Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[Paka]

Point the first: Art is irrelevant in a gaming book. Content and ideas are. Art is distraction and a way to easily recognize what page a particular piece of text is on. If you complain about it, you are wrong.

I totally dug the satiric nature of your post but I don't agree with this part, which I fully realize, makes me a bad, bad person.

The place of art in RPG's is probably the point of another thread.

Or an IM session.

I think we should all EAT Arcana Unearthed, that would solve all of our problems.

 

[BryonD]

The complaints about this remind me of a problem I have with the human race in general, and intenet "fans" in particular. There seems to be this rising expectation that producers of entertainment products (or goods and services in general) are able to tailor a product to one's exact expectations. People seem to have lost the understanding that entertainment is broadcasted, not individuocasted. They work themselves into a towering Jesus-based rage when a handful of things in a book are not useful to them, instead of just saying, "I didn't find this part useful, but I see why it's in there, a lot of people like this sort of thing."

If, on balance, there's less stuff in there that you like than there is that you don't, maybe it's not worth it to you (depending on how much money and inclination to spend you have), but far too many people expect that everything has been produced for them, specifically, and if any small element is not to their liking, then it's a failure, rather than taking into account that there are other people out there consuming these things.

Hmm, silly me. I've been basing my opinions on my own preferences all this time. Nobody ever told me I needed the collective's approval before I was allowed an opinion.

That said, I further disagree with your premise. Several defences of AU have involved talking about how people react to products in general. This seems to be because the specifics of the AU case do not serve the position as well as generalities do. Specifically for this case in point, AU was strongly advertised as being highly compatible. So the everything does not need to be completely compatible arguement is irrelevant. Customers have a right to assume that everything that is advertised as being compatible will be.

There are lots of cool things in AU. And I may use some pieces of it in my game. But, had I had a better understanding I would have spent my $30 on different products that would have contributed more to my game.

AU appears to be a very cool game. I have no doubt that many people will get a lot of enjoyment out of it. But I am not in the market for a new game. I want to play D&D. I am disappointed that AU will not do that to the extent I was lead to believe.

I do not think Monte or anyone (Council of Magisters, etc..) lied to me. Quite the contrary I would take strong issue with anyone who claimed that they did.

I do however think they were simply wrong.

And if anyone thinks I shouldn't feel free to express a disappointment there, well, that is why I'm not required to get your permission.

 

[drnuncheon]

This seems to be because the specifics of the AU case do not serve the position as well as generalities do. Specifically for this case in point, AU was strongly advertised as being highly compatible. So the everything does not need to be completely compatible arguement is irrelevant. Customers have a right to assume that everything that is advertised as being compatible will be.

I'm a little foggy on this whole point here.

The races are compatible - you could bring them into a regular D&D game without a problem.

Most of the classes are compatible. I'll bet you wouldn't even notice a huge difference if you used the D&D XP table for them instead of the

The magic system is compatible - or as compatible as any "new magic system" could be. It can be used side by side with the D&D magic system or it could replace it, either way with minimal effort.

The changes to combat and skills are as compatible as any other house rules - of course they're going to have to replace what they were designed to replace.

To me, the ultimate test of 'compatibility' would be to say something like this:

"Can you run a game with PHB 3.0 races, AU classes/feats/magic system, and PHB 3.5 skills and combat?" And the answer is "yes, you can". "Can you run a game with PHB and AU races, the PHB fighter, rogue, and barbarian and the AU spellcasting classes, but without truenames?" "Sure." How is that 'not compatible'? There's a minimal amount of work you have to do for either of these, yes - just as there would be for introducing, say, the alternate classes from his BOEM2.

What a lot of people seem to want is not rules compatability, but compatability with their particular campaign. "This should slot seamlessly into my own personal world." Since Monte doesn't game with most of us, that's difficult to accomplish...

J

 

[Darrin Drader]

Since Monte doesn't game with most of us, that's difficult to accomplish...

Try telling that to Kamikaze Midget.

 

[BryonD]

I'm a little foggy on this whole point here.

Well, now we are into the realm of opinion.

The races are compatible - you could bring them into a regular D&D game without a problem.

Some yes, some no. In my opinion.

I think some have strong inter relation baggage built into them. I feel the the AU races actually tie me down with MORE preconceived notions than the PH ones do.

Most of the classes are compatible. I'll bet you wouldn't even notice a huge difference if you used the D&D XP table for them instead of the

I agree 100% regarding the XP table thing. I think that is more to do with Open Gaming than anything else.

However, on the specific classes, again, some yes some no.

For example, the akashic requires presumptions about collective knowledge of such that would clash with any existing game I have ever been in. If you want to say this is just a campaign specific thing, then fine. It is just a campaign specific thing. But I think it is much more than that, because it is not simply a matter of adding on to a campaign, rather the campaign has to go otu of its way to some extent to adapt this concept.

I also have issues with balance regarding some of the spell casting classes.

