The fluff material in that barbarian entry seems to be for people new to the game. Isn't that a good thing?

Quote from: RunningLaser;773595.  Palladium books are bombproof.

Crazy Ol' Uncle Kevin's books typically have abysmal organization, but otherwise I give them very high marks for utility: Durable binding. Art that does a good job of setting mood but stays out of the way. Black letters in an easy-to-read font on white paper. Kevin gets it- this is a product meant to used, week after week, at a gaming table.

My preference is mostly b&w interior, maybe a few glamor(ie) shots.

Good layout is -far- more important, in my estimation; a book laid out like a cheap printout... ugh.
(Anyone read Nobilis 1? Yeah)

There are examples of B&W art and get-to-the-fucking-point writing in modern games. The art in Dungeon Crawl Classics kicks the holly hell out of any of the post 1995 glossy-paged hard backs that are currently serving as gravitational lenses in my basement storage. Burning Wheel is not really my game, but it goes a great job of expressing creativity and personality and a sense of character through the rules without layering on pages and pages of drippy prose about Filbert the Elf Who Could, or whatever. So, it can be done. But I can believe most of the people who have an official job title at a big company are so locked in tunnel vision that they can't even recognize it when something truly creative is put in front of them.

You know, not everyone can write compellingly about this sort of thing. Actually, its more like almost no one can. Michael Moorcock is allowed to write multiple paragraphs about the interior thoughts and dreams of fantastical people. Maybe one or two other people. Everyone else is just total rot at it. It is like listening to people talk about their dreams. Or artlessly written dirty stories. However exciting it seemed in your own head, when you start putting it down on paper it is just stupid. Almost no one working in fantasy roleplaying games can pull this off. It is not just a WoC problem — the fluff text describing classes and races in the Castles and Crusades PHB is just as bad. Perhaps the problem is that everyone working in the industry is a frustrated would-be author and can't resist the opportunity to share some of their creative vision.

Yes, because giving an examples of characters and how the class might perceive a "default" game world is exactly flowery prose. Not to mention why drop Moorcock out of all possible ones, since I'd say he is one of the most...divisive authors regarding his quality versus the legacy his work actually had.

I also repeat my question regarding the point you brought before - areSquad Leader of SJ's Melee RPGs?

That "flowery fluff" may be unnecessary to you, but to a new kid who had more Harry Potter and less Howard, they might be quite useful.

Melee is obviously a RPG.

Another one in the "barbarians don't need to be a class" and "bad flavor text is bad" camp...the whole thing feels like so much padding. Just add a berserk rage ability and wilderness background to the fighter.

Also, I'd rather have the occasional dwarf or elf with some kind of berserk rage ability, than a "dwarf barbarian" or "elf barbarian" who comes from the same society as their non-barbarian siblings.

Having said that about diversity of classes, I also wouldn't mind fighters being like, oh, sorcerers or clerics, where you select different 'fighter training.'

So, for example:
Fighters have light and medium armor.

Pick a training focus:
Berserker: gain Rage abilities and DR.
Formation: gain heavy armor proficiency, armor training, and tower shields, maybe some cooperative fighting techniques.
Skirmisher: mobility feats and dodging, perhaps more odd weapons, like gaining a few exotic weapons (trident and net!)
Duelist: more one-on-one melee, with a lot of maneuvers (disarm, trip, etc)

Pick a skill focus:
Forager: various tracking and nature skills.
Knight: various social and political skills.
Mercenary: mix of social and rough skills (escape artist, whatever)


Hmm. Might be a fun 3e OGL thing to tinker with.

Quote from: Will;773659Having said that about diversity of classes, I also wouldn't mind fighters being like, oh, sorcerers or clerics, where you select different 'fighter training.'

So, for example:
Fighters have light and medium armor.

Pick a training focus:
Berserker: gain Rage abilities and DR.
Formation: gain heavy armor proficiency, armor training, and tower shields, maybe some cooperative fighting techniques.
Skirmisher: mobility feats and dodging, perhaps more odd weapons, like gaining a few exotic weapons (trident and net!)
Duelist: more one-on-one melee, with a lot of maneuvers (disarm, trip, etc)

Pick a skill focus:
Forager: various tracking and nature skills.
Knight: various social and political skills.
Mercenary: mix of social and rough skills (escape artist, whatever)


Hmm. Might be a fun 3e OGL thing to tinker with.

Something like this is perfect for a setting book it's been done for Rokogun and 7th Seas and would be completely appropriate in all sorts of settings.

