I can't read 4e books like I could 3e books. You?

[el-remmen]

I have not been able to "just read" a D&D book since 2E days, but I blame my changing taste as I've "grown up" as much as the change in the books themselves.

 

[billd91]

4E is a *far* better rule book (gems and their esoteric uses, anyone?), but terrible reading. All in all, I miss the old style, but when I actually need to use a rule book I appreciate 4E and its clean design.

I agree wholeheartedly here. 4e has come closest to mastering the form of an easy to use rulebook of all of the editions I've read.

But I'm having a weird time with this topic, at least with the first few posts. It wasn't that long ago that people were harping on 3e for being such a boring read. I guess it depends on what versions of the game you first interacted with. Complaints directed at 3e's prose were coming from 1e players, who were more accustomed to the turgid Gygaxian style. Now, players who, I assume, started with 3e are pulling it out as their pleasure reading compared to 4e.

Weird little bit of nostalgia here...

 

[malraux]

Once I had learned the 3.5 books, reading them seemed silly. Of the DnD books that I actual enjoy reading are the campaign setting books, the monster and theme books, and adventures. But once I've learned what the rules are for skills, I don't see then need to review them. And as above, once I discovered the d20srd.org, I really didn't want to use the slow paper rules anyway.

 

[S'mon]

You know, it's possible to have an interesting read without being turgid. Castles & Crusades and Labyrinth Lord have similar design goals, but C&C takes the Gygaxian turgid prose approach, with rules buried in lengthy exposition. LL takes Moldvay Basic D&D as its model - IMO the best RPG ever written, and I say that as someone who never played it as a young 'un, no nostalgia factor. Consequently it has a clean, accessible style ideal both for browsing and for using in-play.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm another self-confessed 4e lover - and I have to agree that the 4e PHB is not as enjoyable to read as previous editions.

However, I think it's much better laid out and more useful than previous editions, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm happy to wait for books like Manual of the Planes for the fluff.

Incidentally, I have no problem with the MM as I like it's emphasis on multiple monsters over small amounts of fluff. It leaves me open to concern myself with how to use the creatures, and less fluff = more options. That said, it would have been nice if they'd have included the line about organisation - eg, Clan, Tribe, Theocracy, etc. A short description of each could have gone at the start of the book.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

It wasn't that long ago that people were harping on 3e for being such a boring read. I guess it depends on what versions of the game you first interacted with. Complaints directed at 3e's prose were coming from 1e players, who were more accustomed to the turgid Gygaxian style. Now, players who, I assume, started with 3e are pulling it out as their pleasure reading compared to 4e.

If you're referring to me, that's not really the case. 1E was - pants down - the best when it came to reading "fun" and each edition thereafter has been a step down from that.

That said, each edition thereafter has been a step up in function.

I can read The Lost City cover to cover. I have a hard time doing that with, oh, Keep on the Shadowfell. Note that I'm not saying one style is better; I'm simply saying it's hard to sit down and enjoy reading the 4e products (and, as a corollary, I wonder if this aspect loses potential players when they first review the books - I bet it does).

WP

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Chalk me up as a "reference" guy. I've always read the books to do research for my games and to keep myself fresh on the rules. Cover-to-cover doesn't work for me.

 

[Andor]

Here's the deal: I am enjoying playing 4e, but I can't curl up with a 4e book any more than I could curl up with a pile of roadkill. The books just seem so clean - too clean. Too formulaic.

Right there with ya. My eyes start to glaze over quickly reading 4e stuff. I'd rather read Synnibar, at least it's amusing.

 

[malraux]

I'll also say that I picked up the 2e PHB, DMG, and MM for cheap a while back and I really cannot get into either the PHB or the DMG. Trying to grok the actual rules is a pain, and only occasionally is the fluff all that exciting. The MM is actually excellent in terms of description, though I'd hate to try and run a monster using it, as way way way too many monsters seem to have their most interesting abilities buried inside one of the descriptive blocks.

 

[billd91]

If you're referring to me, that's not really the case. 1E was - pants down - the best when it came to reading "fun" and each edition thereafter has been a step down from that.

"Pants down?" Are you saying you're a one-handed reader of the 1e books?