Here are a few questions for you folks.
1. A lot of people only use official material from WotC when running your D&D campaigns. Why is this so, and why don't you use OGL material? On the other hand if you do use OGL material how do you incorporate it into your campaign? Is most OGL stuff even compatible with official D&D?
and...
2. Do all the WotC splatbooks add to the game of D&D or detract from it? Do all the splatbooks form a cohesive whole or do they step on each others toes and confuse the rules of the game? What splatbooks have been a good addition to the game and what splatbooks have been bad?
It all depends on how much the OGL material deviates from established D&D "norms." Given that I DM Forgotten Realms, there are several established D&D "hardwired" quirks that I don't want to deviate from. For example, I wouldn't incorporate Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed spellcasting classes, mainly because it jettisons the arcane/divine split.
On the other hand, I have used (if only to allude to it) material from Monte's Requeum for a God, Book of Eldritch Might, or The Book of Divine Might. From time to time I will go through and see if there are feats or spells that are similar to new releases that have come out from WOTC. If a WOTC product does the same thing, I'll go with that (unless it doesn't feel "right" compared to the other treatment).
As far as monsters go, that's even easier. I've used several creatures from the Tome of Horrors for old school monsters. Monsters usually are a fairly easy one to use, especially if such monsters don't require major footprint in the ecology of the campaign.
New classes I tend to shy away from, and setting specific information is pretty "iffy," since there hasn't been much of it that makes me particularly inspired to adapt it to my campaign.
|
As far as I know my players never read the books (supplements--I think they're happy to let me spend all the money :\ ...), so I use any OGL and d20 material I particularly like. If there's an aspect to a certain mechanic that might fundamentally change the way my group normally does business, I just don't tell them about it. There's a great suggestion from Tome of Magic (v3.5): if you like the new material, work it in to the game subtly, so that new magic is discovered when the PCs find a spellbook or scroll, or observe an NPC casting the spell. New monsters are encountered, well, when they're encountered: when my players come up against a Tangleclaw from Castlemourn, they don't have to know it's from that OGL setting, they aren't likely to learn its whole ecology during that first encounter, and it might be a great way to introduce some new item, magic, or ability to the game.
I used to love splatbooks. "More variants and options" I thought. Now however it just seems absurd; I can barely keep on top of the splatbooks I have, let alone those that my players may bring to the table. As a DM I feel that I should know the material players ask about and yet, I don't in some cases. It makes me feel bad to disallow something they spent good money on, but at the same time I cannot DM in good conscience if I do not know what the players are capable of. Endless options are not the solution, while fun to play it needlessly complicates the rules and places "newbs" to the game a severe disadvantage. What feat to take, what class to choose? There are thousands of options and few of them are truly necessary for a player's concept of their character (unless 'cuisinart' is what they see their character as).
Simplicity is a good thing, but so are options; thus I see splatbooks that build off of the core as being the most worthwhile. Those that add new base classes, rules, or spellcasting systems create needless complication. We currently have eight "core" classes, with multiclass variations nearly any concept is possible with those classes, and your character does not have to be the "shaman" class to be a shaman in-game.
There are more class-race-feat-prestige class combinations now than anyone could ever make, in the PH alone there are thousands, if not millions of possible variations, why muddle it further?
Oh, I am still infected with the splatbook-buying-disease however; I have never used everything out of any of my splatbooks and the pile is large enough that I may never, I continue buying for those shining tidbits that come through every once in awhile.
|
|
The truth of the matter: All you need to play are the three core books. Everything else is extra icing.
The real truth: you can spend $16 on four PDFs: the Red, Blue, Green and Black boxes from the 80s (who actually played the Immortal Rules?), salt and pepper that wealth of information with your own imagination, and you have enough to play a game a week for the rest of your life.
Or, spend $12 on three PDFs, the 1E PHB, DMG and MM and, again, enough to play for the rest of your life.
Nonetheless, I still have more books of all editions than I'll ever use...I can't help it, the covers are all so shiny and sparkly...
