Am I a snooty gamer? [Book of Exalted Deeds]
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
Teflon Billy said:
Have you read Nobilis? And if not, why not?
The book is a piece of art in more ways than one...
nopantsyet
First Post
I haven't had a chance to see the book yet, but my interest is definitely piqued. My general approach is to buy books that provide good mechanics that help facilitate and adjudicate a particular type of roleplaying. I don't think it's necessary to have books like that for every situation. If there's no quality book on the topic, I'll just use my judgement. I like the truer aspects of things like heroism and to come through in the roleplaying, and just use the books as a tool.
Personally, given the vast libraries of books on such topics from throughout history, written by people far wiser than most of us, I have no problem relying on non-RPG sources for the less material aspects.
But I don't think your position makes you a snob at all. There are plenty of books I've had a similar reaction to. And I certainly won't buy anything that isn't well-written or useful.
Personally, given the vast libraries of books on such topics from throughout history, written by people far wiser than most of us, I have no problem relying on non-RPG sources for the less material aspects.
But I don't think your position makes you a snob at all. There are plenty of books I've had a similar reaction to. And I certainly won't buy anything that isn't well-written or useful.
Mythtify
First Post
I like books that have very well written intro stories, or examples of play. I think that the rules can be written in a way that is entertaining, as well as clear. The orginal Deadlands book was like that. The story bits were well written. The mechanics were also written in a fashion that was entertaining, and maintained a feel for the setting. Though I think that this is a tough trick to pull off.
BigFreekinGoblinoid
First Post
To answer your original question. No, you are not a "snob". But apparently, you are also not what WoTC has determined to be their typical customer either.
I'd like to firmly agree with those who have expressed dissapointment in the amount of depth in the descriptive text VS. the crunch provided by WoTC books in general.
I think the Monsternomicon, used an example earlier in this thread, is a perfect representation of the kind of balance I would like to see in a game product.
Stats are real nice, and can be a great time saver, but I need to be inspired to use them, or they are WORTHLESS.
In the BoED, I started out by reading the Celestial Paragons, and was left rather uninspired. As personalities go, they just don't seem to have any. More flavor text for these beings is definitly warranted. In the BoVD, we already know these Arch Demons & Devils ( but still I would have appreciated more on plots, motivations etc... ) , but the Celestials are new !- Tell us about them!
The description for Zaphkiel was especially bad IMO : For example - The asinine statement that no one outside of the Hebdomad has seen him that has not died, or become part of the plane of Celestia after seeing him ( I'm parapharsing )
Shouldn't the descriptive text AT LEAST get as much page space as listing prepared spells?
I'd like to firmly agree with those who have expressed dissapointment in the amount of depth in the descriptive text VS. the crunch provided by WoTC books in general.
I think the Monsternomicon, used an example earlier in this thread, is a perfect representation of the kind of balance I would like to see in a game product.
Stats are real nice, and can be a great time saver, but I need to be inspired to use them, or they are WORTHLESS.
In the BoED, I started out by reading the Celestial Paragons, and was left rather uninspired. As personalities go, they just don't seem to have any. More flavor text for these beings is definitly warranted. In the BoVD, we already know these Arch Demons & Devils ( but still I would have appreciated more on plots, motivations etc... ) , but the Celestials are new !- Tell us about them!
The description for Zaphkiel was especially bad IMO : For example - The asinine statement that no one outside of the Hebdomad has seen him that has not died, or become part of the plane of Celestia after seeing him ( I'm parapharsing )
Shouldn't the descriptive text AT LEAST get as much page space as listing prepared spells?
Last edited:
MulhorandSage
First Post
Crunch N' Fluff
The separation between crunch and fluff is overblown. Good fluff should contain ideas that can be described as crunch which in turn inspires more fluff (especially if one considers the story of a campaign to be fluff). In a good product, you should be able to read through the text, spot a plethora of cool ideas, wonder what they'd look like if they were written up in game mechanics terms, then be able to go to another part of the book and discover that the designer's already answered that question for you in a manner that's clearly presented, mechanically sound, balanced (within the system or the milleu), and fun. The concepts should be sufficiently original that they make a major impact on the game experience (ie. the supplement significantly changes and improves on normal play - if a gamer spends money on "Scimitars and Saracens", it had better provide play options that he can't get elsewhere and which make for a better game).
The goal shouldn't be to present either good crunch or good fluff. The goal should be to do both, and work toward a vision that's supported by both the mechanics and the background. Fluff should be well-written and inspiring, but not overwritten; just as poorly explained or flawed mechanics can ruin a supplement, so can badly written fluff which has more to do with satisfying the author's ego than a desire to illustrate the world in a compelling manner or answer the questions that normally arise in the middle of a game.
Scott Bennie
The separation between crunch and fluff is overblown. Good fluff should contain ideas that can be described as crunch which in turn inspires more fluff (especially if one considers the story of a campaign to be fluff). In a good product, you should be able to read through the text, spot a plethora of cool ideas, wonder what they'd look like if they were written up in game mechanics terms, then be able to go to another part of the book and discover that the designer's already answered that question for you in a manner that's clearly presented, mechanically sound, balanced (within the system or the milleu), and fun. The concepts should be sufficiently original that they make a major impact on the game experience (ie. the supplement significantly changes and improves on normal play - if a gamer spends money on "Scimitars and Saracens", it had better provide play options that he can't get elsewhere and which make for a better game).
The goal shouldn't be to present either good crunch or good fluff. The goal should be to do both, and work toward a vision that's supported by both the mechanics and the background. Fluff should be well-written and inspiring, but not overwritten; just as poorly explained or flawed mechanics can ruin a supplement, so can badly written fluff which has more to do with satisfying the author's ego than a desire to illustrate the world in a compelling manner or answer the questions that normally arise in the middle of a game.
Scott Bennie
Similar Threads
