Format of Books, Ease of use?

[TwoSix]

I might not love it from a utility perspective, but it's hard to argue that the limited releases and scattershot approach hasn't been super effective from a marketing perspective.

 

[jgsugden]

Your last sentence catches why they can't do this.

The mechanics need to support the setting. And to a lesser degree, the setting needs to support the mechanics.

For example, straight D&D 5e doesn't strongly support a Middle Earth type setting, because of the high levels of magic and such. You'd want to either adjust the rules (like has been done in 3rd party suppliments for ME) or adjust the setting to jive with the rules.

What this means is that when there are significant changes to how the mechanics work, they need to update the setting to be in sync. And since lore is often linked to setting, those can need to be adjusted as well...

This was very true for 4E, but based upon the direction of 5E they realized that was a mistake for the brand.

However, in 5E I've seen the following games run:

* FR set at the time of the original boxed set, using a 2nd edition module (Haunted Halls of Eveningstar).
* Original Dragonlance Saga
* Shackled City
* Dark Sun (original adventure path)
* A Middle Earth game (PCs had to have more levels in Fighter, Monk or Rogue combined than any other class - worked well)
* A1 to A4
* G1 to G3
* Gamma World
* The Sunless Citadel Adventure Path (SC, FoF, SiD, SS, HNfS, DH, LotIF, BBS)
* A Planescape Game
* Ravenloft

5E adapts very well to prior edition materials. As long as they don't rebuild the entire game like they did in 4E, they could take my suggested approach... and to be honest, I did run a FR original boxed set era game in 4E, but did not enjoy it as much as I could have...

 

[Blue]

This was very true for 4E, but based upon the direction of 5E they realized that was a mistake for the brand.

However, in 5E I've seen the following games run:

* FR set at the time of the original boxed set, using a 2nd edition module (Haunted Halls of Eveningstar).
* Original Dragonlance Saga
* Shackled City
* Dark Sun (original adventure path)
* A Middle Earth game (PCs had to have more levels in Fighter, Monk or Rogue combined than any other class - worked well)
* A1 to A4
* G1 to G3
* Gamma World
* The Sunless Citadel Adventure Path (SC, FoF, SiD, SS, HNfS, DH, LotIF, BBS)
* A Planescape Game
* Ravenloft

5E adapts very well to prior edition materials. As long as they don't rebuild the entire game like they did in 4E, they could take my suggested approach... and to be honest, I did run a FR original boxed set era game in 4E, but did not enjoy it as much as I could have...

If you've seen all those without rules changes to support the individual settings, then you're missing out. Some will play base 5e just fine, but others like Dark Sun played base 5e rules with cleric, no psionics, no muls or half-giants, no despoiling - that's not Dark Sun. Same for Dragonlance, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc.

If you have played with alternate rules for them, then you see how setting fluff/lore/feel and mechanics are intertwined, and you can't publish "books of lore, good for all editions" and assume that they actually will fit all editions. If you do that, you're either lying on your product or chaining yourself for future editions.

Look, I've got boxed sets of FR lore back from AD&D 2nd and Myth Drannor and the like. They didn't translate nicely to 3.0, and same for 5e. While 3.0/3.5 to 5e isn't bad for how lore feel fits into mechanics, that's not always true between editions.

 

[jgsugden]

If you've seen all those without rules changes to support the individual settings, then you're missing out. Some will play base 5e just fine, but others like Dark Sun played base 5e rules with cleric, no psionics, no muls or half-giants, no despoiling - that's not Dark Sun. Same for Dragonlance, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc.

Going down my list:

* FR set at the time of the original boxed set, using a 2nd edition module (Haunted Halls of Eveningstar). - I am unaware of any house rules beyond a few monsters being created.
* Original Dragonlance Saga - The only house rules were three wizard subclasses which nobody used.
* Shackled City - No house rules.
* Dark Sun (original adventure path) - They used the Mystic and Wizards with spell point alternative rules for the Psionics. The monsters were reskins with added powers.
* A Middle Earth game (PCs had to have more levels in Fighter, Monk or Rogue combined than any other class - worked well)
* A1 to A4 - This one had a tome of house rules, but most of them were home created feats, home created spells, detailed rules for vision, etc... None of it was necessary.
* G1 to G3 - Same rules as A1 to A4.
* Gamma World - This used reskinning of a few classes and races. Spells became technology. This one was a rough fit, but everyone had fun.
* The Sunless Citadel Adventure Path (SC, FoF, SiD, SS, HNfS, DH, LotIF, BBS) - No changes.
* A Planescape Game - A few homemade races, a lot of spells updated from prior editions,
* Ravenloft - There was a 'Dread mechanic' using our own Jenga towers. When we did something that should have been scary, we pulled a piece. If your tower fell, you were in for trouble as something very, very bad was going to happen. Beyond that, there were just a few environmental special rules (the Mists, certain spells did not work normally, etc...) and monster tweaks to made them scarier.

All in all, it was minor stuff. The levels of house rules were no greater than I saw in most games set entirely using current edition settings.

If you have played with alternate rules for them, then you see how setting fluff/lore/feel and mechanics are intertwined, and you can't publish "books of lore, good for all editions" and assume that they actually will fit all editions.

It depends upon how you define Lore. For example, There are Wikis that do exactly what I propose out there - they're just not maintained by WotC.

If you do that, you're either lying on your product or chaining yourself for future editions.

I don't get what the lie would be, and as for it having limiting facets on future editions - Not if the editions have as much in common as AD&D, 2E, 3E and 5E. Seriously: Name one thing from AD&D to 3.5 that is not easily translated to 5E

Look, I've got boxed sets of FR lore back from AD&D 2nd and Myth Drannor and the like. They didn't translate nicely to 3.0, and same for 5e. While 3.0/3.5 to 5e isn't bad for how lore feel fits into mechanics, that's not always true between editions.

AD&D, 2E, 3E and 5E all translate - lore wise - easily. As stated, I've seen all of the above work well.

If you'd like to elaborate on something that exists in your old materials that would not translate to 5E, I'd be curious to see it.

 

[Li Shenron]

One thing I wish is the players handbook listed the spells like the 1e version did: by class, then level, then A-Z. It's next to impossible to scan the spells when choosing

I would settle for something even less: one-liner descriptions in the spells lists (like in 3e), and classes indication in the spell full description.

Also a simple 'R' marker behind rituals in the spells lists would help a lot.

 

[Inchoroi]

The only complaint I have is that I'd love a set of soft-cover digest versions, to make transporting easier. I run my game at a FLGS not quite an hour away, so transporting all these books becomes very difficult. And heavy. I've been considering making my own, but that costs an arm and a leg in printer ink.

 

[Ezequielramone]

My case is a bit special. I live in Argentina and it is really expensive to buy books from local stores (not because of the price, but the economy and the taxes to anything you do, specially business). Also there are not "official" wotc stores. So the final price could be close to 100 USD per book. Buying one or two books or year on Amazon let me be updated with the books because I take advantage on Amazon pre-order system. (Shipping +pre-order price =50usd)
So, having said that. I, the DM, buy the books and the players end up with illegal pdfs. I have like 20 gamer friends and only 3 of us buy books. Those 3 people are DMs. So players here don't buy books. But there other factors besides the format.

*As I said I ONLY know like 20 gamers, I don't go to places where people play so I don't have a wide view. But I think that what I said could be representative.

 

[Rhenny]

I like the mixed format books because they are probably much more profitable for the publisher, and I really do want them to succeed. For the most part though, I don't need all of the new stuff in print if if I use Fantasy Grounds.

Finding and using material from the various books is really easy in Fantasy Grounds, but I have invested a lot of money to buy all of the material. Being able to load material and search in the tabletop has spoiled me.

In addition, running games is so much easier with Fantasy Grounds in so many respects. I love using the Player Maps that have pins already on them so that any time party goes into a new location, I can pop up the description window that had encounters and parcels already worked out. I can also add links/customize very easily and if I want to create my own adventure I can do that too.

Even though I run most of my games online, when I do get a chance to run an in-person game (I am planning a reunion with friends at the end of August - probably at least 8-10 hours of gaming there), I'll probably keep Fantasy Grounds open on a laptop to run the game at the table. The initiative tracker is really nice too.