I used to love splatbooks. "More variants and options" I thought. Now however it just seems absurd; I can barely keep on top of the splatbooks I have, let alone those that my players may bring to the table.
I'm in pretty much the same boat. I like new options and such but it has gotten overwhelming. I pretty much just outlined which books where even possibly in use and have begun to dramatically cut back on my purchases. I choose to pick up the Magic Item Compendium but that was more to simplyify things then to add more. At this point my rulling is if its in the Magic Item Compendium its cannon - everything else from every other source except the DMG is not cannon. Essentially I've gotten to the point where restricting the options has started to have more appeal then adding more options.
It's all about flavor for me. I (at least) glance at every product I get my hands on, and if it fits the campaign I have in mind, then I use it. In this regard, WotC products are no different than any other company's. I do, however, give WotC products a closer look than most, since they tend to mesh better with each other.
Are WotC products better than others? It depends on the product. Since I don't often have much time to spend working on my campaigns, I generally find WotC products a little easier to use since they typically require less customization.
We haven't really gotten into the OGL stuff, but splatbooks. Oh, do we have splatbooks. We have books I haven't even been able to read yet even though at some point prior to their purchase i was really excited about them. There are some (of the ones I've actually read) that I really love. The environmental books come to mind. The rest are mostly a love/hate relationship, and sometimes it seems like all I ever do is sift through information trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
|
|
As much as I like to read, the honest truth is if the publishers removed all the cool artwork, and printed text-only books, I wouldn't buy them. Case-in-point: I own one Green Ronin book: Advanced Bestiary, but I own almost every v3.5 WotC book, much more than half of which I've only thumbed through.
The truth of the matter: All you need to play are the three core books. Everything else is extra icing.
The real truth: you can spend $16 on four PDFs: the Red, Blue, Green and Black boxes from the 80s (who actually played the Immortal Rules?), salt and pepper that wealth of information with your own imagination, and you have enough to play a game a week for the rest of your life.
Or, spend $12 on three PDFs, the 1E PHB, DMG and MM and, again, enough to play for the rest of your life.
Nonetheless, I still have more books of all editions than I'll ever use...I can't help it, the covers are all so shiny and sparkly...
True dat, although I really enjoyed the transition to AD&D when I was a punk kid.... so I went to 1st Ed MM, PHB, DMG, D&Demigods, and World of Greyhawk .... Those kept us going for ten years with a few purchased scenarios.
After my D&D hiatus I came back and now I only own the PHB, MM, and DMG. I have a bunch of issues of Dungeon, a few Dragons, and that's it. I use some Greyhawk stuff from the net and write the rest myself.
One thing I am currently considering is the Spell Compendium, cuz I like spells....
I own no splatbooks, no current campaign books, zippo. I make my own maps with Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop, and spend a little money printing, and throw some cash away at figures. All in all I have about 300 USD worth of D&D stuff and have no complaints.
With hindsight, I might have just downloaded the SRD rules and kicked it all off with only the following: SRD, figures, Chessex battlmap, wet erase pens, and a program to save me time making NPC and statting monsters.
|
|
I think the earlier splatbooks were allright, but there's been a lot of uber munchkin power creep going on of late. I mean, look at the beguiler. A first level Beguiler could EASILY best a well-balanced party of 4th level characters from the core phb. And the Book of Nine Swords is just ludicrous. A swordsage would mow through those poor "fighter" or "ranger" guys like Steven Seagal through the cast of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer.
Who playtests this crap anyway, stoned leprechauns?
As much as I like to read, the honest truth is if the publishers removed all the cool artwork, and printed text-only books, I wouldn't buy them. Case-in-point: I own one Green Ronin book: Advanced Bestiary, but I own almost every v3.5 WotC book, much more than half of which I've only thumbed through.
I'm the same way. Good art really draws me to a book, whether core or not. As long as the text is pretty good, it's good art that makes or breaks a purchase. Three of the 5 characters I've got running around right now are in fact inspired--some right down to the names--from iconics in the books: Sandharrow & Mitra (Expanded Psionics Handbook), and Saveen (my name) from Complete Divine (the Contemplative prestige class).
