Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[Negative Zero]

the following was so perfect, so well written, that i had to repeat it. read it again!

~NegZ

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.

 

[Negative Zero]

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

... 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. ...

... and likely fans of any of the Terminator movies.

~NegZ

 

[RodneyThompson]

Well, I just tried to say I was disappointed in the book (thus stating my own opinion and not decrying something as "bad"). However, the idea that I shouldn't expect color art and high-quality interior graphics and layout because it's expensive is a little strange to me. Why shouldn't I? Is Malhavoc/Sword and Sworcery not trying to be competitive in an RPG market where companies do produce high quality interiors that I'm not disappointed in? I think it's absolutely justifiable to raise the bar in expectations when the bar in quality has been raised by other companies. Look, it's not even the color issue; plenty of companies produce great works with black and white interiors. AU fails to satisfy my tastes when it comes to the visual style. I think that I'm entitled to my opinion (or did something change?) and many other people here complaining about the book are entitled to theirs too.

Should we not express disappointment? "Oh, you don't like the book because your expectations were wrong" may be a true statement, but heaven forbid anyone expect high quality stuff out of a guy that's proven to be one of the best game designers of recent times.

 

[volcivar]

Correct you are Neg!!!

What makes a good campaign setting "to me" is one that inspires. Why not have a campaign to "put" the humans in the forefront?. Are there not other campaign ideas that DT can inspire? Sure there are.

The Matrix must also be a bad concept.

 

[Tsyr]

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

It is not easily ported over to D&D worlds such as Greyhawk, FR, DL, PS, DS, RL or whatever. This is a monumental mistake on Monte's part, as he is aliennating a significant number of customers who wanted it solely to mine for their D&D game.

Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and Ravenloft are the KINGS of being able to plut anything into. I flat out reject that the things in these books can't be ported over 98% intact to these three settings (Depending on how close you want to stick to cannon, you might not want to port the magic system to FR, with the tight control of magic in that world...). Greyhawk, meh. Dragonlance is not supposed to be a settign you plug stuff into willy-nilly... It's a very closed setting, designed to be one exact thing. I would hesitate to even add much much more mundane stuff to Dragonlance, like 95% of the classes in the "*&*" splatbooks WotC put out. Same with Dark Sun, for the most part.

DT is a bad setting because it relegates humanity to the background, under the shadow of the giants.

Stock DnD in most of it's incarnations is a bad setting because despite the clear inferiority of humans, they are still somehow the dominate race.

I find DT's premise there much more plausible than most other settings.

However, in truth, 'bad' is purely subjective. I have my reasons for feeling as I do, and I guess you do two, but neither of us are 'right'.

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,

Bull

Let's rephrase that, shell we?

How about, "To make a setting catered to my specific tastes, Humanity must be in the forefront". Better, no?

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.

But DT has all those options.

Nobody in their right mind would lose their humanity to become an asexual bipedal dragonoid capable of giving birth to a whopping three asexual kobolds, especially given the fact that pretty much everybody in the DT setting hates dragonoids. "Let's see... I'm giving up sexual gratification, gender identity, racial identity and everybody hates me and wants to kill me? Yeah, that's a groovy trade-off. Where do I sign up?" The Mohj were poorly thought-out as a "race" and make for a ludicrous PC choice.

I'd make that trade. I give up exactly one tangible loss (The ability to concieve offspring via sexual methods), and gain: Innate magical abilities, potent offensive abilities, hardened, armor-like skin, the permanent ability to see in the dark, and a MASSIVE boost to my lifespan. Sounds like a good trade to me... Also, it is incorrect to say that everyone hates them. It says that most people have an aversion to them, because they tend to be driven individuals who have different priorities and modes of thought. That's not the same thing as being hated and everyone wanting to kill you.

Don't get me started on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle type furry races, or the faeries...

Ahh yes. How tollerant we gamers are. We tollerate everyone. Except furries, of course. Evil, evil creatures.

And faeries are one of the oldest fantasy staples there are.

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.

Good for you.

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.

I belive you are quite wrong.

 

[volcivar]

Why shouldn't I?

If you want you rules book to have good art that's cool.

But, how is it possible to meet EVERYONE's expectations. It is not. ABSOLUTELY not.

There are folks that love the kind of art in AU. There are fols that love industrial art. Art that involves simply splashing wide swaths of paint on a canvas. Dipping your body in paint and rolling on a canvas.

Art is relative, like all things.

As I said some folks like the art in AU.

