The term "Crunchy" and Dragon - where do we go from here?

[The Sigil]

I was flipping through some old Dragon magazines last night and found something kind of interesting... which brought up a question...

In Dragon Annual #3, the "editor's note" (or whatever it be called) at the beginning of the magazine referenced the desire of Dragon to continue being a good place to find "crunchy" material for D&D (his word).

I thought to myself, "who, then, first coined the phrase 'crunchy'? - It is obviously not a new term for 3rd edition stuff only." Anyone have any answers?

The other thing I found interesting is that even at that point, Dragon felt that it needed to produce "crunchy bits" in order to be relevant to all gaming tables. My question is, "do they do that any more?"

Much has been made about Dragon appearing to be basically a 6-dollar advertisement for the next WotC product. And you know, I whole-heartedly agree with that. The D&D market is not really D&D anymore - it's now d20. Dragon really needs to quit jocking WotC and help the average gamer find his way to the other "really good stuff" out there.

As for the inclusion of crunchy bits, I think a lot of companies have fallen victim to the fallacy that there are 5 basic varieties of crunchy bits:

1.) Prestige Classes
2.) Spells (and spellcasting systems)
3.) Monsters
4.) Feats
5.) Magic Items

Personally, I think we, the d20 community at large, hit saturation of prestige classes and feats long ago. With all the monster books out and about to be out, I think we'll hit saturation on that in another three months, tops. Alternate spellcasting systems are a lot of work (though I do like them), and we are probably coming up against saturation in spells. This leaves us with only "magic items" as one of the five formulaic crunchy bits that can still excite us - and how many magic items will it take to saturate THAT appetite? I would guess not very many.

I look back over old Dragon issues and asked, "what were the crunchy bits THEY used?" Of course, the Bazaar of the Bizarre had some really neat magic items (and some really bad ones). But where (to me at least) Dragon set the standard in "crunchy bits" was in the "filling out of the system." It published rules for situations and things not covered in the Core Rulebooks. In other words, it didn't try to cram more "stuff" into the house, it actually built additions onto the house to hold stuff.

What have I seen in d20 publishing that does this? Not much - though I have seen some...
1.) Alchemy and Herbalists - hugely expands two skills. Rules for all sorts of "mundane" concoctions - and some magical ones too.
2.) Seafarer's Handbook, Broadsides!, (something else I am forgetting) - Underwater combat, ship-to-ship combat.
3.) Legions of Hell/Armies of the Abyss - Giving a little explanation of planar cosmology (of specific planes).

Basically, Dragon - and many d20 publishers - have fallen into the trap of trying to stuff material into the existing framework, instead of building on the existing framework and expanding our horizons. Even I am guilty of that to some degree.

Some "creamy" is needed to make this exciting, but all "cream" is "fluff" and useless to most. I haven't read the fiction in Dragon in years - it is 100% useless to me. What I want is articles to expand the system - give me the tour of the planes. Give me rules for encounters on the plane. Give me rules for how the plane affects visitors. Yes, some of this is in the Manual of the Planes. But there could be more.

I have the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook. Great. Give me rules for siege weapons. Give me rules for starving out a fortress. Give me mass combat rules.

Give us aerial combat rules. Underwater combat rules. Give us rules on "how to design a spell/feat/monster (those were IMO the best articles for 3rd edition D&D Dragon has contained)." Give us rules on how to make (balanced) rules.

Give us an explanation of economy and how "cash" flows through a hamlet. Through a small village. Through a large town.

IOW, Dragon, don't give us more stuff. Give us instead boxes to put it in. For the love of all that is holy, don't give us "Drow." Don't give us "Elves." Don't give us "The Realms." Give us stuff we all can actually use. Even though the group that screams for "Drow" and "Vile Evil" and "Realms" is loud, they are by far the minority among gamers - by catering to them, you are turning off the rest of us and losing your fan base in a hurry. Stick to generic stuff - the tighter you focus on a themed issue, the smaller the group that will find the issue useful will be. The smaller the group that finds an issue useful, the smaller your subscriber base. Basic economics from there....

