete* Arcane to examine new magic systems like a skill and feat system or variations on the alternative spell point system (e.g., Defiling Magic or  dealing with extraplanar creatures as was presented in Second edition's PO: Spell and Magic) which can be used to redefine how magic works in a campaign?

2)  The overuse of PrCs (which are listed as totally optional in the DMG) as a first resort in supplements while ignoring class variants via customizing the character which is right in the PHB (p.94/3.0 and p.110/3.5).  Many of the character concepts being introduced as Prc's are concepts that can be done with a few slight tweaks to a base class, a new specialist wizard by creating a new spell list ( e.g., the artificer, elementalist, force mage, geometer, mentalist, shadow mage, song mage, dimensional mage, forcemage, were all handled this way in PO: spells and Magic) or the occassional new base class.  

UA did a good job of introducing several class variants for different classes on a single page,  compared to how many pages are wasted on PrCs in the various pages of the various splat books.  I would rather see PrCs as the last resort not the first one.

3.  The non PrC, feat, spell material in the generic books has, imo, not been as useful as similar as their 2e counterparts on the subject.  Complete Warrior being an exception.  Based on the previews of Complete Arcane, it is shaping up to be in the former group despite Rich Baker being the author of PO: Spells and Magic which was an excellent book.

4. I think most of the designers, with a few exceptions, provide more interesting work on DND products that are for Dragon Magazine, 3rd party products, and their own websites than they do for the official generic books. 
My same preference goes for many of the designers work on 2e related products.   



> I disagree with you that the non-setting sourcebooks of 3e do not leave room for customization. The Manual of the Planes is a toolbox for creating a cosmology. It features the Great Wheel only as an example, as well as the drafts of a few others. That book is all about options and customization.




It has been a while since I read MoP at a friend's store.  I know I thought most of it was a waste of space (and I tend to like Jeff Grub's stuff for previous editions), but I don't recall anything introduced that was more than a minor flavor change rather than a major change to the system (e.g., UA's introduction of Armor as DR, replacing HP with WP/VP, or the use of a spell point system).



> Likewise with the Psionics Handbook. There again, it features psionic rules, and gives you the options to make psionics a different kind of magic or something altogether different. Likewise for Oriental Adventures, which uses Rokugan as an example, but features lots of things that are not present in Rokugan, because it's a toolbox to create an oriental-themed setting. Deities & Demigods, despite its low usefulness, is another example of such a toolbox.
> 
> What makes you think the contrary is the greater emphasis on "balance", which is hard to do when the rules aren't set. That's why all sourcebooks are written assuming you use the core rules unmodified.




Since I wasn't clear in my inital post regardnig the type of changes I wanted, I will just give you my thoughts on what I would have preferred in the products you mentioned.

DDG was a product that I thought was pretty much a waste of paper.  I didn't want a book on deity stats.  I wanted a book on building faiths, pantheons, unique clerics (e.g., cloistered clerics and divine defenders from UA), suggestions for tailoring spell lists for a cleric of a particuliar deity, and notes regarding vestments, etc for a particuliar deities clerics.  I found the 2e Complete Priest's Handbook, Faiths and Avatar's, and Priests and Pantheons much more useful and interesting than DDG (or either Defenders of the Faith and Complete Divine for that matter).

As for both versions of the Psionic's Handbook they are banned from our gaming table.  I liked Bruce's work on several 2e products, but I thought the Psi Handbooks were disappointing.  I think that the Skill and Feat system developed by WOTC for Star Wars, but introduced into the DND system by Green Ronin for their Psychic Handbook was not only a much more system changing alternative to DND, the result was I think,  a much stronger and more interesting product.

Finally, for Rokugan, another product that I found disappointing despite my like for many of James wyatt's articles for Dragon.  I liked the Sohei, Shaman, and for the most part the Samurai, but nothing else about the product was that good, imo.  I found the Martial Arts Mastery to be disappointing as were most of the MA feats.  I much would have preferred the introduction of the Brawling, Combat MA, and Defensive MA feats from d20 Modern and then having something similiar to RPG Objects Blood and Fist martial arts system.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 10, 2004)

Savage Jim said:
			
		

> I've found, for magic, PO: S&M remains one of my most valued books.  Spell Components, Magic Item Creation, and a host of other features far outmatch 3E's quick-play take on these elements, and as such the book remains a major influence on my gaming.  Indeed, I still consider many 1E/2E books to be an active part of my RPG library, rather than just an "archive".
> 
> UA really was a step forward for WotC in regards to how they treat D&D.  I hope to see more like it from them in the future, as it seems to embrace the _fact_ that many groups (most?) make such changes, often for no reason more than "flavor".




Thankfully, despite selling off most of my 1e and 2e books when I left ADND at various points to examine other systems, I kept my Core Rules CD-Rom stuff.  Looking through the stuff on the disks, I find lots of good source material that can be used with 3.x.  

In fact, I may run DND 2.75.  3.x Core rules, Unearthed Arcana, the few items I use from various 3.x products (official and unofficial) and throw in material from various 2e products.


----------



## hong (Nov 10, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> As they pointed out, WOTC appears to not be really interested in giving DMs and players things in the splat books  to really alter the game in the sense that 2e was-- the exception being a book like UA.  To me this is the real problem of 3.X at least as far as Wizards is concerned.  WOTC appears to not really be interested in helping DMs tailor the rules to create truly unique campaigns. So, until things change, I will continue supporting third party companies.




I think you've got the cart before the horse. Perhaps the question really is, why _should_ WotC get involved in creating lots of optional rules, expansions, etc, when there are lots of third parties out there who are perfectly willing to do that? It's not like we're talking about a ruleset that's completely under the control of the parent company, like Storyteller or GURPS or just about any other game out there. That's the point of the d20 SRD and OGL: anyone can publish something that they've created, if they believe enough people out there will use it (and buy it).  This applies to rule tweaks just as much as new settings, modules, splatbooks, etc.


----------



## Gez (Nov 10, 2004)

NITPICK ALERT!



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Finally, for Rokugan, another product that I found disappointing...




Do not confuse Oriental Adventures with Rokugan.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 10, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> NITPICK ALERT!
> Do not confuse Oriental Adventures with Rokugan.




Doh! I definately meant OA


----------



## Greg K (Nov 10, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> I think you've got the cart before the horse. Perhaps the question really is, why _should_ WotC get involved in creating lots of optional rules, expansions, etc, when there are lots of third parties out there who are perfectly willing to do that? It's not like we're talking about a ruleset that's completely under the control of the parent company, like Storyteller or GURPS or just about any other game out there. That's the point of the d20 SRD and OGL: anyone can publish something that they've created, if they believe enough people out there will use it (and buy it).  This applies to rule tweaks just as much as new settings, modules, splatbooks, etc.




I am very thankful for the SRD, OGL and third parties.  Obviously, from my post, I am getting more satisfaction from 3rd party supplements and will continue buying them.  In terms of "official" 3.x material, I am still "bugged' (or better yet frustrated) with the majority of non-setting releases.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> Heh. I knew, when I started this thread, that a lot of people would follow-up saying, "Dude, I'm *glad* there's more crunch in 3e! Who needs flavor text? Add your own!"
> 
> The problem that I've experienced these past three years is that although we can *say* we're going to add our own imaginative flavor, it seldom happens. 3e seems to play more like a strategy/war game.
> 
> ...



 Of course, after he said he had x money and  Y XP available and wanted to scribe the scroll, you could have said "Alright, you buy the rare ink from a local hermit and a day later the scroll is yours." or something like that.  If your players don't want that extra layer of Rp for something that they believe is purely mechanical, why force it?  Just adlib a bit and maybe mention that this old man has many other interesting components like this and he welcomes you back in the future.  Then maybe the next time your character would say "Hey DM, I wanna make a scroll, so I head to the hermit's place to see if he has the right kind of ink for me".  

 This way the player may go ahead and insert the RP flavor back in on his own the next time.  That's just what I'd do tho.

 Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> But yeah, they do need to have some books... flavor suppliments, you might say, that are add-ons to the core books for people who want to put more emphasis on certain things. But there is that hinted-at magic item book.



 As was mentioned earlier in this thread I believe, the "flavor" books are the campaign settings.  Look at Midnight, Eberron, FRCS, Arcana Unearthed.  Dripping with flavor.  Core books, not so much.  Core books don't need to as they are just your rules.  

 I also would say that darn near anyone who is going to be playing D&D probably HAS a pretty active imagination.  I've never met a gamer yet who didn't in the last 17 yrs of playing.

 Hagen


----------



## Savage Jim (Nov 10, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> Ask and Ye Shall Receive
> 
> Skip down to Post #11 and read the quoted section.  The rest of the thread is additional information about the system.



Kewl...  I'll have to digest that for a few, but looks nice.


			
				Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> If you think it's bad at that "other site"    you should check out rec.games.frp.dnd.  *Those* guys are the biggest rules-Nazis I've ever seen.  And downright nasty, a lot of them.  Usenet has always been the wild west.  Brrrrr....



Nah, that's okay.  I've made it a point to hang out in moderate- to friendly-forums during the last two years.

Thanks for the warning, though.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Nov 10, 2004)

My take after only reading through page 5:

3E is great for people that already know how to play D&D, but it really doesn't convey the experience of play to new players.  You could argue that many gamers learn from current players, but most players I know either learned the game out of the box or from someone who had learned it out of the box.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> 3.x class supplements just throw lots of Prc's, feats, and spells. 2e supplements gave you lots of rules options to tailor the game itself (e.g., kits, specialty wizards, optional combat rules, optional spell casting systems.)



 Kits=PrCs really. Specialty wizards are an accepted standard in 3E. There are optional combat rules listed in the PHB. Optional spell system called Psionics in seperate book *grin*

 All of these extra infinite seeming rules are one of the reasons most people cite for disliking 2E. Because even when a rule was listed in a book as Optional, so many people seemed to take it as the Pure Word of God that it must be in the game. 



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Until Unearthed Arcana, everything is pretty much prestige classes despite customizing characters (i.e., class variants) actually being in the PHB (p.94/3.0 and p.110/3.5) and PrC's being listed in the DMG as completely optional.



 This is the fault of WOTC how? They gave people the rules for character customization on the pages you specify and even show the creation of the Witch class in the DMG as well. If DMs don't take advantage of the material already presented in the books to tailor classes for their world, how is this WOTCs fault?



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Looking at what I like about the 2e supplements, it was no surprise that people on Andy's boards realized that I enjoyed Unearthed Arcana, because it gave the campaign altering options that were found in the 2e book, but lacking in thier 3.x counterparts. As they pointed out, WOTC appears to not be really interested in giving DMs and players things in the splat books to really alter the game in the sense that 2e was-- the exception being a book like UA. To me this is the real problem of 3.X at least as far as Wizards is concerned. WOTC appears to not really be interested in helping DMs tailor the rules to create truly unique campaigns. So, until things change, I will continue supporting third party companies.



 Basically what it comes down to is this:WOTC realized there are books that are core rules, books that are DM type books for world building (Manual of the Planes), books that are DM/Player crossover and include new goodies to spice your campaign with (Splatbooks), setting books (FRCS, ECS, Greyhawk Gazetteer), and optional rule books (Unearthed Arcana). There are indeed some new rules and options (usually new ways of using skills etc) found in splatbooks and such, but they realize that splatbooks are as much a player resource as a DM one, so generally new rules aren't a major focus. 

 Something like UA comes along and they jam it full with more rules and alternate takes than you would ever want to use in one campaign. Instead of every book in 2E seeming to have a "kitchen sink" design, 3E books are focused and organized. The new splatbooks (Complete Warrior, Divine, Arcane, etc) are more focused than their previous bretheren and more useful from what I've seen and read about them. This is the "A place for everything and everything in its place" style of game design which I appreciate. WHen I buy a book that is supposed to be new ways to play warriors, new eq, new PrCs, etc, I don't expect tons of new rules about X, Y and Zee. I expect class variants (magicless Ranger anyone?), PrCs etc. 

  This really seems like a chocolate/peanut butter kinda arguement at this point *grin*

  On other points:

 If people want to see TONS of divergent rules, complete guttings of the d20 system and some very cool stuff in general, set the House Rules forum to last 6 months and read thru a bunch of goodies. Wanna find a way to make all weapons largely equal and put the skill back into the hands of your character and not penalize someone for what weapon they choose to use? Go here. Maybe you want to be able to use the AU magic system and turn D&D into a point buy using the core classes or AU classes. Go here.  Use Ken Hood's Revised Grim N Gritty Rules which we helped him tweak here on ENWorld?  Here. All of these rules are fairly large rewrites of various aspects of the game and are quite cool. I know I plan on utilizing all 3 in my next game.

 WotC is giving us the basic rules and relying on the players and DMs *not to mention 3rd party game companies* to produce other material. Gee, that's the entire MARKETING scheme behind 3E. Go figure. You know WotC trolls these forums every day looking for new and interesting ideas that people post so they can rope them into 4th Ed. If ENWorld had existed before 3E was a glimmer in their eyes, they would have had access to even more of the standard house rules people use in their campaigns than what they had found when working on 3E. I fully expect 4E to be more transitional, but not quite to the level of change as you had from 2 to 3. Think more the 1E to 2E clarifications and such. Don't think we'll see many sacred cows killed, but we may well see more optional components *including many things from UA* combined into the main game.

  Reading along I found Greg K's next post *my this is becoming a long post* so here's some more responses. *grin*



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 1. Lack of system changing alternatives. Yes, UA and the DMG give some real alternatives to changing the system, but outside of these books such options such as replacing major aspects of the system are not given. Examples of what I mean include Green Ronin's Skill and Feat system for Psychic Powers or Unearthed Arcana's introduction of Armor as DR, replacing HP with WP/VP) that can really define a campaign.
> Is it too much for a book called *Complete* Arcane to examine new magic systems like a skill and feat system or variations on the alternative spell point system (e.g., Defiling Magic or dealing with extraplanar creatures as was presented in Second edition's PO: Spell and Magic) which can be used to redefine how magic works in a campaign?



 I would say yes it IS too much to ask. I really addresed my thoughts on this above with how they're dividing up the kinds of things you see in different books.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 2) The overuse of PrCs (which are listed as totally optional in the DMG) as a first resort in supplements while ignoring class variants via customizing the character which is right in the PHB (p.94/3.0 and p.110/3.5). Many of the character concepts being introduced as Prc's are concepts that can be done with a few slight tweaks to a base class, a new specialist wizard by creating a new spell list ( e.g., the artificer, elementalist, force mage, geometer, mentalist, shadow mage, song mage, dimensional mage, forcemage, were all handled this way in PO: spells and Magic) or the occassional new base class.
> 
> UA did a good job of introducing several class variants for different classes on a single page, compared to how many pages are wasted on PrCs in the various pages of the various splat books. I would rather see PrCs as the last resort not the first one.



 See that's the thing. Designing a new base class isn't what most people need. Most people enjoy the core classes as they are and like them (or consider them sacred cows and won't change them) but PrCs are add ons as you get more experienced and are lil injectors of flavor. If you would prefer a million class variants in your world and less PrCs go right ahead, but the way the books are presented make PrCs a much more attractive (and far easier) option for most DMs. If you would prefer to tweak wizards in your game to allow for Force Mages, Mentalists etc w/o having them as PrCs go right ahead. Most of the rest of us will happily just use them as PrCs. PrCs are a good thing and allow the DM to inject a different flavor they maybe hadn't thought of by allowing specific ones. DMs like you would instead see the PrC and then tweak a base class to allow for it in the world. That's fine too. DIfferent play styles. It's all good.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 3. The non PrC, feat, spell material in the generic books has, imo, not been as useful as similar as their 2e counterparts on the subject. Complete Warrior being an exception. Based on the previews of Complete Arcane, it is shaping up to be in the former group despite Rich Baker being the author of PO: Spells and Magic which was an excellent book.



 I did find a lot of useful things in the Complete 2E series..like how to design my own Thieves Guild etc. Know how often that actually got used in a game I ever played in? Never. I'm sure many made use of it, but I never found them. Then you have things like the unarmed combat system in Complete Fighters, Priests AND Gladiators! All 3 of them different rulesets too. Again, with the SRD, other companies are welcome to step in and design niche products like is the current system and WOTC can focus on the core game. I really don't expect WOTC to be in the modding biz, but I do expect that of 3rd party companies.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 4. I think most of the designers, with a few exceptions, provide more interesting work on DND products that are for Dragon Magazine, 3rd party products, and their own websites than they do for the official generic books.
> My same preference goes for many of the designers work on 2e related products.



 Musical example. Prince has many songs that were left as B side tracks or even unreleased that are, many times, better than the tracks that were released. One of teh reasons some of these tracks aren't given wider circulation by him is that they ended up being too personal for him and he wasn't able to turn them into a generic enough statement. Songs ranging from lost love to the death of a friend to the loss of several friends thru their own drug addictions, we have many unreleased Prince songs that fit this bill. 

 To tie this to your point, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this material was offered to WOTC but it was deemed to be too different or just not what they were looking for, so they publish it themselves. This is exactly how things should go. WOTC tries to keep the core game a bit more stable as it is one of their cash cows and you don't wanna drive your audience away too badly. (Don't ask me to explain a revision of a new edition after only 3 years heh)

 Oh yeah, one point I missed from your 2nd post on teh matter, I do agree that a skills style psionics system ala SWRG's Force skills is a better way to approach things, but obviously that's not the way WOTC wanted to go for the core version.  Skipping them for alternative Psi systems (including a coupla alternatives available from Bruce Cordell even) is obviously the correct method for you.

 In conclusion (yes I'm FINALLY shutting up. Thanks if yr still reading, I did try to stay focused), we obviously differ on our opinions of what WOTC should be producing, but that's cool. Part of the fun of ENWorld is debate and finding new ways to play and different things people want to see from the game. If that means that you buy very little from WOTC but lots from 3rd party companies fabulous. If that means you're a strict WOTC only kinda guy, that works too. I would think the WOTC only people are missing out on some really great stuff, but hey. *grin*

  Hagen


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> I remember that same feeling. The feeling of "wow, this is fantastic, this is something I want to be a part of".



