[D&D]No more crunch books for me

[johnnype]

I've decided to only buy setting books for the forseable future. Why? A couple of reasons:

I smell forth edition in the horizon.
I've got all the crunch I need.
Setting material has a longer shelf life than rulebook material.
I'm not much of a "do-it-yourselfer" so adapting rules to a new edition will never happen at my house.
Did I mention I've got crunch coming out my ears?

My latest purchases include Mysteries of the Moonsea and Fiendish Codex I. I specifically skipped the PHB II and the Spell Compendium. I'm on the fence about the Monster Manual IV. Monster Manuals are hybrid books that I have a difficult time passing up.

Anyone else giving rulebooks a pass?

 

[Crothian]

I'm giving new D&D books a pass. I find it funny that you smell 4th edition on the horizon. It's been there for about a year or so, least in the rumor mill.

 

[librarius_arcana]

I'm guessing the Greyhawk stuff will round off the 3.5 version so....

 

[TheYeti1775]

I wouldn't pass up the PHB II and Spell Compendium,
the SC is a great single source combining all the spells outside the PHB.

And the Affliations from the PHB II make for interesting possibities and intertwine quite well in the Eberron's House mechinatics.

Though even buying just Setting books, you are still getting a hunk of crunch.

Yeti

 

[Sejs]

Allow me to also say you're missing out if you pass up the PHB II and the Spell Comp. Both are very good books, and well worth it.


My personal criteria on the whole book purchase front is 'will I use this in my game'. For example, I picked up the DMG II, PHB II, and SC. Didn't regret it for even a moment. On the other hand, I passed on both Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic because I don't feel like integrating yet another magic system into an already standing game. I've got magic, psionics, and I use the incantation rules from UA, that does me just fine. Add to the fact that were I to adopt those new magic systems and integrate them, the whole affair would feel tacked on.

Pick and choose. *nod* Same goes with setting material. My FR game is set largely in the Shining South - I don't need a book on the Moonsea. But if they put out a book detailing Calimshan, the Lake of Steam, Tashalar, and Chult then I'd certainly take a good long look at it.

 

[ChristianW]

Having purchased stacks of material for Basic D&D, 1e, 2e and 3e, I stopped at 3.5. The only books I picked up for the line were the PHB, MM, and DMG. I'll do the same for 4e.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm the type of guy who enjoys the game system Hero. And Rolemaster.

Sign me up for more optional rules please.

 

[Mistwell]

DMG II, PHB II, and Spell Compendium are probably the three most useful D&D books WOTC has published in the past 3 years! Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some crunch books are less useful than others, but tossing them all out will be to your detriment.

 

[Psion]

Actually, I find crunch books more inspiring.

What is in a setting book is the sort of stuff I cobble together myself. But I find many setting books difficult to read, and often, well, "too complete". That is to say, they may have some dandy ideas, but too far fleshed out making it harder to fit to the exact circumstances of my game.

Seeing little crunchy bits and wondering how they might play a part in the game gets my mind rolling. Something as simple as a spell can set the stage for a story arc (my last adventure of River of Worlds I was inspired by the Scarred Lands spell Shatter Soul.)

I guess like NPCs and nations, I see mechanics as set-peices to play with.

 

[TroyXavier]

I prefer Crunch to Setting. Setting can be nice, but I do most of that on my own. Good crunch is good crunch and I love to try new things out.