Thoughts?

--The Sigil

 

[jmucchiello]

1.) Prestige Classes and core classes
2.) Spells (and spellcasting systems) and psionic powers
3.) Monsters and monster templates
4.) Feats and new uses for skills (and poorly thought up new skills)
5.) Magic Items, psionic items and new mundane creations

That's a bit more accurate, I think.

As to your point - all of your examples are perfectly good ideas for Dragon to publish. Someone show go write them. What are you really asking though? You're not going to stop folk from making PrCs or monsters, etc. New rules are nice but they are hard to playtest. Most people read a set of new rules and say "I wouldn't have done it that way." I know I do.

Oh, and yes, crunchy has been around forever.

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
http://www.throwingdice.com

 

[Ashrum the Black]

My thoughts?

Okay,, since you asked. I think you're exactly right. I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with what the difference between now, and the golden days of yore and you've just put into words what I failed to. Dragon right now seems to be stuck in a rut of giving us the same thing over and over again.

What I want as a consumer is new and different. Not just more of the same. I want to expand my world and explore new facets of it. I want to give new twists to the pieces I've already devised. What I'm trying to say is I'd like to see some generic pieces that could be dropped wholesale or in part, into almost any world. I want an article that will get MY creative juices flowing and latley this just hasn't been happening.

Themed Articles don't bother me in the least. But for goodness sake make it a theme that could be used by all and make it robust. I picked up the article on the knights and was very disappointed. I got some new spells for paladins, and I got a almost to generic article on knighthood. Where's the article on a knights armor adding something special there. An article on the care and uptake of the knights mount and some special options. This is Dragon magazine. Let the creative juices flow! I'm not saying lets munchkin out the knight, but I am saying lets offer some options to those wanting to add more detail to a knight based campaign. I'm the DM, I can always say now to the knight wanting to ride a gold dragon into combat at third level. Heck I just said no to the 10th level paldin wanting to give that little option a try.

But the name of the game for Dragon should be offering up new options for Dm's to use in their campaigns, not just more of the same.

I hope this made some form of sense. Now I should probably get back to work.

Yeah, spreedsheats!

 

[drnuncheon]

Basically, Dragon - and many d20 publishers - have fallen into the trap of trying to stuff material into the existing framework, instead of building on the existing framework and expanding our horizons. Even I am guilty of that to some degree.

The Knights/Chivalry issue was exactly what you're asking for. Not only did it expand the mechanics with the idea of Honor points, it had great advice on how to run a non-standard chivalric-style D&D campaign. The D&Dg/April issue had the vehicle rules for D&D and the 'reputation' rules - again, just the kind of extra crunch you sound like you're looking for. The World Building issue had realm management rules inside Dungeoncraft.

So it's not that they're not doing it at all, it's that they're not doing it enough for you. Which is fine - but I think you'd get a better response if you phrased it "Article X was really good, I'd like to see more articles like that." Not only is it positive feedback rather than negative, but it also shows that you know what you're talking about. If you say "you never publish stuff like X" the immediate response is going to be to counter that with "we do too, look at this and this".

Of course, Dragon can also only publish what is submitted to it, and if everybody is submitting new spells/items/monsters/PrCs, then that's what we're going to get. Rules variants like the vehicle rules require a lot more work to design and test than a PrC or new magic item, so people aren't going to be likely to write them...

As for other d20 publishers:

Atlas' Occult Lore, Bastion's Spells & Magic and FFG's Spells & Spellcraft all expand the magic system in new and unusual ways.

Mongoose's stuff tends to do quite a bit of this. The Encyclopedia Arcane series has new types of magic - some completely separate from the existing D&D system (like Chaos Magic) and others expanding on it (like Constructs). The Quintessential series even puts this sort of stuff in, tucked around the more standard "crunch": Fighter has a Mass Combat system, Rogue has rules for running a criminal organization, and Wizard has a completely new tyle of magic item.