I bought the Underdark book on the art alone; and it so happens I think it's one of the best splat books.
I think 2nd edition had the best artwork all around, though. Between DiTerlazzi (spelling?) for Planescape and Brom (and a younger Wayne Reynolds, I believe) for Dark Sun, those were good times!
More on topic: I buy mainly WOTC books, but the momentum has shifted. There's just too damn many of them. I'm much more selective now, and looking forward to diving into more contained systems, like Arcana Evolved, and Pathfinder.
|
|
...it's good art that makes or breaks a purchase. Three of the 5 characters I've got running around right now are in fact inspired--some right down to the names--from iconics in the books: Sandharrow & Mitra (Expanded Psionics Handbook), and Saveen (my name) from Complete Divine (the Contemplative prestige class).
I bought the Underdark book on the art alone; and it so happens I think it's one of the best splat books...
Actually, you make me think of a poignant fact (and I tend to think the authors of these books might feel keenly distressed to know the bulk of their work went unread...): I have bough several WotC and OGL/d20 books really for the art and fluff and nothing else. I have scanned and photoshopped (I am heavy into player handouts) countless bits of art from the books to include in a session, simply to illustrate a scene, show an NPC, visulaize a spell to the players, etc.--and used nothing else from the book. In this way, at least, I get my money's worth out of the splat books.
1. A lot of people only use official material from WotC when running your D&D campaigns. Why is this so, and why don't you use OGL material? On the other hand if you do use OGL material how do you incorporate it into your campaign? Is most OGL stuff even compatible with official D&D?
a.) In the beginning of 3E, it was quality control. There was a lot of chaff and not much wheat. I typically don't use much OGL material because the wheat (to continue my analogy) is sometimes hard to find unless you've got a publisher with a proven track record (Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, Malhavoc to name a few).
b.) It depends on how impressed I am with the book. I tend to use the gradual approach in how I integrate it into my campaign.c.) Usually it's pretty good. Depends on how it was written, or if the subject matter includes alternate rulesets and things like that.
2. Do all the WotC splatbooks add to the game of D&D or detract from it? Do all the splatbooks form a cohesive whole or do they step on each others toes and confuse the rules of the game? What splatbooks have been a good addition to the game and what splatbooks have been bad?
a.) Not always.
b.) They don't always gel really well together *cough* Tome of Magic *cough*. I can't recall if they've ever really stepped on each other, but more and more books (Weapons of Legacy, Book of Nine Swords) seem to take the original "make it clean and easy" design idea of 3E (so to speak) and gum up the works.c.) I can't really say much to this, as the books that I feel are "bad" are the ones I didn't buy - the concept of it just made me say "why make it more complicated than it already is?" I think as I've continued to DM over the years since 3E came out, I want books that are easy to understand, easy to implement, but provide me with a wealth of ideas to make my campaign unique and memorable. (I know, tall order.) That being said, my favorite splatbooks as of late have been "Magic of Incarnum" by WotC, "Cityworks" by Fantasy Flight Games, and "When the Sky Falls" by Malhavoc Press.
1. A lot of people only use official material from WotC when running your D&D campaigns. Why is this so, and why don't you use OGL material? On the other hand if you do use OGL material how do you incorporate it into your campaign? Is most OGL stuff even compatible with official D&D?
I've only used OGL once, in a campaign labeled "anything goes!" One of my players wanted to play a battle sorcerer from the Book of Eldritch Might. I don't have any particular reason for not using OGL material myself; gods know I buy enough WotC books that I hardly ever use, though I don't hold any special respect for the WotC designers. I guess I'm just comfortable with the same ol' same ol'.
2. Do all the WotC splatbooks add to the game of D&D or detract from it? Do all the splatbooks form a cohesive whole or do they step on each others toes and confuse the rules of the game? What splatbooks have been a good addition to the game and what splatbooks have been bad?