For me, it was the very concept of roleplaying that gave me that feeling, and nothing about the specific implementation of D&D did that.  In fact, I very quickly became disillusioned with the specific implementation of D&D.  A lot of folks will tell you they played D&D until 2nd edition, which they hated.  I was sick of D&D long before 2e came out, and was already looking into other RPG options.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 10, 2004)

> All of these extra infinite seeming rules are one of the reasons most people cite for disliking 2E. Because even when a rule was listed in a book as Optional, so many people seemed to take it as the Pure Word of God that it must be in the game.



I thought the problem was 1) people tired of power creep in the kits (which the class variants seem to avoid); 2) people getting tired of DNDisms; 3) those who were detractors of any new edition. 

And yes,  those individuals who take optional to mean it must be in the game were also a problem, but they exist in 3.x as well.  Just look at the amount of player  posts on wizard's site (and they can be found to some degree here on ENWorld) regarding players thinking that, just because they own a book or want a Prc, the DM has to let it the game.



> This is the fault of WOTC how? They gave people the rules for character customization on the pages you specify and even show the creation of the Witch class in the DMG as well. If DMs don't take advantage of the material already presented in the books to tailor classes for their world, how is this WOTCs fault?




 While not indicative of DMs in the community as a whole, based on exchanges that I have had here, monte's site, and at wizard's, many DM's ignored the customizing characters example from the PHB, because they did not feel WOTC gave them enough to work with the thug example or the example in the DMG .  Without enough examples of class variants and WOTC's supplement focus on PrCs, many DM just ignored class variants and relied on multiclassing and PrCs. 



> Basically what it comes down to is this:WOTC realized there are books that are core rules, books that are DM type books for world building (Manual of the Planes), books that are DM/Player crossover and include new goodies to spice your campaign with (Splatbooks), setting books (FRCS, ECS, Greyhawk Gazetteer), and optional rule books (Unearthed Arcana). There are indeed some new rules and options (usually new ways of using skills etc) found in splatbooks and such, but they realize that splatbooks are as much a player resource as a DM one, so generally new rules aren't a major focus.
> 
> Something like UA comes along and they jam it full with more rules and alternate takes than you would ever want to use in one campaign. Instead of every book in 2E seeming to have a "kitchen sink" design, 3E books are focused and organized. The new splatbooks (Complete Warrior, Divine, Arcane, etc) are more focused than their previous bretheren and more useful from what I've seen and read about them. This is the "A place for everything and everything in its place" style of game design which I appreciate. WHen I buy a book that is supposed to be new ways to play warriors, new eq, new PrCs, etc, I don't expect tons of new rules about X, Y and Zee. I expect class variants (magicless Ranger anyone?), PrCs etc.




  I don't mind the fact that splat books contain player options, but if it is a player/DM option, I expect more real options on the subject for the DM which is what I consider alternate combat mechanics or magic systems to be.



> This really seems like a chocolate/peanut butter kinda arguement at this point *grin*
> In conclusion (yes I'm FINALLY shutting up. Thanks if yr still reading, I did try to stay focused), we obviously differ on our opinions of what WOTC should be producing, but that's cool. Part of the fun of ENWorld is debate and finding new ways to play and different things people want to see from the game. If that means that you buy very little from WOTC but lots from 3rd party companies fabulous. If that means you're a strict WOTC only kinda guy, that works too. I would think the WOTC only people are missing out on some really great stuff, but hey. *grin*
> Hagen




Exactly.  I agree it is nice to be able to debate (which too often on message boards is misinterpreted as fighting or flaming).   3.x is good, because at least people are getting the material.  I can respect the opinion of those on these boards, who truly like everything or the majority of things WOTC puts out for DND. The only opinions I really don't expect  are those individuals, who despite not liking WoTC's DND stuff, continue purchasing WOTC products blindly and advocate that others do the same under the impression that this helps the game.  I don't mind so much how they choose to spend their money other than they miss out on supporting some great 3rd party stuff and might be *possibly* distorting WOTC's perceptions of what things, if any, need to be changed.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 10, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For me, it was the very concept of roleplaying that gave me that feeling, and nothing about the specific implementation of D&D did that.  In fact, I very quickly became disillusioned with the specific implementation of D&D.  A lot of folks will tell you they played D&D until 2nd edition, which they hated.  I was sick of D&D long before 2e came out, and was already looking into other RPG options.




  Like Joshua, I too became disillusioned with the specific implementation of DND under 1e.  I got introduced to RM (which I think often gets a bad rap) while away for my first year of college, but unfortunately when I returned home for a summer break nobody wanted to try a new system. So, it was back to ADND right before 2e was released and we continued to 2e.  Again, I got disllusioned with many of the D&Disms despite liking settings, the Complete Books and the concept of kits (if not often liking the implementation and power creep of many of the kits), started searching for new games, but did not try to introduce RM to my second group of ADnd players. 
  Despite not reintroducing RM to the current group (at the time), one of the players, a recent addition did just that when school and work demanded too much of my time to run or play.  The group quickly switched completely from 2e to RM and still play RM (and until earlier this year, I continued gaming with them including GMing), but 3.X renewed my interest in DND since most of the core changes  I asked for in my questionaire regarding a 3e were implemented.  

However, in my case, if it were not for UA and 3rd party material,  I would have abandoned DND again for a third time and never looked back. However with UA and 3rd party stuff, I can enjoy 3.x as much as RMSS-- as long as I stay away from WOTC's DND page where I keep hoping to find more products like UA or enhancements that are as far sweeping in change.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I thought the problem was 1) people tired of power creep in the kits (which the class variants seem to avoid); 2) people getting tired of DNDisms; 3) those who were detractors of any new edition.



 Heh there were MANY problems.  I know that all the ones you mentioned as well as the one I mentioned were hated by the various groups I've been in.   Well, 2E was a clarifier of 1E and we still mixed some 1E stuff like Assassins in anyway, so we didn't blindly hate a new edition.  The class variants do avoid the power creep b/c they're intended to be balanced against all the other core classes.  I've seen posts on here saying the Cheater of Mystra is overpowered, some saying it's balanced or UNDERPOWERED.  Same for Warforged in Eberron.  You can find any opinion ya want to validate any belief ya have on the net after all heh.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> And yes, those individuals who take optional to mean it must be in the game were also a problem, but they exist in 3.x as well. Just look at the amount of player posts on wizard's site (and they can be found to some degree here on ENWorld) regarding players thinking that, just because they own a book or want a Prc, the DM has to let it the game.



 Yeah if I ever hear anyone saying that I refrain from the bitchslap but do make sure to let them know that the DM *who is usually not me* is the final arbiter of what is found in the world and they can choose to disallow anything they want.  Then I tell them to stop whining you can't have your uber twinked PrC that is woefully unbalanced and instead look at the PrCs the DM has approved for his game.




			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> While not indicative of DMs in the community as a whole, based on exchanges that I have had here, monte's site, and at wizard's, many DM's ignored the customizing characters example from the PHB, because they did not feel WOTC gave them enough to work with the thug example or the example in the DMG . Without enough examples of class variants and WOTC's supplement focus on PrCs, many DM just ignored class variants and relied on multiclassing and PrCs.



 Well, if yr not sure you can tweak a class to a variant and keep it balanced, naturally look for others who have done that properly and use their stuff.  Of course, sticking with published PrCs and multiclassing is fuly acceptable as well.




			
				 Greg K}I don't mind the fact that splat books contain player options said:
			
		

> Eh, I'll just chalk this one up to disagreement over expected content. *grin*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 10, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For me, it was the very concept of roleplaying that gave me that feeling, and nothing about the specific implementation of D&D did that.  In fact, I very quickly became disillusioned with the specific implementation of D&D.  A lot of folks will tell you they played D&D until 2nd edition, which they hated.  I was sick of D&D long before 2e came out, and was already looking into other RPG options.




That's what I was hitting upon, except that for me, the memory of excitement about the concept remains attached to the memories of the books themselves. Hence when I think of old-time D&D, I imagine a wonderful system full of flavour and quick and easy rules.

One that never existed.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 11, 2004)

If you like the 2e scroll scribing rules then you obviously have never attempted to use them.  "I love 2e for all these flavorful rules that I avoided using like the plague" is not exactly high praise.

The 3e scroll rules are a failure as a roleplaying experience.  But some of us tend to believe torturing the entire game group over the acquisition of a measly disposable item might be a bad idea.

Now this flavorlessness criticism is indeed valid with respect to creating major magic items.  But 1e/2e does not even have rules for that, so we know who wins the comparison there.


----------



## Tranzquility (Nov 11, 2004)

I think that the 3e rules take out the fantacy and and hard rules yes but with that think of the books as the manual for the game and not where you should get your ideas from instead use your brain for the ideas and then take the rules to help make your idea in to a story......


----------



## Creamsteak (Nov 11, 2004)

Every time I read the words, "inject flavor" I picture a turkey being basted. And this thread keeps on saying it and saying it, and now I'm hungry.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 11, 2004)

Creamsteak said:
			
		

> Every time I read the words, "inject flavor" I picture a turkey being basted. And this thread keeps on saying it and saying it, and now I'm hungry.




Here you go:







Cheers!


----------



## woodelf (Nov 11, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I don't know who wrote these rules for fabricating scrolls, but I have this kind of problem with most of the stuff Monte Cook writes. The rules are clear and sound, but it's hard to figure out the brilliant ideas behind the completely dry writing that makes me fall asleep most of the times. It took me several attempts until I finally appreciated AU (great book, if you manage to stay awake ).



 Huh. Dunno about his other stuff, but it's precisely the way the flavor text is not only present, but woven into the rules that got me all excited for Arcana Unearthed, while if i'd been told "D&D3E or no RPing for you", i'd've taken a hiatus--and the complete lack of any context for the rules is a large part of it. I just sat down and read AU (well, 'cept the combat chapter--but you'll never get me to read a combat chapter in any game system until i have to).


----------



## woodelf (Nov 11, 2004)

ph34r said:
			
		

> That's what your imagination is for!
> 
> A little bit of flavor could be a great thing in moderation but what Sebastian posted just kept going forever. I'd be really unhappy if I read 2 pages of flavor text on how to do something that takes 2 sentences to explain.



 And, me, i'm really unhappy when something with a game-world reality is reduced to 2 sentences of player-level instructions. Yes, i have an imagination, but that's not the point. It's not that i am complaining about teh lack of that flavor stuff--i'm complaining about the fact that that flavor stuff has no impact on the rules [as written, of course]. The AD&D2 way suffers from arbitrariness. The D&D3E way suffers from blandness. Personally, i'll take the potentially-arbitrary rules, because it's really easy for me to whip up some lists/charts/rules/formulae to make things codified and balanced; while i can also fix the potentially-bland rules, it takes me a lot longer, so the effort to "fix" D&D3E is considerably more than the effort to "fix" AD&D2.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 11, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> The AD&D2 way suffers from arbitrariness. The D&D3E way suffers from blandness. Personally, i'll take the potentially-arbitrary rules, because it's really easy for me to whip up some lists/charts/rules/formulae to make things codified and balanced; while i can also fix the potentially-bland rules, it takes me a lot longer, so the effort to "fix" D&D3E is considerably more than the effort to "fix" AD&D2.




If true, it is because you are a truly exceptional GM.  But it runs counter to all my experience at the game table.  The ability to whip up codified & balanced game rules is very rare; I base this conclusion on the dozen or so RPGs and dozens of other games I am familiar with.  If this talent is common those who possess seem to avoid publishing gaming material.  Please understand that I am purposefully neither believing nor disbelieving you in specific, but I would be shocked if the high level of competence you describe were to be found in even 1 in 100 experienced GMs.

This opens a more philosophical question:  Who are the rules written for?

I submit that rulebooks should primarily help "okay" and "mediocre" and "beginning" GMs along the way towards becoming "good" GMs.  The alternative would be to assist "good" (or worse) GMs to achieve real excellence.

For the second goal, both 1e/2e and 3e are likely failures.  IMNSHO 3e is a vastly better bet for most GMs with respect to the first goal.

Now if you happen to be a truly great GM already, it is very possible that the 3e approach might bore you to tears.  But the 2e approach is likely to be spotty at best as well because inspirational value is a pretty subjective thing.

I happen to believe that vast majority of GMs of better served by the 3e approach (although I concede the vast majority are unlikely to agree with me).  A number will say they are great at whipping up balanced rules; very few are.  I do not doubt such GM exists, but they are rare birds and _do not representative of the needs of the gaming community as a whole_.


----------



## Ranes (Nov 11, 2004)

Tranzquility said:
			
		

> I think that the 3e rules take out the fantacy and and hard rules yes but with that think of the books as the manual for the game and not where you should get your ideas from instead use your brain for the ideas and then take the rules to help make your idea in to a story......



All your full stops gravitated to the bottom of your post.

Anyway, thinking of the core books as manuals is quite right. After all, one of them is the MM. By 'taking out the fantasy', I assume you are referring to the 'f' word that has led to so much hunger around here.

The 3e books have to find a difficult balance. On the one tentacle, you want to inspire the reader to play but, on one of the others, you want to explain as clearly as possible how to play.

WotC doesn't get as much acknowledgement of its success, as I think it deserves. I don't have my books to hand but I remember a passage (probably in the PHB) about the times when your character might have to deal with a heavy load, such as carrying a sack of treasure or a fallen comrade. The evocative text is more subtle but it's still there. Sure, the tone has changed. Gone, dear reader, are the days when, in order to ensure accurate interpretation of AD&D for instance, the player and DM would have to wade through tortuously long sentences assembled in a nightmarish pastiche of an archaic idiom.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2004)

Dancer said:
			
		

> The replies to this thread demonstrate the difference between role-players and war-gamers.  I'm sure you can figure out who is who.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 11, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> DDG was a product that I thought was pretty much a waste of paper. I didn't want a book on deity stats. I wanted a book on building faiths, pantheons, unique clerics (e.g., cloistered clerics and divine defenders from UA), suggestions for tailoring spell lists for a cleric of a particuliar deity, and notes regarding vestments, etc for a particuliar deities clerics.




Wow. I loved Deities and Demigods. I loved the sections on different kinds of pantheons, the instructions on how to build a pantheon, the campaign hooks about directly dealing with gods, and the tables! The tables for the Norse, Greek, and Pharonic pantheons were worth the price of admission to me. Yeah, I'll grant that the deity stats were unnecessary, but the the opening pages on the norse pantheon were real campaign builders. It contained a table showing all the gods, their rank, portfolio, and domains. It showed a cosmology and gave a very brief description of the mythology (which I already knew). Then, they said a few words about setting the campaign after Ragnarok. 

I used that information to create my own campaign world where the Norse gods are worshiped. That section contained every thing I needed to know about the gods from a game perspective. It even included a map of a typical Asgardian temple. (I've had to use that description a couple of times.)

Mind you, I wasn't a slave to the book. For one think a made Loki chaotic neutral rather than chaotic evil. And I altered the way the pantheon was worshiped slightly. (for one thing, I made it much more loose and unorganized).

Building faiths and pantheons is what the first two chapters are all about. What do you find wrong with them? Rules for clerics were beyond the scope of the book. WotC and 3rd parties publish lots of books on clerics and relatively few on faiths. Tailoring spell lists for specific deities smacks, to me, of the typical "you're a cleric therefore you have more role-playing restrictions because you worship a deity." Let players decide how their characters should best worship their deities." That's the kind of advice I don't need. Once a book goes into vestments, I fall asleep. 

You seem to really, really like UA. I love UA to. However, I don't like the idea that every book should provide alternate sub-systems to way you do. To me products like Defenders of the Faith should expand on the existing rules, and stay out of the alternate rules business. One of the reasons 3rd party products are so good to alternate sub-systems market is that such products are niche products and have to be produced by a smaller company with a smaller overhead.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 12, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If true, it is because you are a truly exceptional GM.  But it runs counter to all my experience at the game table.  The ability to whip up codified & balanced game rules is very rare; I base this conclusion on the dozen or so RPGs and dozens of other games I am familiar with.  If this talent is common those who possess seem to avoid publishing gaming material.  Please understand that I am purposefully neither believing nor disbelieving you in specific, but I would be shocked if the high level of competence you describe were to be found in even 1 in 100 experienced GMs.
> 
> This opens a more philosophical question:  Who are the rules written for?
> 
> ...



 I don't have time right now for a full response--you raise some good points i'd like to respond to. But, i wanted to point out an important qualifier that i perhaps didn't make explicit: whipping up balanced, fun, workable rules _for the particular group you're playing for_ is, at least for me, very easy. This is not the same as claiming that these same rules would be balanced and fun and workable for any other group or GM, much less for D&D-players or gamers in general. The art of writing a set of rules for publication is *much* more demanding than doing the same for your familiar group. To make a concrete example: if i know that none of my players would even think of trying to multiclass a barbarian and a spellcaster that has con-based spell stats, i don't have to worry about whether the raging ability is too much of a boost for that particular spellcasting class. But, for a general set of rules, like D&D3E, i *do* have to watch out for such combos. And so on. So, i'm not claiming that i can out-design the vast majority of RPG authors out there, with trivial effort; i'm saying that you don't need to be a world-class RPG designer to houserule competently. Also, i think i'm a mediocre GM, not an awesome GM--i'm a pretty good game designer, however. Thus, i frequently rely on others' work for a lot of the GM-type chores (specifically, scenario/NPC development), but have no problem doing the rules myself. 

