Opinions on "Does Format Matter"

[DEFCON 1]

My complaint is there's no 'This is how to create a character!' section and there's no 'This is an example of gameplay in progress!' section. Both of those things make understanding what's going on so much easier.

Ah yes... the achilles heel of the roleplaying game genre.

It's probably one of the most difficult decisions you have to make when putting together an RPG book... deciding whether the book should spend valuable page space trying to help the new player who's never played (or even heard about) an RPG.

There are countless game books out there where you get several pages of the same exact "Here's a description of what an RPG is, and here's what an example of gameplay looks like." They're all the same, they all give a somewhat clearish idea of what you'd get into if you tried to play it, and of course they all get completely skipped over by 97% of the reading audience. At some point... these pages just become wastes of space, and thus most people would feel those pages might better be used for some new rules or additional details that otherwise would have gotten cut out of the game.

That's the $64,000 question for the book editors: REALISTICALLY how many people will actually pick this type book up for the first time without having ANY idea what it (or this style of game) is about? And will this book actually inspire someone to try and play it JUST based on the book alone (with no friends or other gamers with experience to "help along" the new person in figuring this game out)?

Honestly? I believe in this day and age the odds of someone coming into these kinds of books absolutely blind with NO NOTIONS of what they are getting into (thus making these pages actually serve a useful purpose) has become increasingly smaller and smaller. Too many RPG video games, too many blogging sites, book reviews, friend's social media comments etc. make it exceedingly unlikely. If someone truly hears about this game of D&D for the first time... the possibility of just googling it and getting a complete download of information about it clears the fog of what this game is much, much quicker and easier. And thus those four pages at the front of the Player's Handbook on "Here's an example of a party going through a dungeon crawl!" is even more superfluous for everyone involved. Yeah, you might lose A person or two... but the overwhelming majority would just as soon have a couple more pages of items or feats.

 

[Klaus]

The layout didn't irk me. The art did. I much preferred the art style of early 3e to early 4e. I've been playing since '92, but Sam Wood and Todd Lockwood are the artists who most epitomize what I think D&D should look like.

I don't get how WotC can have such fantastic artists for Magic, and not use any of them for D&D.

Oh, and I like Keldryn's suggestions.

Y'know, both of them are still doing D&D art. Sam Wood did the MM1 ogres, trolls (among others) and hit it out of the park with his MV orcs, battle troll, dragons, etc. Todd Lockwood did the covers for both Draconomicons, plus a plethora of novel covers.

 

[SSquirrel]

But the one thing that it gets badly wrong is The Wall, that huge block of endless power descriptions in the middle of the book. On first read-through, this is an absolute disaster. (And, yes, the 3e PHB had its own Wall of Spells. The difference, though, is that the spells are placed at the end of the book, while the 4e Wall is early in the book, before the new player gets a chance to come to grips with the game. This is especially damning as the powers sometimes refer to things that are not defined until later [W].)

Page 57 refers you to the section later in the book (pg 269) that describes combat and also covers what W means. Even without actually reading the meaning of it, it seems pretty obvious that 1W will be less than 2 or 3W. If you want the extra detail early on, you can follow the page reference and get it.

* Also, sad to say, "Tomb of Horrors" really isn't a good adventure. The first chapter is great, but after that, it gets progressively worse as it goes. I was most disappointed by this. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, though - WotC have never been good at published adventures, with a very small number of shining exceptions.

I've gone so far in other threads as to say that greater than 90% of all store bought adventures suck pretty hard. WotC, TSR, whoever. Company and system don't matter. Of course, I also think that some of the "classic" adventures like Tomb of Horrors are pretty overrated as well. Didn't enjoy it back in the day, don't expect to now.

I think part of the problem with large fight lengths is that some DMs don't make use of minions. Add in a pile of minions and some of the area affect spells that people have make things go a LOT faster.

