General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Does anybody else think there are two audiences, one who buys the books to read and another who buys the books to play? 1E AD&D continues to this day to be an amazing read, but unless you have it memorized the books are painful to run a game out of. In addition, we have a lot of collectors in this hobby who buy piles and piles of books they will likely never use, just because they like collecting and reading systems. On the other hand, there are people in this hobby who spend most of their time in this hobby playing and running games. Books are only useful in their direct application to the game at hand. The best example of this are casual players who buy the PHB and the splats that directly pertain to the character they are playing, and nothing else, and don't read these books beyond playing their characters.
Given that D&D is the most popular RPG and the most played, is it that unreasonable a concept for the game books to be aimed at the second group, the people who play and run games?
I would think there is also a segment, of which I believe I am a part of, that runs & plays games, but also would like to enjoy reading the books. I mean we talk about barriers to entry and I think that a game that doesn't read like it is fun to play (especially one that is just books with no shiny pieces included) is going to have a hard time pulling in people and getting them "wanting" to play or run the game.
The funny thing is, much as people tend to claim White Wolf games "are for collecting and reading"... they actually make me excited to run them, and I think this is an important aspect of getting someone to actually want to run a game. In all honesty, if D&D 4e wasn't D&D I wouldn't have even given it a chance, and probably would have just set it aside without reading the full rules.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
I am a systems guy and an optimizer, and I still can't get through Martial Power. I can't even get through it to achieve the general system mastery I feel duty bound to acquire. I all but memorized the 4E PHB because it was new and exciting at the time. I found Adventurer's Vault an impossible wall of text that I've only come to grips with because I create dozens of characters in my spare time for kicks. Martial Power, I've barely touched, as I'm waiting for the full Character Builder to deal with that material, and probably won't achieve my standard degree of system mastery until then aside from specificly built characters. I didn't have the promise of the Character Builder when I mastered Adventuer's Vault, but what I've seen of things has me sitting on my hands waiting.
Maybe it's the math/comp-sci geek in me, but I always skimmed the flavor text in 3.x books to get the crunch. Heck, I don't think I ever read an entire paragraph from my Dragon magazines; I just skipped to the tables and read the corollary information. I like 4E's "to the point"-ness.
Now, that said, I think some of the best presentation I have ever seen of crunch and fluff is Privateer Press's Warmachine and IK stuff. Wow, that's good production value. Don't get me wrong; I still skip the fluff. But it looks cool as crap!
__________________ My D&D Class: Lawful Good Human Paladin
My Robin's Laws Game Style: 100% Method Actor, 92% Storyteller, 92% Specialist (paladin), 83% Butt-Kicker, 75% Tactician, 67% Power Gamer, 17% Casual Gamer
I would think there is also a segment, of which I believe I am a part of, that runs & plays games, but also would like to enjoy reading the books. I mean we talk about barriers to entry and I think that a game that doesn't read like it is fun to play (especially one that is just books with no shiny pieces included) is going to have a hard time pulling in people and getting them "wanting" to play or run the game.
The funny thing is, much as people tend to claim White Wolf games "are for collecting and reading"... they actually make me excited to run them, and I think this is an important aspect of getting someone to actually want to run a game. In all honesty, if D&D 4e wasn't D&D I wouldn't have even given it a chance, and probably would have just set it aside without reading the full rules.
You've made a number of posts on 4th Edition, and I find it hard to believe that if 4E read as well as 1E in a literary sense you wouldn't still dislike it for the mechanics.
You've made a number of posts on 4th Edition, and I find it hard to believe that if 4E read as well as 1E in a literary sense you wouldn't still dislike it for the mechanics.
Honestly, I don't have too many issues with the mechanics of 4e... in fact show me where I have posted about my dislike of the mechanics of 4e. It's all the other niggling details around WotC's decision to make combat mechanics primary with only a nod (at most) to all the "glue" that holds the other parts of an rpg together that I have an issue with.
EDIT: Also with some of WotC's business decisions and whether I want to support those decisions.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Last edited by Imaro; 2nd December 2008 at 04:23 AM..
I BLAME YOU PEOPLE! YOU KILLED THE 4E FLUFF THAT MAKES D&D INTERESTING READING!
In part, it's that game/system divide again.
But just because your rules are generic doesn't mean you can't have an interesting read. T20 does an awesome job of having a generic ruleset and giving me at least three awesome things to do with it.
I mostly blame the powers and monster systems for this, and they might be getting a little better at that. A giant wall of 30-40 abilities isn't interesting reading for anyone. The Monster Manual suffered from the DM's version of this: a giant wall of 200-300 stat blocks.
The plan was never to be generic. 4e was really never a system that could have been generic. The plan was to be a good reference book, but, again, French dictionaries aren't what make you interested in learning French.
Stat blocks aren't going to be what you look at for inspiration (unless you've got the magical ability to translate that directly to play experience). They are what you use when you're already inspired.
What more "fluff" was there in the third edition player's handbook, compared to its 4th edition counterpart? Why are the descriptions of the spells and the feats in the 3rd edition handbook not dull, whereas 4th edition spells, rituals, feats and powers are, according to you?