 One further point on the "whipping up balanced rules" thing: if you assume that the rules have to do all the work, yes, it's very hard. If you assume that the players do a large chunk of the work (i.e., simply choosing not look for loopholes), then the rules don't need to do as much of the work. Similarly, if the rules are just plain simpler, they become that much easier to do. Writing a good system on the order of complexity of, say, BESM--or adding new bits to it--is _way_ easier than writing one on the order of D&D3E (or adding new bits to _it_). The other important point to keep in mind is that balance is, at best, subjective. Frex, many/most consider D&D3E well-balanced. It has never been well-balanced for the games i've played in or run, however, because i'm used to social-heavy, combat-light games, and the classes are balanced primarily on combat-effectiveness. Given that a simple shift of focus can totally mess up balance, i think expecting the rules to do all the work of balancing to be impossible.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 12, 2004)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> While I enjoy war games, I prefer my role-playing sourcebooks to be straight forward in their presentation for a completely different reason.  I have my own imagination...most fluff is usually rather obvious and bland anyway.  For example, the quoted section of the 2nd Edition DMG tells me nothing that anyone but the most wet behind the ears newbie fan of fantasy fiction should be able to dream up.  When I look to a general role-playing supplement I want the building blocks that I can use as the foundation of my own imaginings.  The only time I appreciate fluff is when it is in a setting specific supplement...and it better not be generic fantasy drivel.



 Well, i get bored not be the lack of fluff, but the lack of integration between the fluff and crunch. IOW, sure, i can use the D&D3E scroll-writing rules as the foundation for the fluff of "you have to get a special, fresh quill and special ink for each scroll"--but not without significantly altering the rules. And, if i don't alter the rules, then it's nothing *but* fluff--i can say all i want about that, but however "special" i claim the quill and ink are, they only cost 12.5gp/level (or whatever), and it still costs N XP. Conversely, if i *am* going to alter the rule for whatever setting fluff i want, it no longer is a pro that the crunch is there, because i'm not using it. 

 I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with the existing system, or having codified rules, just that the "you can add your own fluff on top" argument is questionable, at best. You're really in the same place whether you have crunch-only, or crunch-with-fluff--if what you want to do doesn't match the crunch, you have to change it, and if it does, you don't, and in both situations that's regardless of whether there even is any existing fluff for you to ignore.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 12, 2004)

Mark_Aurel said:
			
		

> Divorcing the rules from flavor text makes it a lot easier to adapt said rules to different settings, as you get a minimum of preconceived notions of how to apply them or how things 'should' be.



 I disagree--if what you want to do doesn't match the crunch, the amount of effort required to adapt them to your setting is the same irrespective of the presence or absence of flavor text. If you *like* the existing flavor text, you win, but if you don't like it you're no worse off than if it wasn't there.



> Of course, there's still flavor in 3e; the illustrations certainly hint at a specific D&D-ish genre, and even that might be too much for some.



 Well, for me, it's not that the illos are "too much" flavor--it's that they're such a jarring change from the feel i got from all previous editions of D&D. It's probably much more familiar/comfortable to those who play computer games.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 12, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, for me, it's not that the illos are "too much" flavor--it's that they're such a jarring change from the feel i got from all previous editions of D&D. It's probably much more familiar/comfortable to those who play computer games.



The illustrations are more familiar to those who play computer games??? Huh? Your Freudian slip is showing: I think what you mean here is that you think 3E is only good for computer GAMERZ who want the PHAT LEWT.

This thread was so interesting until this point, before which there were intelligent, reasoned replies from both sides, instead of name-calling (albeit subtle i.e. passive-aggressive name-calling in this case).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 12, 2004)

Ulorian said:
			
		

> The illustrations are more familiar to those who play computer games??? Huh? Your Freudian slip is showing: I think what you mean here is that you think 3E is only good for computer GAMERZ who want the PHAT LEWT.
> 
> This thread was so interesting until this point, before which there were intelligent, reasoned replies from both sides, instead of name-calling (albeit subtle i.e. passive-aggressive name-calling in this case).




And I think interpretation can go a bit too far, too, sometimes. Woodelf only remarked that the illustrations of D&D 3E are more kin to those found in newer fantasy computer games, and less to those found in older editions of D&D, or other FRPGs. And he is completely justified to speak his opinion, right?   
Nobody's throwing stones, so stop behaving like you've been hit and cease your barking.


----------



## Henry (Nov 12, 2004)

Creamsteak said:
			
		

> Every time I read the words, "inject flavor" I picture a turkey being basted. And this thread keeps on saying it and saying it, and now I'm hungry.




Then you need Cajun Injector Injectable Marinade! The only Marinade endorsed by Dee Snider! 



---------------------------------

As for flavor in 3E, I add it directly in proportion to how much my players want it. Some like role-playing out a tense scene, or roleplay the search for components to make a magic item; some just want to "make a transaction" and be done with it. Some just want me to wake them when the combat starts. I try to play to each one of their strengths, so that every one has a moment to shine. But 3E does allow me to customize the "flavor" I give without compromizing the game system. I did it with 2E too, but with 3E I have so many more tools available to do this with!


----------



## Greg K (Nov 12, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Building faiths and pantheons is what the first two chapters are all about. What do you find wrong with them? Rules for clerics were beyond the scope of the book. WotC and 3rd parties publish lots of books on clerics and relatively few on faiths. Tailoring spell lists for specific deities smacks, to me, of the typical "you're a cleric therefore you have more role-playing restrictions because you worship a deity." Let players decide how their characters should best worship their deities." That's the kind of advice I don't need. Once a book goes into vestments, I fall asleep. /QUOTE]
> 
> Well, when I run or participate in a campaign setting, I don't want it to feel like Joe's generic game down the street where the GH or our own world deities are simply grabbed from the PHB (or DDG) and every deity's cleric wears heavy or medium armor, has the same base spell list with the only real differences (other than the personality being roleplayed) is pretty much the clerics domains, holy symbol and perhaps favored weapon.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirgilCaine (Nov 12, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I do not doubt such GM exists, but they are rare birds and _do not representative of the needs of the gaming community as a whole_.




Which is why 3e is the way it is--to serve the largest numbers of DM's the best.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 13, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And I think interpretation can go a bit too far, too, sometimes. Woodelf only remarked that the illustrations of D&D 3E are more kin to those found in newer fantasy computer games, and less to those found in older editions of D&D, or other FRPGs.



They are? How are illustrations in computer games different from illustrations in D&D and other FRPGs? And how do the illustrations in D&D appeal to computer gamers in particular?

It is common on these and similar boards to use 'computer gamers' as an invective, similarly to how  'munchkin', 'roll player', etc. are used. So when I see the term 'computer gamer' slipped into a sentence with no other context, in a thread about how 3E has no roleplaying appeal, and given how many criticize those who enjoy 3E as slack-jawed buffoons with no attention span, I drew a reasonable conclusion.

Having said that, I wrote the original post when I was in a pretty cranky mood, so apologies to woodelf for the harshness.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And he is completely justified to speak his opinion, right?



As am I.


			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Nobody's throwing stones, so stop behaving like you've been hit and cease your barking.



See, now that's just rude. And passive-aggressive 

Edit:

Okay, my last two posts were 'thread-crapping', as the kids say, so here's something on topic. I agree that the rules in 3E are better than they were in previous editions in part because they are presented 'flavour-free', making them easier to understand. I also agree that the flavour text in previous editions did help fire the imagination. I wonder if we would get the best of both worlds if chapter introductions and in-chapter examples in the PHB and DMG were as exciting flavourwise as previous editions while the actual rules text was presented as it is now.


----------



## Ranes (Nov 13, 2004)

"My campaign is high cheese meets grim'n'gritty kitchen sink. What's yours?"

"Large gin, thanks."

"No. How would you describe the flavour of your campaign?"

"Oh. I don't like to use the word 'flavour' to describe my creations. It seems a little too glib, shorthand for an idea I'm too lazy to identify."

"Really? What word would you have used then, instead of 'flavour'?"

"Well, I'd have said, 'colour'. My campaigns are colourful. You see, to me, 'colourful' is a much more elegant adjective than 'flavoursome'."

"Right, so how would you decribe the colour of your campaign?"

"Mmm. Red."

"Yeah?"

"Oh yeah. Red rocks."

I blame Czech beer. I also submit that, for any edition of the rules you read after your first, in order for the newer edition's copy to inspire you as much as the first edition's did, it must be significantly better written than the copy that grabbed you in the first place.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 13, 2004)

You know, if Czech beer were sufficiently common in my life to be seriously considered responsible for anything, that would be a good thing.

As it is, I blame Big Rock. I don't feel bad about that.


----------



## Akrasia (Nov 13, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> I don't think so.
> 
> I just made the point that the gearhead approach encourages my creativity.




Yes, I can see how the "gearhead approach" of 3E might encourage the creativity of certain kinds of DMs -- namely "gearhead" DMs!  Some people like to tweak the mechanics of 3E, introduce new variables (feats, combat actions, etc.).  This is what being "creative" in D&D means to them.  That is perfectly fine for those kinds of DMs and players.

I find toying about with the mechanics of 3E insanely boring.  Reading about new feats, prestige classes, and so forth, is also tedious IMO.

Instead, I would rather come up with new cosmologies, histories, cultures, political situations, religious organizations, criminal conspiracies, quirky NPCs, and so forth.  I find it easier to pursue these activities in a simpler rules framework.



			
				Ranes said:
			
		

> I also find that it leads to fewer unintentional consequences.




The more complex the model or system -- i.e. the more variables it includes -- the more likely unintended consequences will be produced by introducing changes to that model or system.

This is isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you like complicated systems, and revising those systems in light of unintended consequences.

Not my cuppa, though.    



			
				Ranes said:
			
		

> Also, I claimed that 3e rules have the quality of consistency. You agree with this and assert that this quality 'encourages creativity and DM innovation'.




Ummm ... yeah, we're not disagreeing on this point.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 13, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> As for tailored spell lists, I could take your "Tailoring spell lists for specific deities smacks, to me, of the typical 'you're a cleric therefore you have more role-playing restrictions because you worship a deity.' " and say that your preference smacks of I am a player I must have as much as power as possible.




You are right about my point of view, it is about power. It's just not about having a much power as possible.

PCs of the same level should be about the same power level. It's too easy to unbalance the cleric class when you mess with spells outside of domains. The domain game mechanic (and the difrence in spontaneous casting abilities between good and evil clerics) differentiates clerics enough. 



> In my view, tailored lists have several benefits. First, it ensures that only spells that capture the feel of the setting are included. Second, it reinforces the DND cleric's dedication to promoting a single deity.




One, it depends on how you tailor the spell list. When I tailor a spell list for a campaign setting, I add spells to the PHB spell list from other sources. Sometimes I add them at the begining, making the spells available to all clerics (or wizards, or whatever). Sometimes I add the spells mid-campaign, leaving a record of the spell in a spell book, or a scroll, or a journal, in the PCs treasure.

Two, in a tight pantheon where the gods are led by a single ruler, such as the Norse gods, then the domain systmem would be the biggest distention between them. Most clerics would worship the whole pantheon (as most pesants did), so it makes sense that worshiping a single deity would give you a special domain power and acess to _some_ difrent spells. (ie, domain spells).

The kind of reshearch you mentioned earlier in your post isn't hard to do. For anyone wishing to study real-world mythologies (particularly non-greek) I'd recomend Dover. They publish a number of books about various mythologies, and realy give you a feel for stories that were told and how they evolved into modern customs. I used _Myths of Norsemen_ and an exclent book by Kevin Crossley-Holland call _The Norse Myths_

As you can probably tell, I prefer and additive approach to customizing my game. I prefer to add feats, spells, Prestige Classes, and color to the game. It seems also that the rules were designed for tha approach specifically. 

I can't tell exactly what what kind of customizing approch you prefer, but I'm guessing it's a replacement approach. It seems to me that you prefer to remove and replace feats, spells, base classes, and color to the game. Fortunately for you, the game was also designed for that as well. One of the things I love about 3e is that the designers included guidlines for designing your own base classes there were as much or as little like the ones in the PHB as you wanted. 2e had rules for designing base classes, but they went out of their way to discourage you from doing so. The experiance tabel they told you to use for homebrew clasess even punished the player for taking the class. On top of all of that, they said that you could re-create the PHB classes using that system because the PHB classes were "special." How come no one mentions that when they talk about how great 2e was?


----------



## Ranes (Nov 13, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> This is what being "creative" in D&D means to them.



Not the whole story but it's part of it, yes.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> I find toying about with the mechanics of 3E insanely boring. Reading about new feats, prestige classes, and so forth, is also tedious IMO.



Fair enough. I also find reading about new feats and PrCs dull, as it happens.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> Instead, I would rather come up with new cosmologies, histories, cultures, political situations, religious organizations, criminal conspiracies, quirky NPCs, and so forth. I find it easier to pursue these activities in a simpler rules framework.



Ah. Well, I enjoy coming up with all the things you mention, too. Then I enjoy translating those elements into the system.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> The more complex the model or system -- i.e. the more variables it includes -- the more likely unintended consequences will be produced by introducing changes to that model or system.



Hang on. That's true but the model comprises more than the written rules. Just because you have fewer rules on paper or because the rules you have on paper are simpler than the rules I have on paper, it doesn't follow that your game is going to be simpler than mine.

Compare the rules of chess and go. Go has fewer rules than I have pinkies. But consider the number of variables in a game of chess compared to a game of go. A lighter rules system does not equate with fewer variables in the game.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 13, 2004)

Random thoughts: 

 Flavor-based 'mechanics' aren't really mechanics, at all.  If 3.Xe goes too far in removing the 'fluff', I'll still take that instead of overlong verbage telling me something that could have been summed up with much less wasted page count.  A few suggestions would be fine, but four paragraphs seem excessive to sum up the idea...especially as the example given still doesn't actually TELL you how to make a scroll, just the process for preparation.

 Gary didn't get me into the game, but he did keep me in the game, for a while.  I don't fancy him as that great of a writer, but that's my personal style.  I do think that he has an almost unhealthy fixation on the word "milieu", though.

 It's easier to add flavor than remove it.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 13, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Compare the rules of chess and go. Go has fewer rules than I have pinkies. But consider the number of variables in a game of chess compared to a game of go. A lighter rules system does not equate with fewer variables in the game.



 Dude, how many pinkies do you have???


----------



## Ranes (Nov 13, 2004)

Ten fingers and toes (give or take), far more than the number of rules in the game of go. The rules of go can be written in six or seven simple sentences.


----------



## Rel (Nov 13, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Ten fingers and toes (give or take)




And they're all pinkies...


----------



## Ranes (Nov 13, 2004)

A different meaning, huh. Apologies for any confusion.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 13, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> A different meaning, huh. Apologies for any confusion.



 Ah, you meant fingers....that makes more sense.  Go doesn't have many rules, bit it's got more than one.


----------



## Incenjucar (Nov 13, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> 2e had rules for designing base classes, but they went out of their way to discourage you from doing so. The experiance tabel they told you to use for homebrew clasess even punished the player for taking the class. On top of all of that, they said that you could re-create the PHB classes using that system because the PHB classes were "special." How come no one mentions that when they talk about how great 2e was?




Because many of us recognize that being able to fine-tune your character like that makes it -really- easy to min/max like crazy...?  While I prefer a system with more inherent balance, such that you can, basically, do point buy (which is what self-designed classes pretty much come out to), in the 2e system, we were already used to the idea of just applying larger XP requirements to uber-er classes.  Not the best approach, but not the worst.

Remember Skills and Powers?


----------



## Rel (Nov 13, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> A different meaning, huh. Apologies for any confusion.




Don't be sorry!  You've just given me the primary motivation for my next PC   .

"You don't by any chance have five pinkies on your right hand do you?  A man with five pinkies on his right hand killed my father and I've sworn revenge!"


----------



## Faraer (Nov 13, 2004)

Privileging the core, archetypal classes is an eminently sensible design goal.


----------



## molonel (Nov 13, 2004)

I thought this quote was good enough that it merited repeating:



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If you like the 2e scroll scribing rules then you obviously have never attempted to use them. "I love 2e for all these flavorful rules that I avoided using like the plague" is not exactly high praise. The 3e scroll rules are a failure as a roleplaying experience. But some of us tend to believe torturing the entire game group over the acquisition of a measly disposable item might be a bad idea. Now this flavorlessness criticism is indeed valid with respect to creating major magic items. But 1e/2e does not even have rules for that, so we know who wins the comparison there.




He is, of course, exactly right. Nobody made scrolls in 1st Edition AD&D. The flavor-text listed in the first post of this thread was both flavorful, and useless. For making a special, particular scroll or an artifact, yes, it was marvelously creative and useful. For making scrolls as general use disposable magic items in D&D, it was overly specific, too complicated, the components too rare and the height of the flaming hoops the players had to jump through was too high. Magical economics made no sense in either 1st or 2nd Edition. Now, before anyone says it, I know: there were alternate rules for creating items in 2nd Edition AD&D. But then again, there are a ton of flavorful source books in 3rd Edition D&D, too. It seems that this discussion focuses on the crunch versus fluff content ratio in the core rules. And, as Ridley's Cohort so adroitly pointed out, there were no rules for item creation in 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D. So the clear winner in this contest is the edition with the actual rules, rather than the editions which lacked them.

Some of you folks are a smidgen too jaded and nostalgic. Don't get me wrong: I have two long shelves of 1st Edition and 2nd Edition books, modules, supplements and issues of Dragon. But when I hear people say, "3rd Edition can't inspire new gamers the way 1st Edition/whatever edition inspired us!" I feel the overwhelming urge to spit. Get over yourselves, for goodness sake. My just-entered college cousin just started playing D&D about a year ago. She can talk for HOURS about her characters, the adventures she's played or run for her friends, and the backstories they write for their characters. She sounds just like I did when I played 1st Edition. I'm also old enough to remember some of the blatant powergaming lovefests we had in 1st/2nd Edition. Remember the days? Yeah, back when you could claim you rolled all 18s on your character and actually expect anyone to believe it? Yeah.


----------



## velm (Nov 13, 2004)

"I still use my 2e core rules CD for flavor text on core monsters. Habitat, ecology, and society were much more fleshed out back then and provided more hooks for me to use than the raw combat stat emphasis of the current set. And I can get the color pictures off the WotC site for the current incarnations.

So while I like the rules of 3.5 creatures, I prefer a bunch of 2e descriptions of the same monsters."

