[ELH] Psions defense vs. tjasamcarl

[Psion]

Per pete's request, moved this to a new thread:

Wow..you 'sent me packing' with the ELH debate?

No, as I recall it was a collective effort. Your grousing that we shouldn't be judging the ELH based on its "lack of soul" was disagreed with.

From what i can recall, your argument was blatantly sentimental, not relying on any critique of the rules

What, were disappointed that I didn't slam the rules? Since my issues with the rules were few, I don't see your point. If the rules are all you care about, you should be beaming, because with a few exception, I like what they did rule-wise.

You think a product shouldn't be judge on the feel and idea content that it brings to the game? Sorry, I really have to beg to differ with you. It is something to judge a product by, and something that I weigh in my opinion of the product.

If it's not important to you, great. Have a blast with your new book. As it stands, all you are doing here is begrudging me my opinion. Well you can get bent. I don't need your permission to have issues with a product. It's not your place to tell me or anyone else why I should or should not like a product.

And comparing it to the Manual of the Planes, which was more a sourcebook than a rules supp, and saying because it they did not support the same thing and therefore the ELH failed is just a fallacy;

Wrong. Both have rules, and both have idea material.

you are critiqing it based upon what it is not as oppossed to what it is, but then, many of the more self-absorbed dms tend to gripe when any aspect of a product fails to meet their particular expectations.

I had one expectation of ELH: that it provide for interesting, engaging epic level gaming. That is a perfectly fair expectation.

You were making a number of statements before the ELH was released conscerning the 'mistake' Wotc was making in creating such a weighty supp. Your assumptions seemed to be that at such levels the rules encouraged 'munchkinism', another blatantly irrational argument that i hear all to often on these and other boards.

The above is a blatant lie. I have never been one to beleive that high level gaming and munchkinism are one and the same. I did fear, however, that the approach that WotC was taking would send it in that direction. And considering items like the "hellball", I had good reason to think so.

Once I saw the final product, my opinion of it improved considerably. But the lack of idea content is a considerable, bona fide flaw IMO.

Of course, you had decided that the munchkin complaint was what I was saying from the start, and apparently never really bothered reading my position with enough depth to realize that what I was saying was not what you thought I was saying.

I must insist that you immediately and permantly stop attributing things to me that I did not say.

It was all it needed to be, supporting that aspect of the rpg which everyone at the table relys upon, the rules.

A good supplement is more than just rules. Once again, I cite the MotP.

Sure, it's a passable supplement, and gives you the rules widgets that you need to keep a campaign going into high levels.

But it could have been so much better.

 

[Jarval]

Psion, I'm not sure that starting a new thread for this is a great idea. Might Nutkinland be a better place for this?

 

[Tiefling]

Because the tone and general attitude of Nutkinland may be distasteful to some people?

 

[tjasamcarl]

Ok...

You are correct, i will not begrudge your preferences in a product; i simply take exception to anyone implying that wotc made a mistake with their approach. From their perspective, given the evidence that thick 'toolkit' books sell more than 'fluff' supps, they were perfectly reasonable in not including such fluff, which you dub 'idea content' when it would not contribute to the market value of said product to a significant degree. Add to that the fact that everybody, especially those who tend to dm narrative-thick campaigns, tend to have their own idea of what constitutes good 'ideas', and you will forgive me if i don't berate Wotc for emphasizing the plurality of its customers....

In conclusion, a good supp, i.e. one that a large amount of people will buy and use, can be little more than rules...we seem to have different definitions of a quality product...yours is something that appeals directly to you, while mine is something that gets used and makes a game more appealing, whether or not the product itself is a dry read...

Does that make sense? Can we put this to rest?

 

[Jarval]

Because the tone and general attitude of Nutkinland may be distasteful to some people?

Aww, I love the Land of Nuts really.