I have mixed feelings about splatbooks. I love buying and reading them, and know that they can enrich a game but there is the unfortunate fact that many players assume that anything published by WotC goes. My latest group broke up because I told two players that they couldn't take a certain type of feat. Apparently their character concepts just couldn't do without those two feats...
Anyway, splatbooks don't confuse my game because I run a very loose and vaguely defined world. Sometimes a splatbook will even improve the core rules; I am a huge fan of Complete Divine's variant turning rule. Unfortunately I can't really say which splatbooks have actually been worth the investment. Aside from being a great help in editing stat blocks on Lilith's DM Tools, my splatbooks are hardly ever used due to the sheer volume of them.
Contributor
|
a.) In the beginning of 3E, it was quality control. There was a lot of chaff and not much wheat.
Yup. This is why I stopped buying and never really used OGL stuff. Too much crap in pre-3.5 days (and yes, I did contribute to the crap, ashamed as I am to admit it).
I typically don't use much OGL material because the wheat (to continue my analogy) is sometimes hard to find unless you've got a publisher with a proven track record (Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, Malhavoc to name a few).
*coughPaizocough*
That being said, my favorite splatbooks as of late have been "Magic of Incarnum" by WotC,...
The only part of Magic of Incarnum I don't like is that it isn't OGL.
;D
I play with the core books and the forgotten realms setting book, which has fallen out of use in favour of grayhawk, because of Eric Mona. It is all his fault. The only material I have wanted since getting the core materials was Dungeon and Dragon.
I wish there were a way to contribute financially to this hobby without buying books. I really like paizo and WotC. I am getting fairly well off now and finally have money to burn on the hobby, and there are no books out there that I consider useful. I have looked at the complete books, the environment books, the setting books, the compendiums and the mongoose guides while I worked in a game shop. There was nothing that seemed to me to be anything other than nuisance and clutter.
Now when I played Shadowrun, each book was vital and fitted perfectly with the evolving world of the game. Missing any sourcebook diminished the game considerably. Same for Earthdawn. The books were all brilliant extensions of the mythos of the game.
Storyteller, however was a different matter. After one had the core books, most of the supplements were shoddy and contradictory.
It seems to be the case that certain games work best as a simple and flexible set of rules that can be adapted easily, because the setting and the rules are only tenuously connected. The games where the rules and setting are inseperable, like the brilliant Earthdawn, have had the most essential and valuable supplements.
I will get pathfinder. It will hopefully be a suitable
Dungeon replacement. So what do I do with the surplus cash? I am NOT going to buy random packs of miniatures. I have enough dice. Is there some way to sponsor new gamers online, or buy sets of the core books for prisons?
I find it facinating when the same material seems to engender the exact opposite opinion in people. I actually felt that the Tome of Magic actually fit pretty well thematically with the rest of Dungeons and Dragons, and that Magic of Incarnum was way too "out there" for inclusion in most campaigns, because it just feels completely alien to D&D, in my mind. Obviously its a judgement call, but I think its interesting when things like this happen.
It mostly depends on the campaign. Just going core OGL/SRD provides plenty of options for a campaign, IMO. I use supplements to expand on the core rules without changing them (and without having to design a bunch of material myself).
The choice between OGL or WoTC supplements for me comes down to usability. A lot of the OGL content is good, but specific to a certain type of campaign or a specific setting; retrofitting material into my own campaign or "core/generic" material to the specific rules set/setting is a lot of work. I don't buy any of the setting specific WoTC material for the same reason. By contrast, the early Complete and Races supplements were designed to be mostly generic (apart from the repackaged OA stuff), which made it easy to work into a core setting, and fairly well balanced WRT the core rules.
After the core rulebooks, the first four Completes, the first three Races, and Unearthed Arcana (most of UA ended up as OGL/SRD, anyway), plus Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Exalted Deeds, Deities and Demigods, and Epic Handbook from my 3.0 days, most of the supplements are too specific for my taste, contain too many alternate rules, or show too much power creep. Players Handbook II and Dungeon Masters Guide II will probably be the last purchases of 3.5 supplements for me (I may pick up Libris Mortis to add some options for necromantic villains and I'll review Complete Champion to see if it has good material on deity-specific PrCs).