I saw this, and I do so much have to agree with it.  I think the habitat, ecology and such allows the DM to get a good feel for the creatures.  It allows the DM to get a good 'feel' of them and maybe do them 'right'  sure, you can throw a group of goblins in the grasslands, the hills, or whatnot, or come up with your own ideas of them, but by reading about the habitat, ecololy, and such, it can plant seeds of imagination into the DMs head and maybe more will come of it.

I must admit, it has been a while since I have been in a steady group, but I did like the the general 'flavor' feeling of 2nd ed.  Did it have to be pages and pages and pages as some have said, no.  But the flavor did put you in a certain state of mind.  I liked the idea of needing certain spell components to make scrolls/wands/staves and such, after all, you need items for spells.  Got any bat guano for that fireball?  Sure, there might not be many that enforce the material component side of the house, I must admit that I have found it somewhat annoying myself.  
The need to have certain components for magic items makes them 'special'.  This way the market will not get flooded with them.  Does it make them difficult to make, yes it does.  But when you are getting that cockatrice, I am hoping you are getting more than just ONE feather.  Also, by making components necessary for the creation of magic items, you are also opening up the PCs to quests to obtain them from other sources.  Someone could approach the PCs about requireing Gorgon blood.  The PCs could go look for some gorgons and have 'x' happen to them either there or on the way.  
I am very much opposed to the 'walmart' approach to magic items.  I have seen DMs have pretty much supermarkets with magic items where you can get it IDed, and told how many charges are left and every single little subtle detail.  That takes a fair amount of fun out of the game.  I do not mind the occasion NPC who will have a small amount of magic that they are either willing to sell or trade away, but the walmart thing is something that I disagree with.
I have seen some say that the rules were never clear.  Well, sometimes, yes and sometimes no.  It just depends on the situation.  I have been in many situations where I had to think on my feet, rules not withstanding, so I guess that aspect never bothered me much.  I found PC's can do some of the darndest things to a DMs well made plans, no writer can think of every rule possible.  That leaves it up to the DM to come up with a solution, on the fly sometimes.  
Now, I do think 3rd is a leaps and bounds better than previous editions.  I love how they streamlined everything.  Skills and feats are a great thing, a player now actually has to think about their character.  In the past, I could make a character in less than 5 min.  Now, it is a different story, the characters are no longer cookie cutter.  The CR aspect of challenges is a brilliant thing, it is about time they came up with something like that.  It never did make any sense to me how that Ogre gave out the same xp to a group of 3rd lvl characters as it did to 10th lvl.


----------



## shurai (Nov 14, 2004)

*I miss the old system too sometimes.*

It's hard to quantify it exactly, but I think what I miss is the "oldness" of the old books, especially in the art.

When I used to read the 2nd Edition PHB, there were all these archaic-looking paintings of knights and wizards, done with fewer (or no) widgets and gadgets.  It felt like I was looking at a painting hanging in a castle somewhere instead of reading a comic book.  Granted, I haven't read too many of the old books, but I remember really exploring the art in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.  I can't explain it, but it all seemed more . . . real.  Less like a video game or a cartoon.

Part of it is the ridiculous armor depicted in the new editions.  When you see a character painting nowadays, they've frequently got all kinds of weird, nonfunctional mess all over their body.  I'm all for spikes when the guy is evil and insane, but it's hard to maintain a sense of versimilitude everybody looks so fake.

I suspect part of it may also be the use of acrylic paint instead of oil, too.  I don't know much about art in general, but from what I understand it's a lot easier to get quieter, more neutral colors out of oils than acrylics.  Acrylics tend to be more garish I think, so it's harder to get the colors to look real.

The new edition has some art that's good, of course.  I really can't say I dislike it all.'

-S


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2004)

Tsunami said:
			
		

> Oh well... at least we have the 2e Books to look back on for inspiration!



 True.  I still have my extensive 2e library.  I can use my old monster books to look up what monster part are worth money.  If I want character to assemble rare componets for magic item, I can use the item creation guidelines given in High Level Campaigns and Speels and Magic, and have them gather the components and maybe have them use them as power components rather than burning up XPs or something.  Just because I don't use those rules doesn't mean I still can't get ideas from them, and many of those books still have great ideas.

 However, that doesn't change the fact the 3e generally provides better hard and fast rules that are more usable.


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2004)

KB9JMQ said:
			
		

> It makes me wonder if the lack of fluff/flavor examples in the PHB and DMG make it harder for new DMs to add those parts to their own game.



 In that case we should bring back one of the features of the original DMG: a list of fantasy fiction for new DMs to read for inspiration.


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> This was the mythological feel of the game. I remember one time players needed the 'Breath of a Mountain' to complete some magic item they were working on, I think a ring of elemental command, so they had to find a place in a mountain range that simulated breathing. They tried a volcano, and a few other locals before I decided that the hissing between two peaks equalled breath. Fun stuff.
> 
> Back in the day, magic items usually weren't made by PC's unless heaven and earth moved. Heck, I remember you used to GET xp for finding magic items and treasure.



 That's ok if you're playing a PC.  You use some _legend lore_ spells, hire sage, do research, and so on.  For the DM though, you got to make this stuff up.  Trying to figure out exactly what the "breath of a mountain" or "the lamentations of women" are and how to make it into riddles and clue the PCs have to figure out can be a pain.


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> PLAYER: I want to scribe a scroll.  I've got X gp and I can afford to lose Y experience points.
> 
> DM [trying to add flavor]: Uh, okay. You need to track down an elusive old hermit who lives somewhere at the base of the Barrier Peaks. He's the only known alchemist in the area, and has reportedly created a magic ink from the blood of a dead beholder.
> 
> ...



 Then DMs have to lay down the rules at the beginning of the campaign.  If you want to haul out the power components, then make it clear when the campaign begins.  Pulling out power components in the middle of a campaign without warning is going to unpleasantly suprise some players.


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> While Tome and Blood was on par with 2e's Complete Wizard's Handbook, it, imo, does not come close to matching PO: Spells and Magic.



 You're not taking page count into account here though.  T&B has 96 pages, CWH has 128, and PO:S&M has 192.  There's simply no way T&B can cover the same amount of ground as S&M in half the space.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 14, 2004)

*Art&Armour*



			
				shurai said:
			
		

> Part of it is the ridiculous armor depicted in the new editions.  When you see a character painting nowadays, they've frequently got all kinds of weird, nonfunctional mess all over their body.  I'm all for spikes when the guy is evil and insane, but it's hard to maintain a sense of versimilitude everybody looks so fake.




While I'm not an expert on medieval armor, a friend of mine is, and he condemns almost all fantasy art depicting armor och combat as "fake".

Most pictures in D&D and AD&D are representations of ideas about combat, and as such are more or less fake. They are not meant to be a realistic depiction of how things worked.

Still, it's art so it's all about perception. If they look fake to you, they do look fake to you. Can't argue with that. Personally, I always thought the chain mail bikinis of 1e and 2e looked more fake... but also more interesting to a 15 year old boy.   

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2004)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> If you think it's bad at that "other site"   you should check out rec.games.frp.dnd. *Those* guys are the biggest rules-Nazis I've ever seen. And downright nasty, a lot of them. Usenet has always been the wild west. Brrrrr....



 I've been to rgfd.   It's not quite THAT bad.  Yeah, Usenet is pretty wild and as granny-unfriendly as you can get.  Still, there's a lot worse places on Usenet than rgfd.

 And you do realize that some regulars from rgfd post here too, right?


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 14, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> I've been to rgfd. It's not quite THAT bad. Yeah, Usenet is pretty wild and as granny-unfriendly as you can get. Still, there's a lot worse places on Usenet than rgfd.
> 
> And you do realize that some regulars from rgfd post here too, right?



 Well he did say "a lot of them" not "every last dirty stinkin one of em!" heh.  Eh there's rules lawyers here, there, and in my gaming group at times *grin*
 Most rules lawyers I know are proud of that fact and wear it like a badge.  I doubt he's offending anyone.

 Hagen


----------



## shurai (Nov 14, 2004)

Maggan said:
			
		

> While I'm not an expert on medieval armor, a friend of mine is, and he condemns almost all fantasy art depicting armor och combat as "fake" . . . . They are not meant to be a realistic depiction of how things worked.




I'm no expert either; in fact I've got an armor expert friend myself and he agrees with your friend that most of the art is pretty "fake".  He agrees that the armor isn't true to history.

I'm not really looking for a realistic-historical game, on the other hand.  Rather, I'm looking for a fantasy game that makes it easy to suspend my disbelief.  It doesn't have to be real or historical, but I have more fun if I believe it _could_ be so.  That's really what I mean.

I'm reminded of the armor and weapons in the Lord of the Rings films:  There was plenty of fantasy, and a great sense of 'otherness' to the various props.  However, it's easy to believe that I could run into a suit of, say, elven plate in a museum in England, because it looked like it could work as real armor.

-S


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 14, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Because many of us recognize that being able to fine-tune your character like that makes it -really- easy to min/max like crazy...?  While I prefer a system with more inherent balance, such that you can, basically, do point buy (which is what self-designed classes pretty much come out to), in the 2e system, we were already used to the idea of just applying larger XP requirements to uber-er classes.  Not the best approach, but not the worst.
> 
> Remember Skills and Powers?



 I think you misunderstood me. I hated the rues for creating custom classes in 2e. Hated them. What I tried (and failed) to say was: "How come no one remembers how bad creating your own class was in 2e?" We get lots of posts about how much flavor 1 and 2 had, but lets not forget that there was a reason people kept buying the new editions, the rules often sucked. They often discouraged customization by the DM.


----------



## Zappo (Nov 14, 2004)

I know what I miss from OD&D. I miss having 8-10 hours of spare time per day, and being able to play a plotless dungeon crawl for 6 hours straight and still have great fun. Oh, and I miss the ability to read bookfuls of total cheese and find them cool. And also the ability to use and enjoy rules that not only ignored realism, but also basic verisimilitude. In short, I miss being 14.


----------



## Rel (Nov 14, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I know what I miss from OD&D. I miss having 8-10 hours of spare time per day, and being able to play a plotless dungeon crawl for 6 hours straight and still have great fun. Oh, and I miss the ability to read bookfuls of total cheese and find them cool. And also the ability to use and enjoy rules that not only ignored realism, but also basic verisimilitude. In short, I miss being 14.




HUZZAH!


----------



## Greg K (Nov 15, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> One, it depends on how you tailor the spell list. When I tailor a spell list for a campaign setting, I add spells to the PHB spell list from other sources. Sometimes I add them at the begining, making the spells available to all clerics (or wizards, or whatever). Sometimes I add the spells mid-campaign, leaving a record of the spell in a spell book, or a scroll, or a journal, in the PCs treasure.
> 
> Two, in a tight pantheon where the gods are led by a single ruler, such as the Norse gods, then the domain systmem would be the biggest distention between them. Most clerics would worship the whole pantheon (as most pesants did), so it makes sense that worshiping a single deity would give you a special domain power and acess to _some_ difrent spells. (ie, domain spells).?




Except that:
1: the gods don't *automatically* intervene on the behalf of anyone.
2: many of the spells are not appropriate in feel for a norse campaign.



> The experiance tabel they told you to use for homebrew clasess even punished the player for taking the class. On top of all of that, they said that you could re-create the PHB classes using that system because the PHB classes were "special." How come no one mentions that when they talk about how great 2e was?




I'll be the first one to say that the core mechanics of 3e are superior to prevous editions.   2e and 1e was a mess with subsystems that had no relation to one another.  However, that does not change my opinion that most 3e non-setting supplements are terrible and, in general, not very useful (Note: When I wrote that Tome and Blood was on par with the Complete Wizards Handbook, that was not a compliment to either book).


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 15, 2004)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Except that:
> 1: the gods don't *automatically* intervene on the behalf of anyone.




I don't see how _automatically_ intervening on behalf of someone works into this. Although it seems to me that if gods were real and active, they would do so occasionally.



> 2: many of the spells are not appropriate in feel for a norse campaign.




I'll chalk this one up to personal taste. I found most of the spells in the PHB quite appropriate. If you're talking about spells in found in other WotC books, you may be right. I didn't add lots of spells in that particular campaign.



> However, that does not change my opinion that most 3e non-setting supplements are terrible and, in general, not very useful.




Weird. I find the setting books the least useful, particularly recently. _The Silver Marches_ was great, but _Unaprochable East_ was just another splat book to me. OTOH, the XPH sugested whole campigns to me, and Complete Arcane just gave some splended encounter ideas. The 3.5 MM and MMIII help me design unique adventures with their stat adjustments and into paragraphs.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 15, 2004)

I have some sympathy for folks who miss the old wacky descriptions of things, but that doesn't really compare to the systems, which are much improved from 3e onward.

However, the real problem here, in the end, is the DMG, which needs to cover so much material that it's pretty much nearly cut to the bone when it comes to providing ideas about flavour. This is an unfortunate omission, because finding good flavour on the fly isn't always easy. Not every DM bothers with creating detail from a campaign world, so moment by moment and event by event descriptions are paramount. None of this means we toss out the new, better rules for stuff, but we neeed to find a way to represent it in game.

One way I could see to remedy this would be to release a hardback that brings back this element but balance it according to existing systems (a pain in the butt component should probably not just stack upon other scroll or potion requirements). This would be a grab-bag of stuff that DMs can reference during the course of individual sessions.

We'd put campaign world design in another hardback, and these two -- maybe along with a book about dungeons -- would fill in the gaps in the DMG's necessarily quick and dirty treatments.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 15, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Hence when I think of old-time D&D, I imagine a wonderful system full of flavour and quick and easy rules.
> 
> One that never existed.



  Yeah, I think that's the problem.  It's possible I could be talked into a RC game still, because it is closer to that hypothetical Golden Age system than AD&D, though.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 15, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Then you need Cajun Injector Injectable Marinade! The only Marinade endorsed by Dee Snider!




the rock star or the author???

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-9047649-2302516?v=glance&s=books&n=507846




> ---------------------------------
> 
> As for flavor in 3E, I add it directly in proportion to how much my players want it. Some like role-playing out a tense scene, or roleplay the search for components to make a magic item; some just want to "make a transaction" and be done with it. Some just want me to wake them when the combat starts. I try to play to each one of their strengths, so that every one has a moment to shine. But 3E does allow me to customize the "flavor" I give without compromizing the game system. I did it with 2E too, but with 3E I have so many more tools available to do this with!






i would argue and continue to argue that you can do it without the tools.

not everything needs a + or - to a roll added or even a roll needed to make it work like the d02 would suggest.


----------



## Psion (Nov 15, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstood me. I hated the rues for creating custom classes in 2e.




I assumed you were referrnig to the craptastic rules for creating classes in the DMG.


----------



## Savage Jim (Nov 15, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> We get lots of posts about how much flavor 1 and 2 had, but lets not forget that there was a reason people kept buying the new editions, the rules often sucked. They often discouraged customization by the DM.



In my experience, it seems to have been the opposite.  That is to say, TSR (going into 2E) recognized that every game, every table, and every group, often played the game differently than every other game, table, and group.  As such, the rules were presented in piece-meal components, leaving the individual groups to pick-and-choose what to use, what not to use, and what to alter.

The flavor text, in that sense, was most often a tool towards inspiration for using various components.  [Flavor Text A] was used to represent what kind of in-game/RP influence [Rule System A] was meant to produce, and so on for *, [C], and so forth.

With 3E, there's a different take.  Rather than being a collection of piece-meal pick-and-choose components, it's a full system completely self-integrated (and thus more difficult to tinker with).  In addition, rather than using flavor text to represent it's in-game/RP influence, the system is instead self-justified by use of Power Word: Balance, leaving a presentation that more resembles Final Fantasy video games or Doom-with-Dice than it does the fantasy/sword-and-sorcery fiction that originally inspired the game and the players themselves to begin with.

Which, consequently, is why folks have problems with the "flavor" of 3E, being that it's like comparing all the different possible milk shake combinations available at Baskin Robbins to a carton of Soy Milk.*


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 15, 2004)

How is 3e "difficult to tinker with"? It's incredibly easy to tinker with. Pull out any feat you don't like. Pull out any class. Add any class. Invent new classes. Swap out hit points for a fatigue/wound system. Make AC based on Reflex Saves.

This isn't rocket science. I'm no rocket scientist, but right out of the box 3e is splendidly customizable, wether you just want to limit spell lists or wether you want to completely replace the entire magic system. Don't like classes? Don't use 'em. Don't like hit points? Fine, throw 'em away.

Okay, okay, I'm more talking d20 than D&D here again, but the rule holds. 3E is SIMPLE to customize and tinker with.

Self-integrated? I don't think I understand what that means. Things can only be integrated into other things, right?

Yeah, the presentation reminds me more of _Final Fantasy_ than Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser -- but I reckon that's more the flavour of the month than anything else. And has NOTHING to do with the rules themselves.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 15, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yeah, the presentation reminds me more of _Final Fantasy_ than Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser -- but I reckon that's more the flavour of the month than anything else. And has NOTHING to do with the rules themselves.




AND it is very important that the game repesent the 'flavor of the month' as you put it. Without that, the hobby will die and we'll get no new players. Times change, and games change with them. There's nothing wrong with playing older editions(heck, I love the Rules Cyclopedia, too!) but one has to recognize that the game is a product of the times.

And really...nostalgia will usually be a larger factor than rules if you're playing older editions.


----------



## Incenjucar (Nov 16, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstood me. I hated the rues for creating custom classes in 2e. Hated them. What I tried (and failed) to say was: "How come no one remembers how bad creating your own class was in 2e?" We get lots of posts about how much flavor 1 and 2 had, but lets not forget that there was a reason people kept buying the new editions, the rules often sucked. They often discouraged customization by the DM.




I understood you perfectly.  The trick is, the 2e CCC rules were dealing with the way that the core classes were.  2e had some serious issues.  Fighters vs. Rangers and Paladins, for instance.  The CCC was screwy because it was trying to work balance in to an already-screwy system, while trying to avoid some massive potential abuse of the rest of the rule set.

