I think I'm over crunch

[GSHamster]

Are you? You just said you sold off all your crunch because you weren't using it. Seems to me that you're behaving perfectly rationally: you've recognized that you weren't using much or any of the crunch, so you aren't buy it; and you've recognized that the bits you do want to use show up more in fluff, so you're buying things with higher fluff ratios. It sounds like you'll probably end up using more of a campaign setting you don't actually play in, than you do of a crunchy book. Or, in simple mathematical terms: 15% of 300pp > 5% (or 0%) of 120pp.

I never said I wasn't using it. I just got tired of cross-referencing a dozen different books, trying to remember which book had the spell or feat that I was trying to remember. Plus, I DM, so I was doing this for every single NPC I created. It got tiresome after a while.

Imaginative? Certainly. Freeing yourself from the constraint of "how do the rules work for this?" is almost bound to give you more freedom. But maybe not the most innovative. In fairness, the very task of fitting rules to stuff can generate real innovation, and the "stuff" in question doesn't necessarily need to be setting-related stuff. It can be simple what-ifs, such as whatever led to the magic-item-creation system in Artificer's Handbook.

I'm not saying that other books can't be innovative. It's more that I find Campaign Settings more innovative than most.

Plus, I don't think they free themselves from the rules. It's more how they use the rules to implement an evocative concept in the setting. The rules support the fluff. Like the warforged in Eberron, or the magic system of Midnight, or the akashics of Arcana Unearthed.

 

[reanjr]

I had it with crunch books from the get go. They are just not necessary IMO, not to the level that we have them. These days I just buy books for my campaign setting (Dragonlance), books that are useful to me (Draconomicon for instance) and monster books (you can never have enough monsters!).



I agree, but even I know that you can’t put a book out there that doesn’t have this. Books of information and fluff don’t sell really.

That's only because people have already spent too much money on the crunch, I think. New rules have a tendency to seem important to any campaign. As if you are going to miss some important detail that will cause problems later. Like if they hadn't put non-combat equipment in the PHB, you'd need a book to cover that. It's the grind that Wizards feels is necessary to sell. A bad crunch book (especially one that is part of a series) still sells pretty well. A bad fluff book flops. Wizards aren't risk takers.

 

[reanjr]

Edit: Man... I hate the terms 'crunch' and 'fluff'.

That seems to be widespread. I say we go back to the old days of mechanics and flavor. And for good integration of the two, you can you tasty mechanics.

 

[reanjr]

Not to change the subject... But I am, sorry. This post reminded me, my friend recently told me he wanted to run a planeswalker campaign, and he asked me if the Planescape box was worth buying off ebay. I never really read any of it, so I didn't know what to tell him. After reading this, I think I'll tell him yes. Any thoughts? Oh, and as far as actually being on-topic, you got my vote for the anti-crunch revolution.

The campaign setting itself has probably the most mechanics of any of the Planescape products, but it's still mechanics-lite compared to anything that has come out for 3e. You could probably write out the rules in the box in about 10 pages (discluding the 16(32?) page monstrous supplement)

 

[reanjr]

Well I'll put in a word of praise for my favoraite non-rule heavy source books, the two that I use most - A magical medieval Society: and Ecology and culture. Real world examples and thoughtful treatment of how magic would impact society. "no new feats, no new classes, no new spells"

I actually use EN world as a source of material as well stealing from both ideas and new rules presented here.

I also have a tendency to brows and pull the 1-2 bits of intresting crunch into the game without bothering with the source.

I found Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe to be pretty rules heavy. They're different kinds of rules, but still rules. (Like economy and tables and worksheets, small stronghold price guide, etc.; useful stuff, but they are rules).

 

[reanjr]

Oh, your point is well taken. I wasn't suggesting that 2e was all brilliant ideas and no excess crunch. Far from it. Especially those dreadful Player's Option books (shudder).

My point was that today it seems that ALL we have is more and more crunch, and nothing that compares with the rules-light, brilliant ideas of 2e Ravenloft and Planescape.

3e Ravenloft (From Sword and Sorcery Studios) is pretty damned good. There are a couple of books dedicated to rules (like Van Richten's Arsenal) but overall, they are extremely rules light. Maybe even lighter than 2e.

 

[reanjr]

Remember, the Nine Walkers (guess the (Tolkein) trilogy they're from and win a fabulous No Prize) were not a balanced party.

I love playing with mixed level PCs. The one problem is that D&D's rules are skewed in such as way that high level ANNIHILATES (that might be spelled right) low level. It takes alot of forethought to plan encounters so that everyone can be effective and challenged.

 

[reanjr]

(A fleshed-out city council, etc., rather than a book on how to set up governments and generate political intrigue--i bought Dynasties & Demagogues.)

That's because the title had an Ampersand in it. Years of products have shown that those with an Ampersand in the title are much more likely to sell. Subtitles following a colon are poor sellers.

 

[Sholari]

Anti-crunch! Always have been... always will be. The law of diminishing returns definitely applies to game mechanics as well.

 

[RFisher]

Holy Crap!!!

For a second there I thought I had already posted when I didn't.

Glad to know someone else is in the same boat.

And I have to assume that someone with an apostolic pseudonym really knows "holy crap" when he sees it.