The magic system is compatible - or as compatible as any "new magic system" could be. It can be used side by side with the D&D magic system or it could replace it, either way with minimal effort.

Now here I really disagree. First, if you are talking about replaceing then you are mandating removal of an existing piece. To me this rules out the idea of compatibility. (It may be compatible with everything else, but not the existing magic system, well then it is not compatible).

My playing around with it found multiple cases where I think it is balatantly more powerful. I do not find more powerful in some places and weaker in other to be balanced (something small like a PClass is one thing, something as sweeping as the entire magic system is another alltogether.)

The changes to combat and skills are as compatible as any other house rules - of course they're going to have to replace what they were designed to replace.

Agreed.

To me, the ultimate test of 'compatibility' would be to say something like this:

"Can you run a game with PHB 3.0 races, AU classes/feats/magic system, and PHB 3.5 skills and combat?" And the answer is "yes, you can". "Can you run a game with PHB and AU races, the PHB fighter, rogue, and barbarian and the AU spellcasting classes, but without truenames?" "Sure." How is that 'not compatible'? There's a minimal amount of work you have to do for either of these, yes - just as there would be for introducing, say, the alternate classes from his BOEM2.

What a lot of people seem to want is not rules compatability, but compatability with their particular campaign. "This should slot seamlessly into my own personal world." Since Monte doesn't game with most of us, that's difficult to accomplish...

J

But to me, some people are calling it compatible just because a magister can take his turn at the table and then a wizard can take his turn at the table. My perception is that the magister would soon begin to wipe the floor with the wizard.

So mechanically compatible does not meet my standard.

I consider it fair to presume that compatible means quality game play compatible.

But just look back over this thread and the similar threads. You will find post after post of people saying "they don't care because they are playing an AU instead of D&D game", or "why should it have to be compatible". The frequency of these posts seem to me to be circumstantial evidence that I'm not alone.

If you are playing with elven unfettereds next to mojh rogues and having a wonderful time then great. And I do not mean the slightest sarcasm in that.

But I am convinced that it is reasonable to accept that a not insignificant portion of the gaming community will find the built-in preconceived notions and debateable balance points in AU to bring the promise of total compatibility into question.

 

[Thrommel]

I'm going to change anybody's mind here (and frankly, it's futile to try) but I would like to make one point: a lot of the debate here - both pro and con - takes a pretty superficial view of the game.

'Furries? Not interested', 'The layout's ugly, that ruined it for me.', 'The art doesn't matter, the rules do.'

Obviously I'm paraphrasing, and all of these items on their own may well be perfectly valid opinions. Believe it or not, there's something in just about every post on this thread that I can understand or agree with. But I really haven't seen anything that belies a deeper understanding of the game and that's the fatal flaw in the whole discussion. Arcana Unearthed is more than the sum of its parts.

I'd encourage people to play the game -- particularly if you've already bought the book. There are a lot of sublties as to how the various parts work together which are not necessarily apparent on a casual read through. It's a meaty, meaty book which dispenses with a lot of the fundamental stylistic conventions of D&D. I've had a draft of the book for six months now and I'm still discovering new things about it.

I've played it, I obviously like it. Maybe it'll invigorate your game with new life, maybe you'll be underwhelmed. As always, YMMV.

In any case, your opinion will be a lot more informed than just flipping through the book going "Good. Bad. Mmmm. Mhmmm. Wow. Nice. What? Hrmm."

-Thrommel

 

[Arani Korden]

D&D fetishes?!?

Does the phrase "Hot lesbian Drow dominatrix" ring any bells?

 

[Felon]

I want to be harsher with death, too, but with what Monte has done, it's much easier to exise the death-defying spells.

Out of interest, do you think it is easier for DM's to remove stuff they don't want to use, or invent new stuff which they do want? In the case of the raise dead spells I'm sure that it is easier to say "campaign setting rule, no raise dead" than it would have been to invent some raise dead rules yourself (even to the extent of simple porting of D&D raise dead spells).

The logic of what you guys are saying is very sound, but maybe I'm just not articulating my feelings properly.

Yes, it's easier to excise rules you don't like than it is to author ones that you do--but that is my point exactly. From what Monte delineated, I thought he was going to author them for me so that I don't have to. I expected him to provide new options for handling ressurection that put the DM in the director's seat of how (and if) a character makes it back from the other side. I expected something original, something innovative. Based his own words, it sure didn't sound like he was simply revamping PHB spells and essentially just jacking them up in spell level and component cost.

Same goes for disfigurement: I genuinely thought that characters would come to face their own limitations and mortality through a lasting scar or even a more debilitating effect. That's certainly what I took from Monte's remarks on the subject.

n.b. when I used to run Empire of the Petal Throne we had really *brutal* raise dead spells. The target comes back to life, the caster of the spell dies (maintaining cosmic harmony). Raising the dead became an issue of self-sacrifice and only kings could demand it of their priests!

