Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[buzz]

I agree that the book itself looks boring. The excuse that Monte is a small publisher, so excuse the poor production values does not stand up. Just look at the Monsternomican. It comes from a small publisher, it is hard back, its 240 pages, all black and white, priced at $29.95 and is absoultely fantastic to just look at.

I find it interesting how many people are complaining about AU's layout not being crammed to the gills with borders and gewgaws.

An important part of good design is effective use of white space; in the right hands, it can be a vital visual element as well as make a page easier on the eyes.

I found the "plain" layout of AU rather refreshing, personally. So many d20 companies automatically try and duplicate the design of the core books by filling all the borders with art, using funky backgrounds, or getting goofy with fonts. It gets tiresome after a while, and often is counter-productive to making a user-friendly book.

My wife recently commented on the layout of the IK Character Primer that she found it very hard to read. Looking over the book, I started to agree with her: small fonts, often on low-contrast backgrounds, all crowded in with art in all the margins. The character sheet included with the book (and on their Web site) is "designed" to the point of being nearly useless; it's all tiny scipt fonts, low-contrast, and tiny, cramped spaces for writing in information.

I dunno. The plain Malhavoc-standard layout of AU was like a breath fo fresh air. High-contrast, and lots of room for my eyes to wander. It was nice to have a book that wasn't trying to assault my senses 24-7.

As for the cover, the matte-with-glossy-art thing is reminiscient of the Exalted fatsplats, and I think it's one of the coolest innovations in cover art I've seen in a while. AU is an unbelieveably classy-looking book.

As for $30 being too much for a B&W rulebook... that's a statement only someone spoiled by Hasbro could make. Color is freaking *expensive*, and only large companies like WotC, or companies willing to take a loss (e.g., as GoO did with SAS), can afford to do it.

As for the art... most of it was Sam Wood, ergo, it rocked. I also liked the fact that, other than the equipment chapter, they eschewed the "dungeon punk" look and actually depicted real-looking armor. I'm all for dungeon-punk, but, again, I appreciated the restraint and found it refreshing.

 

[Pevishan]

and tiny, cramped spaces for writing in information.

Have you seen the space for languages on the web-site character sheet? You cannot even right common on it.

But, that is my only complaint.

And on the cover, it even has meaning, in that it is supposed to represent the fact that while the books is presented as a rules system, it is also built so you can take this or that part only if you want.

And while I have not fully looked through 3.5 yet, it seems to me AU is a little more compatable with D&D (either version) than 3.0 & 3.5 are.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

30 dollars for a B/W book with new content vs 90 dollars for colored regurgitated crap. Hmmm.

I'll take door number one Monte!

So the fanboys charge forth.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I don't mind the fanboy attack but if you break it down, what else is Monte providing? Does he have an SRD? Does he allow easy to use open content or are there lots of little restrictions here and there?

Personally I don't care as I'm not a publisher but WoTC made Monte's book possible and their new books have some great things going for them. I enjoy the player features in the Monster Manual for example and the inclusions of the Planescape and Epic material in the DMG. Oh wait, I forgot, that's reguritated crap eh?

I supose then that Monte's PDF's would be crap? No? The exact same material broken up to be sold as a different product at the same time the product itself is wouldn't be considered crap? Must be because you're not getting all of the repeated information that Monte copied from the SRD (copied crap right?)

Ah... Wizards isn't the only one considered amount money is what you're saying. I understnad now.

I like Monte's book and I like the 3.5 books. COlor is an important thing and if Monte is doing a 2nd printing already, perhaps he could've went color as Oathbound did or at least partial color as Nyambe and Midnight did.

 

[Wombat]

Okay, things have definitely gotten heated here.

Up front: I like AU.

That's a matter of personal taste.

I know other people who do not.

Again, that's a matter of personal taste.

No one is an idiot for liking or dislike AU, any more than the are an idiot for liking or disliking 3.0, 3.5, or personal house rules.