Also, why are you starting another anti-4th edition rant?
These questions above are something I'd like to see answered, so to better understand what irks people who are vehemently against the new edition and have to complain about it all the time, in this case about this "dulleness".
If I may ask you a question too. You (DandD) seem almost compelled to don armor and shield in defense of 4E as if critical discussion of it to you is abhorrent. If you don't like criticism of anything to do with 4E, why respond to an "anti" 4E thread? Why not just not respond to it?
I enjoy both 3E and 4E (and in fact all D&D is Awesome!) and enjoy the discussion, warts and all of the game. Be it good or bad points, I find the diversity of views and opinions here at EN World interesting, dynamic and vital. However, this is twice in two days that I've seen you rushing to the defense of the latest version of the game as if her maidenhood was in direst need of protection. I really don't think you need to. Why not look for ways to encourage discussion rather than criticize the critical? Or simply, if a topic is not to your liking, simply don't post to it?
For myself, I find the 4E books very clean and almost to a point clinical. Having read and used them for a almost half a year, I "know" pretty much what's in them. Now, you bring up 3E (I don't believe the OP did). The Players Handbook for me was not a clean document but it was interesting in it's own way - and not in terms of fluff which ranged from tepid to inspiring. There was a lot of minutiae in that book where as the 4E players handbook has cleaned out a lot of these details, as well as being a more concise, simpler presentation of rules.
For me, there is not as much 4E meat to chew on, not as much detail. The plus side to this is that you get a game where you literally don't need to refer to the rulebook. The minus side to this is a book that is not quite as interesting, whether it be because of a lack of fluff/detail, or the topical minutae that some people enjoy. Another aspect is that 4E borrows so much from 3E. On first reading it (and getting over the wall of classes), a lot of the terminology and details I had already read and understood before in 3E. It is more in the playing that 4E shines, rather than in the reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DandD
He's refering to 4th edition as being unpolished, and dull. That means that Andor thinks that the previous version is not unpolished, and more exciting to read. Quite easy, don't you think?
No it doesn't. You might just want to have a quick reread of what the OP said. Criticism of one thing does not mean automatic praise of another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DandD
Also, it's an open secret that Andor belongs to the 4th edition critics. Heck, he even admits it in the very first posting above.
Really? And if so, so? I don't think Andor was unreasonable, derogatory or illogical in his posting. It is a valid point and worthy of discussion for those that wish to do so.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
Now, that said, I think some of the best presentation I have ever seen of crunch and fluff is Privateer Press's Warmachine and IK stuff. Wow, that's good production value. Don't get me wrong; I still skip the fluff. But it looks cool as crap!
I'll concur with the IK stuff, our group played through the Witchfire trilogy and it was fantastic.
I just recently checked out the Warhammer Roleplaying Game and that has it some damn good fluff. Not as sure on the mechanics though, but A++ for the fluff.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
It's really an odd position you take here, Andor. You admit, further in your post, that you didn't enjoy reading 2e, 3e, 3.5, yet suddenly it's some source of criticism that 4e reads like a reference text, which is what it is. Reading all powers is as dull as reading all the spells, and those sections take up about the same amount of space in either book. OTOH, I enjoyed reading the 4e DMG. Not a lot or anything. The last RPG book I remember really enjoying reading was the Eberron CS. I don't require my gaming textbooks to be edge of your seat thrill-rides, myself. I'll take the great system of 4e over the boring read of 4e anyday.
Why are the descriptions of the spells and the feats in the 3rd edition handbook not dull, whereas 4th edition spells, rituals, feats and powers are, according to you?
For me, the key difference was that the 3e spells were all at the back of the PHB, which meant that by the time I got to reading this big wall of text I'd already learned enough of the system to start playing. With 4e, the 'wall' is early in the book, and made getting past it to the meat of the game quite painful.
That said, 4e has different needs than 3e in this regard, since every class has powers. I don't think the same arrangement would have worked for 4e, and neither can I immediately see a better arrangement.
Quote:
What more "fluff" was there in the third edition player's handbook, compared to its 4th edition counterpart?
Each edition has seemed to strip out the flavour of the writing in favour of the clarity of the rules discussion. (And it's not just 'fluff' names like Bigby, or setting organisations, or what have you, but also includes the use of words, sentence structure, tone, and so forth.) AD&D 2nd Edition was written in simpler language than BECM D&D, 3e was much more of a textbook than was 2nd Edition, and 4e seems to have gone even further in this direction. To a point, it does actually make for a better game, but there is a danger that you reach a point where people just don't read your 832 pages of rulebook, and go play WoW instead. It would appear that 4e hasn't yet reached this point, given the sales it has seen, and the relative lack of second-hand books that are available.
For what it's worth, I found 4e read a whole lot better than I had feared from the previews, and played a whole lot better than it read. My group decided against it for other reasons.
He's refering to 4th edition as being unpolished, and dull. That means that Andor thinks that the previous version is not unpolished, and more exciting to read. Quite easy, don't you think? You don't have to interprete much into it to see that this is going to end like that.