That's a cool, if somewhat extreme, example. Here are some others:

How about a spell that summons a portal to the land of the dead, where characters can try to devise a means to bring the character back to the land of the living, such as stealthfully smuggling his soul out of the reincarnation queue, or engaging in a high-stakes wager with the lords of that realm, or by successfully providing a night's entertainment for death himself?

How about a spell where you summon a being with the power to facilitate the character's resurrection? Perhaps a soul merchant that will accept an artifact in trade for the character's life, or exchange it for the life of a character of similar level? Or how about a celestial court of the afterlife, where players summon an astral lawyer and attempt to appeal a character's death before the powers that be?

No, I'm saying these are all perfect, flawless ideas--if they were, I wouldn't have wanted AU's help in the matter. But do you see where I'm coming from? Do you see where the players can't take any of these methods for granted, or where they might go disastrously wrong, or how they involve the DM in the process, or that they're just plain more fun than simply scratching off a 7th-level spell for the day and paying the kitty?

 

[BryonD]

In any case, your opinion will be a lot more informed than just flipping through the book going "Good. Bad. Mmmm. Mhmmm. Wow. Nice. What? Hrmm."

-Thrommel

I appreciate the sentiment.

I dispute the notion that my opinion is less informed.

Are there lots of details I haven't caught yet? Certainly.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sand the board if I'm not satisfied with the initial cut.

I have certainly done significantly more than "flip through the book". Enough that I am comfortable that my conclusions are much better than ballpark estimates for me.

I can spend an evening finding out to what degree I am right, or I can spend an evening playing D&D. Easy choice.

 

[d4]

What a lot of people seem to want is not rules compatability, but compatability with their particular campaign. "This should slot seamlessly into my own personal world." Since Monte doesn't game with most of us, that's difficult to accomplish...

you are exactly right -- this is exactly why i have no intention of buying AU. it doesn't mesh with any homebrew D&D setting i've created since 3e came out. of course it doesn't -- i designed all those worlds using 3e's assumptions as the base, so it's no surprise.

what i think i'm hearing on this thread, though i am probably reading too much into it, is people saying this is NOT a valid reason for disliking the book. i believe it is.

there are literally dozens of other books i can buy that would slot seamlessy into my D&D campaigns. i'd much rather spend my money on them than on AU, because AU has much less utility for me.

of course, i could ditch my standard D&D campaign world and design one using AU as the base assumption. i will not do that, however, because (as i've said before) i find i enjoy D&D's assumptions much more than i enjoy AU's.

this is, of course, simply a matter of taste and a completely valid stance to take on the book.

Originally posted by volcivar
A lot of folks are complaining that they cannot port UA. I would like a reason. All that has been said so far has been general. Not real hard facts like:

"There are no giants in my campaign, so I cannot port the DT setting as a whole."

This is a good concrete reason why DT MAY not fit into a particular setting. I have seen nothing like this yet. It is mostly generalizations. Can we have some specifics? I would truly like to understand why a warmain cannot be ported with just minimal tweaking.

ok, here's some specifics based on the latest homebrew world i've developed for 3e (although it basically applies to every other homebrew i've done with this system):

1) the races don't port over because they don't exist in this world and there's no room for them. i've already specifically defined which races exist and will not add new ones willy-nilly.

2) Akashics are right out because their is no concept of a "racial memory" or "collective unconscious" in this world.

3) Oathsworn are out because this world does not have the concept that people can gain power from oaths.

4) Truenames do not exist in this world, so parts of the magic system would need to be altered.

5) in my world, people do receive divine magical powers from gods and spirits. thus clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, etc. make sense in this world. since AU lacks a distinction between arcane and divine magic, i'd either have to add one myself, further mutating the magic system, or have only divine casters use the PHB system -- and using two so different magic systems IMO would make things overly complicated and be possibly unbalanced.

6) in my world, arcane spellcasters do not focus their power through a staff, sword, or any other implement, thus crossing off the magister and mage blade classes.

7) in my world, people do not gain abilities by devoting themselves to some abstract concept, thus champions most likely would not work. i could develop a system where i had defined abilities for champions of each diety, but i'd prefer not to have to do that much work. in core D&D, all i need to do is pick out a couple of domains for clerics of each god and i'm done.

8) runes do not hold any magical power in my world (being simply a system of writing, and not the only one at that), thus runethanes are out.

witches i'm intrigued about as a substitute for the "sorcerer" slot. however, i'm not willing to have witches mixed with the other PHB spellcasters for the complexity and balance reasons noted above.

i don't know enough about greenbonds to make a decision on whether i'd like them better than druids or clerics, but again, i'm not willing to institute a change of magic system just to allow the one class.

so that leaves warmains and unfettereds, which i could obviously port over without much difficulty at all, and would fit into the flavor of my campaign world fairly easily.

am i willing to buy a $30 hardback for two new core classes?

of course not.