Basically, they had to try to MacGuyver it.

As such, its not the system itself that was the bad idea, its that its the result of another bad system.  The -attempt- wasn't that bad, considering it was rudimentary point buy used for a class-based system with varient XP by class, and the weirdness between classes.

It would be complaining about how bad the pie made out of beef jerky came out.  They had to use -beef jerky- is the problem, not the pie-making attempt.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 16, 2004)

Savage Jim said:
			
		

> Which, consequently, is why folks have problems with the "flavor" of 3E, being that it's like comparing all the different possible milk shake combinations available at Baskin Robbins to a carton of Soy Milk.




Out of curiosity, which one is the soy milk carton, 3e or 2e?  See barsoomcore's reply for what I think.



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> It would be complaining about how bad the pie made out of beef jerky came out. They had to use -beef jerky- is the problem, not the pie-making attempt.




Ahhhh, I see what your saying. When I first read the CCC rules, (almost 10 years ago, which was around the time I last read the CCC rules) it sounded like a system for DMs to create classes for their games, not for a system for players to create classes. As such, min/maxing doesn't seem like a problem. I've never heard of a DM being acused of min/maxing. 

I ususally write these posts after a long day of college, work, or both so please excuse me if I stop making sense. I know I'm setting my self up for a joke by saying that, but I'm too tired to care.


----------



## Incenjucar (Nov 16, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> <Stuff the Polar Bear Told Me>




No worries.  And DMs do, alas, do that sort of thing (as do players who have DMed -- ever played a group where everyone has DMed?  Rough stuff.).  DM NPCs are especially notorious for such.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 16, 2004)

after reading the 30 years of D&D book last night...

a lot of what people have been saying about the computer nature and numbers crunching and complexity of  d02....etc...

is true at least according to Peter Adkison.


----------



## Ranes (Nov 16, 2004)

Yep. Same as it ever was.


----------



## francisca (Nov 16, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> after reading the 30 years of D&D book last night...
> 
> a lot of what people have been saying about the computer nature and numbers crunching and complexity of  d02....etc...
> 
> is true at least according to Peter Adkison.




Well, it certainly lends itself to that kind of play, but nobody has shown up at my table with a sawed-off double barrel and made me play it like a video game.

Does it lend itself to videogame style of play more than previous versions?  yeah, a little, in the sense that power-ups are a bit more incremental.

However, I think overall, the issue has more to do with the nature of the players rather than the difference in the rule sets.  All versions of D&D include the following core components:

1) Defined archetypes with definite roles
2) Level-based system
3) Magic and HP as finite resources which need to be managed
4) A system which rewards characters with more power (resources and "stuff") as they gain experience.

Now, you, I, and others who cut our teeth on the older versions likely came into the game having read some fantasy fiction, played board and card games, and maybe played some miniature wargames.  Kids starting after the mid-80's likely (not certainly) got their start in gaming, and maybe fantasy, via video games.  The most telling anecdote of this effect is the youngster who asked EGG how to save games between levels.

But again, d20 has more in common with the previous editions than there are differences.  At this point, I'm going to point to my signature, and walk away, *again*.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 17, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Without that, the hobby will die and we'll get no new players.



Which is isn't a problem, for me. In fact, complete D&D noobs are much more welcome in my group than someone who has played before.

I'm not impressed with other gamers' baggage.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 18, 2004)

Ulorian said:
			
		

> The illustrations are more familiar to those who play computer games??? Huh? Your Freudian slip is showing: I think what you mean here is that you think 3E is only good for computer GAMERZ who want the PHAT LEWT.
> 
> This thread was so interesting until this point, before which there were intelligent, reasoned replies from both sides, instead of name-calling (albeit subtle i.e. passive-aggressive name-calling in this case).



 woah! No need to put words into my mouth--if i want to disparage 3E, for whatever reason, i'll come right out and say it. I'm not shy about ripping on 3E--i've got a list of problems with it that's almost as long as teh rulebooks. _However_, in _this_ thread, I said nothing of the sort.

  I was simply observing that i've seen art that looked a lot like the D&D3E art when a roommate was playing Final Fantasy, or some other computer game. Prior to D&D3E, i'd never seen that style of art in a pre-industrial-setting RPG, novel, or other non-computer-game fantasy work. And it's certainly not the style of pre-3E D&D art. That's all i'm saying.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Nov 18, 2004)

A few thoughts.

First, about rec.games.frp.dnd. Quite honestly, the biggest problem that new visitors to the group has is that too often, they break one of the fundamental rules of not only Usenet but any online discussion group: lurk before posting. Get a sense of the general tone and focus of the population before contributing; it's only polite, I think, to see how things are done before making assumptions. Usenet groups don't really have the same resources as webfora like ENWorld - rec.games.frp.dnd has a FAQ, but it relies upon one guy to get it posted; there are no moderators (and personally, I'm thankful for it); there's no "framework" to the discussion which could contain advice on how to moderate your behaviour to the "community standard", like there is with any message board attached to a website.

It's obvious to anyone who's been there that the community standards of rec.games.frp.dnd are very different from those of ENWorld or most other popular D&D discussion groups. Without moderation, guys like Michael Scott Brown are free to abuse posters who display ignorance of the rules from the questions they ask; some people might consider it unhelpful, of course, but MSB has a particular notion of what's good teaching behaviour, and it has to be said that he's not often wrong about the rules. It's a rough environment, but I imagine that for completely new players it could be a bit like boot camp: rough, and not something everyone can tolerate, but a really efficient way to get rid of bad habits and train up (in this case) your thought processes and critical skills, as well as your knowledge of the rules.

It's certainly not friendly to Eric's grandmother, but frankly I prefer it that way. I'm pretty firm in my support of nigh-absolute free speech, though I suppose we have it a little easier in that most young kids don't know how to access Usenet, and would turn up their noses at the unattractive look of Google Groups compared to a site like this or even RPG.Net.

As for the denizens of the group being "rules Nazis", I really have no idea how that opinion could arise. More than half the *on-topic* threads are about changing the rules, by my estimate; by a stretch of the imagination, I can vaguely see how the constant admonitions to read and understand the rules from MSB and others might come off as strict by-the-bookism, but it's mostly born out of a concern for having a firm foundation in the rules as written before making drastic changes, and inducing a habit of drawing one's intepretations from the general structure of the game as a whole.

This brings me to the second topic I'd like to cover: why I prefer Third Edition to the earlier versions of the game. Basically, it boils down to this: creative inspiration - in the sense of flavour, fluff, setting, colour, whatever one wishes to call it - is something I don't need the rules of the game to try and describe or mandate for me. Frankly, most game designers are *not* ranked among the best writers in the world; Gygax's version of Tolkienesque fantasy isn't really much of a patch on Tolkien himself, and I don't even *like* Tolkien!

Now, the divide is narrower than I'm probably seeming to paint it, and I get a lot of good ideas from the setting material that Wizards of the Coast and other publishers (like Malhavoc or Green Ronin) put out, but as far as I'm concerned the core rules of a system should be as bare-bones as possible in terms of flavour, simply because anyone else's idea of what makes for a good fantasy setting is never going to be precisely the same as mine, and rules are not my forte. Thus, not only do I appreciate a good rule system much more than setting information, I want that system to be as divorced as possible from any setting, because stripping setting-dependence out of rule systems which don't divide the two is almost always a necessity.

It's not always necessary to be this hardline about it, of course. I really like Malhavoc's _Arcana Unearthed_, which Monte Cook designed specifically to have a greater relationship with its implied setting that core D&D! On the other hand, there's a line somewhere, and Third Edition D&D and _Arcana Unearthed_ are on the "good" side of that line, while Second Edition AD&D is on the "bad" side of that line for me.

I think what it comes down to is pretty simple, at least for me: genre emulation should be *light*. I think the genre the core D&D rules give you in Third Edition is pretty light; it *feels* more like a toolkit presented in a continuous example of application than Second or First Edition did; the later just felt like "this is the game you will play".

For me, that's much worse than a lack of flavour in the ruleset.


----------



## ShorelisNailo (Nov 18, 2004)

*2nd for the feel*

Well ,i agree that 3rd edition is really easier to use and to play,and lacks the holes in the rules that 2nd had, but at least for me,the books of 2nd gave you at least a hint how to think and act as a character...You were a paladin-not "my charisma on saves"&"got smite and turn" ...it ment something to be that good holy guy...I'm just saying that many are lost in the rules and forget what is RPG about...FUN...Still,for those who haven't read anything in 2nd,and have spare time read "Combat and Tactics" or the character guidebooks,I believe it worths....


-Commoners are smart,if you know how to use them
                                             -Paladin of Tyr!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Nov 18, 2004)

Actually, that reminds me of another thing I disliked about Second Edition (and specifically so; my experience with First is *much* more limited).

Many of the so-called "roleplaying tips" were pretty much nonsense. There didn't seem, to my mind back in 1990 or so, any genuinely consistent set of design principles behind things like the paladin's code vis-a-vis the rest of the alignment system, no clear and logical outline of what alignment means and certainly no consideration for a playable and sensible rationale for it; arbitrary, First Edition Gygaxian punishments for changing alignment (experience loss) coupled with a more progressive interpretation of alignment that suggested it wasn't a massive metaphysical part of one's PC the way it had been in the earlier days of alignment languages and other rubbish.

Third Edition completed the step away from the original Gygaxian "take" on alignment and enshrined within the rules the principle that alignment was a label applied to a character after consideration of her actions, not a prescription for character behaviour and certainly not a straightjacket within which she must remain or suffer dire game penalties. These days, a paladin's code matches up more or less to lawful good alignment because the alignment's principles are a convenient shorthand for describing a paladin's principles; a paladin's code demands she acts *thus* and *therefore* she is Lawful Good, so it's convenient to require her to maintain that alignment.

(Even so, the equivalency is not exact. The paladin's code is clearly more concerned with the principles of Good rather than Law; it's Evil acts which cause a paladin to immediately fall, and Chaotic acts are much less proscribed. There are, however, characters who could perfectly aptly be described as Lawful Good who would concern themselves more with lawfulness than goodness, and thus would make poor paladins. )

Most of the other things I can recall were equally silly. The druid class' crazy "to advance in level you must FIGHT!" flavour was completely over-the-top and inappropriate, as you can probably guess I think, in a ruleset aiming to be useful in more than one specific campaign setting (and Second Edition AD&D didn't even have the excuse of being explicitly set in "Greyhawk Lite"!).


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> Well, it certainly lends itself to that kind of play, but nobody has shown up at my table with a sawed-off double barrel and made me play it like a video game.
> 
> Does it lend itself to videogame style of play more than previous versions? yeah, a little, in the sense that power-ups are a bit more incremental.



 I often hear this 'video-game style of play' mentioned quite frequently, always with a deragatory air.  I often think that the people who try use this as a broad brush to paint what's wrong with 3e haven't actually played many video games, to make that statement.

 Usually, this is a short-hand way of describing what is believed to be a mentality of playing the game purely as a meta-game, with death being considered an inconvienence (_"I've got two lives left!"_), the game being only viewed in meta terms (_"there's got to be a save point around here somewhere...the boss is coming up!"_) and a strong implication that the player has both a short attention span and need for instant gratification.  Are there games and gamers like that?  There certainly are.  Does that describe video-gaming any more than "Mazes and Monsters" describes role-players?  No, it does not.

 Let's look at games like, say, Silent Hill 2, about a man searching through a seemingly abandoned town filled with monsters from his subconscious, looking for clues about a note from his supposedly dead wife.  It's slow, methodical, offers no stats to consider and is a psychological thriller with moments of genuine horror and intense drama.  A game such as Pokemon Fire Red, on the other hand, requires a great deal of work to 'catch 'em all'.  In fact, it's a point of pride to manage to cultivate, breed or capture certain pokemon, because it requires a significant investment of real time to do so.  A game like Metal Gear Solid 2 or Thief is certainly more about subtlety and careful thinking than blasting away with reckless abandon.  Knights of the Old Republic is certainly a game filled with choices that are on the same level, in some cases, as some pen-and-paper games I've played.   This is not to say that there aren't many games out there that are purely about dealing out the hurt and moving on to the next battle, both RPG and otherwise.  However, to paint with so broad a brush misses a great deal, I think.  You might as well say that something has a board-game, parlor-game or carnival-game appeal, by the same token.  The point being that the term video-game style of play would be like restaurant style of food.  It can imply certain things, but isn't a terribly specific descriptor, IMHO.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 18, 2004)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Now, the divide is narrower than I'm probably seeming to paint it, and I get a lot of good ideas from the setting material that Wizards of the Coast and other publishers (like Malhavoc or Green Ronin) put out, but as far as I'm concerned the core rules of a system should be as bare-bones as possible in terms of flavour, simply because anyone else's idea of what makes for a good fantasy setting is never going to be precisely the same as mine, and rules are not my forte. Thus, not only do I appreciate a good rule system much more than setting information, I want that system to be as divorced as possible from any setting, because stripping setting-dependence out of rule systems which don't divide the two is almost always a necessity.



Yeah, but that's just it; the D&D ruleset is *not* stripped down and setting neutral in the least.  How many fantasy settings do you know that have anything like the cleric class in them?  How many do you know that have all these spellcasting woodsmen?  How many settings do you know in which there's this sharp divide between types of magic; arcane and divine?  How many settings do you know that have spells at all like the D&D spell-list?

Chances are, all the settings you know that have those things are, guess what?, D&D settings.


			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> It's not always necessary to be this hardline about it, of course. I really like Malhavoc's _Arcana Unearthed_, which Monte Cook designed specifically to have a greater relationship with its implied setting that core D&D! On the other hand, there's a line somewhere, and Third Edition D&D and _Arcana Unearthed_ are on the "good" side of that line, while Second Edition AD&D is on the "bad" side of that line for me.



Actually, that's not true; Monte said in the Design Diaries that he was recognizing how much setting information was imbedded in the rules, and was specifically trying to imbed *different* setting information in the rules.  He wasn't trying to imbed more setting information.  In other words, AU is nothing more nor less than D&D, but not D&D.  D&D without the D&Disms, if you will.  _Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed_, as an alternate PHB, is just as setting neutral as the actual PHB; it just so happens that there is only one setting available for it; the Diamond Throne.  It'd be interesting to see, although I doubt there's a market for it, if someone else were to take that ruleset and publish another setting for it.  It could certainly be done as easily as we can have Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and whatever other settings for the PHB assumptions.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Nov 18, 2004)

> Yeah, but that's just it; the D&D ruleset is not stripped down and setting neutral in the least. How many fantasy settings do you know that have anything like the cleric class in them? How many do you know that have all these spellcasting woodsmen? How many settings do you know in which there's this sharp divide between types of magic; arcane and divine? How many settings do you know that have spells at all like the D&D spell-list?
> 
> Chances are, all the settings you know that have those things are, guess what?, D&D settings.



You're right, but in my defence it was late and I was very tired and heat-stricken when I wrote that last night. 

What I intended to say was this: D&D is based on a coherent ruleset, and its components are modular. If you want to adjust the rules of the game, they're already split into parts you can tinker with.

Class features, for example, are presented in discrete units. It's not perfect; the rogue still has a Second Edition-style list of the weapons they're proficient with rather than a listing of the *defined proficiency groups* that nearly all the other classes have. Take the variant classes in _Unearthed Arcana_ as an example; they're all phrased in terms of trading X for Y, in discrete and logical units. Medium and heavy armour proficiency for skill points, animal companions for rage, whatever.

The way the game is laid out lends itself *much* more easily to customisation than earlier editions; thus, while the setting implied by the existence of by-the-book clerics is definitely present, it's much easier to change that setting by changing the cleric class than it was even with "specialty priests" in Second Edition.



> Actually, that's not true; Monte said in the Design Diaries that he was recognizing how much setting information was imbedded in the rules, and was specifically trying to imbed different setting information in the rules. He wasn't trying to imbed more setting information. In other words, AU is nothing more nor less than D&D, but not D&D. D&D without the D&Disms, if you will. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, as an alternate PHB, is just as setting neutral as the actual PHB; it just so happens that there is only one setting available for it; the Diamond Throne. It'd be interesting to see, although I doubt there's a market for it, if someone else were to take that ruleset and publish another setting for it. It could certainly be done as easily as we can have Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and whatever other settings for the PHB assumptions.



That's been done, actually. When my cable internet is working and I'm not stuck on dial-up, I frequent Monte's fora; there's a guy there, Ashanderai, who's created an "Oriental AU" setting called the Lands of the Jade Oath. I understand it's being published in some form . . .


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 18, 2004)

Really?  That is quite curious...


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Nov 18, 2004)

All actually detailed and worked out live, on Monte's fora:

http://p222.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm32.showMessage?topicID=197.topic


----------



## Staffan (Nov 19, 2004)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Class features, for example, are presented in discrete units. It's not perfect; the rogue still has a Second Edition-style list of the weapons they're proficient with rather than a listing of the *defined proficiency groups* that nearly all the other classes have.



Weapon lists are a bit more common than that, I think. Looking at the core classes:

Barbarian - Simple + Martial
Bard - Simple + list
Cleric - Simple
Druid - List
Fighter - Simple + Martial
Monk - List
Paladin - Simple + Martial
Ranger - Simple + Martial
Rogue - List
Sorcerer - Simple
Wizard - List

So out of 11 classes, 4½ have a list describing what weapons they're proficient in (I count the bard as ½).


----------



## woodelf (Nov 19, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> We have those. They are in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. They are also called "novels".



 The problem with those is they don't interface with the rules, without a lot of effort on the part of the players. If i'm going to tailor a system for a specific setting, i want something a *lot* lighter than D20 System--Fudge, Risus, or Primetime Adventures, frex. Otherwise, the effort gets ridiculous. Or, you just use the rules as-is, and the setting as-is, and there's really no intearction between them, so you say one thing (for flavor setting) but then do another (whatever the rules say). Which, for me at least, is very unsatisfying.