Also a fan of flavor text 4e totally lost me because the game read like a textbook.

I like having a decent amount of flavour text. I enjoy picking up an RPG book off my shelf and browsing it, and if it's just a dry presentation of rules then I'm likely to put it back and grab another.

The flavour text is what makes me want to play or run a game (or not), and games with little to no flavour text are ones I'll pass by when thinking about what to run next. It's not a deliberate decision I make to exclude them, it's just that they won't inspire and excite me as much as those that are more enjoyable to read.

It might be different for people who play one preferred game to the exclusion of all others, but with my group we have dozens of games on the shelves all competing for attention - and it's those that grab that attention through good art and flavour text that get played the most.

Quote from: Will;773659Having said that about diversity of classes, I also wouldn't mind fighters being like, oh, sorcerers or clerics, where you select different 'fighter training.'

So, for example:
Fighters have light and medium armor.

Pick a training focus:
Berserker: gain Rage abilities and DR.
Formation: gain heavy armor proficiency, armor training, and tower shields, maybe some cooperative fighting techniques.
Skirmisher: mobility feats and dodging, perhaps more odd weapons, like gaining a few exotic weapons (trident and net!)
Duelist: more one-on-one melee, with a lot of maneuvers (disarm, trip, etc)

Pick a skill focus:
Forager: various tracking and nature skills.
Knight: various social and political skills.
Mercenary: mix of social and rough skills (escape artist, whatever)


Hmm. Might be a fun 3e OGL thing to tinker with.

This is basically how my heartbreaker works except after first level you can opt to increase those skills or learn new ones at a higher cost.

So take the Solider Archetype in my game.
They get the military skill list (background) they light /medium/heavy armour they can use any weapon but they get a level of additional training with polearm and one other of their choice off a list and a free rank in Tactics.

Compare to the Ranger archetype
They also get military (this ranger is a military position  you can easiliy do an alternate without) skills but they add the wilderness pack as well. they get light/medium armour they can use any medium or light weapon and have an additional rank of training in Archery and a free rank in Tracking.

the Scout is a Rouge archetype.
they get Military and Wilderness and subdefuge skill lists, they only get light armour and light/medium weapon with an rank in archery and tracking. Very like the ranger but because they are a rogue they have cheaper skills (max skill level is limited by level) and worse combat stats HP/to hit and defense. The net result is that you can create a ranger /scout character that could focus on combat or skills.

Do it it like this means you just need a few background/skill packets I think I have 16 (military, wilderness, urban, nobility, academic, religious etc etc ) . Which you can mix and match to get anything from a martial monk living in a monestry to a hedge mage to an acrobat without having separate mechanical stuff for everyone

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;773703I like having a decent amount of flavour text. I enjoy picking up an RPG book off my shelf and browsing it, and if it's just a dry presentation of rules then I'm likely to put it back and grab another.

The flavour text is what makes me want to play or run a game (or not), and games with little to no flavour text are ones I'll pass by when thinking about what to run next.

I love reading interesting setting material. But the kind of padding that accompanies the actual rules of recent d20-ish games (3e, 4e, PF and now 5e) is just dire. Paragraphs of empty verbiage. "Rage is deep in your heart, and when you enter the lands of men the wild calls out to you. Your singing blade is your companion and your foes know that the tramp of your footsteps is to be dreaded" blah blah blah.

But then, D&D novels apparently have a huge audience, so what do I know.

Quote from: The_Shadow;773712I love reading interesting setting material. But the kind of padding that accompanies the actual rules of recent d20-ish games (3e, 4e, PF and now 5e) is just dire. Paragraphs of empty verbiage. "Rage is deep in your heart, and when you enter the lands of men the wild calls out to you. Your singing blade is your companion and your foes know that the tramp of your footsteps is to be dreaded" blah blah blah.

But then, D&D novels apparently have a huge audience, so what do I know.

Exactly. When Tolkien or Howard or Moorcock or (to give some modern props) Martin lays down a paragraph of fantasy mood music, it is worth reading and gets the creative juices flowing. When Sheldon the asthmatic game designer jerks off for a couple hundred words about Drizztzltlzet the half-Drow/half-sparkle pony it makes me want to spray vomit all around the room.

Barbarian = Zerker again, meh.

Quote from: CRKrueger;773740Barbarian = Zerker again, meh.

I do agree it should have been a subclass. But what can you do? At least they play well with others this time.