Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[woodelf]

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.

How is it not compatible? It seems to me that you can mix-n-match AU, D&D, and pretty much any fantasy D20 product out there to your heart's content. And you won't have any more problems than you would mixing up Savage Species and D&D3.5E MM.

 

[woodelf]

I am trying to avoid a point by point dissection of AU.

As I have stated over and over, it is the sum total of elements that made me decide I did not like the product.

There was no point in reading the book that I went, "This sucks" and put the book away. I read the book and had mutliple times throughout when I thought, "hmmm, I don't care for the way that would work" or "I don't want to bother with that in my D&D game."

The request wasn't for point-by-point. The request was that you support a specific complaint (the races are too mechanically intertwined) with an example. Disliking something because "i don't care for it" or "i don't want to bother with it" is perfectly valid. But that's not what you said. Now, i don't have my AU in front of me, so i can't be sure which of the racial relations are mechanical, and which are flavor text. But, IIRC, none of the race relations stuff is in the actual mechanics. Maybe i'm misremembering--feel free to prove me wrong. But maybe you're misremembering and conflating the flavor text and the mechanics. Either way, this has no bearing on you disliking it for reasons of taste--or even "just because"--which is perfectly valid. It only has bearing on whether or not the race relations are more mechanically-codified than those in D&D3E.

 

[woodelf]

Just got my Arcana Unearthed in the mail today and must say I'm terribly unimpressed by the mediocre production values.

CON'S
1. Cover art is uninspired and fails to excite any emotion except "what were they thinking? it looks like GURPS!"

2. Interior art is poor to mediocre at best; the item, weapon and armor illo's are particularly bad rip-offs of the ones in the PHB.

3. Layout is poor. No alternating shaded bars separate listings in tables, making tables hard to read. The book is so unappealing that it becomes a chore just to crack open and read. I get bored just looking at it, and only one font was used, making it harder to find any information. The interior was all black and white, and color would have helped immensely. The paper stock was nice, but not as nice as the WoTC books. If this were just another low-rent pdf, I wouldn't complain, but this is a $30 hardcover from a major RPG publisher. I expect top-notch production values!

I looked at the D&D core books [3E or 3.5E--not enough changes to matter] and must say i'm terribly unimpressed by the mediocre production choices.

1. Cover art is uninspired, and fails to excite any emotion except "what were they thinking? Why would i want to pick up this pretentious-looking thing that doesn't even have any indication of what's inside? The lame 3D effect totally falls flat, and looks like plastic, not metal!"

2. Interior art is all this bizarre "dungeonpunk" style, that you can never tell which part is style and which part is representation; the monster illos are particularly bad--several of them don't match the descriptions, and most of them are so heavily stylized that, combined with the very abbreviated descriptions, i don't know what the creature actually looks like.

3. Layout is poor. No shading for tables--instead, these obnoxious visible baselines that fade in and out, and don't provide much visual tracking for the eye. What's worse, they continue the lines into the regular body text, really mucking up the letter-forms and obscuring word breaks, which makes the whole thing hard to read. And tables aren't set off with boxes, or anything else. The organization is attrocious! And all the color, especially the very busy images on chapter-opening pages, really detracts from the readability. Not to mention the obnoxiously-close wraps on images. And what's with that annoying border? If this were just another low-rent pdf, i wouldn't complain, but this is a $30 hardcover from a major RPG publisher. I expect them to hire an awesome layout team!

4. Monte's ideas for his Diamond Throne world are hackneyed and cliche. Dragon Men? Lion men? Dog men? Faeries? Giants? Hardly original. In fact, I absolutely HATED practically every idea he had for his DT campaign setting. Really amateur stuff anyone could have dreamt up after watching an episode of HE-MAN or THUNDERCATS. Really, really bad, as in the only reason it would ever see the light of day is because of Monte's name recognition bad. YMMV, IMO, and all the standard disclaimers apply. But I think it stinks. Did I mention it was bad? LOL. This has nothing to do wth Monte's ability as a game rules designer, but on his ability (or rather lack thereof) to create a FRESH and EXCITING setting.

4. D&D's ideas for the world are hackneyed and cliche. Elves who love nature and are good with bows and swords? Taciturn dwarves who hoard gold and gems and love to fight goblins? Hobbits--er, excuse me, "halflings" who are friendly, homey little people who are extraordinarily lucky and good with thrown weapons? Hardly original. In fact, i absolutely HATEd practically every idea they had for the setting. Really amateur stuff anyone could have dreamt up after watching a bit of LotR or reading just about any crappy fantasy novel. Really, really bad, as in "the only reason it would ever see the light of day is because of D&D's name recognition" bad. This has nothing to do with the design teams' ability as game rules designers, but reflects on their ability (or, rather, lack thereof) to creat a FRESH and EXCITING setting.