 

[Tiefling]

I don't own the ELH, tjasamcarl, but I disagree with you on how the book should be approached. A normal supplement, such as the class books, is merely giving a rules expansion for a well-known realm of play, and should therefore contain minimal "fluff." But the ELH is about taking D&D into an entirely new realm. An epic campaign is much different from a normal one, and therefore the DM needs non-rules information to help him set up and run a good story. No matter how good the rules are, you won't get a fun game if the DM thinks that having epic-level characters crawling epic-level dungeons will work like having normal characters crawling normal dungeons.

 

[tjasamcarl]

Well

I will take exception to two of you assumptions, Tiefling. One that the game changes to such a degree that most dms won't be able to account for it, given the preferences of their individual groups. Two, that the majority of groups would not be perfectly happy with scenarios which continue to be 'old school', as long as the ELH provides more tactical options, which it does.

I really think this emphasis on narrative detail is regrettable. Most dms are able to come up with it themselves on the fly, especially given how inherently cliched/contrived the fantasy genre is. Rarely does it have a noticable impact in the quality of any given campaign. Call it what it is, intellectual masturbation by detail-obsessed geeks. Don't pretend that the majority of players are the ones who benefit.

 

[Psion]

Re: Ok...

You are correct, i will not begrudge your preferences in a product; i simply take exception to anyone implying that wotc made a mistake with their approach. From their perspective, given the evidence that thick 'toolkit' books sell more than 'fluff' supps, they were perfectly reasonable in not including such fluff, which you dub 'idea content' when it would not contribute to the market value of said product to a significant degree.

Again, I think you misaprehend where I am coming from.

They spoke such about products like Silver Marches and other FR products that weren't selling.

They were not speaking of products such as MotP which are rules-heavy book, but heavy on idea content. MotP did sell. There is a difference. I don't care for books like silver marches, either. I find books like MotP to be great.

In conclusion, a good supp, i.e. one that a large amount of people will buy and use, can be little more than rules...we seem to have different definitions of a quality product...yours is something that appeals directly to you, while mine is something that gets used and makes a game more appealing, whether or not the product itself is a dry read...

I would say "mine" is books like MotP that are engaging reads, AND useful in a campaign. WotC has shown that they can do it.

Indeed, part of the problem was that ELH was too much like the books like the fluff filled FR books in the last chapter, which had a rather dubious "epic campaign setting." Less specific, more toolkit-like (more MotP-like) would have been much better IME.

Can we put this to rest?

Certainly.

 

[tjasamcarl]

Interesting

Not all 'fluff' is equal? That is probably true, though i still think most fluff, even of the toolkit nature would probably be of more dubious value than solid rules. And given limitations on the size of any given book, Wotc was probably reasonable in not bundling the fluff with the rules..but i could be wrong..we will see how the ELH does vs. the Manual in sales...

 

[WizarDru]

I guess I'm just not seeing what you're trying to say, exactly. Is it that no d20 publisher has met the same standard of quality as WOTC? If so, I respectfully disagree. Several publishers have equaled that standard consistently, such as FDP and Malhavoc, for example.

It sounds like you're saying that only WOTC can produce quality D&D supplements, because only WOTC can produce, well...supplements from WOTC. A "If it's from WOTC, it has to be good" attitude that ignores things like 'Sword and Fist' and 'Into the Dragon's Lair'.

MotP succeeds so well because it's not just 'fluff' text: it's solid, tested rules, world settings and adventure ideas. It's a healthy balance of material that I return to, again and again. While I think the ELH seems to be lacking...something, I intend to do the same with it. How you separate "something that makes a game more appealing" and "something that appeals to you" is a statement I can't make heads nor tails of. Who is the game being made more appealing to, if NOT you?


I'm curious, how do you rate the following releases:

Living Greyhawk Gazeeter
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
Oriental Adventures

I personally put the FRCS at the bottom of the list, and OA at the top. FRCS has plenty of crunch, but left me cold...and seemed to be poorly playtested. LGG has virtually no rules material, but inspired me. OA was a good balance, with material I return to for every game, but with a very interesting campaign setting I intend to use. If I understand your point correctly, none of these are good, because they contain far too much non-rules material. But wasn't the FRCS a fairly big success?