4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[JoeGKushner]

Well, I am not sure that page count or word count translates directly into "content", because that term is not well defined. The only content worth worrying about (imho) is ideas. Have you counted the number of ideas in the books?

Not recently but it's easily a 5 star book. The new one? Not so much.

Then, as others have noted, there's a simple question - how much of the material in the 3.x books did you actually use?

You mean outside of stuff from the core that's missing? Barbarians, half-orcs, etc...? Do you mean outside of the dozens and dozens of splatbooks made possible by the very open OGL? Do you mean spawned from that same OGL that lead to other games? Or are we going back and say comparing the Forgotten Realms campaign setting to the new one?

Heck, I'll even through in both player's books. The old books had a ton of utility for both players and GMs, even though the 3.5 one was mostly an update. The new ones are cut so differently that you can't even easily find (not in the index!)where dragon born players would start in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting much less actually give player's background quickly on it.
But I’m not alone here. Here’s an old thread of love to that awesome book.

[Necro][FR] JDCorley's 293 Pages Of Forgotten Realms Adventure Seeds - RPGnet Forums

It is possible to put out a new set of books with less page count, but with all the stuff most of us didn't use cut out. It is possible that the new books have more useful content than the old - but that's something only time will tell.

Highly subjective. One objective measure, actual page cout and word count. Some mix the two. For example, the complete crap that the first adventure was printed on. Subjectively, some may have enoyed it as a great adventure. Objectively? It was printed on low grade paper and smeared with little use. Could you have had as much fun if it was printed on paper that destoryed itself in one use? At what point do you go, "That's enough of corporate nonsense."?

If there's more opportunity for the cream to rise to the top, isn't that better than subjectively HOPING that there's some good stuff?

I think in pointing this out, you're missing the point (as are the ones who deny your conclusion). Whether or not the new books have as much content is not the real issue - the issue is whether it has enough content to justify the purchase price. And that can only be judged on a gamer-by-gamer basis.

Well, it depends on what you think my point is.

My point is that 4e has less content. That's not a subjective point either. People can talk in circles about the missing monsters, classes, races, and new formatting but at the end of the day, it's less content for more money.

 

[Fifth Element]

My point is that 4e has less content. That's not a subjective point either. People can talk in circles about the missing monsters, classes, races, and new formatting but at the end of the day, it's less content for more money.

Yes, but I don't think that point has any meaning. The response to your point is: so what? If they had added a bunch of filler text and not increased the price, would we be any better off? The books would have more "content" that way, after all.

Just because something is objective doesn't make it meaningful.

 

[Henry]

I blame you not there from stories I have heard. But how did you feel about PLAYING 3rd?

Some may enjoy running 4th, but may not like playing it as you may have liked playing 3rd as others do/did, but despise running it.

In my case, I'm starting to get a bit bored even playing 3e, much less running it. The literal 5-minute reference and adjudication look-ups on how four separate feats interact with the grapple rules; the 15 to 20 point disparity in attacks and saves between classes which mean I get hosed when hit by a monster ability meant for the Monk/Paladin; the 5 minutes of figuring out what my character sheet REALLY looks like when the bad guy hits me with an anti-magic field, and a number of other things which slow things down. I've found that I don't want to run 3e again: I'll still play it, but it doesn't keep me at the table the way 4e seems to keep my players engaged and at the table.

Now, back to the original question: There IS less content per book, I believe; but it hasn't seemed to bother me, yet. Despite fewer pages, I WILL make the heretical statement that 4e may have the best DMG created since 1979, if not the best DMG to date, in that it's the best one I've ever seen for giving a DM the advice and practical examples on what he needs to RUN THE GAME.

Page for page, the advice on types of players, how to keep the table interested, how to encourage players to get 'into' the game more, how to 'say yes' more often, how to do more with less prep time, create entertaining skill challenges, traps, and puzzles, how to build monsters and NPCs from scratch, how to make memorable NPCs, and even the return of the Random Dungeon Charts and Dungeon Dressing tables (Gygax hallelujah!!!!) make it a VERY good edition of the DMG, in my opinion the best one in a long time. If it had a wandering prostitute table too, I'd have called it the Holy Grail of DMGs.

