I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[Kae'Yoss]

Both descriptions supply the player with something, but both leave something out.

The first one tells you exactly what you'd see if you looked that wizard over the shoulders - it visualizes the whole affair for you, but it doesn't give you any rules base.

The second one tells you exactly what the rules say about the matter, but it doesn't give you any flavour.

What does that tell you? In the first example, we have to think of the rules for ourselves. In the second, we have to visualize the stuff for ourselves.

Personally, I prefer to imagine stories instead of rules. Hand me that D&D 3 Book.

 

[Savage Jim]

While Tome and Blood was on par with 2e's Complete Wizard's Handbook, it, imo, does not come close to matching PO: Spells and Magic.

I've found, for magic, PO: S&M remains one of my most valued books. Spell Components, Magic Item Creation, and a host of other features far outmatch 3E's quick-play take on these elements, and as such the book remains a major influence on my gaming. Indeed, I still consider many 1E/2E books to be an active part of my RPG library, rather than just an "archive".

UA really was a step forward for WotC in regards to how they treat D&D. I hope to see more like it from them in the future, as it seems to embrace the fact that many groups (most?) make such changes, often for no reason more than "flavor".

 

[tonym]

I lean towards preferring clearly written rules over flavor text...for one major reason: Sometimes 'specific' flavor text bugs me and I don't want to read it more than once, let alone five or ten times. On the other hand, I never mind reading a plain-and-simple 'rule' a hundred times.

For example, here's a single flavor-text sentence about the Osquip from the 2E Monstrous Compendium that bugs me...

"Some wizards have trained packs of osquips and let them loose at stone fortresses during seiges; this tactic hasn't worked as well as the wizards hoped, chiefly because the tunnels dug by the osquips are almost always too small, and the osquips don't always move in the desired direction."

I don't mind reading text like that once. But when I'm in a hurry to find some information out, that kind of text not only bugs me, it wastes valuable DM prep-time.

I mean, doesn't that sentence really translate into: "Use osquips as a fancy seige tactic, but it won't work...so nevermind."

I love well-written, mostly-useful flavor text, though. That stuff Hong posted... PURE GOLD!




Tony M

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think it's fair to say that having read Gary Gygax's wonderful, imagination-stirring material in OD&D and 1e AD&D had a big impact on me. He was a good writer, there's no denying it, and it was to no small degree that skill he possessed that got so many of us hooked.

IMO Gary Gygax was a genius. At game design. But he's an abysmal writer.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The following exchange is typical:

PLAYER: I want to scribe a scroll. I've got X gp and I can afford to lose Y experience points.

DM [trying to add flavor]: Uh, okay. You need to track down an elusive old hermit who lives somewhere at the base of the Barrier Peaks. He's the only known alchemist in the area, and has reportedly created a magic ink from the blood of a dead beholder.

See, to me you're getting more than a little silly here. Especially when the wizard says "I have alchemy. I killed a beholder the other week. Why can't I make the bloody stuff?"

Or something similar.

Generally the answer is "because you suck. Only NPC's can do the good stuff"

Not to mention the groans of the other players when the wizard says "We all need to go on an adventure so I can get a scroll of magic missile, a spell that I could potentially cast 10 times between now and when we get the components. And then I need to make the thing".

And the other players, most of whom couldn't care less about the scroll prepare themselves to be left out of the game for the next hour and a half.

Face it - introducing flavour is good when it's good, engaging flavour that interests the whole party. Otherwise you're in danger of "sandwich syndrome", where each of the players have to roleplay the exchange to buy a sandwich, and then have to roleplay eating it.

Is that fun? No. Is making a scroll of a spell you can already cast the sort of thing that warrants a quest? no.

 

[wingsandsword]

One of my big problems with the 1e/2e item creation method of "find some rare stuff and put it all together" was that there was absolutely no balance on rarity. Yes, it had some great flavor, but it was nigh-impossible to balance and make fair, items were either insanely hard to craft and you had to wonder why anyone would go to the trouble for something so simple, or they were so easy that one wonders if there were wizards and clerics who did nothing but make them all day every day and flooded the world with them.

A DM could mean to make something very hard to obtain, but the PC's get it through ingenuity much quicker than the DM imagined, or the DM underestimates the power of the potion or scroll so he gives it easy requirements. Also, if you made a requirement something like "water taken from ice of the suchandsuch glacier" or "a platinum piece that has touched the lava of the suchandsuch volcano" or the like, once PC's get to the dramatically appropriate location they can stock up on the components.

