Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[MerricB]

3e gives a lot of attention to the "game" aspect of the RPG, and leaves the "role-playing" aspect in its proper place: with the players.

Actually, anyone who has looked at the Eberron material (especially Sharn) knows that Wizards have also provided many opportunities for those who lean towards the role-playing side of things. However, one of the main attractions of D&D is that it combines both role-playing with the game.

The emphasis that is placed on both is up to the DM and players.

Various supplements emphasise one or the other. Sharn: City of Towers is a good example of something that emphasises the role-playing and story elements of the game.

The Complete series, on the other hand, emphasise the game elements, though they aren't without role-playing elements.

Wizards try to cover the spectrum, and some people assume that everything Wizards do should be for _them_, and never mind anyone else. This is simply not true.

Cheers!

 

[Ranger REG]

3e gives a lot of attention to the "game" aspect of the RPG, and leaves the "role-playing" aspect in its proper place: with the players.

The emphasis that is placed on both is up to the DM and players.

*whines and stomps his feet*

"But that's hard work!!!! Forget it! I'm playing TCG!"

LOL!

Seriously, how much of a RPG material must be devoted to coach you into role-playing?

 

[Kanegrundar]

IMO, the core rules should be about crunch. Give me the numbers, tell me how to use them, and then I take them and add the flavor to them. I like my books about classes, alternate rules, etc, to be just that: rules. Books on races, campaign settings, CS supplements should be the only books to be heavy on fluff. If I'm not playing in a specific CS, then I don't want to have anything telling me how I *should* play. Let me decide that.

Kane

 

[Ranger REG]

If I'm not playing in a specific CS, then I don't want to have anything telling me how I *should* play. Let me decide that.

True, but for a newbie -- and let's face it, D&D is an entry-level game -- the first product is the Player's Handbook. It should give a leg up on the setting, even though we veterans won't be using (unless you're a GH fan). A game has to have rules and a setting, whether it is a boardgame like Monopoly (Park Avenue and stuff), card game like Magic: The Gathering (set in Dominiara), or RPG like Vampire: The Requiem (an alternate horror earth setting). Those are two main selling points.

 

[somekindofjerk]

Why should a third level rogue (or whatever) be called "a cat burglar", even if he has never broken into a house in his life? How do these titles help, if they are usually incorrect? Or, let's talk about the old wizard and fighter titles - since most of them are just synonims for "wizard" and "fighter", how are they any indication of the character's skill?

Right on. If you go around announcing yourself as "Ragnar, 6th level barbarian" because the rulebooks don't tell you what to call yourself, or "Sylthis, catburglar (who works as the king's junior spymaster, and has never be arrested for so much as jaywalking, let alone stealing from a citizen)" because the books tell you to, then the problem isn't with the books. Titles and flavor text to discuss the power level of a spell or what a detect spell shows are up to the players and the DM.

Perhaps a new, interesting idea for d20 products would be a compilation of these kinds of ideas - a series of possible ways to add flavor to a mechanic.

A kind of Arcana Unearthed Arcana, but for fluff. I'm all for book like that.

It should give a leg up on the setting, even though we veterans won't be using (unless you're a GH fan).

Perhaps take Kid Charlemagne's idea for a fluff compilation and add it in as a new chapter/sidebar in the next set of core books (which better be way, way in the future, as I don't feel like buying new corebooks for a long while) or as web enhacements for the existing books.

 

[Psion]

About the level names - I really disagree there. The level names IMO were never a good idea. Why should a third level rogue (or whatever) be called "a cat burglar", even if he has never broken into a house in his life?

Exactly.

Yeah, I do think 3.x e is a bit of a numbers game. But AFAIAC, it is the job of the GM to provide the fluff and handle the corner cases. The numbers are just there to resolve uncertainties.

If you are after a game that entrains "fluff" in the text of the book, there are games that do that. Personally, I would find that obstructive and relish the opportunity to fill in some of those details on my own.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Take magic item creation, it's boiled down into costs. To make a magic sword, simply spend 2,000gp.

This is actually a Really Good Thing in my opinion. In First Edition (I skipped 2E) there weren't rules for item creation to speak of. Now, even if I disagree with some of the values or methods, I have a means to quantify it!

 

[Umbran]

The rules deal with quantitative aspects of the game, because those are the aspects that lend themselves to codification. You cannot reasonably write a rule for something that is qualitative - quality is subjective, and thus difficult to cast in stone.

D&D has a long, long history of homebrewing. If you stick lots of flavor and qualitative elements into the rules, you'd effectively be tying the game more strongly to it's default setting. The homebrewers would then have to strip all those elements out again. Better instead to leave the rules more generic.

 

[somekindofjerk]

To make a magic sword, simply spend 2,000gp

You can still fluff it up. Instead of spending 2000gp, the local magecrafter might send you into the wilds to fetch components (possibly as part of a creature's treasure) which amount to 2000gp worth. The DM keeps this amount 'behind the curtain,' and your character doesn't know that he spent exactly 2000gp on it.
Or you might have to spend a variable amount of gold to secure materials, but the grand total of 2000gp comes out of the cost of transport, or the drinks you had to buy bring a merchant around.
Keep in mind the game is ultimately what you make of it.

 

[MerricB]

True, but for a newbie -- and let's face it, D&D is an entry-level game -- the first product is the Player's Handbook. It should give a leg up on the setting, even though we veterans won't be using (unless you're a GH fan). A game has to have rules and a setting, whether it is a boardgame like Monopoly (Park Avenue and stuff), card game like Magic: The Gathering (set in Dominiara), or RPG like Vampire: The Requiem (an alternate horror earth setting). Those are two main selling points.

Huh? What setting does Chess have? Backgammon? Poker?

In fact, there is a great amount of implied setting material in the Player's Handbook. It doesn't name specific places, but you get material like:

"[Their] clans are nomadic, wandering wherever circumstances and curiosity take them."

"From the frozen wastes of the north and the hellish jungles of the south come brave, even reckless warriors."

"Although their organisation is invisible to most ousiders... [they] are actually part of an organisation that spans they land, ignoring political borders."

Cheers!