 

[delericho]

Page 57 refers you to the section later in the book (pg 269) that describes combat and also covers what W means. Even without actually reading the meaning of it, it seems pretty obvious that 1W will be less than 2 or 3W. If you want the extra detail early on, you can follow the page reference and get it.

Yes, but it's still bad design. If it's a reference book, there should be an obvious glossary of terms. If it's a tutorial, it's a bad idea to use terms before they're introduced (especially since an ideal place to present that detail would be "How to Read a Power").

I've gone so far in other threads as to say that greater than 90% of all store bought adventures suck pretty hard. WotC, TSR, whoever. Company and system don't matter.

That's maybe a bit harsh, but probably not too much. Paizo, Goodman, Necromancer and Green Ronin all produce(d) adventures that were generally well regarded. I seem to recall the few Shadowrun adventures I encountered being generally good, too.

(But the Vampire scenarios I saw universally, um, sucked. A lot of the AD&D 2nd Edition ones did, too, albeit for different reasons.)

I think part of the problem with large fight lengths is that some DMs don't make use of minions. Add in a pile of minions and some of the area affect spells that people have make things go a LOT faster.

True, that. And it was telling that those "Kobold Hall" encounters generally didn't use minions, and the grindfest from "Tomb of Horrors" didn't include any either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Format absolutely matters, and though 4e is quite a bit better than 3e in formatting, and though the issues with the transition are much deeper, a better format for the first 4e books might have not been such a slap of cold water to the face of so many 3e fans. They might still not like it, but at least the Powers subsystem might have been hidden enough that it wouldn't be the poster boy for gamist thinking that goes a bit too far.

 

[SSquirrel]

Yes, but it's still bad design. If it's a reference book, there should be an obvious glossary of terms. If it's a tutorial, it's a bad idea to use terms before they're introduced (especially since an ideal place to present that detail would be "How to Read a Power").

If they detailed W there, but not the rest of combat, they would need to either repeat information later in the book or refer people back to an earlier place. It makes more sense to me (and apparently the 4E devs) to consolidate info and not repeat things.

That's maybe a bit harsh, but probably not too much. Paizo, Goodman, Necromancer and Green Ronin all produce(d) adventures that were generally well regarded. I seem to recall the few Shadowrun adventures I encountered being generally good, too.

(But the Vampire scenarios I saw universally, um, sucked. A lot of the AD&D 2nd Edition ones did, too, albeit for different reasons.)

Just look back at the d20 explosion. Nature's Fury is still found by the stack in used sections of gaming stores. Sorry Mearls. For every good adventure out there Delericho, there are at least 9 bad ones. Some of the publishers like Necromancer certainly had a higher ratio than other companies, but there's still a lot of crap over the last nearly 40 years.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Actually, I think this is a case of "form follows function". I believe that the Essentials builds are a more natural outgrowth of 3e, and therefore an Essentials-style 4e would have looked more familiar to 3e players.

 

[Marius Delphus]

I voted "format didn't matter," because even if the page design were somehow closer to 3E (see the attached for a "quick and dirty" attempt at such a thing), the rules material would still be what it is. Cause I always think in terms of page design when I think "format."

 

[Dice4Hire]

Actually, I think this is a case of "form follows function". I believe that the Essentials builds are a more natural outgrowth of 3e, and therefore an Essentials-style 4e would have looked more familiar to 3e players.

I agree.

Though I do not think it would have made a big difference with 3E peoples switching to 4E.

I think most people did not switch to 4E because they tried it and did not like it.

Maybe I am naive.

 

[Matt James]

Did anyone follow what the one guy was rambling on about in regards to the OGL/GSL in the comments thread?

Looking back at 2008, when the 4e came out, I don't recall being jarred at the change in format. As time went on, I have actually preferred the monster stat reformats. I don't recall ever having any issues understanding the new power stat blocks. My current preference for the new format could be due to many reasons, but I just feel the information is a bit easier to follow. /shrug