Steel_Wind
Legend
First off, I do want to say that I consider Dungeon to be the best value in gaming and better now than it has ever been. I love the Adventure Paths and the overall direction of the magazine. But that does not mean that Dungeon cannot change and that it cannot continue to improve.
The issue is simple: over the past while there has been a growing problem with using Dungeon at my table – and it seems to be getting worse. The spell selection of the foes is becoming extremely predictable, the fights are beginning to have a sameness to them as a result – and in general – the spell selection of the foes is starting to feel “old”.
The problem is the rigid policy of Dungeon in only using the PHB, DMG and the MM in its pages. The so called “core rules”.
When it comes to magic items, Dungeon invents what it wants to from time to time. When it comes to monsters, there are infrequent resort to creatures in the Fiend Folio, MMII and MMIII and other books from time to time as well – although when they do this they stat the monster out completely. Combined with frequent occurrences of all new monsters in the pages of Dungeon – this is mostly satisfactory.
But the one thing you hardly ever see is the use of a new spell – and a reference to a spell in a book other than in the PHB is unheard of (or virtually unheard of).
This rigid adherence to this policy is leading to a sameness in the combat threats presented by the foes in the encounters – while the player’s resources, strategy and tactics have changed greatly over time. It’s a problem and it’s a growing one. And I’m getting really tired of it, to be downright blunt.
The problem with this rigid policy is that it was born in the days of first and second edition, when the concept of “core rules” was more well defined – and perhaps better reasoned on a commercial basis – than it is now.
Back in the day of first ed, there weren’t 40+ official hardcovers to buy. When the various Players Options in 2E did cloud the issue a bit, these books still didn’t feel “official” in the same sense that the new hardcovers of 3.5E do now.
Now – before anyone reacts with a knee jerk, I know that to attempt to incorporate 40 books into adventures in Dungeon would be a massive error. It would fragment the user base and make the magazine less usable - not more usable - to a majority of its readers. I get that.
But at the same time, that does not mean that the definition of “core” needs to be entirely 100% static. It seems to me that there is a way to evolve the assumed content of the player without jumping off the end of the wharf.
I would suggest one of two options to expand the definition of “Core rules” assumed to be owned by the players and DM:
Option 1) Add only the Spell Compendium: The main problem with the current policy is not the same old magic items or even the same old monsters – it’s the same old spells. This really does affect tactics and how combats unfold. The quality of the adventures and the feel to the player would be improved by the inclusion of the Spell Compendium as a standard assumed resource. I’m not asking for thousands of new spells spread out across dozens of books. This is one single book that synthesizes all of those spells across those many hardcovers into one standard resource. Every single one of my players uses the Spell Compendium at the table. I suspect that my experience is widely shared among the player base. If you could do just one thing - add this one book to the definition of “core rules” that may be used by Dungeon adventure authors.
Option 2) In addition to the Spell Compendium, add in the PHBII and the DMGII. These are books with a very large “installed base” and a credibility due to their subject matter and book title to be worthy of inclusion in the expended definition of “core rules.”
Whatever the case, I do suggest that a policy forged in the 1980s bears reconsideration in light of the massive changes that the game has undergone and the huge expansion to the rules of the game. When those rules expansions are themselves digested in an easy to use source like the Spell Compendium, the raison d’etre behind the current definition of the "core rules" is worth re-evaluating with an open mind.
The issue is simple: over the past while there has been a growing problem with using Dungeon at my table – and it seems to be getting worse. The spell selection of the foes is becoming extremely predictable, the fights are beginning to have a sameness to them as a result – and in general – the spell selection of the foes is starting to feel “old”.
The problem is the rigid policy of Dungeon in only using the PHB, DMG and the MM in its pages. The so called “core rules”.
When it comes to magic items, Dungeon invents what it wants to from time to time. When it comes to monsters, there are infrequent resort to creatures in the Fiend Folio, MMII and MMIII and other books from time to time as well – although when they do this they stat the monster out completely. Combined with frequent occurrences of all new monsters in the pages of Dungeon – this is mostly satisfactory.
But the one thing you hardly ever see is the use of a new spell – and a reference to a spell in a book other than in the PHB is unheard of (or virtually unheard of).
This rigid adherence to this policy is leading to a sameness in the combat threats presented by the foes in the encounters – while the player’s resources, strategy and tactics have changed greatly over time. It’s a problem and it’s a growing one. And I’m getting really tired of it, to be downright blunt.
The problem with this rigid policy is that it was born in the days of first and second edition, when the concept of “core rules” was more well defined – and perhaps better reasoned on a commercial basis – than it is now.
Back in the day of first ed, there weren’t 40+ official hardcovers to buy. When the various Players Options in 2E did cloud the issue a bit, these books still didn’t feel “official” in the same sense that the new hardcovers of 3.5E do now.
Now – before anyone reacts with a knee jerk, I know that to attempt to incorporate 40 books into adventures in Dungeon would be a massive error. It would fragment the user base and make the magazine less usable - not more usable - to a majority of its readers. I get that.
But at the same time, that does not mean that the definition of “core” needs to be entirely 100% static. It seems to me that there is a way to evolve the assumed content of the player without jumping off the end of the wharf.
I would suggest one of two options to expand the definition of “Core rules” assumed to be owned by the players and DM:
Option 1) Add only the Spell Compendium: The main problem with the current policy is not the same old magic items or even the same old monsters – it’s the same old spells. This really does affect tactics and how combats unfold. The quality of the adventures and the feel to the player would be improved by the inclusion of the Spell Compendium as a standard assumed resource. I’m not asking for thousands of new spells spread out across dozens of books. This is one single book that synthesizes all of those spells across those many hardcovers into one standard resource. Every single one of my players uses the Spell Compendium at the table. I suspect that my experience is widely shared among the player base. If you could do just one thing - add this one book to the definition of “core rules” that may be used by Dungeon adventure authors.
Option 2) In addition to the Spell Compendium, add in the PHBII and the DMGII. These are books with a very large “installed base” and a credibility due to their subject matter and book title to be worthy of inclusion in the expended definition of “core rules.”
Whatever the case, I do suggest that a policy forged in the 1980s bears reconsideration in light of the massive changes that the game has undergone and the huge expansion to the rules of the game. When those rules expansions are themselves digested in an easy to use source like the Spell Compendium, the raison d’etre behind the current definition of the "core rules" is worth re-evaluating with an open mind.