I know I will not be buying anything else in this series as a result of my disappointment in AU, and will never order anything sight unseen on good faith from Monte again. The book is simply too poorly layed out and illustrated to make for a good read, let alone a quick reference tool. It elicits yawns just from flipping through it; it is a painfully boring book to try and sit down and read.

FINAL ANALYSIS
All in all, AU was overhyped and underwhelming for its price and format; it felt (and looked) like a glorified pdf, not a major hardcover release. It had some good ideas, but ultimately the poor presentation killed it.

I know I haven't bought a single product from WotC in large part as a result of my disappointment with the core rules. The books are simply too poorly-layed-out and illustrated to make for a good read, and horribly organized so it makes a lousy quick reference tool. It elicits frustration just from flipping through it; it is a painfully boring book to try and sit down and read.

.....
OK, now, just to be clear, i didn't do the above just to mock you. Rather, i wanted to make a point: every one of those criticisms i just made above is my sincere opinion of D&D3E. I didn't have to embellish one bit to "match" your criticisms of AU. Moreover, i left out the tons of criticisms i have of the rules themselves (roughly, a matching criticism for every one of your "pros" about AU). Is AU the 2nd Coming? Heck no! But most of the stuff you critiqued is pretty subjective. IMHO, it's miles ahead of D&D3[.5]E, or any other D20 fantasy game i've seen. In fact, my only criticisms of AU are in areas where it *didn't* deviate from D&D. IYourHO, it's inferior. That's ok. But i think it telling that all the elements that are vaguely objective (i.e., the rules content, and its workability/balance) you praise AU, and only in the more-subjective elements (mostly layout) do you find it poor. The only real "rules" criticism you have is of the races--and even that is a matter of taste. I, for one, am sick and tired of the hackneyed elves and dwarves of D&D. At the very least, they could've rounded-out the trope, and included orcs, trolls, and goblins among the PC races. I've saved for last the one criticism that i don't agree with, but that is specific to AU:

5. Too much reprinting of material from the PHB, supposedly so the book could be self-contained, but it just feels like cheap filler to pad out the page count, and thus keep the price high.

I am *so* glad that AU included that material, and is thus a stand-alone game book. One of the things that has kept my from buying any D20 games prior to AU is the need for a D&D3E PH to actually play them. The degree, of course, varies from game to game. But, not only do i not own any D&D3E books, and have no intention of buying them, i dislike it on principle. Yes, i know that the D20STL basically requires it, but i consider that an excuse, not a reason. Game companies managed to sell quality games without a D20 logo before 2000--they still can today. I'm fully aware that i can fill in the blanks with the D20SRD, but (1) it's a bit of a pain, and (2) i don't want to, on principle. Also, in the specific case of AU, a lot of the "duplicated" material *is* altered. Things like feats being slightly different. And a combat-rules chapter that is organized sensibly.

As to rebutting your specific criticisms of AU:

1. i love the cover of AU. I think it's cool looking, and would make me pick the book up if i didn't already know what it was. And i particularly like the mixture of matte and glossy--i'm a big texture person.

2. I dodn't really have any objections to the interior art. Some of it is awesome; some of it is mediocre. I don't recall anything pissing me off the way the art in the D&D3E MM did. And i *much* prefer the realistic style used in AU to the "dungeonpunk" bondage-fetish look of D&D3E.

3. I found the layout of AU, for the most part, easy on teh eyes, and pleasant to read. I would have picked slightly tighter leading, but that's about it. And a line every 3rd row is more than sufficient for reading tables--nothing is more than one row away from a visual guideline, which is plenty sufficient. I always find the every-other-row-shaded technique busy, and excessive.

4. beast-men, faeries, giants? Sure, they're cliche--but i wouldn't go so far as to say hackneyed. First, he gave them some twists from the basic tropes. Second, they're certainly no moreso than the races in D&D. And it's nice to have something that's both different from core D&D, and still roughly archetypal. Just as elves and dwarves are fairly archetypal, and can be slotted into many fantasy settings, so too are lion-men, faeries, and giants. If he'd gone much further afield, we'd end up with something that could only be a basis for The Diamond Throne, or fairly similar settings. As is, it's just as "universal" as D&D3E, in terms of using for homebrew settings.

 

[woodelf]

i think i agree with what King Stannis said in an earlier post -- i'd be much more interested in AU if it was a more generic variant Player's Handbook. instead, it appears to have a quite strongly implied setting woven into it.

i know that core D&D also has a quite strong implied setting behind it. it's just that i prefer D&D's assumptions to AU's.

so it's not that i don't think AU is a brilliant work of game design (which it obviously is), it's just that it's not to my taste. it is much easier for me to tweak core D&D to be how i envision fantasy than it would be to tweak AU.