 Whereas, a flavor-heavy, yet also crunch-heavy, game supplement can do all that for me. It's the difference between "nobody knows whether the gods are real", but using D&D3E clerics, paladins, and rangers; and "nobody knows whether the gods are real" and using AU classes (i.e., no class abilities tied to divinity). Just to pick an example that happens to have both versions on the market. And the latter is probably a lot more useful to the average player than "go read A Wizard of Earthsea" for getting to the agnostic game.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 19, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, keep in mind that I have a degree in Economics; I may just be more interested in it than most people.
> 
> But yeah, the core books were actually, extremely difficult for me to read.  I think the MM was the only one I actually did read more or less cover to cover.



 Well, IMHO, the eye-straining layout, and the horrid organization, certainly don't help. Toss in a healthy dose of poor writing, and you have the D&D3E core books.  The combination of poor writing and poor organization meant that we didn't properly figure out the combat rules 'til the D20SRD showed up (now, since somebody at WotC is clearly capable of such organization and writing, why aren't the rulebooks as clear as the SRD?).

 [And don't bother accusing me of just being dumb in this regard--i've figured out Hero System 4th combat, CORPS 2nd ed combat, and GURPS 3rd advanced combat, all from the books, and with no trouble. It's not me. Not to mention, it wasn't just me, it was the whole group (8 people), some of whom were experienced RPers, some of whom were newbies (and thus  free of preconceptions).]

 Funny on the MM--that's the only one i have yet to read more than a half-dozen pages from. Not only the jumbled layout and poor design, but the fact that they took away all the bits that i used to read in monster books. Used to be (particularly in Ars Magica and AD&D2), i'd read all the "important" stuff--the ecology/behavior/appearance bits--right away, and only even look at the stats once i was considering using it. Now, i can't even read a description of the creature in most cases--we're stuck with looking at the picture, which may or may not be accurate.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 19, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's just it; the D&D ruleset is *not* stripped down and setting neutral in the least.  How many fantasy settings do you know that have anything like the cleric class in them?  How many do you know that have all these spellcasting woodsmen?  How many settings do you know in which there's this sharp divide between types of magic; arcane and divine?  How many settings do you know that have spells at all like the D&D spell-list?
> 
> Chances are, all the settings you know that have those things are, guess what?, D&D settings.



 Which is, in part, why i don't care for D&D3E. AD&D2 was making steps in the right direction--boiling the classes down to 4 archetypal roles, and using "kits" to customize for a specific setting. It just didn't do it all that well. But, IMHO, D&D3E was a huge step backwards by going back to having a lot of setting/assumptions built into the rules, rather than trying as hard as possible to strip those bits out. It's why, if i'm trying to mimic a particular fantasy setting, i'm unlikely to start with D&D3[.5]E, or the D20SRD.

 And, it's in large part why i love AU so much--i find it seems to match more "standard" fantasy tropes than the most-recent D&D rulebooks do, and thus requires less effort to mimic a setting. And since i have always used D&D as a "generic" fantasy ruleset, regardless of how generic it wasn't, this is a good thing. 



> Actually, that's not true; Monte said in the Design Diaries that he was recognizing how much setting information was imbedded in the rules, and was specifically trying to imbed *different* setting information in the rules.  He wasn't trying to imbed more setting information.  In other words, AU is nothing more nor less than D&D, but not D&D.  D&D without the D&Disms, if you will. _Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed_, as an alternate PHB, is just as setting neutral as the actual PHB; it just so happens that there is only one setting available for it; the Diamond Throne.



 And is a useful eye-opener for those who're totally enmeshed in D&D, i think. If you read AU and find all those setting assumptions embedded in the rules jarring, keep in mind that some of us find D&D3E _just_ as setting-ful. Only if you come specifically from a "D&D" background (and that can include a lot of fantasy fiction, computer games, and even movies, that've been inspired by D&D, in whole or in part) do those setting elements disappear into the background.



> It'd be interesting to see, although I doubt there's a market for it, if someone else were to take that ruleset and publish another setting for it.  It could certainly be done as easily as we can have Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and whatever other settings for the PHB assumptions.



 I'm "playing D&D" (IMHO), and my rules are basically Arcana Unearthed and The Book of Distinctions and Drawbacks. My setting is Zakhara/Al Qadim. You know the funniest part about it? It requires _much_ less adjustment to the rules to make them fit a pseudo-Arabian setting in general, and Zakhara in particular, than it took to make AD&D2 fit (or would take to make D&D3E fit). The D&D-standard non-humans just don't fit the setting. The AU-standard non-humans fit easily. Several of the D&D-standard classes feel sort of shoe-horned into the setting, and required a dozen or so new "kits" (really whole new classes) to mesh with the setting (i'm ignoring the kits that are just some minor flavor alterations). Those same Arabia-specific roles are either already covered by AU classes, or trivially adjusted to (new flavors of witch are not only easier to come up with than whole new magic systems, but they match the setting better than those whole new classes did, anyway). And none of the AU classes feel out of place. Al Qadim downplayed alignment to the point of ignoring it; AU has no alignment. Al Qadim basically divorced magical ability from divine worship in the flavor text (though the classes kept the connection--a bit jarringly); AU doesn't have any divine-associated classes. Three new feats to cover the varying social roles of the 3 types of priesthood, and that's all that's needed to make it match (compared to the half-dozen essentially-new classes of AD&D2, which didn't really fit very well anyway). Oh, and Al Qadim originally added a Calling on Fate mechanic, while AU already has an appropriate match built in (hero points).

 Of course, i can't publish it--vast swaths of the player handout i've put together for it are swiped wholesale from the Al Qadim books. But, really, a setting that assumes AU as the baseline ruleset rather than D&D3.5E makes perfect sense to me. And i might even buy such a beast (though i specifically bought AU as a "generic" ruleset for homebrews, just like i've always used D&D--i tend to play other games when i want a pre-existing setting, though i have no idea why).


----------



## woodelf (Nov 19, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> Same here.  The (relative) simplicity of the rules makes for a fairly smoothly running game.  In fact, I'd argue that the flavor that is included in the PHB and DMG goes a long way toward muddying the waters on what the rules really are.  How many times have we seen arguments in the Rules forum where somebody says, "The rule says...but the flavor text seems to imply..."?



 You mean like:
 "Barbarian
 ...
 Alignment: ...They may be honorable....
 ...
 Alignment: Any nonlawful"

 "Law and Chaos
 ...
 'Law' implies honor,..."

 So, which is it: can a barbarian be honorable, or not? Or, can an honorable person be non-lawful, or a lawful person be non-honorable?

 That's just one example, off the top of my head, that i knew where to find in the book.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 19, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> But, really, a setting that assumes AU as the baseline ruleset rather than D&D3.5E makes perfect sense to me. And i might even buy such a beast (though i specifically bought AU as a "generic" ruleset for homebrews, just like i've always used D&D--i tend to play other games when i want a pre-existing setting, though i have no idea why).



I'd buy it up too, if someone wrote one.  I still enjoy playing D&D, but I make no bones about it; when I'm doing so, I'm playing D&D and not making any attempt to fit any other type of setting into the ruleset.  When I want to do that, I use either a custom d20 patchwork, or something like Grim Tales that truly is more setting neutral.

Actually, the game I'm running now, I might well have used Grim Tales for if it had been released on time.  I'm only using three D&D classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian) and one D&D race (human) while I've added in half a dozen other classes from various d20 sources, new races, and _Call of Cthulhu_ style magic, which is independent of class.  And which requires Sanity, for that matter.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> woah! No need to put words into my mouth--if i want to disparage 3E, for whatever reason, i'll come right out and say it. I'm not shy about ripping on 3E--i've got a list of problems with it that's almost as long as teh rulebooks. _However_, in _this_ thread, I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> I was simply observing that i've seen art that looked a lot like the D&D3E art when a roommate was playing Final Fantasy, or some other computer game. Prior to D&D3E, i'd never seen that style of art in a pre-industrial-setting RPG, novel, or other non-computer-game fantasy work. And it's certainly not the style of pre-3E D&D art. That's all i'm saying.



I apologized later on in the thread.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Nov 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Whereas, a flavor-heavy, yet also crunch-heavy, game supplement can do all that for me. It's the difference between "nobody knows whether the gods are real", but using D&D3E clerics, paladins, and rangers; and "nobody knows whether the gods are real" and using AU classes (i.e., no class abilities tied to divinity). Just to pick an example that happens to have both versions on the market. And the latter is probably a lot more useful to the average player than "go read A Wizard of Earthsea" for getting to the agnostic game.




I don't get it.
In Eberron, no one knows if the gods are real, but it still has clerics and paladins (divine magic is based on faith).

What's your point?

Geoff.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 20, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, that's not true; Monte said in the Design Diaries that he was recognizing how much setting information was imbedded in the rules, and was specifically trying to imbed *different* setting information in the rules.  He wasn't trying to imbed more setting information.  In other words, AU is nothing more nor less than D&D, but not D&D.  D&D without the D&Disms, if you will.  _Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed_, as an alternate PHB, is just as setting neutral as the actual PHB; it just so happens that there is only one setting available for it; the Diamond Throne.




Principally, you are right with this assumption. That part of AU that carries the most setting specific information are the races, IMHO. There's lots of flavour connected to them, and this particular mix of races generates the distinct "Diamond Throne" atmosphere. That said, I always felt that swapping the races for others is the simplest part of customisation. The fact that alignment and clerics are already excised from the AU system saves a lot of work, because these concepts are much more tightly anchored in original D&D than the races; the magic system comes to mind. The "rogue problem" as intrinsic D&Dism has only been scratched by AU, though.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 20, 2004)

What is the Rogue problem?  I'm not following you there.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 20, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> What is the Rogue problem?  I'm not following you there.




I was just commenting on some of the intrinsic constraints of D&D, which usually require a party to have a cleric and a rogue. Most other classes are exchangeable. Of course, a DM can adjust the game a bit, but then it's not typical D&D.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 20, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Principally, you are right with this assumption. That part of AU that carries the most setting specific information are the races, IMHO.



That's pretty much true for D&D as well (well, that and the clerics, who are tied to the setting via their deity). You have things like halflings being nomads, dwarves and elves not being particularly fond of one another, and so on.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 20, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I was just commenting on some of the intrinsic constraints of D&D, which usually require a party to have a cleric and a rogue. Most other classes are exchangeable. Of course, a DM can adjust the game a bit, but then it's not typical D&D.




Huh? I've ran many, many games without either a rogue or a cleric, and it's always been typical D&D. And when I say, we didn't have a cleric, I mean no acess to healing spells. No cleric, the ranger never cast a single spell, and the druid refused to cast healing spells. I ran a core+some PrC and feats from the splat books game with lots rolepaying, combat, saving the world/village/nation from COBRA, a ruthless terrorist organization out to rule the world. (Just kidding about COBRA  )


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 20, 2004)

I've never heard of that problem with the Rogue, and I've certainly never heard it called "the Rogue problem."  You'd probably make a better case for it being "The Cleric Problem" but even then I'd disagree with you.

Heck, we just had a session last night of "typical D&D" with only a first level rogue (and even then, he only took it for the skills, which he needed for his background amd which aren't very typical Rogue-like; his continued development will be in the Psion class) and no cleric.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 20, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've never heard of that problem with the Rogue, and I've certainly never heard it called "the Rogue problem."  You'd probably make a better case for it being "The Cleric Problem" but even then I'd disagree with you.
> 
> Heck, we just had a session last night of "typical D&D" with only a first level rogue (and even then, he only took it for the skills, which he needed for his background amd which aren't very typical Rogue-like; his continued development will be in the Psion class) and no cleric.




Okay, a DM can obviously accommodate his group by chosing the adventures accordingly. Just don't let a group without a cleric and a rogue stumble into a typical published adventure. I know there are ways around these deficiences, but they are typically quite a hassle.

Of course, in your own world, you are the king .


----------



## woodelf (Nov 20, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've never heard of that problem with the Rogue, and I've certainly never heard it called "the Rogue problem."  You'd probably make a better case for it being "The Cleric Problem" but even then I'd disagree with you.
> 
> Heck, we just had a session last night of "typical D&D" with only a first level rogue (and even then, he only took it for the skills, which he needed for his background amd which aren't very typical Rogue-like; his continued development will be in the Psion class) and no cleric.



 Point is, there are basically two "vital" skills in D&D that only one class has: healing, and trap-finding. Now, D&D3E mollified this a bit by giving bards access to both of these. However, the basic point is still relatively valid: without a rogue (or bard) you can't find traps. Not, "you can't find traps very well"--you can't find traps. Similarly, without a cleric (or bard), you basically can't heal. This one's not quite as bad, because you also have paladins, rangers, and druids, on top of bards. There's also the "no turning" element of not having a cleric, but, in general, you can fight appropriate-challenge undead in other ways (spells, hacking), it's just not as easy. 

 Contrast these with fighting: you can fight without any warrior classes, you just don't do it very well. More importantly, you can fight just fine without any, say, fighters. Likewise, for magic in general, there's no "one special class" that is necessary--and, especially in D&D3E, usually any of the primary spellcasters (druid, cleric, wizard, maybe sorcerer) has a solution potentially in their spells, even if one class has the best solution.

 And, of course, you can easily obviate the need for a chunk of skill, should you want to. Frex, i'm not planning on using undead in my current campaign (though, in my case, just because i think that they are over-used as the "major badguys that everyone can hate" in D&D, and i want to go a different route).


----------



## woodelf (Nov 20, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Principally, you are right with this assumption. That part of AU that carries the most setting specific information are the races, IMHO. There's lots of flavour connected to them, and this particular mix of races generates the distinct "Diamond Throne" atmosphere.



 I don't think anyone's disputing that. Though i'll counter that i haven't had to make *any* changes to major race relations or race history to make them fit seamlessly into a pseudo-Arabian setting (mostly based on Al Qadim/Zakhara), and i don't think it feels any more like Diamond Throne than Scarred Lands feels like Tolkien.

 On the flipside, i think that the D&D3E mix of races is *just* as flavor-carrying as the AU ones. IMHO, if you don't think so, it's just due to familiarity/exposure.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 20, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> I don't get it.
> In Eberron, no one knows if the gods are real, but it still has clerics and paladins (divine magic is based on faith).
> 
> What's your point?
> ...



 So, if you can cause someone to doubt, they lose their magic? If not, then it's not based on faith. Moreover, can someone who believes in a god that the GM _knows_ doesn't actually exist in the world gain magic powers? If not, then it's not based on faith.  Finally, i'm talking about a world where there is nothing that those who claim to receive power from the gods can do that those who don't believe can't. IOW, if you really want to keep the true existence of divinities a question, it must be possible for someone to do everything the faithful do without a single iota of faith or belief. So long as you keep the arcane/divine magic divide, and have other things that are "faithful-only" (like turning undead), you're undermining an "ambiguous divinity" paradigm, IMHO.

 IMHO, if you have game-mechanical (and thus "real") constructs that are only available to characters that believe (in some mechanical sense), then you don't have ambiguous divinity. Now, if you instead have game-mechanicl constructs that are divorced from the belief element (so, frex, anyone *could* learn to turn undead, even if most who do so claim to have divine inspiration), then it lends aid to the ambiguity.

 Is that clearer?


----------



## Turjan (Nov 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone's disputing that. Though i'll counter that i haven't had to make *any* changes to major race relations or race history to make them fit seamlessly into a pseudo-Arabian setting (mostly based on Al Qadim/Zakhara), and i don't think it feels any more like Diamond Throne than Scarred Lands feels like Tolkien.




Well, I really don't know how you want to fit the whole Giants/Sibeccai history in Al Qadim. Of course, you can always do that, but it's not Al Qadim any more *shrug*. Anyway, my answer included that races are that part of AU that is the easiest to change. Classes and spells, like in standard D&D, are much harder to change, and this is not necessary in AU.



			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> On the flipside, i think that the D&D3E mix of races is *just* as flavor-carrying as the AU ones. IMHO, if you don't think so, it's just due to familiarity/exposure.




I suppose that nobody doubts this point . It's one reason that made me hesitate when I looked at Eberron. The standard races look somewhat out of place there - IMHO and YMMV, as usual .


----------



## Geoff Watson (Nov 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> So, if you can cause someone to doubt, they lose their magic? If not, then it's not based on faith. Moreover, can someone who believes in a god that the GM _knows_ doesn't actually exist in the world gain magic powers? If not, then it's not based on faith.




Whatever they believe in doesn't have to exist. The Silver Flame is the only Eberron 'diety' that actually exists anywhere in the Eberron multiverse, and it just burns.



> Finally, i'm talking about a world where there is nothing that those who claim to receive power from the gods can do that those who don't believe can't. IOW, if you really want to keep the true existence of divinities a question, it must be possible for someone to do everything the faithful do without a single iota of faith or belief. So long as you keep the arcane/divine magic divide, and have other things that are "faithful-only" (like turning undead), you're undermining an "ambiguous divinity" paradigm, IMHO.



Well, they have to have faith in something.



> IMHO, if you have game-mechanical (and thus "real") constructs that are only available to characters that believe (in some mechanical sense), then you don't have ambiguous divinity. Now, if you instead have game-mechanicl constructs that are divorced from the belief element (so, frex, anyone *could* learn to turn undead, even if most who do so claim to have divine inspiration), then it lends aid to the ambiguity.
> 
> Is that clearer?




It sounds like you have a circular argument, ie Clerics can't be ambiguous, therefore Clerics aren't ambiguous.

Geoff.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Point is, there are basically two "vital" skills in D&D that only one class has: healing, and trap-finding.




Healing - can be performed by the Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger and Paladin. Also, magic potions, wands and scrolls. My group doesn't have a main cleric, but they go through wands of cure light and cure moderate wounds like crazy. 

Trapfinding - can be performed by the Barbarian.  Magic traps are much better detected and defeated by the Wizard, in fact.

It is very rare that a trap must be defeated in a certain way for the module to continue. Then too, Clerical "Find Traps" spell and Wizards with "Knock".

I wouldn't want to go through an adventure without either a Cleric _or_ a Rogue, but missing just one will normally work.