Also, it's an open secret that Andor belongs to the 4th edition critics. Heck, he even admits it in the very first posting above.
4th Edition Critic doesn't have to mean Edition Warrior. People can find every edition of D&D lack luster and still be a 4th Edition critic. Heck, people can even like 4th Edition and be a 4th Edition critic.
Sometimes comparing edition makes sense (particularly if you want to understand or classify changes), but sometimes it doesn't (for example, if you want to know if something reads interesting or not. )
Hey, look, a 3E spell written up in 4E edition style (but using 3E mechanics mostly)
Spoiler:
Fireball - Wizard Daily Attack 5 A bead of fire shoots from your open hands and explodes in a fiery blast
Daily - Arcane, Implement, Fire, Verbal, Somatic
Standard Action
Area Spread 20 ft in Long Range (400 ft + 40 ft per level)
Target: All creatures in spread
Save: Reflex
Failure: 1d6 points of fire damage per level
Success: Half damage.
---
Entangle - Druid Daily Attack 1 Veins and Grass moves to grab your foes as you stretch out your arms and bid nature to your aid.
Daily - Divine, Implement, Plant, Verbal, Somatic
Standard Action
Area Spread 40 ft in Long Range (400 ft + 40 ft per level)
Target: All creatures in spread
Save: Reflex
Failure: Creature is entangled (save ends or until escaped)
Effect: Target is slowed (save ends or until escaped). A creature that enters the area or starts it turns in it must make a new save against this power. The power lasts 1 minute per level.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I think that 4e books are game books, written for gaming, not for reading. At least most of them. Parts of MP are good, as is most of Draconomicon. The rest more or less reads poorly.
But the game rocks
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
There's no doubt to me that 4E (so far -- I have hopes for MotP) is a less interesting read than previous editions. But then, I didn't really read earlier editions just for the sake of it either, with some exceptions (Lords of Madness, for example). To balance that, it's a much greater pleasure to use at the table, with clearer layouts and a focus on the stuff you actually need to look up.
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
These questions above are something I'd like to see answered, so to better understand what irks people who are vehemently against the new edition and have to complain about it all the time, in this case about this "dulleness".
Here speaks a guy who likes 4E, DMs it and is a DDI subscriber: 4E reading is dull. MM4E is horrible. I can read any monster manual from AD&D to 3.5, Deadlands, CC I, II and III, Tome of Horrors, Gurps Bestiary... but the guy who wrote MM4E failed hard.
PHB 3.5 is far better reading than PHB 4.0
I like DMG 4E more than 3.5 tho.
We have a thread about what people don’t like about 3E. It goes for 6+ pages everyone discusses their dislikes and gets along just fine. Someone starts a thread about just one little specific aspect of 4E that they don’t like and you get responses like “What more fluff was there in 3E?” “Why are you starting another anti 4E rant?” “Wow old news is so exciting.” Let us not forget” You just hate 4E no matter what!” And the new classic “I blame you!” and “They are for gaming not reading” which I guess means I can put the books under my pillow at night and learn the rules that way. I can just imagine what would have happened if the thread had been what don’t you like about 4E instead of just one little aspect of it.
I love how you guys keep making my point; there can be no criticism of 4E that doesn’t end in napalm but it is always open season on xE.
Personally while I agree with the OP and have personally failed at several attempts at reading the 4E PHB cover to cover I could say the same thing about the 3E and 3.5E versions too.
__________________ I play 4E, it's too bad we cannot discuss its flaws yet without flamewars and thread crapping.
I agree with the gist of what the op said: 4e rulebooks aren't a good read. Or as I wrote in a different thread: I've read laundry lists that were more exciting.
Since I'm not yet playing 4E this is a factor that keeps me from buying all of the 4e supplements, YET. But I guess that as soon as I start playing it, I'll want every single one of them. Because - judging from the reactions I've seen so far - it plays really well.
It's been almost the other way around with all of the WoD supplements I've bought: I really enjoyed reading them, but the actual gaming experience was somewhat lacking.
I think that 4e books are game books, written for gaming, not for reading. At least most of them. Parts of MP are good, as is most of Draconomicon. The rest more or less reads poorly.
But the game rocks
I don't believe the game rocks... but it's the clearest presentation of a D&D edition I've ever seen and one of the easiest rulebooks to refer to and that's exactly what it should be.
Now, coming from a long history of playing 1e through 3.5 and a little 4e, I don't have a lot of use for some of the non-rule text in my rulebooks anymore. Unless something really catches my eye as I skim... I just skim over it. I've been doing that for some years now. Do I know anything about the WotC flavor text before the prestige classes in the various 3.5 splatbooks? No. Never really read that info, just skimmed it lightly in my quest for clearly presented information I can use.
Do I have any use at all for that non-rule text? Sometimes I'll go back over it and read it through, like when I've got a few minutes here and there and want to see what the current edition's take on the topic is. But reading the rulebook through cover to cover? No. That style of reading I reserve for pleasure reading, not something I'm trying to learn and apply to the tabletop.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
People can find every edition of D&D lack luster and still be a 4th Edition critic. Heck, people can even like 4th Edition and be a 4th Edition critic. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
