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

[DonAdam]

I, too, would like to see more modular rules sets in Dragon.

The wuxia campaign rules was a great idea, but it was poorly, poorly executed. I love the idea of alternate rules to simulate certain sub-genre, but Dragon just hasn't been putting out quality stuff in that department, and it's been far from comprehensive. Some of the swashbuckling articles in one of the issues right before 3rd edition were quite good. It would be nice to see something along those lines, but also with rules changes for swashbuckling campaigns.

Use a big chunk of one issue to fully flesh out a vitality/wounds system/class defense/armor = DR system.

Give me magitech rules, etc in one issue (actually, I'm working on something like this with 4ctf as a base)

Others mentioned already include naval combat, mass combat, etc.

Give me conversions of old stuff so that I can use my old books. One of my friends is working up a conversion chart from 1st edition rate experience into 3rd edition so that the old modules can be played with the new rules without outpacing the adventure.

If they must do classes, here are several suggestions:
1) Alternate core classes when enough people want it- I don't care if the people that think the ranger got the shaft are right or wrong, but when there's that significant of a fan base out there that thinks there's a problem with something like this then Dragon is the place to put alternatives. You could even do one big article with several variants so that you have a better chance of being useful.
I, for one, would like to see a less combat-oriented priest and a skill specialist without sneak attacks and such.

2) For new core classes, always, ALWAYS, give the npc 1st-20th level progression AND the apprentice level rules. This goes for all d20 books.

3) If I must suffer Prestige Classes, give me some good cream with them. The Eldritch Master was great, but it would have been 100 times cooler if there was a 2-6 page article detailing the relationship between the EM and his outsider patron (and I KNOW Monte could do that well).
All the prestige classes should have some sort of roleplaying requirement, and a cream article to fully flesh out the implications of it makes the class much, much more useful.
For a good example of this, see Path of the Sword.

4) Follow the example of the monk classes in the knights issue and give a couple tiny variations on each class, instead of having to write 8 different classes. This makes the classes more modular, which is always, always, always, always, always good.

And, lastly...

I do not ever, never ever ever, NEVER, need another article about dragons.

They don't come up often enough to justify the countless pages that have been used on them. I know what the name of the magazine is, I don't need ot be reminded on every page. Dragons have been beaten to death with a +5 Unholy Vorpal Stick of Ultimate Repetitiveness.

 

[rounser]

I have a theory as to why the "crunch good, fluff bad" situation we're in has arisen.

Most crunch is generic, and therefore useful to most people. Designers haven't mastered the art of producing generic fluff, such as a detailed village with no name and no macro level assumptions about the campaign world, but interesting NPCs, stores to buy stuff, and plot hooks.

I suspect that this is because when designers get into "fluff mode", they want to stamp their mark of ownership all over it, and perhaps dictate the use of their creation. Why else give a city designed to slot into any campaign a name? That's not the designer's role, they've overstepped the bounds - the DM wants to make that city his or her own, and naming it and making assumptions about the DM's world just get in the way of that....perhaps to the point where they'll just put down the book or magazine because there's too much reworking or ignoring to do to make it fit their world.

If Dragon ran a "Village-A-Month" series or a "Lair-A-Month" series, and kept them generic and modular, unnamed (though perhaps with a descriptive name designed to be replaced, such as "Village in the meadows" or "Desert nomad camp") yet interesting at a low level, they might find their audience getting more use out of them than yet another slice of crunch. (Generic in the sense that it's non-setting specific and doesn't make assumptions about the campaign world, not generic in the sense that it's unimaginative or dull.) I doubt it would be stepping on Dungeons' toes - the difference is that Dungeon specialises in plotted adventures, whereas like the WotC site's "Map-A-Week" series, these are more like campaign components. Setting lego blocks, if you will...but still "fluff".

Perhaps to make fluff compete with crunch again, the d20 community needs to rethink how it creates fluff.

 

[JeffB]

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.
.

YES, YES, YES! This is what I want and/or Have been missing/talking about!

Cream is good, Crunch is good, but ya gotta have the sticky to tie them together. On their own, each is very weak (though like Barsoom, I'd rather have the cream than the crunch if limited to the two choices)

 

[JeffB]

I have a theory as to why the "crunch good, fluff bad" situation we're in has arisen.

Most crunch is generic, and therefore useful to most people. Designers haven't mastered the art of producing generic fluff, such as a detailed village with no name and no macro level assumptions about the campaign world, but interesting NPCs, stores to buy stuff, and plot hooks.

