Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ColonelHardisson" data-source="post: 267442" data-attributes="member: 363">First, just a friendly recommendation: try to split up what you write into smaller paragraphs. Blocks of text like that are hard on the eyes.I don't think many would really dispute too much of what you say in general. I will say this about the splatbooks WotC put out: they're not that bad. They get a much worse rap than they deserve. In general, they're fun and inventive. The assertion about five pages or more of errata is also a bit misleading; a lot of that stuff was simply made up of grammatical errors. You don't see that much errata from most other RPG companies for a very important reason: they don't release any errata. There are only a tiny few RPG companies that even go to the bother of providing errata - WotC and Steve Jackson Games being two of the main ones.Personally, I don't have lot of use for fluff. I have plenty of books, movies, and my own imagination to come up with that kind of material. I'm not too interested in coming up with game mechanics on my own, so the crunch is more along the lines of what I want. Still, I wouldn't want there to be no fluff. Sometimes it's useful to me, but only very occasionally. I agree that a balance is needed. SKR's recent revelation about the fluff side of the equation being in danger is something which I see as a negative - after a while, all crunch and no fluff makes for a dull, overloaded game.EDIT: Oh yeah - Stronghold Builder's Guidebook and The Book of Challenges are absolutely not sloppy. They're two of the best books WotC has put out recently. Book of Challenges especially is looking like a classic; a very useful book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ColonelHardisson, post: 267442, member: 363"] First, just a friendly recommendation: try to split up what you write into smaller paragraphs. Blocks of text like that are hard on the eyes. I don't think many would really dispute too much of what you say in general. I will say this about the splatbooks WotC put out: they're not that bad. They get a much worse rap than they deserve. In general, they're fun and inventive. The assertion about five pages or more of errata is also a bit misleading; a lot of that stuff was simply made up of grammatical errors. You don't see that much errata from most other RPG companies for a very important reason: they don't release any errata. There are only a tiny few RPG companies that even go to the bother of providing errata - WotC and Steve Jackson Games being two of the main ones. Personally, I don't have lot of use for fluff. I have plenty of books, movies, and my own imagination to come up with that kind of material. I'm not too interested in coming up with game mechanics on my own, so the crunch is more along the lines of what I want. Still, I wouldn't want there to be [i]no[/i] fluff. Sometimes it's useful to me, but only very occasionally. I agree that a balance is needed. SKR's recent revelation about the fluff side of the equation being in danger is something which I see as a negative - after a while, all crunch and no fluff makes for a dull, overloaded game. EDIT: Oh yeah - Stronghold Builder's Guidebook and The Book of Challenges are absolutely not sloppy. They're two of the best books WotC has put out recently. Book of Challenges especially is looking like a classic; a very useful book. [/QUOTE]

Verification