 

[Hussar]

Put me in the same camp as those who couldn't be bothered with the 3e DMG. Read it once, probably not cover to cover and then only used the xp tables. And, I suppose, the magic items section.

To the point where I never even bothered to buy the 3.5 DMG and never missed it for a moment.

I absolutely hate that I have books on my shelf that do nothing but gather dust. Drives me mental. Word count, and even number of concepts take a far, far back seat for me to actual use at the table, be it during prep or play.

 

[Benimoto]

I'm not sure about 4E MM having less monsters all up, but it certainly has less low-level monsters, and I agree that's a big problem. Half the monsters in the 3.0 MM are level 5 or lower, while less than a quarter are in the 4E MM. They could easily have trimmed the paragon tier, which seems to be over-represented.

I have to disagree. Half the monsters in every 3e MM being below level 5 was a huge problem if you ever wanted to play at level 8+. Especially when you hit level 13+, there were only maybe 5-8 monsters of each level, and 3e was a system where you had 10-13 encounter per level.

In 4e, you can easily hit level 25+ and have a new monster in every combat encounter. That's more how I like my Monster Manuals to be.

 

[jdrakeh]

I absolutely hate that I have books on my shelf that do nothing but gather dust. Drives me mental. Word count, and even number of concepts take a far, far back seat for me to actual use at the table, be it during prep or play.

This. A thousand times this. I used to have a massive collection of game books and was forced to sell a lot of it back in 2003 due to financial problems. I then realized that I didn't miss much of it because I never used it. Since then, I've built the collection back up a little bit unintenitonally, but I've finally come to the conclusion that all I need is one good, generic, system (and maybe a 'do it all' d20 variant for those occassions when I can't find people willing to try other game systems).

 

[JoeGKushner]

I have to disagree. Half the monsters in every 3e MM being below level 5 was a huge problem if you ever wanted to play at level 8+. Especially when you hit level 13+, there were only maybe 5-8 monsters of each level, and 3e was a system where you had 10-13 encounter per level.

In 4e, you can easily hit level 25+ and have a new monster in every combat encounter. That's more how I like my Monster Manuals to be.

Can you elaborate?

If you go from 1-25, I'm failing to see how a dearth of low level monsters isn't going to be represented by you NOT meeting new monsters in every combat at those lower levels, as evidenced by pretty much every adventure WoTC has put out thus far.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I won't comment on the MM or PHB, but I've gotta admit - the 4e DMG is a good one.

 

[Benimoto]

Can you elaborate?

If you go from 1-25, I'm failing to see how a dearth of low level monsters isn't going to be represented by you NOT meeting new monsters in every combat at those lower levels, as evidenced by pretty much every adventure WoTC has put out thus far.

I just meant that almost every combat will have at least one new monster. Sometimes that new monster will probably be teamed up with stuff you've fought before, and sometimes you'll fight all new monsters, but rarely will every monster in the combat be a repeat. I think the WoTC adventures have gone along with this fairly well.

In my last 3e campaign, which went from 1-20th level, one of my biggest complaints as a DM was that none of the MMs supported high-level play very well. High-level monsters were scarce, and the ones that were present were inconsistent in their power levels. The 4e Monster Manual solves this problem, so I consider it a better book in that regard.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

With respect to the PHB and DMG, I think they should be as thick as they need to be. With 4e's simplified rules system, I actually think they're OK -- they cover what they need to. The MM could have used more monsters, though, and a lot more space could have been devoted to providing more fluff on the monster.

When it comes to FR, I most definitely agree with the OP. It's so light on content that I'm finding it pretty much useless as a campaign setting, or even as a source of ideas to steal. The characters, cultures, history and depth that made FR compelling in the past are gone, sacrificed in the name of a bigger font and more white space.