I am not one of those. I do like some pieces, but for the most part it does nothing for me. Does it make me like the book less? No. Because the "game content" is perhaps the best set of variant rules to date (my opinion).

I respect that you do not like the art in the book, since I do not as well. But it absolutely did NOT effect my judgement of the book as a whole.

It is not a coffee table book. It is a rule book. If it has good art, that's gravy. If not, I find that it is hardly important.

-My opinion

 

[EarthsShadow]

have no expectations

It's a proven fact that when people have large expectations of a product, most of the time that product fails to meet those expectations. People with large expectations will be more likely to find a flaw with the product and are quicker to dislike it and put it down before giving it a real chance because they feel that it 'didn't meet their expectations.'

The best example of this, and I do apologize for mentioning it, is the hope and expectations most of us had before the D&D movie came out. The previews did look good, the hype we heard made it seem like a good movie, the articles in Dragon magazine made it seem like it was a good movie, and for most of us it failed miserably. This movie was the one that taught me to not have high expectations for anything I see in previews or what I read on the internet, or magazines, or interviews, and instead I learned to take a step back and just make my decision on whatever product it is when it comes out.

Also, in my earlier post about most of the gaming community being spoiled I mean that...WotC has spoiled most people rotten with their full color books and almost amazing artwork...and to have those expectations on most other companies is a fallacy within the individual gamer who literally expects all companies to follow WotC's model.

So, try to not have any real expectations and just take the product for what it is...and if you are the type to put expectations on other people and things, then expect to be dissapointed more times than nought.

 

[Mythtify]

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

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.

The races are in AU just for the sake of being "different," even though they are hardly original... they are just not races presented in the PHB. Nobody in their right mind would lose their humanity to become an asexual bipedal dragonoid capable of giving birth to a whopping three asexual kobolds, especially given the fact that pretty much everybody in the DT setting hates dragonoids. "Let's see... I'm giving up sexual gratification, gender identity, racial identity and everybody hates me and wants to kill me? Yeah, that's a groovy trade-off. Where do I sign up?" The Mohj were poorly thought-out as a "race" and make for a ludicrous PC choice. Don't get me started on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle type furry races, or the faeries...

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.

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.

My complaints go on, but this post doesn't.

Setting: There isn't enough information in AU for me to decide if the Diamond Throne is a good setting or not. I think that saying a setting is bad because it does not have humans in the politcal forfront is pretty narrowminded. A lot of reall good fantasy has been written that doesn't have anything to do with humans at all.

Races: What is implied by your statement is that the races in the olayers handbook are orignal. Of course, the races in the PHB are not orginal by any stretch of the imagination. Fantasy RPGs are meant to help us play games where we can incorporate elements of fantasy that we have either read or watched. The fact that the races are based on elements of classic fantasy is a good thing. It means that theese races will appeal to people who are intersted in that style of fantasy. IF this isn't you, sorry.

As for the Mojh, I like them a lot. I can see a human giving up
sex for increased lifespan, higher intellegince, asnd magical power. You see it all the time in D&D....something called a lich.

As for Note taking a big risk....and it failing, the numbers prove you wrong. The book is flying of the selfs. It is a success.

The biggest problem I have with your post, though is not your dislike of AU. Its your implication that whoever doesnt like the things you like, or think the things you think are wrong. Statements like "noboby in there right mind would play....." implies that you think that anybody who would want to play that races is crazy, so there point of view is invalid. One would think, that as a gamer, you wouldn't be so narrow minded.

 

[Kesh]

I've seen other boards where people ragged on AU for putting 'furries' into the game (which they aren't, any more than gnolls are furries). However, I was surprised that so many people in this thread were proud to be 'furry bashers' (as one put it).

Why this hostility towards that particular fandom? To be quite frank, it's just another branch of the SF/fantasy fandom family tree, and no worse than any others.

If it's because of some rabid/unstable fans... I point you back to the D&D fandom.

If it's because some fans aren't too pleasant to be around (physically or emotionally)... I point you back to the D&D fandom.

If it's because of the porn and some fans' sexual fetishes... again, I point you back to the D&D fandom.

If it's just furry creatures in general... well, why?

I'm not trying to derail the topic or start a flamefest. I'm just saying: Pot - Kettle - Black.

 

[volcivar]

porting

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.

I can understand the casting classes to a degree, but only just. If you like the casting classes, but not the magic system, then simply use the "slots per day" as the "spells per day".

And your basically done. MAybe tweak a few class abilities.

I am really at a loss, but I would truly like to understand what the porting issues are.