If it's so insanely hard to make scrolls and potions, why were there so many of them? With by-the-book treasure even by 2e standards, we always had entire libraries of scrolls lying around by high levels. If mages were as rare as some DM's like to imply and scrolls as insanely hard to scribe as many DM's liked to make them, then a few people were going to herculean lengths to craft all those scrolls. It seems unlikely to me.

Not to mention the fact that you recieved XP for creating items in 1e/2e, instead of the other way around. If you found an easy recipe that the DM came up with and you could fulfil without much effort, you could sit down and just level up. Abusive? Yes. But completely by the book by 2e's magic item creation rules.

That's why I like the 3.x version of magic item creation, they have a fixed cost, they have a personal cost that cannot be circumvented even by the wealthy or lucky (XP) and they are easy enough to make (1st level spellcaster and a feat, and all Wizards can automatically do it it for scrolls and 3rd level and a feat for Potions).

 

[SSquirrel]

As an experienced DM/player, I appreciate the more crunch-heavy approach to the 3e books, but I think I would have been done a disservice if I had started with them. The fluff of previous editions was what captured my imagination. Now I tend to skim over that stuff and look for the numbers. In sum, I think the 3e approach makes for better reference/instruction books for the game, but I wonder/worry how attractive it makes the game appear to newbies who are trying to decide if it's fun in the first place.

MC

This post reminds me of taking the ACT and SAT tests and such. Instead of wasting your time reading all of the story, you quickly skim thru for keywords from the questions, answer them and move on. Just a test of your reading comprehension yes, but it was effective. I dig fluff in setting books. Knowing taht in X city they all have a siesta time from Noon-1 and taht the night watchmen all wear a burgundy tunic and cape is cool. Don't bother with that in the core rules tho. Give me descriptions that are effective, non-confusing and makeme go "AHA! That's how that works." *coughAoOscough*

Hagen

 

[SSquirrel]

There is still some fluff in the core rulebooks - the illustrations, the general class descriptions that precede the game rule information in the PHB and spell names such as 'Mordenkainen's Lucubration'.

Commonly misread as Mordenkainen's Lubrication of course *grin* Handy spell for a sorceror involved in a lil porn tho heh.

Edit:On the whole Sword R Us store, I'm a big fan of the Myth series by Robert Asprin and it just feels like the Bazaar at Deva for me. For the unread, the Bazaar is in the dimension of Deva, which is populated by Deveels (not to be pronounced Devils). Plays on words are VERY common in this series as its a humor fantasy series. If you can't find it at Deva, it probably doesn't exist is a popular phrase.

Hagen

 

[Gez]

3.x class supplements just throw lots of Prc's, feats, and spells. 2e supplements gave you lots of rules options to tailor the game itself (e.g., kits, specialty wizards, optional combat rules, optional spell casting systems.)

Given that PrCs, feats, and spells are all optional, and often features new spellcasting systems or combat options...

You've already cited Uneathed Arcana.

But what do you do of all the "Beyond the Curtain" and "Variant" sidebars in the DMG ?

I disagree with you that the non-setting sourcebooks of 3e do not leave room for customization. The Manual of the Planes is a toolbox for creating a cosmology. It features the Great Wheel only as an example, as well as the drafts of a few others. That book is all about options and customization.

Likewise with the Psionics Handbook. There again, it features psionic rules, and gives you the options to make psionics a different kind of magic or something altogether different. Likewise for Oriental Adventures, which uses Rokugan as an example, but features lots of things that are not present in Rokugan, because it's a toolbox to create an oriental-themed setting. Deities & Demigods, despite its low usefulness, is another example of such a toolbox.

What makes you think the contrary is the greater emphasis on "balance", which is hard to do when the rules aren't set. That's why all sourcebooks are written assuming you use the core rules unmodified.

 

[knifespeaks]

Well, I have been a critic of 3.x - still am, in a few areas.

I am a die-hard 1st edition - second edition was totally bypassed.

But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.

That said, I wouldn't ever purchase anything beyond the core rules (DMG/PH/MM) - I am a DM, not a player - if players wish to use extra rules, they are welcome to submit them for consideration. As an example, one player in the current campaign is playing a Healer (from some Miniatures add-on rulebook).

I prefer to integrate my own stuff - the less official rulebook/campaign source I invest in, the happier I am.