Also: Artificers from Eberron can find/remove traps. 

The thing to consider is what not finding a trap actually means - mostly, it's just damage, and that can be healed. 

Cheers!


----------



## velm (Nov 20, 2004)

As much as I like rogues, I really do think that a party could do without them.  It might make certain situations a bit more dangerous but it could still be done.  
They are a very useful overall class.  But for having others detect and overcome traps, it is the thief.  Yes, you can have the cleric cast detect traps, but only if he thinks there is a reason to do so.  It is much easier for the thief to do it.  The same for overcoming them.  Some traps can do than just damage, a trap could do a debilitating effect, or incapacitate the party and while the party is incapacitated a group of kobolds could walk in and slice their necks.  
It would NOT be advisable to travel without a Rogue, or Cleric, but it can be done.  Others can cast healing spells, and there are magic items that can heal.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 21, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Point is, there are basically two "vital" skills in D&D that only one class has: healing, and trap-finding. Now, D&D3E mollified this a bit by giving bards access to both of these. However, the basic point is still relatively valid: without a rogue (or bard) you can't find traps. Not, "you can't find traps very well"--you can't find traps. Similarly, without a cleric (or bard), you basically can't heal. This one's not quite as bad, because you also have paladins, rangers, and druids, on top of bards. There's also the "no turning" element of not having a cleric, but, in general, you can fight appropriate-challenge undead in other ways (spells, hacking), it's just not as easy.



 Ya know, in the 17 years I've been gaming....I don't think I've had any DM that ever relied on more than the occasional trap a year.  I'm talking MAYBE 1 every 6 months.  Unless he had just bought a new Grimtooth's Traps book *grin*  Then he just killed us basically.  I can't be the only one who has had very little trap worry over the years.

 This is actually one of the things I enjoy about AU.  If you can cast spells, you can cast healing.  I dug the 3E Bard specifically b/c they could heal and do illusions and every other knick knacky thing they can do.  Now everyone can be a part time Cleric.  Greenbond is the MAN for healing and Magister a close 2nd if he were to devote any real measure to healing.  Champion of Life has a lay on hands ability to go with his spells.  One of the witches...all kinds of things.

 Hagen


----------



## woodelf (Nov 21, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Whatever they believe in doesn't have to exist. The Silver Flame is the only Eberron 'diety' that actually exists anywhere in the Eberron multiverse, and it just burns.



 I think we're talking about two different things--just skimmed the "Cleric" section of Eberron, and it seems clear to me that all clerics get their magic from some sort of external source of power--even if it's just the "pervasive spirit of the dragon". It is _not_ purely belief-based. Yes, not all believe in "gods", but, or even higher beings but, game-mechanically, they all acknowledge the existence of those higher beings (even if only the dragon). So, yes, their beliefs can be misguided, believing they get their spells from one place, but actually getting them from another. But, as near as i can tell, Eberron only passes one of my tests (getting power with belief but no proof of power-source)--it still doesn't have people who can do everything a cleric can while professing no belief. 



> Well, they have to have faith in something.



 No, they don't--and that's precisely my point. You _could_ have a setting where having the faith is all that matters, not what they have faith in. But it'd be hard to do with D&D3E clerics-as-written. You could also have a setting where you _don't_ have to have faith. Again, clerics-as-written aren't a very good match.



> It sounds like you have a circular argument, ie Clerics can't be ambiguous, therefore Clerics aren't ambiguous.



 I'd have labeled it tautological: clerics are defined as explicitly validating the notions of divinity/higher powers, therefore, by definition, their very existence eliminates the possibility of the answer being ambiguous. Which was really my only point: the D&D construct of "cleric" (not to mention some other classes) is not truly compatible with a setting where the very existence of higher powers is agnostic.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 21, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ya know, in the 17 years I've been gaming....I don't think I've had any DM that ever relied on more than the occasional trap a year.  I'm talking MAYBE 1 every 6 months.  Unless he had just bought a new Grimtooth's Traps book *grin*  Then he just killed us basically.  I can't be the only one who has had very little trap worry over the years.



 Which is part of why "vital" is in quotes. In my experience, too, trap-finding has never been that vital--i can only remember one trap in our 2.5yr D&D3E game (probably were some others, but nothing significant). And, while it's been years, i don't think i used them very much when i DMed Back In The Day. In my case, because i think traps are to fantasy gaming what hacking is to modern/scifi gaming: boredom for everybody in the party but one.

 However, _if_ you need the trap-finding ability, there's really only one class (with bards as a back-up) that has it. Unlike the vast majority of abilities that have bunches of classes that can do them, perhaps to varying degrees of effectiveness.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Nov 21, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I'd have labeled it tautological: clerics are defined as explicitly validating the notions of divinity/higher powers, therefore, by definition, their very existence eliminates the possibility of the answer being ambiguous. Which was really my only point: the D&D construct of "cleric" (not to mention some other classes) is not truly compatible with a setting where the very existence of higher powers is agnostic.




Well, if you take the standard god-worshiping Cleric and say that defines 'Cleric' then, of course they have to be god-worshipping. 

IIRC, there have been god-less Clerics since first ed; only FR requires clerics to have a god.

Anyway, even if the rule-book says they get powers from the dragon above, what proof is there for the characters? 

Geoff.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 21, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Well, if you take the standard god-worshiping Cleric and say that defines 'Cleric' then, of course they have to be god-worshipping.
> 
> IIRC, there have been god-less Clerics since first ed; only FR requires clerics to have a god.
> 
> Anyway, even if the rule-book says they get powers from the dragon above, what proof is there for the characters?




I think you are missing the core of woodelf's argument. Why would, in a purely agnostic world, divine magic be constrained to believers (in whatever, in a god or some philosophy). If there were not a real divine power behind the divine spells, why should arcane casters be barred from using these spells? In this context, a divine power of some kind must exist, excluding an agnostic campaign world.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Nov 22, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the core of woodelf's argument. Why would, in a purely agnostic world, divine magic be constrained to believers (in whatever, in a god or some philosophy). If there were not a real divine power behind the divine spells, why should arcane casters be barred from using these spells? In this context, a divine power of some kind must exist, excluding an agnostic campaign world.




If they want to cast Cleric spells, they can multiclass to Cleric. 

Why do Cleric spells require that divine power exists? In Dragonlance, Wizard spells are granted by the three moon-gods. Should there be no wizards and they all be clerics instead?

Geoff.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 22, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> If they want to cast Cleric spells, they can multiclass to Cleric.




That doesn't work in D&D. At least, the result of that multiclassing is not a viable PC. The Mystic Theurge is some kind of lukewarm workaround.



			
				Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Why do Cleric spells require that divine power exists? In Dragonlance, Wizard spells are granted by the three moon-gods. Should there be no wizards and they all be clerics instead?




What do your example and the answer you give have to do with your question?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 22, 2004)

> Why would, in a purely agnostic world, divine magic be constrained to believers?




Because magic is chaotic. If magic followed natural laws, it wouldn't be supernatural, it'd be natural.

You can do a belief-only cleric with the PHB 3.5 or 3e cleric. All the DM has to do is say "clerics get their magic from faith." If a player then asks why can't wizard's cast the same spells as clerics, sense it's the same magic, the DM just needs to say: "because that's not how magic works in my campaign world."

Really, it's not that hard.

Now, I can undersand if someone dosen't _like_ that solution. But not likeing a solution is diffrent from it not being a solution.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 22, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Because magic is chaotic.




In your campaign, maybe, but not in D&D. The standard D&D gods of magic reflect this: the main ones are either neutral or lawful.



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> If magic followed natural laws, it wouldn't be supernatural, it'd be natural.




What does this tell us? Though D&D uses the term "supernatural" in connection with magic, I don't really see the point in a high fantasy setting. More importantly, this does not distinguish between arcane and divine magic: they are both equally supernatural.



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> You can do a belief-only cleric with the PHB 3.5 or 3e cleric. All the DM has to do is say "clerics get their magic from faith."




Right, and then it's not an agnostic setting. In an agnostic setting, a base on faith does not make sense, which led to the question I was posing, and this question is not addressed by your answer. 



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> If a player then asks why can't wizard's cast the same spells as clerics, sense it's the same magic, the DM just needs to say: "because that's not how magic works in my campaign world."
> 
> Really, it's not that hard.




Nobody is questioning rule zero here. Your answer just tells the player one thing: the arcane/divine divide is completely arbitrary .



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Now, I can undersand if someone dosen't _like_ that solution. But not likeing a solution is diffrent from it not being a solution.




This is not a solution, but a decree. A decree based on the rules, yes, but it does not answer anything .


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 22, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> In your campaign, maybe,



That was my point. D&D rules, as written, allow for chaotic magic.



> but not in D&D.




Yes, in D&D.



			
				PHB 3.5 pg 32 said:
			
		

> ...[clerics] meditate or pray for their spells, reciving them through their own strength or faith or as divine insiration.






> The standard D&D gods of magic reflect this: the main ones are either neutral or lawful.




Wich makes sense, becaue neutral and  lawful encoumpas 2/3 of the law/chaos alignment axis. I don't understand how that argue for an anti-agonstic D&D.



> What does this tell us? Though D&D uses the term "supernatural" in connection with magic, I don't really see the point in a high fantasy setting.




Fantasy means that the world contains elements which are not explainable by natural law. D&D uses the term supernatural in connection with magic because that is the right term. Because D&D is a game, it has rules for magic. The rules are just a game construct, the setting can be anything.



> More importantly, this does not distinguish between arcane and divine magic: they are both equally supernatural.




This is my point. Because they are both supernatural, the division can mean anything the DM wants it too.



> Right, and then it's not an agnostic setting. In an agnostic setting, a base on faith does not make sense,




Wrong, in an agnostic  setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people _can_ belive in gods is through faith. 



> which led to the question I was posing, and this question is not addressed by your answer.




My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works. 



> Nobody is questioning rule zero here.




I'm not useing rule zero. Not a single line in any of the 3 core rulebooks was altered. Not a single rule was created, altered, or removed. This isn't a rule, this is an in-setting explainition for a game mechaninc.



> Your answer just tells the player one thing: the arcane/divine divide is completely arbitrary .




My answer tells the player that magic is mysterious and chaotic, and can't be pined down by out of setting logic.



> This is not a solution, but a decree. A decree based on the rules, yes, but it does not answer anything .




Every setting is a decree then. The statment, "in my setting, there is a city by the river," is equal to the statement, "in my setting, divine magic is brought about by faith in the gods."


----------



## Turjan (Nov 22, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> That was my point. D&D rules, as written, allow for chaotic magic.




Sure it does. However, this has nothing to do with your previous statement that "magic is chaotic", which my answer referred to. That's a completely different thing, and I don't see any ground for such a statement.



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Wich makes sense, becaue neutral and lawful encoumpas 2/3 of the law/chaos alignment axis. I don't understand how that argue for an anti-agonstic D&D.




I don't understand that either. Where do you take this connection from? My comment referred to your statement that magic is chaotic. In standard D&D, magic is a very predictable thing. If you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception.



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Wrong, in an agnostic  setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people _can_ belive in gods is through faith.




How does "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" have any connection to faith? An agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods or a God or a divine principle, but does not principally exclude their existence. The only difference to an atheist is that an atheist actively denies the existence of gods. In both cases, there is no room for faith. Most people who call themselves atheists are in reality agnostics.



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works.




The point is that this excludes agnosticism. If faith and only faith grants certain spells, this is a strong point for the existence of gods or a divine principle. 



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> My answer tells the player that magic is mysterious and chaotic, and can't be pined down by out of setting logic.




That's fine, but is just an evasion from the problem we are discussing here.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 22, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> The problem with those is they don't interface with the rules, without a lot of effort on the part of the players.




But we are talking about flavor and personal interpretation here: in other words, something explicitly _not_ part of the rules. I don't need bad fantasy fiction "tied" to the crunch of a game rule, I have plenty of reasonably good fantasy fiction out there to draw upon for that. I need rules, I can add my own fluff without any real difficulty. I would even argue that most people can add fluff at least as well as most game designers. I don't need to be told how to portray a fantasy character by a game designer, I have hundreds of books on the subject to choose from, which probably cover a range of character types and styles far broader than any "role=playing guide" could hope to do.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 22, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But we are talking about flavor and personal interpretation here: in other words, something explicitly _not_ part of the rules. I don't need bad fantasy fiction "tied" to the crunch of a game rule, I have plenty of reasonably good fantasy fiction out there to draw upon for that. I need rules, I can add my own fluff without any real difficulty. I would even argue that most people can add fluff at least as well as most game designers. I don't need to be told how to portray a fantasy character by a game designer, I have hundreds of books on the subject to choose from, which probably cover a range of character types and styles far broader than any "role=playing guide" could hope to do.




I don't know about you, but when I started roleplaying with the red box, with 16 years or so, I was damn happy for any little example of "fluff" in the books that helped me describe the rules mechanisms in words that weren't "You spend 120 XP and 10000 gold and get a magical potion." And I still love to think back on the introductory solo adventure they had in the Player's Booklet, and my first meeting with Bargle.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 22, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Sure it does. However, this has nothing to do with your previous statement that "magic is chaotic", which my answer referred to. That's a completely different thing, and I don't see any ground for such a statement.




The statement "magic is chaotic" has noting to do with whether chaotic magic is completly compatable with the 3e or 3.5? I want you to think about that stament for a moment. I mean, I see what your saying, magic dosen't have to be chaotic in D&D, but my statement most definatly has someting to do with the rules.



> I don't understand that either. Where do you take this connection from? My comment referred to your statement that magic is chaotic. In standard D&D, magic is a very predictable thing. If you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception.




To refute my argument about magic being chaotic, you mentioned that most gods were lawful or neutral. The problem with that logic is that most of the gods are lawful or neutral because it's a game and that's 2/3 or the law/chaos axis, not because magic is non-chaotic.

When I cast a spell, there's a posiblity (depending on the spell) that I'll have to make 3 seprate rolls, a consentration check to avoid AOO, spell penatration, and damage. Also, there's a possibility that the target will need to make a save. More rolls can be involved depending on the spell. That's four rolls. Hardly a case of "if you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception."



> How does "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" have any connection to faith? An agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods or a God or a divine principle, but does not principally exclude their existence. The only difference to an atheist is that an atheist actively denies the existence of gods. In both cases, there is no room for faith. Most people who call themselves atheists are in reality agnostics.




Because a setting can be agnostic, but the characters that inhabit that setting can be Palor fanatics. Palor may never have given a single worshiper reason to belive in him, but that dosen't mean he dosen't have worshipers. It could be, in such a setting, that Palor dosn't actually grant spells, that would be telling. However, *his clerics can cast them anyways because of their faith.* The setting can be atheist, the gods don't exist at all, but people may have created their own gods and worship them. In that case, *the only way a cleric would have any spells at all is through faith.* The gods don't exisit, but the cleric can cast spells solely based on faith and nothing else. Wizards and sorcerers can't cast thouse spells because they lack the faith nessary.  



> If faith and only faith grants certain spells, this is a strong point for the existence of gods or a divine principle.




No it's not. Maybe magic, as a supernatural force, can grant spells to people with faith. Magic, being a supernatural force, may care whether there are gods or not. This is analagous to a hurricane that dosn't care how expencive your house is, or who you are, it's going to demolish it anyways.



> That's fine, but is just an evasion from the problem we are discussing here.




Well, this whole discussion on agnosticism is off-topic from the them main point of the thread posted on the first post. 

Magic in history and mythology started out as an explanation for things that defied a natural explation. It is mysterious and unknowable. It's hard to capture that feel in a game because, by defination, games need rules. I think this is why many people hate power gamers, rules-lawyers, and munchkins so much, because such slavish devotion to the rules seems to take the mysteriousness out what the rules are supposed to represent.

It's imparitive that people not mistake the rules of the game for the world the game is set in. Just because there are rules for magic, dosen't mean that magic isn't chaotic from the characters point of view. If Mouse casts a spell on Smaug The Great Wyrm, he dosen't know that he lacked the oomph to get through the Great Red Wyrm's spell penatration, it just looks like another random time a spell didn't work for some reason. Think about how many times a spell simply dosn't work, and it's pretty stagering.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 22, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but when I started roleplaying with the red box, with 16 years or so, I was damn happy for any little example of "fluff" in the books that helped me describe the rules mechanisms in words that weren't "You spend 120 XP and 10000 gold and get a magical potion." And I still love to think back on the introductory solo adventure they had in the Player's Booklet, and my first meeting with Bargle.




I couldn't have cared less. I had the _Hobbit_, _Lord of the Rings_, _Chronicles of Narnia_, _Chronicles of Prydain_, and _Earthsea Trilogy_ to fill in those blanks for me. And they did a much better job than the slap-dash efforts made by Gygax and Co. on that score.

(I skipped Bargle, he wasn't yet in the examples contained in the books I got).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 22, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I couldn't have cared less. I had the _Hobbit_, _Lord of the Rings_, _Chronicles of Narnia_, _Chronicles of Prydain_, and _Earthsea Trilogy_ to fill in those blanks for me. And they did a much better job than the slap-dash efforts made by Gygax and Co. on that score.
> 
> (I skipped Bargle, he wasn't yet in the examples contained in the books I got).




Yeah, I had all those, too, but I still loved the background information they put into the D&D books. Made me feel less like playing a copy of some of the stories I read frequently, but play in "my own" world that I could share with my friends through playing. And it gave me a feel for what the designers thought the rules they wrote should _look_ like, which was fun to read, too.
 
So you didn't need the integrated background info, and I loved it. 50:50 in the case  of us two. How do you think does the relation look like on a larger scale?


----------



## Turjan (Nov 23, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> The statement "magic is chaotic" has noting to do with whether chaotic magic is completly compatable with the 3e or 3.5? I want you to think about that stament for a moment. I mean, I see what your saying, magic dosen't have to be chaotic in D&D, but my statement most definatly has someting to do with the rules.