Well, I bought the d20 Feats book; read through it and so many of those feats are so over the top I just said no way. After a few tests, it was proven to be quite rediculous; sheesh; you can get your touch AC up to like 45 which is just nuts for example.
1. A lot of people only use official material from WotC when running your D&D campaigns. Why is this so, and why don't you use OGL material?
I have a strict rule that I only allow material from books I personally own. A while back I looked at all the books I have that have never seen used, and so stopped buying so much. Almost nothing outside WotC material made the cut (for D&D uses, at least).
When starting a new campaign, I produce a list of material that will be allowed for use. I make no distiction between WotC and OGL material when making these lists. However, I have found that my players look for specific things (in particular WotC prestige classes) and are uninterested in anything else, regardless of how cool and/or powerful it is.
2. Do all the WotC splatbooks add to the game of D&D or detract from it?
Neither. I've found that adding a carefully-selected (short) list of supplemental material to the game can add greatly to enjoyment. Just allowing everything seems to result in disaster. And the "best" list to use depends heavily on the campaign style you want to run.
The real truth: you can spend $16 on four PDFs: the Red, Blue, Green and Black boxes from the 80s (who actually played the Immortal Rules?), salt and pepper that wealth of information with your own imagination, and you have enough to play a game a week for the rest of your life.
Or, spend $12 on three PDFs, the 1E PHB, DMG and MM and, again, enough to play for the rest of your life.
Better still: $4 on one PDF (the "Rules Cyclopedia") for the same result.
|
|
I think the earlier splatbooks were allright, but there's been a lot of uber munchkin power creep going on of late. I mean, look at the beguiler. A first level Beguiler could EASILY best a well-balanced party of 4th level characters from the core phb. And the Book of Nine Swords is just ludicrous. A swordsage would mow through those poor "fighter" or "ranger" guys like Steven Seagal through the cast of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer.
Who playtests this crap anyway, stoned leprechauns?
Hey!!! Where's Sebastian? I hope he's allright.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hey!!! Where's Sebastian? I hope he's allright.I think the earlier splatbooks were allright, but there's been a lot of uber munchkin power creep going on of late. I mean, look at the beguiler. A first level Beguiler could EASILY best a well-balanced party of 4th level characters from the core phb. And the Book of Nine Swords is just ludicrous. A swordsage would mow through those poor "fighter" or "ranger" guys like Steven Seagal through the cast of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer.
Who playtests this crap anyway, stoned leprechauns?
Woot! I figured out how to post with my blackberry! Too bad it sucks to do so.
Anyway heathy, the only response that is worthy of you post is the following:
She-Ra, Princess of Power, could whup Conan the Cimmerian like a red headed step child.
|
|
To chime in...
I too became overwhelmed with all the 3.5 splatbooks. Though I purchase some, particularly FRCS and the Expeditions series, to add to the game, as well as certain genre-specific stuff, BVD, Heroes of Horror, etc., I've slowed and often find myself simply resorting to the 3 core books. That said, when I DM, if someone wants to insert something from a splatbook, I simple make sure that they share with me all the relevant rules. (I can find a way to "balance" any imbalance.)
But now, the tangent...
d20 Modern. Man. I'm building a Dark*Matteresque campaign, and I can't tell you how refreshing it is to be able to rely on only two books, the Core Rulesbook and Urban Arcana, to build NPCs and the campaign in general. Granted, I am tweaking some D&D stuff to insert, like Ravenloft's Knight of the Raven PrC, but all-in-all, having two books to lug around is SO MUCH EASIER than going through my library of D&D books to find which ones are relevant for which campaign. NICE! (Plus, d20 Modern also has OGL from established publishers, too.
