How Many of You Ignore New Cruch?

[Psion]

Really depends on the setting. Forgotten Realms, for example, I primarily pull crunch from. Others, like Eberron, I pull more ideas from, but has crunch that is too far from the core for me to want to import.

 

[Ry]

For me, all fluff would be totally fine, so long as some kind of mapping to the rules is available. Obviously, if magic is described as something very different in a new setting, we need mechanics to reflect that - but I'd really prefer to see a well-written setting that's so packed with adventures that it reminds you of a world-championship seven-table domino rally. Crunch doesn't give me that feeling.

 

[scourger]

no crunch, thanks

I voted for no crunch because that's what I mainly look for. I really don't need a bunch of new rules to run my D&D sword & sorcery fantasy game.

For example, I don't like the Conan OGL main book. As far as I am concerned, that game is unplayable due to new crunch; and every member of my gaming group agrees. I find The Road of Kings quite good, however. It presents very little new crunch. The book is essentially a gazetteer. If I ever get around to d20 converting and running an old module for the 1985 Conan RPG, I'll make use of TRoK; but it will be Conan D&D.

Similarly, I don't plan to use any of the crunch from Mesopotamia besides the alternate human races and the domains for the new deities. New classes (even just prestige classes), feats, magic rules, spells, etc. are generally unappealing to me. Fortunately, the adventure parts are not dependent on using that alternate material which I find to be one of the greatest strengths of that product.

A d20 (D&D) game set in a different, non-fantasy genre is another matter altogether. I love Judge Dredd and Omega World because they change D&D just enough to make sense for those genres. The crunch in those settings makes sense. It's not just rules bloat.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

I use my own world, so the "crunch" is most useful to me, but I appreciate good "fluff" and can be inspired by it.

 

[Nightcloak]

I voted for both as I look at "fluff" and "crunch" in a Campaign Setting. It's all about ideas for my homebrew. However, I only look for new and interesting rules, I have more than enough feats and prestige classes.

 

[Starglim]

I need quality and inspiration in writing to get through a setting book, but in terms of what I'll actually take away and use, that will convince me to open the book again after a week or two, mostly crunchy bits.

 

[Eremite]

I'm one who will buy a setting purely for the crunch even if I have no interest in the setting itself.

Frex, I hate, loathe and detest (with a passion) Dragonlance but I bought the setting book because there was some interesting crunch in there that I wanted. OK, that one was an impulse buy, I admit....

I also recently bought Eberron and, even if I never run an Eberron campaign, I really like the artificer class and the associated crunch plus the ideas for the druidic orders. All of these will be used in my main FR campaigns even if I don't run Eberron (although I do think it's likely that I will run Eberron at some point).

 

[Ron]

For someone who thinks that the core books are already bloated with too many rules, I seldom care for many more crunch in any setting book. In fact, I would rather prefer one with very few adjustments and the least number of new feats.

 

[MonsterMash]

I voted both, but on the whole I want more of a 75/25 split setting/crunch or 60/40 setting/crunch split tops as I don't like too many extra rules to use a setting.

 

[diaglo]

Really depends on the setting. Forgotten Realms, for example, I primarily pull crunch from. Others, like Eberron, I pull more ideas from, but has crunch that is too far from the core for me to want to import.

ditto.

plus i have to convert it to OD&D if i'm gonna use it at all.