Why don't companies show people how to use their books?

[Crothian]

It's a supplement. It's sort of like Toolbox for Spycraft. The thing is, Spycraft has a dizzying array of rule extensions. Mastermind's tables sort of act like an index of these options, showing you how to put together a game using these options.

that sounds perfect. Wizards should have done that with Unearthed Arcana, lots of great options but no examples of really using them in game.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Crothian -- tell me if the below would be kind of what you mean.

I am in the process of sketching out a new campaign, with an intended audience of new-ish players. Thus, I don't want to dump my stack of 20+ D&D books on the table and say, "Build a PC," because they will be overwhelmed with options.

Instead, I plan to start them with the PHB only, and then gradually introduce new organizations (and affiliated PrC's), feats, spells, and expanded uses for skills into the adventures.

So for example in their 1st-level days, they might meet a Knight Protector of the Great Kingdom, who explains to them what his organization is all about, and if anyone is interested, tells them the requirements to join (in game terms, tells them the pre-reqs for the PrC).

Meanwhile, an enemy kobold sorcerer uses one of the spells from Complete Arcane against them. If the PCs ask about it, they can do some research (knowledge - arcana or role-playing) to find out about the spell and add it to their list of known spells.

As well, there is an enemy fighter-type with Monkey Grip (using an oversized weapon) and again, if the PCs ask, they can take the feat themselves the next time they get a feat.

That's my plan, anyway -- introduce all the crazy new options directly into the adventuring.

 

[Jraynack]

While I'm wishing, I'd also wish that the companies would talk about other books that go good or bad with whatever book they are talking about. I know it ain't going to happen but as an example I'd love to see Green Ronin mention a bunch of books that fit the feel of Thieves World and also list the ones that won't work for that setting.

I too love that - and as a publisher I would love to do that - however, the legalities of mentioning other products is a little sketchy with possible legalities. I know that I can't mention any of the WOTC books, save from the core, by title if I use the d20 logo and OGL for our products. As for other companies, there is the trademark question.

However, as we are in the process of collecting all of our playtest info from our campaign and produce a setting - I will try to seek permission about doing this, for there are a number of books that we draw from in order to capture the feel of our setting as well as what other book a GM or player can use along with the setting.

 

[eris404]

Bleh. Double post.

 

[eris404]

I have to give Mike Mearls some credit here - in the Book of Iron Might, he pointed out how some of the combat options could affect a game negatively. It's really easy for me to get overexcited to use new options I've read about, only to find out in play that someone (who has a better brain for abusing rules than I do) can twist the option in a way that I had not forseen. I think it's good practice to include these kinds of sidebars and I'd like to see more authors/designers (WotC included) continue it.

 

[VirgilCaine]

An example from D&D: the GM advice section at the front of the DMGII, that includes a reworking of Robin Laws' player types, etc., should be right there in the original DMG -- along with other advice on what works well for D&D, what doesn't work well, etc.

YES!
Also, what to do, what not to do for basic changes to the game--common things that lots of people have in common. Maybe changing from GP to an SP standard or another paragraph on High and low magic games. Things like that.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

One of the things I'm trying to do and I'd like to see others do, is to be free in writing reviews on publisher sites. Not the ones like on ENworld or even Montecook.com, but ones that show how to integrate another product with one of the publisher's products.

So the guys over at Darwin's World could review Grim Tales and show how some of the GT stuff could be used in DW. They wouldn't really "rate" the product, they'd just show how to use the crossover.

 

[Greatwyrm]

I think WotC has taken a small step in the right direction with some of their PrC descriptions. I've seen more of them with bits at the end about how to fit them in different campaigns. e.g. "If you're not playing FR, this fits well with an organization that..." MM3 had some examples like that, too, showing how and where different monsters could fit into WotC's main settings.

Another thing I'm looking forward to is Mastering Iron Heroes. "In-depth rules discussion and commentary teach you not only how to use the rules, but how to change them. Direct, engaging style pulls back the game designer's curtain and lets the DM see how and why the system works."

 

[ThirdWizard]

Another thing I'm looking forward to is Mastering Iron Heroes. "In-depth rules discussion and commentary teach you not only how to use the rules, but how to change them. Direct, engaging style pulls back the game designer's curtain and lets the DM see how and why the system works."

I think its great that this is coming out. I thought I'd post a link for any intersted.

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_MasterIL

 

[green slime]

Bah, humbug.....

I don't read those articles. I don't like reading how the authors think certain PrC's/monsters/quidjits fit into a certain world. In fact, I am highly anti-"fluff" in my gaming material purchases. Why? Because I feel I can provide the fluff without problem. What I pay for is new rules/variants/options. The latest tendancy to fill out whole pages with nothing but uninspiring (to me) text that bears no semblance to what I want to achieve with my game, such as the space devoted to mundane descriptions of how to play a certain PrC, really riles me....