Folks, calm down here. A lot of these arguments are below the belt. A lot of them are also based on purposely misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting another person's point of view.

I am not singling any one person out. There are a lot of folks here, both Pro-AU and Anti-AU, who are to blame and this is getting ridiculously out of hand.

If you don't like the game, fine; state so and then let it go.

If you like the game, also fine; do not feel you are on a missionary assignment to convert people to the One True Way.

Now, everyone take a Time Out, a deep breath, and then try to be polite and share your toys.

We have all been guilty of acting childishly in this thread.

 

[woodelf]

Feats and skills: Note that AU is not fully 3.5 compatible as written. Also, Monte seems fond of "Sneak checks", an average of the character's Hide and Move Silently skills. I didn't think the benefit, if any, was worth the extra calculation.

Um, look more closely: no extra calculation: Sneak is a skill, and Hide and Move Silently are gone.

Spells: I really like the idea of most spells having three power levels, e.g. a nominally 2nd-level spell also has a weaker (1rst-level) and a stronger (3rd-level) version. Treating all three as a single spell rather than three seperate spells makes sense to me. OTOH, having all classes draw from one huge spell list results in a little less unique flavor for each class. And the school of a spell is given only in the desc, not in the short list, making life harder for specialists.

Um, does AU *have* specialists? As for the blandness--it's no worse than the way Domains are handled in D&D3E (vs. the Schools of AD&D2).

The concept of AU as an "alternate Player's Handbook" results in a LOT of stuff being duplicated from the PH. It probably would have been better to consider AU a "supplemental PH" (which I suspect is how 95% of buyers will use it - after all, how many people will buy the MM and DMG, but forego the PH and buy AU instead?) and use the space for additional crunchy bits.

Overall, while portions were disappointing, I felt it was an average-to-decent buy. It WASN'T the "ultimate be-all-and-end-all of Player's Handbooks" that some of the hype seemed to imply, and like ALL the hardcover d20 books I winced at rhe price, but I will definitely make use of substantial portions of the book.

Price-wise, you should try buying non-D20 games some time. D20 games are a pleasant surprise, price-wise, to me, since they are almost inevitably cheaper than the RPGs i generally buy.

I'm glad that AU duplicates material, and is stand-alone. I probably wouldn't have bought it if i needed to buy a D&D3E PH, or print out vast swaths of the D20SRD, just to use it. And, while i don't for a moment think i'm typical, I bought it instead of D&D3E PH/DMG/MM *combined*--i intend to run a campaign using just it, not AU + DMG/MM. [Ok, i'll probably swipe the Special Abilities out of the D20SRD, but i'm not likely to use any of the monsters from D&D--i'll stat my own.]

As for more typcial behavior: I doubt anyone will specifically buy AU+DMG+MM to run a game. But i wouldn't be one bit surprised to see someone running a game with AU, Diamond Throne, and, say, Tome of Horrors. Much of the DMG material isn't going to be compatible with AU anyway (magic items, frex), or isn't really needed (it's GMing advice, and the like). Not to mention, with the huge body of D20 books out there, you could easily cobble together an awesome fantasy game without touching the D&D3E books. And with only 3 or 4 books, total: AU or Everquest for a PH, and most of the rules; something to cover magic items (both created ones, and creating them); maybe a book on wilderness, or dungeons, or politics, or whatever "environment" rules you need (if you need any); and one of the excellent monster books out there. Throw in a campaign setting if you want one, or roll your own.

I've also heard a fair number of people online who alreayd own the 3E versions of PH/DMG/MM, and are forgoing the 3.5E versions specifically because AU excited them more.

 

[DMScott]

Um, does AU *have* specialists?

Nope, at least not in the D&D spell-school sense. Monte has said (on his boards) he noted the schools mostly for d20 compatibility.

 

[woodelf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From his wife...