ENWorld's own Wulf Ratbane included some nicely expanded Craft rules in his Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves book.

So that sort of thing is out there, you just need to know where to look.

 

[The_Gneech]

Looking through some of my old "Best of Dragon" products, I find:

* NPC classes
* PC core classes
* New races (the Winged Folk are still my fave)
* Variant core classes (alt.bard, alt.monk, etc.)
* Cool background stuff ("Gods of the Suel Pantheon," "The Orcish Point of View" etc.)

Seems to me Dragon still has that to some extent ... I'd like to see a few more of the first three options, but on the other hand I loved the whole Drow issue. I found use for a lot of it immediately!

I do think the "theme" thing is getting a bit overdone, but on the whole, I'm actually quite pleased with Dragon, myself.

Dungeon, OTOH, is still a much better deal, overall.

-The Gneech

 

[The Sigil]

Dungeon, OTOH, is still a much better deal, overall.

If it's an argument you're looking for, you won't find one here.

Also, it is a valid point that Dragon still does the kind of stuff I like, and I thank drnuncheon for pointing that out. You are right - they do it, they just don't do it enough for my tastes.

Also, I DO like "Ecology of..." articles.

--The Sigil

 

[Davelozzi]

This leaves us with only "magic items" as one of the five formulaic crunchy bits that can still excite us - and how many magic items will it take to saturate THAT appetite?

It has already happened, IMO.

 

[barsoomcore]

all "cream" is "fluff" and useless to most.

Huh? I live for cream.

I mean it. It's the "creamy" bits -- the ideas, the motivations, the stories, the names -- these are the bits that I relish, that I end up using all the time in my campaigns. They're what spark me off to create my own stuff.

I'll never be able to publish my campaign material, because it's all named after existing stuff -- I just twist the "crunchy" bits around till they fit my mechanics.

So here's one vote for useless fluff.

 

[Jasperak]

Way back, when the Dragon Magazine archive came out, I spent several days just reading all of the different articles from the first issues to the last issues. When reading all of those magazines in such a short span I was able see the changes in the magazines and the style of articles published over the years (Why did I mention this?)

I have printed out about 50 articles so I could reference them without the computer. Wanna know how many were "crunchy bits" articles... 4. All of them were for 2e kits, like the Crypt Ranger. All of those crunchy bits articles I have used for converting to 3e.

But what of the other 40 some articles. They are the "Sticky bits" articles, the articles that tie the crunchy to the cream. They are the articles that renew my love for the game, refresh the game's appeal when it starts to get stale.

Articles about PrCs do not refresh the game for me. You don't know the power level of my campaign (how long until a Dragon PrC outclasses the Hospitaller or is it the Templar?) Give me articles that show me how to make the darn PrC.

Give me articles like "The Little Wish: New uses for the Cantrip" or "Make your Adventures more like Fantasy Literature," before articles about PrCs.

I pick up my Dragon magazines when I get tired of reading the PHB or DMG to find new ways to have my kobolds kill arrogant PCs (kobold rog1, Bluff). Kobold clr10/Divine Champion of Thor7 is not what I am looking for.

Gotta say though, the magazine has gotten better, but for me, it still has a long way to go before it gets back to the pre-150 quality and usefulness.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Re: Re: The term "Crunchy" and Dragon - where do we go from here?

Huh? I live for cream.

I mean it. It's the "creamy" bits -- the ideas, the motivations, the stories, the names -- these are the bits that I relish, that I end up using all the time in my campaigns. They're what spark me off to create my own stuff.

I'll never be able to publish my campaign material, because it's all named after existing stuff -- I just twist the "crunchy" bits around till they fit my mechanics.

So here's one vote for useless fluff.

You're beautiful man, don't change a thing.

-agrees with you Patrick Y.

PS: except your clothes. Change those like, everyday.