Thank you for a voice of reason in this discussion: AU is not significantly more setting-heavy than D&D3E, it's just got *different* assumptions. D&D's assumptions are just more invisible to long-time D&D players, due to familiarity. You shoulda seen the assumption clashes that our group encountered when first playing D&D3E--all of the players were hardcore fantasy fiction fans, but most had never played D&D before. Only thing that eased the transition a bit was that some of them were familiar with some of the computer adventure games that D&D3E tries so hard to emulate.

 

[woodelf]

Pointing out that the D&D system may not fit with other systems is irrelevant. If D&D was advertised as compatible with some other system and the Vancian system disutped that, then the claim would not be correct. Which is my point regarding AU and how it was advertised.

I was going to dispute this, by pointing out that D&D positions itself as a generic fantasy RPG. But then i looked at the back cover of a D&D3E PH, where it says "...everything you need to create and play your ideal Dungeons & Dragons character." So i guess they've given up pretense at genericity, and really *are* just claiming compatiblity with the D&D genre. (Though, for the record, D&D3E does *not* have what i need to play my "ideal D&D character"--i want a non-combatant con artist social skill monkey. I have to be good at magic, sneak attacks, and/or combat to even get close.)

To be compatible it would need to work side by side with the standard system without overshadowing players that choose to use the standard system. I expected that from AU and feel that I clearly did not get it.

i don't see it. Or, rather, i think it depends on what exactly you mean--i don't see any risk of the AU classes overpowering the D&D classes--balance looks good to me. I *do* see a very real risk of the AU classes overshadowing the D&D classes, but not because of power level--rather, because the AU classes are cool and interesting [to me] while the D&D classes are bland and/or frustrating. So even if it could be objectively demonstrated that the AU classes were markedly inferior, balance-wise, to the D&D classes, i'd for the most part pick the AU classes. But then, i can never find a good class or classes to match my character concepts in D&D3E. Several of the AU classes were perfect matches, right from the start.

 

[woodelf]

Re: Re: On the subject of implied setting...

Here's the thing: people buy a book like AU hoping it will give them something they can use with a minimum of fuss. If it turns out that what they paid for they can't get much use out of, or requires so much effort to implement that they'd be better off coming up with their own content, then they feel a little disappointment.

Agreed. What's the threshhold? Are D&D/D20 players really so spoiled that anything beyond "open the book, use as written without even idiot-checking for typos/imbalance" is "too much fuss"?

Personally, it'd take me less effort to tweak AU to any of my homebrew settings (most of which were specifically designed for D&D (in the form of house-ruled AD&D2)) than to tweak D&D3[.5]E for the same settings. And that's despite the fact that i'd either have to redo the races (and thus history) in my setting or in AU for them to be compatible.

 

[woodelf]

Maybe I have a different perspective because I've got a largely urban-based game where a fireball would be a Very Bad Idea...but that kind of variation is what makes for variation in tactics, isn't it?

Heh. Someone really needs to remind the local mage of that--she has a short temper, and has a tendency to fireball enemies--in the middle of parlay, over dinner, in the dining hall of a swanky hotel, while she is sitting on the other side of the table from said enemy. *Not* a good way to get on the good side of the authorities or your compatriots (who are well within the blast radius).

 

[woodelf]

Okay, clarify for me a bit here. So you've seen plenty of mages eschew fireball in favor of lower-damage, single-target ranged touch spells instead?

Yes. In general, spellcasters in the games i've run and played in have preferred single-target attack spells to area attack spells.

 

[woodelf]

Re: Re: Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

In fact, I don't recall the 1st edition AD&D books even having indexes, though I could be wroung about that...

Yep, you're wrong: they had fairly good indices, in fact (well, PH and DMG--never owned an MM).

 

[woodelf]

After having read the book cover to cover...I seem to be in the minority in this opinion.

But I don't think the Diamond Throne setting is any more forced on a reader than the Greyhawk setting is with the PHB. In fact, less so because of no Gods being specified or anything like that. It'd be easy to make a whole new setting with this rulesset.

It'd be entirely easy to throw out the backgrounds for each race and class and replace them if you have to. And usually that's something you do when creating your own normal D&D homebrew.

-Alan

In fact, i intend to use AU and only AU as the basis for a game in the not-too-distant future. Well, actually, i needed one other thing--i dug out the maps from my Al Qadim and Kara Tur box sets--i wanted some maps with terrain and cool, exotic place names on them, to build my setting around. Dunno yet which map i'm actually gonna use. I don't know yet how much of the implicit setting i'm actualy gonna use--spell/magic availability, yes; ceremonies and truenames, yes; class and race stats, yes--race relations? maybe. specific totem animals, causes, etc.? maybe. Might tweak the witch types, too, if i have good ideas.