[implied setting?]
how so? there are a few mentions of racial relationships in the races chapter. how does any of this prevent any self-respecting GM from not using those few paragraphs if he doesn't like them? [snip] Where else does the implied setting creep in?

Oh, pretty much all the same places it does in D&D3E, and to about the same degree: classes, equipment, feats, spells--especially spells and classes. I just question the claim that D&D3E has any *less* of an implied setting.

 

[tsadkiel]

As for more typcial behavior: I doubt anyone will specifically buy AU+DMG+MM to run a game.

I did. I had sold my 3.0 core books with the bulk of the rest of my collection, intending to pick up the revised books; after seeing AU, I just liked the classes better than the D&D classes. And since the D&D races are in the MM, I didn't see a reason to get a PHB. I may pick up Mongoose's Pocket Player's handbook eventually, or I may not.

 

[woodelf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From his wife...

I don't consider Greyhawk to be truly integrated in any meaningful way into the D&D core rules as the default setting, so my complaint with AU is that Diamond Throne is TOO integrated into AU.

It's not so much Greyhawk, per se, as it is the default assumptions of D&D, which are shared (mostly) by Greyhawk and FR: paladins, druids, rogues-as-sneaky-fighters, militant clerics, which spells are available and at what levels--that sort of stuff. Yes, there's a lot of setting implied in the AU rules. But, no more than is implied in the D&D3E rules--it's just a matter of to what degree those assumptions mesh with your own.

DT is a bad setting because it relegates humanity to the background, under the shadow of the giants. This is even worse than the Midnight setting, where all "good" people are relegated to the status of fugitives and saboteurs. To make a truly great game setting, humanity must be in the forefront, and there must be options for different types of people, religions and governments to clash against each other. Playing in a world where the battle has already been won or lost is not only boring, but an exercise in sheer frustration for the players, unless they are on the winning side. Doubtless fans of Midnight and DT will disagree.

Well, not a fan of Diamond Throne (what little i've seen of it so far leaves me cold), and the only thing about Midnight that excites me is the spellcasting system. However, i disagree that humans have to be at the forefront--the protagonists have to be at the forefront, and the PCs have to be the protagonists (or, at least, a member of the group of protagonists). So, i agree that playing 2nd fiddle to NPCs, and thus having no power to alter the outcome, is frustrating and rarely, if ever, worthwhile, but i don't think humanity's place has much bearing on that, one way or the other. Personally, one of my disappointments with AU was in leaving the humans in--though i suppose verrik and mojh wouldn't have worked without humans in the setting.

AU has some good ideas, but it is NOT a shining example of good game design, setting design or presentation. I will steal what I can from it, but I feel cheated by the book's content and design, and will dispose of it at the first opportunity.

Damn! Wish i'd known there'd be people buying it and getting sick of it this quickly--i'd have waited and bought a used copy (tight budget, and all). Anyway, what *do* you consider a "shining example of good game design, setting design, or presentation"--individually, or collectively?

In short, Monte has taken a huge gamble with AU/DT and I believe he has failed (not spectacularly, just failed), and he has damaged his credibility as a game designer and publisher, at least to me... not irreparably, but it is quite tarnished as a result of this book.

Interesting... this is the book that has cemented Monte's credibility as a game designer in my mind. When i first heard about him, it was as a designer of D&D3E and the author of the D&D3E DMG--which put him at about a 2 on the 1-10 scale. Then i saw his alternate bard rules (friend bought the PDF), and he jumped up to about a 7. Then i started reading his design diary, and he said a whole bunch of stuff about D&D3E that i consider the gospel truth, and it's about time someone else noticed. AU is only the 2nd D20 book i've ever purchased (Dynasties & Demagogues being the 1st), and it's good enough that i'll be at least giving a look at everything else Monte Cook does for a while. Probably won't buy most of it, because he mostly turns his talents towards crunch-heavy D&D3[.5]E-compatible stuff, but i'll give it a chance.