I can't read 4e books like I could 3e books. You?

[Silent Cartographer]

I distinctly remember getting through the line for GenCon preregs to pick up my reserved copy of the brand new 3E PHB. I had left a two hour block in my con schedule open just to sit down and enjoy the book. I gave up trying to stave off sleep after valiantly struggling with the book for half an hour. I wandered off looking for something else to do, marveling at both the awesomeness of the new rules and the way that WotC had mananged to make the D&D read like 300 pages of boardgame rules. I could see at the time why they took that approach, but I was dissapointed nevertheless.

I was later much more successful in absorbing the book by simply creating sample characters and following through actual game play. Playing in the D&D Open taught me more about the new edition than any reading I did that weekend.

If we're just talking PHBs, then third edition has little to offer in this regard over 4E; fourth edition simply furthers the trend started by third edition. The only page-turning readable PHBs are first and second editions. Hands-down.

I have a similar reaction to the various MMs; they seem to me to follow a similar trend to the PHBs. DMGs, however, are a different story. Anyone bagging on the readability of fourth edition as a whole is either ignoring the 4E DMG or hasn't bothered to read it.

Splat books, and especially setting books, don't seem to follow strong trends like this; I can find interesting reading across several editions. This is no surprise, WotC has always tended to save color for the color books. I would personally like to see more color in the PHB; I totally get the AD&D core hardcover nostalgia, and I think there is some value there.

The 4E cores have shown how to distill crunch reference (PHB, MM) and a very readable guidebook (DMG); what I want to see from the 4E team now is better in-game content and color (setting books and adventures). I'm a little underwhelmed so far. I don't have the new FR books (not being a FR fan ), but I'm anxious to see the 4E treatment of Eberron. The 3E ECS book was a good read, and sets a bar that fourth edition needs to exceed.

 

[Obryn]

Since about half the PHB is basically "spell lists", and I always hated reading spell lists, I don't get much pleasure-reading out of the PHB. That's fine, though - I learned the game after about 1 (relatively pleasant and easily-understood) read-through, and now can find exactly what I want for reference.

I think it's just dandy, although extra stuff would help, I think. Examples of play, anecdotes, more background info tied to the assumed setting... Really, if there's one area that 4e's almost completely lacking, it's examples.

The MM is, again, fine for what it is, but I love fluff MM's. I want more fluff, pretty much period.

The DMG is eminently readable, and offers some great advice. The Nentir Vale and Artifacts sections are awesome, and I wish there had been more stuff along those lines.


With that said, it's unfair to compare these books with the monster fluff books near middle of 3e's development. I don't expect to see such incredible books as Lords of Madness, Libris Mortis, and the like for a while yet.

-O

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I think the books are very good for use at the game table (though damn, now I've got this neat DM Screen and write down my powers - what do I need the books for now? ), but it reads less well for "entertainment".

Right. If a game is so well designed that you only need a chart or two and some power cards to run it, then the book itself shouldn't ever be cracked open at the table. That leaves reading it as the book's main function. I wish that the 4e books were more readable. I wish this in part because 4e is so well designed (judging it by its own goals and standards) that the book is not often necessary as a rules reference document at the table. It would serve an even greater function if it contained inspirational reading in addition to the clear rules information.

 

[That One Guy]

WoD uses far too many obnoxious fonts and black-on-grey to make their books enjoyable reads. IMHO, of course.

Pfft... those are the parts you're supposed to skip!

On topic, I look forward to the Power Books' side bars.

One of the things I told a friend a little while ago about the 4e books is that they're terrible reads, but good at the table. Also, I think they allow a really fun game.

 

[The Little Raven]

I can't use the 4e books to make me fall asleep faster like I used to do with the 3e books, so I'll agree that I can't read them like I used to.

 

[justanobody]

It is not something I would want to just sit down and read through again. It really doesn't draw you to read it, but works good if you need to look something up.

Past books drew you into the book to want to read more. Now they read sort of like accounting manuals. You read it when you need something, but very little more than that.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

3.5 books taught me to almost universally skip over anything that wasn't absolute crunch. It was, all in all, very good prep for the 4e books.

I haven't seen an RPG book yet that I could sit down and really dive into. Dread is about as close as I've gotten, and even then it's been a chapter or two at a time.

 

[Andor]

I think the best RPG book for pure reading I've ever seen was World Tree.

Ars Magica was usually a pretty good read, although it varied by edition and book, of course.

The first Shadowrun book was good and the 1st ed supplements were pure awesomeness.

Tome and Magic for 3e is excellent. MoI is pretty much crud fluffwise, but the mechanics are so inspirational it worth reading to see what stories it inspires in my head.

One of the more interesting RPG books I've read was GURPS IOU University. Not only was it entertaining, but they presented a setting and offered more than one way to interpret it, from funny to scary.

Unknown Armies is pure gaming goodness.

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

Right, this was the intent. Making the rules easy to reference was the goal, and breaking things out so that information was easy to find later on. While having something be a fun read on its own is great, it's more important, I think, that the gaming books facilitate playing the game, and other concerns are secondary. No story is going to be as fun as the one you tell at the table through the events of your game.

I consider the format of the 4E books to be more similar to reading on the internet than reading a novel. You hop around from place to place, grabbing the important bits of info you need, looking for the text that really jumps out as important because its formatted that way. The style of writing acknowledges that this is a game, not a novel, and the mechanics and story are segregated to an extent.

I think Rechan's right about Manual of the Planes, though. It's got some a little more balance between mechanics and story. We've also added some flavorful sidebars to the ________ Power books, so I think they'll make better reads than the PH does. (Keep in mind that that was a later addition to the early ones, so it's not until later books of that series that you'll really see what I'm talking about.) I really like the sidebar approach, because it gives you a nugget of fun, flavorful text, but doesn't deluge you with a ton of information about a subject that really only warrants a few paragraphs. Hope everybody else likes it, too!

I agree with Logan about the greater readability of the upcoming books. I think people will find the Draconomicon, Open Grave, and similar "monster" books to be more interesting to read.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I tried to read Adventurer's vault at Borders yesterday...