Last, while I have complained that WotC doesn't support d20 Modern enough, which they don't, I have begun to read Paizo's adventures in a new light. For instance, the Automatic Hound in the last issue of Dungeon fits near-perfectly in a rural town in contemporary times. Unfortunately, WotC is putting a coffin nail in that magazine, but at least I can begin to go back over my old collection of magazines to see what else may translate with relative ease. My only concern now is whether Pathfinder or Gamemaster will translate without too much complication.
Hey Paizo, because d20 Modern has OGL, would you at least be willing to consider conversion notes to your campaigns? You know, ideas, characters, "Modern" updates and the like? I know you aren't considering publishing anything out of a fantasy setting, but doing this at least would be a godsend for us d20 Modern gamers. Please??
a.) In the beginning of 3E, it was quality control. There was a lot of chaff and not much wheat.
That's it in a nutshell. I quickly learned that a lot of OGL stuff was crap, and since I don't have the time it would take to separate all the "wheat from the chaff," it was easier to just stick with official material exclusively.
*coughPaizocough*
True dat. Paizo is definitively on my "Good d20 Publishers" list. :D
|
b.) They don't always gel really well together *cough* Tome of Magic *cough*.
I admit that both Shadow and Truename magic are kinda 'meh', but Binders are one of the neatest new classes I've ever encountered, with actual 'new' mechanics that make sense and have a very neat flavor to them.
The other nice thing is that it's quite possible to change the fluff without seriously impacting the crunch (provided you can get vestiges that fit the new fluff, which can be tricky to balance on the DM end).
Still, buying the whole book for only 1/3rd of what's in it... er.
Well, that sounds a lot like pretty much every splatbook purchase -I've- ever made.
Who playtests this crap anyway, stoned leprechauns?
Oh no, we had to enact a strict no-playing-stoned rule after Billy O'Hannigan's cleric cast Create Water at which point a much-blotto'd Billy stood on the table and pee'd on the battlemat "in simulation".
- Finnegan O'Malley
I'm all for anything d20/OGL as long as the info can be presented at the table (either I have the book or photocopies/printouts of the pertinent info like spells, feats, etc.) Sure, some stuff *isn't* great but saying only WotC's stuff *is* just because it's "100% Official" doesn't seem fair to the companies out there cranking out great products for us to consume. That said, though, I've oddly found it hard in the past to get stuff from Dragon ("100% Official) in games that only use "official" books. Fascists!
- Chris Shadowens
This is a matter of opinion and preferences. I’ve gotten hold of (and subsequently gotten rid of) quite a number of the older modules and play aids for 2E. I assume they’re not that different from the 3X stuff you guys are using, at least in essence. As long as the non-official stuff is good, there’s no reason not to use it, unless you find out that something in it will upset game balance/playability, etc. If nothing else, there’s always the fallback position of using information inside as source material for ideas.
As to adding to or subtracting from the system, that would seem to depend on how a DM applies them. Using material specifically as written, without filtering, could open up a big can of worms. Reading, digesting and then editing the material to fit can make almost anything work positively. It’s just a matter of whether one thinks it’s worth the effort.
Using material specifically as written, without filtering, could open up a big can of worms. Reading, digesting and then editing the material to fit can make almost anything work positively. It's just a matter of whether one thinks it's worth the effort.
Exactly.
Most of the supplements out there, both OGL and WotC, IMO are too setting/style specific, work poorly with or replace the core rules mechanics, are unbalanced WRT the core rules, cover something in detail that I'm not interested in making a centerpiece of a campaign (which would be the only reason I'd buy it), or cover ground already covered in a supplement I already have. There may be bits and pieces that I can use widely, but I'm not going to spend $20-30 per supplement for those bits and pieces. Even the compendiums are hardly worth it, since I either already have most of the material in the supplements I already own or it's material that I passed on (and again, if there is new material, it's bits and pieces).
After buying every 1st Ed. AD&D hardcover and a large portion of the 2nd Ed. AD&D rules set, I've been more restrained with 3.0/3.5 material.