But your statement is irrelevant. Of course you can insert Chaos Magic into your D&D. Nevertheless, in standard D&D, magic is not chaotic. It's mostly a scholarly discipline or handed down through hierarchy. Some people inherit it .



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> To refute my argument about magic being chaotic, you mentioned that most gods were lawful or neutral.




I never said anything like that. I said that "the standard D&D gods *of magic*" are neutral or lawful neutral. Magic, ok?



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> The problem with that logic is that most of the gods are lawful or neutral because it's a game and that's 2/3 or the law/chaos axis, not because magic is non-chaotic.




I hope you are understanding what you are saying there. Most gods are lawful or neutral because it's a game? And that's 2/3? Aaaa-ha!



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> When I cast a spell, there's a posiblity (depending on the spell) that I'll have to make 3 seprate rolls, a consentration check to avoid AOO, spell penatration, and damage. Also, there's a possibility that the target will need to make a save. More rolls can be involved depending on the spell. That's four rolls. Hardly a case of "if you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception."




I hope you are aware of the fact that your examples have nothing to do with magic per se. A concentration check deals with influences from outside. Spell penetration deals with characteristics of the target. Damage rolls are a highly abstract measure for the whole bunch of factors included in the hitpoint dynamics. The target gets a save because of its trained ability to deal with an assault. This all does not change anything with the fact that if a wizard knows the spell, has prepared the spell, speaks the right words, makes the right movements and does not get a hammer over his head, he will get his magic missile out. The D&D magic system, which comprises a large part of the whole rules, is one of the most ordered parts of the whole game.



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Because a setting can be agnostic, but the characters that inhabit that setting can be Palor fanatics. Palor may never have given a single worshiper reason to belive in him, but that dosen't mean he dosen't have worshipers. It could be, in such a setting, that Palor dosn't actually grant spells, that would be telling. However, *his clerics can cast them anyways because of their faith.* The setting can be atheist, the gods don't exist at all, but people may have created their own gods and worship them. In that case, *the only way a cleric would have any spells at all is through faith.* The gods don't exisit, but the cleric can cast spells solely based on faith and nothing else. Wizards and sorcerers can't cast thouse spells because they lack the faith nessary.




So you mean faith as a kind of mass hysteria, where wizards fail because they keep a cool head? Right, I can imagine that this could liberate some energy. I'm a bit amused that you haven't brought up the easiest argument yet: the notion that there is no such thing as _the magic_ .  



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> No it's not. Maybe magic, as a supernatural force, can grant spells to people with faith. Magic, being a supernatural force, may care whether there are gods or not. This is analagous to a hurricane that dosn't care how expencive your house is, or who you are, it's going to demolish it anyways.




If magic is a supernatural force that grants something, it's a god. Let's not go this road again .



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> It's imparitive that people not mistake the rules of the game for the world the game is set in. Just because there are rules for magic, dosen't mean that magic isn't chaotic from the characters point of view. If Mouse casts a spell on Smaug The Great Wyrm, he dosen't know that he lacked the oomph to get through the Great Red Wyrm's spell penatration, it just looks like another random time a spell didn't work for some reason. Think about how many times a spell simply dosn't work, and it's pretty stagering.




I think you are straining the meaning of "chaotic" in the game sense a bit. Chaotic does not mean lack of knowledge . Anyway, let's end this discussion, because it is lastly just a matter of taste. You like the magic system as it is, I don't. You are happy with D&D in its basic state, and I like to change some things. I am happy to live in the days of the OGL, because I have the solutions at hand. I can play AU and get rid of alignment (and discussions about alignment ) and the arcane/divine divide. Plus, I still have the "Green"  ... whatever that is .


----------



## woodelf (Nov 23, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Wrong, in an agnostic setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people _can_ belive in gods is through faith.
> 
> My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works.



 However, as soon as a group of people who claim to worship gods can do something that nobody else can, the gods *have* revealed themselves. I mean, no, that's not sufficient to prove their existence with logical rigor--all you've definitely proved is that their belief is true, not the object of their belief. However, we have one bit of info the characters don't: the fact that that difference is codified into he reality by the game mechanics.

 I think part of our difference here is you seem to be talking about a world without gods, but one where there are actual higher powers of _some_ sort granting the cleric's abilities. I'm talking about a world where it is not clear that there is _anything_ outside of the cleric involved in the cleric's powers--substituting spirits for gods is not sufficient. From my POV, this isn't about divinities, per se, it's about belief vs. reality, and wanting to be able to divorce the two.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 23, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> So you didn't need the integrated background info, and I loved it. 50:50 in the case  of us two. How do you think does the relation look like on a larger scale?




Going by my experience (which is of the oh-so-reliable anecdotal type) the bulk of the gamers I have dealt with drew their inspiration for characterization and "fluff" from (non-RPG related) fantasy novels, and only a tiny handful drew theirs from material published in RPG books.

On a more concrete note: has there ever been a role-playing guide that sold well?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 24, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I think part of our difference here is you seem to be talking about a world without gods, but one where there are actual higher powers of _some_ sort granting the cleric's abilities.




I'm not talking about an intelligence, if that's what you meant.

Let's say magic is a computer. Not just any computer, but a specialized, insane computer that's only mostly predictable. This computer isn't intelegent, it doesn't think. But, it is programed with lots of IF-THEN statemtns that are kinda, sorta, predictable. And it's tapped into nature, the fabric of reality, and the thoughts of everyone in the world. It's similer to the Force in Star Wars, but with out the midi-chlorienes.

In this magic-as-insane-computer world, lots of people have faith in their god(s). People belive in Pelor, Odin, Thor, Snori, whatever with passion. But some of these faithful have powers. They seem to cast spells, like those weirdos who call themselves wizards, or so the sages say. But only some of these faithful can cast these spells. What sets one faithful person from the other? Who knows? 

In reality, when someone if someone is hyper-faithful and wants to use the faith to futher the spread of their faith, a subroutine runs in magic that allows that person to cast spells, to access magic. The problem is, because magic is insane and chaotic, no one knows that its really random.  

PC clerics always start out being able to cast spells, because their one of the lucky few. NPC clerics are too. This also adds the spice that some peole try to become clerics (or palidins) and can't cast spells and don't gain their first level in cleric. These people are told that their faith wasn't strong enough, and the failed usually belive it. Why else can't they cast spells? Who is ever going to say: "I can't cast spells because it's a random process that only kicks in sometimes?" No one. 



> I'm talking about a world where it is not clear that there is _anything_ outside of the cleric involved in the cleric's powers--substituting spirits for gods is not sufficient. From my POV, this isn't about divinities, per se, it's about belief vs. reality, and wanting to be able to divorce the two.




Let me get this straight, do you want a world where people automactly think that a cleric is solely responsible for the spells he casts? You want a world where people don't attributes a cleric's spells to what ever divinity he worships? Why don't you just create a culture where that is what the clerics tech and what the people believe? Historicly, the church has done the most educating, so it would work. All the d20 rules really say is that clerics cast spells, it's the Greyhawk setting attached to it that adds in the bit about gods granting them.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 24, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about an intelligence, if that's what you meant.



 It is not. [more elaboration later]



> Let me get this straight, do you want a world where people automactly think that a cleric is solely responsible for the spells he casts? You want a world where people don't attributes a cleric's spells to what ever divinity he worships?



 No, because that wouldn't be an agnostic world-setting, that'd be an atheistic one. I want mechanics that support a world where people can argue over whether or not the cleric is channeling a higher being, or whether or not the gods are real _and nothing in the mechanics points in one direction *or* the other_. Where the cleric can be convinced that his deity is real, someone else can be convinced that the cleric's deity is a delusion, but _his_ deity is real, and a third person can think that there are no gods--and nothing any of them can do, say, learn, or demonstrate lends any more credence to one POV than to the others. In short, a world like our own, where faith truly is a matter of faith, rather than opinion, much less fact.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 24, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Going by my experience (which is of the oh-so-reliable anecdotal type) the bulk of the gamers I have dealt with drew their inspiration for characterization and "fluff" from (non-RPG related) fantasy novels, and only a tiny handful drew theirs from material published in RPG books.
> 
> On a more concrete note: has there ever been a role-playing guide that sold well?




Assuming you're talking about a book that tries to "teach" people how to better roleplay and what ingredients go into a well-rounded roleplaying experience, I'd say at least every incarnation of the DM's Guide has sold pretty well  
I'm considering your anecdotes to be as reliable as mine, by the way...like the one where two players who were absolutely new to roleplaying, but had read a lot of fantasy literature before, both built an Elric wannabe clone down to the black, soul-sucking sword and the anemia   On the other hand I had lots of players who didn't have a clue about fantasy books in the first place, and found the background of one of Mystara's nations inspiring enough to build a character from there. Experiences differ, I'd say


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 24, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> No, because that wouldn't be an agnostic world-setting, that'd be an atheistic one. I want mechanics that support a world where people can argue over whether or not the cleric is channeling a higher being, or whether or not the gods are real _and nothing in the mechanics points in one direction *or* the other_. Where the cleric can be convinced that his deity is real, someone else can be convinced that the cleric's deity is a delusion, but _his_ deity is real, and a third person can think that there are no gods--and nothing any of them can do, say, learn, or demonstrate lends any more credence to one POV than to the others. In short, a world like our own, where faith truly is a matter of faith, rather than opinion, much less fact.




In a way, a faith also is an opinion, don't you think? But to be honest, I don't see the problem here? If you want a world where it's qustionable if it's "only" the gods that grant their priests power, you simply add a budding religion that doesn't draw on any kind of god or god-like figure, or immortal, or whatever, but on a principle, and give those priests just the same power. That way, you have a religion that can constantly claim that gods are nothing but an illusion, and that all that is necessary to be enlightened is a strong faith.
Buddhism would be a great example.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 25, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I want mechanics that support a world where people can argue over whether or not the cleric is channeling a higher being, or whether or not the gods are real _and nothing in the mechanics points in one direction *or* the other_.




Nothing in the 3e mechanics points in one direction or the other.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 25, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> In a way, a faith also is an opinion, don't you think?



 Yes, but i was drawing a distinction between a a belief not based on facts, and one with facts to back it up. At least to me, "opinion" implies a basis in mutually-agreed facts, however interpretive the opinion itself may be. Faith, OTOH, implies to me specifically a belief that is devoid of objective, verifiable factual basis--that's what makes it take faith to believe it. [and, before anybody takes offense: i'm not denegrating either of these in comparison to the other--i consider them different, not better/worse. ]


----------



## woodelf (Nov 25, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But we are talking about flavor and personal interpretation here: in other words, something explicitly _not_ part of the rules.



 Who's "we"? Seriously, that's exactly my point--that what a flavor-heavy game book brings to the table that a flavor-heavy work of fiction doesn't is that integration. Now, i acknowledge that, for the most part, AD&D2 didn't provide that integration either. But plenty of other games do. 

 Think of it like this: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you want a magic-item-creation system that is dependent on lots of macguffins, such as newt eyes and roc feathers and all that rot. Mechanically, would you rather have to come up with it given only the D&D3E PH and MM? Or start with something like the power components rules in Unearthed Arcana, or 101 Arcane Components, or the Hacklopedia of Beasts (which lists the useful bits for each creature)? 

 It's basically the exact same reason, but for a different flavor, as the inclusion of required spells for magic items in the existing D&D rules: the rules always said you needed to know a relevant/related spell, but gave no mechanical bits to match that. So D&D3E added those mechanical bits. Do you consider it "bad fantasy  fiction" cluttering up your game rules that each magic item specifies a spell or spells required to create it?



> I don't need bad fantasy fiction "tied" to the crunch of a game rule, I have plenty of reasonably good fantasy fiction out there to draw upon for that. I need rules, I can add my own fluff without any real difficulty. I would even argue that most people can add fluff at least as well as most game designers. I don't need to be told how to portray a fantasy character by a game designer, I have hundreds of books on the subject to choose from, which probably cover a range of character types and styles far broader than any "role=playing guide" could hope to do.



 Thing is, there's already all sorts of flavor tied to the rules--i'm just suggesting that there could be a multiplicity of flavors, rather than only one.

 And, to be clear, i'm not talking about fluff when i talk about flavorful rules--i'm talking about crunch. But i'm talking about the flavor of that crunch, and the degree to which it matches a given set of fluff (or doesn't). Does that make sense? Do you still disagree?


----------



## woodelf (Nov 25, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Nothing in the 3e mechanics points in one direction or the other.



 A whole set of magic and magical abilities that is labeled "divine", is tied to outer-planar creatures, is explicitly related to gods/higher powers/metaphysical realities (remember, alignment is real in D&D--physical objects react to it), and is distinct in both content and methodology from other sorts of magic is "nothing"? How is that *not* at least *pointing* in a particular direction?

 Has anybody in this thread ever known someone who said "i want to play a wizard/sorcerer/mage" and chosen the cleric class to do so, ignoring all talk of alignment, higher powers, etc., both in the mechanical details and in their roleplaying? I'll give you that it could be done--but i claim that the bits are so explicit, and so tightly tied to the mechanics, that it's unlikely-bordering-on-impossible that anybody would, other than in response to a challeng posted in a thread like this, actually come to the conclusion that "cleric" was a mechanical widget suited for playing a non-faithful character in a D&D setting.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 25, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> A whole set of magic and magical abilities that is labeled "divine"




Yes, it's labled divine. But the word has no mechanics behind it. It's just a discriptive term. True, some magic items are unsuable to a wizard if they use the divine version of that spell. But that one game mechanic is can be ignored with out braking the game, without even brusing it. 



> is tied to outer-planar creatures, is explicitly related to gods/higher powers/metaphysical realities




1. You're confusing setting with rules. In Greyhawk (and most published D&D settings) Clerics do, indeed, get their powers from the gods.
2. If you don't like that, all you have to do is alter the setting. No rules changes need to be made. 
3. PHB pg 32 *explicitly* states that clerics can also receive their powers from their faith. Recoiving spells from faith or god does not alter the way the cleric works as a game construct; from a setting POV, there is no way an outside observer would know where the cleric gets their spells. There is no skill check someone could make to find out how. Indeed, it could be that the cleric doesn't know himself. The cleric could think one thing and reality be another. From a game mechanics standpoint, it's all the same. 



> (remember, alignment is real in D&D--physical objects react to it)




It's not unusual for DMs and players to ignor alignement. Eberron doesn't place the emphisis on it other published setting have. So groups remove it altogether.



> and is distinct in both content and methodology from other sorts of magic is "nothing"? How is that *not* at least *pointing* in a particular direction?




Your still confusing setting with mechanics. All a worldbuilder has to do is change the setting, and atheist, agnostic, and whatever religion you want is posible. 



> Has anybody in this thread ever known someone who said "i want to play a wizard/sorcerer/mage" and chosen the cleric class to do so, ignoring all talk of alignment, higher powers, etc., both in the mechanical details and in their roleplaying?




I haven't met a player who wanted to, but I've read a published TSR D&D setting that did so. In _Lankhmar: City of Adventure_, TSR said wizads were divided into two catogories, white wizards, and black wizards. White Wizards took levels in cleric, black wizards took levels in wizard. Preists didn't cast spells and had no levels in a PC class. (0-level characters sense this was 1st ed.)



> I'll give you that it could be done--but i claim that the bits are so explicit, and so tightly tied to the mechanics, that it's unlikely-bordering-on-impossible that anybody would, other than in response to a challeng posted in a thread like this, actually come to the conclusion that "cleric" was a mechanical widget suited for playing a non-faithful character in a D&D setting.




I'm just going to agree to disagree with you. Because I don't think the rules you sight are either rules or rules of any importance; that's a diffrence in opinion that pretty much guaranties we're talking about diffrent things.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 25, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Nothing in the 3e mechanics points in one direction or the other.




Oh, right. A spell like "Commune" doesn't point to anything . Of course, this is tied into mechanics; don't let this sentence about "casting from his own power" in the PHB fool you; some spell descriptions have to declare this notion void.

Anyway, I think it would be a good idea not to forget the central questions regarding the arcane/divine divide during this discussion:

1) Why are wizards barred from healing magic?

2) Why are clerics the better necromancers than wizards?

And here, a "because it is like it is" is not an acceptable answer.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 25, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Oh, right. A spell like "Commune" doesn't point to anything . Of course, this is tied into mechanics; don't let this sentence about "casting from his own power" in the PHB fool you; some spell descriptions have to declare this notion void.
> 
> Anyway, I think it would be a good idea not to forget the central questions regarding the arcane/divine divide during this discussion:
> 
> ...




_Commune_ is in there to enable a cleric who does serve a god to get into contact with his deity and get his help. Always remember that the PHB is modeled on Greyhawk as a default world, where the gods indeed ARE real, and very active. If you want to play on a world where the gods are not even remotely certain, simply leave that spell out of the picture?

1) Because, by D&D default, clerics are the guys who are allowed to work miracles and handle the stuff of life. They get it "preshaped" to hit points, so to speak, via their spells, while wizards and sorcerers don't handle that kind of energy, again, by default, and don't get miracles. If you want to change that, there's nothing in the rules that completely prohibits you from adding healing spells to the wizard/sorcerer list. Arcana Unearthed is an example for that. A lot of necromantic healing magic, like in the Forgotten Realms or Scarred Lands, is also available.

2) For the most parts, you can refer to 1). Clerics, by D&D default, are the guys who routinely handle the stuff of life and death, so they get to use it on corpses earlier than wizards. As for the _Create Undead_ and _Create Greater Undead_ spells...well, for that, you need some kind of spirit to stuff into your corpse. And guess who's handling souls and spirits by D&D default? Right...clerics. Again, if you want to change that, nobody's keeping you from it, and there's a host of Necromancer PrC and variant base classes who have already done so.

One thing to keep in miind about the D&D core ruleset is that it might look like a completely setting-neutral tool, but it isn't. It has a default world behind it, on which most of the default assumptions are based. If you want to change those assumptions, you can do so without problems, it's simply not in the core rules.
And some people might actually like their wizards not being able to simply be the source of extensive damage spells AND all-curing healing magic in one person  .


----------

