Charles Ryan on Flavour and Rules

[Ranger REG]

edit: and of course reading it as huff... finally made it click in my mind what is wrong with d02.

Meh.

3e is still a major improvement over the past editions, rules-wise. The only fault I can say is that it reads more like a book from a law library than a best-selling "Dummies" book from your library.

[image placeholder: twisted evil grin]

 

[Azul]

Meh.

3e is still a major improvement over the past editions, rules-wise. The only fault I can say is that it reads more like a book from a law library than a best-selling "Dummies" book from your library.

[image placeholder: twisted evil grin]

As someone who has read far too many books from law libraries and interprets legislation on a daily basis as part of his job, err, no. 3rd ed D&D is written in a far more straight-forward and logical manner than most legal material.

If you want something written like a legal document, get into Starfleet Battles, first edition Rolemaster or perhaps Advanced Squad Leader. Those bloody rules sets include section headings like rule 4.5.1.3 Sneak Attacks by Blue Gophers named Bob, which is followed by rule 4.5.1.4 Sneak Attacks by Blue Gophers named Frank and rule 4.5.2 Sneak Attacks by non-Blue Gophers (except non-Blue Gophers with pointed sticks). And yes, I played the first two extensively before law school. Now, they remind me of work.

As a veteran wargamer, I will say that 3e reads far more like a wargame than most prior editions. 1e and stuff from the 1970s (like Diaglo's favorite edition) show clear wargame roots (e.g. distance in "inches"), but were still more freeform. If they player did something unusual, the DM was expected to improvise a method for resolving the action. 3e has a rule for just about every eventuality (in combat at least), which is a very wargame-ish thing (gamesmaster as arbiter of the rules rather than gamesmaster as on-the-fly rules inventer). Perhaps this is a logical outcome of the more mini-oriented rules set.

 

[coyote6]

Hmm. I don't like (some of) the "flavor" stuff in Races of Stone. It ignores too much prior info, IMO -- Greyhawk's previously established dwarven & gnome deities, the 3e-era Dragon article on dwarves, etc. Instead, it gives new (to me, anyways) info that I just don't like (dwarves don't like coins? huh?).

Frostburn, OTOH, makes me want to send the PCs in my campaign north . . .

 

[MerricB]

Hmm. I don't like (some of) the "flavor" stuff in Races of Stone. It ignores too much prior info, IMO -- Greyhawk's previously established dwarven & gnome deities, the 3e-era Dragon article on dwarves, etc. Instead, it gives new (to me, anyways) info that I just don't like (dwarves don't like coins? huh?).

But they weren't Greyhawk's established deities...

They were set up in Dragon Magazine, and then incorporated wholesale into Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms.

There are times when Wizards makes a conscious break from past continuity, and I don't think that it's always a bad idea.

It can be irritating at times, but there are other instances when I think its fully justified.

The description of the gnomes in Races of Stone is a case in point. Compare it with the description in the 2nd Edition Complete book that covered them. I know which one I prefer.

Cheers!

 

[Li Shenron]

Q. I have the impression that, since the early days of the 3rd edition until now, (I'm referring to WOTC products) most of the flavor of the game has been taken out in favor of a very rule-intensive approach.

Early days IMO means really "days"...

We've chosen to provide a game system that is most easily adaptable to any DM's campaign. Adding a lot of flavor text makes assumptions about the style and nature of the audience's campaigns; those assumptions can make the material less useful, rather than more useful.

I understand this is probably the only good way to go for mainstream products. Every DM wants to put own ideas into the setting, using 100% printed stuff without at least adding something your own is a way of DMing that probably pleases only some DMs. OTOH, it's too hard to resort on your own ideas only, and you need to find inspiration (or implementation ) here and there.

However IMO it's not just flavor text to make the style, it's also core stuff for players. Just to say, Monks never fitted in my idea of D&D fantasy world; half-orcs are ok but I always felt they (as well as other half-races) should be a rare exception in the world rather than a common race; half-orc monks should basically be more unique than rare, or even non-existant. Instead, thanks to the core rules, half-orcs monks are a mechanically solid choice; the result is that they appear often in many books, which incidentally turns them into common characters, whether you want it or not. A DM who doesn't like them can always house-rule them out, but that always sound to a player as a DM's petty restriction and that's not nice.

 

[Zappo]

I think that 3E tends to put most of the crunch in the core books, and leave the fluff for the campaign setting book. This is a wonderful idea IMO; it makes the core stuff as generic as possible - but if you want a heap of fluff you just have to go and choose the campaign setting which is more suited to your tastes.

 

[Jupp]

Dunno, when I read through the Planar Handbook I almost fell asleep from it. Tables over tables over tables. One dry character description with endless stat blocks after the other. Nothing exciting to read at all from the first to the last page :/ I think for those folks that have crunchonoia it will be a perfect read but for someone that is used to the cool writing style like you had them in the old PS source books this thing is an absolute failure. Some weeks ago I read a bit through Serpent Kingdoms and that one was quite a bit more entertaining to read through. While it still had its big share of endless crunch it also features some nice stories and ideas. I just hope WotC is slowly coming back to bring us Accessories that have a good balance between hard facts/rules and interesting stories/inspirational text.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I totally agree with Charles on this. I'll make my own flavor, thank you very much. I neither need nor want WotC to take up valuable crunch space with it. Campaign setting books are an obvious exception; those should be fun to read and full of interesting info about the settings... as well as providing some valuable crunch.

The only caveat I have is that some of the rules material in 3e makes unwaranted assumptions that (sometimes heavily) restrict a DM's creativity. Until houseruled away.

The main thing I'm thinking of here is the wealth by level tables.

 

[qstor]

I think one of the problems is the emphasis on PrC and feats. Not that they're a bad thing but the new WOTC at times to me, seem a way just to showcase new PrC's and feats. I think a few are good and the Complete books fill the given niche. But to but a whole emphasis on them is tipping the balence too far on the "crunch vs fluff" debate.

I love the FR Volo's Guides in 2e. They're rules lite and give an in depth overview of towns and inns etc. But I doubt that WOTC is EVER going in that direction again. The crunch emphasis seems a key difference between TSR and the late 2004 staff of WOTC.

Mike

 

[Faraer]

Can we change the subject of this topic? At the moment it's associating Charles Ryan with the inane and deameaning term 'fluff', which I'm sure he doesn't want.

Rules for rules' sake appeals to a lot of the people who buy a lot of RPG books, but it puts off the potentially far larger contingent for whom there are too many rules already.

Equally, why should anyone care what the current WotC designers and freelancers have to say about subjects (in rules or content) totally out of any common context of setting or play style? Isolated bits and pieces without the synergy and shared origin that give depth, and made up not out of any rooted source or common inspiration but just to fill pages for money. Lore such as that published in the Realms books (Serpent Kingdoms has plenty and it's excellent) is permanent; the occasional 'flavor text' (usually subsidiary to 'crunchy bits') in the general D&D books will be forgotten when 4th edition comes round.