I suspect that this is because when designers get into "fluff mode", they want to stamp their mark of ownership all over it, and perhaps dictate the use of their creation. Why else give a city designed to slot into any campaign a name? That's not the designer's role, they've overstepped the bounds - the DM wants to make that city his or her own, and naming it and making assumptions about the DM's world just get in the way of that....perhaps to the point where they'll just put down the book or magazine because there's too much reworking or ignoring to do to make it fit their world.

If Dragon ran a "Village-A-Month" series or a "Lair-A-Month" series, and kept them generic and modular, unnamed (though perhaps with a descriptive name designed to be replaced, such as "Village in the meadows" or "Desert nomad camp") yet interesting at a low level, they might find their audience getting more use out of them than yet another slice of crunch. (Generic in the sense that it's non-setting specific and doesn't make assumptions about the campaign world, not generic in the sense that it's unimaginative or dull.) I doubt it would be stepping on Dungeons' toes - the difference is that Dungeon specialises in plotted adventures, whereas like the WotC site's "Map-A-Week" series, these are more like campaign components. Setting lego blocks, if you will...but still "fluff".

Perhaps to make fluff compete with crunch again, the d20 community needs to rethink how it creates fluff.

Great post and to the mark I believe.

 

[Marion Poliquin]

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 first time I came across the term was in Lawyers, Guns, and Money: The New Inquisition Sourcebook for Unknown Armies (1999).

Here's the quote: Game designer Robin Laws calls them "crunchy bits" - the morsels of cool new rules and play aids that encourage gamers to buy new sourcebooks.

Since Robin Laws seems to always be around when the term turns up (Dragon and WotC started using it since Robin became a regular contributor), I am inclined to believe that he was indeed the first to coin the term. Maybe one day I'll get to ask him and get a confirmation.

 

[The Traveler]

What I would dearly, dearly love Dragon to become is a sort of synthesis. A combination of Dragon and Polyhedron that would slowly transform into the penultimate d20 magazine. Full-on product reviews, a more open written work policy, less tie-in to the WotC product-of-the-month.

In short, it'd be like the old Dragon, enabled by the massive freedom that d20 has brought to the industry.

Heck, if you could tie Dungeon into it and offer adventures for a stable of both WotC and third-party settings, it'd be the perfect gaming magazine.

It'd require upping the pagecount, but who wouldn't pay more for a magazine like that?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A combination of Dragon and Polyhedron that would slowly transform into the penultimate d20 magazine.

Why settle for 2nd best? If not Dragon, who's the ultimate d20 magazine?


Wulf

 

[gregweller]

I took a look in the 'Jargon File' to see if the term 'crunchy' had its origin in the hacker culture (if you don't know about the jargon file, check it out here:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/index.html )

The closest thing I could find was the idea of 'number crunching' which seems to me to be right -- the crunchy bits are the hard-core mechanics that lend themselves to number crunching.

 

[Malakye]

I prefer "crunchy" over the "creamy". I have a hard time creating prestige classes, spells, items etc. that are balanced, but if you give me a prestige class, I can easily come up with a background for them and insert them seamlessly into my campaign.

Whenever there is a prestige class, creature, spell or item that doesn't fit my campaign, it is always the background/description that I change and not the stats. Why fill a magazine with the stuff I'm going to change and remove the stuff I have a hard time creating?

 

[Irda Ranger]

Dragon Mag, or EN Wolrd?

I cancelled my subscription to Dragon about a year ago. It just wasn't as fulfilling for me as it had been in the past. Although I never tried to quantify why that was, I just knew that looking at the articles they were printing, nothing was inspiring and there was nothing was anythting I was going to use. I just skimmed along to Dragon Mirth, and that's not a reason to subscribe.

I think the reason though is that we have EN World (and I hang out at Monte's boards too). Why do you want the Sage's advice when you could get 10 opinions on a ruling, at least half of them quite well informed?

As for sticky, the Story Hour thread, the Rogues Gallery and even the General Message boards are an endless font of inspiration. If you want to flesh out an idea, post what you've got and watch dozens of smart, imaginative people run with it. Its like a Dragon Magazine that is interactive, has 10,000 staff writers, and posts every day, for free. When you come right down to it, how can the real Dragon compete?

Dungeon, of course, is a whole different matter. That mag rocks.

. . .

I know that this is just an observation. My post doesn't really offer too much constructive advice to Dragon. I am not sure what they can do to escape irrelevancey. I guess my advice is you readers. I think that Dragon is an anachronism and that just moving on is the best course of action. I know I suscribed to Dragon for a whole year after I stopped reading it, just out of habit. I finally admitted to myself that being able to chat personally with Monte Cook and dozens of other designers, playtesters and players was just better. If you really are that unhappy, just quit. When you need detailed rules, put down your cash of a good book from Mongoose or whoever that gives you what you want. That's what I say anyway.

Irda Ranger