Request for new book: A new Arcane Mysteries of Barsaive

[vitus979]

No, I don't mean the book itself.  I mean another book with the kind of information AM contains. 

Basically I want a crunch book for Earthdawn.  An Arms and Equipment Guide (D&D 3.0), a Black and White Treatises (Exalted 2e), a Street Samurai Catalog (Shadowrun 1 & 2) etc...

A book with more spells*, more basic magic items, more thread items, more general and legendary treasure, more talent knacks, more skill usages, maybe a new Discipline or two, maybe those new airship rules I've heard rumors of.

Anybody else agree?  Disagree?

* more spells especially.  It astonishes me how few published spells there are in Earthdawn.

[PenAgain]

I imagine that what you speak of falls under the purview of the ED Codex open call from two years ago-- and I know (Preview Hunter insight GO!) that the plans for that book, while shifted around a bit, remain in existence.

Not much to go on, but perhaps a start for you?

[Sethariel]

I don't think a crunch book is sooo needed. Take notice that Earthdawn Third Edition main books and companions already contain the information you had in first edition in crunch books such as Arcane Mysteries of Barsaive or Magic: Manual of Mystic Secrets, and Creatures of Barsaive.

ED3 Namegivers of Barsaive introduces new Disciplines - racial Disciplines from ED1 Namegivers, Horror Stalker from ED1 Horrors, and some additional like Messenger or Songsmith.

Another important aspect is that the current development line gives some crunch with almost every book. Kratas, Namegivers, Throal - all these books contain new magic items, thread items.

Another big book ahead, Cathay will also contain a lot of crunch - new races, new Disciplines, new magic items etc.

And about the spells, yes ED has less spells than D&D, but they are more unique, for me it's a more interesting aproach.

Don't get me wrong, I also like some crunch, but I like the current development approach and don't think special only equipment, spells, items book is needed. There is a lot of freedom in ED to make your own magic items, spells, talent knacks, therefore making your game really unique.

[vitus979]

And about the spells, yes ED has less spells than D&D, but they are more unique, for me it's a more interesting aproach.

On a percentage basis they are more unique in Earthdawn (10d6 ball damage vs 10d6 cone damage is hardly a difference at all in D&D), but on a pure numbers basis there are more unique spells and more types of effects for spells in D&D, especially 3e (the one I have the most experience in).

One reason I like the D&D approach is because to any average player 50% or so of the spells in any list (regardless of game) will seem useless either based on the specifics of the campaign (aka if there are no undead the Ashes to Ashes spell doesn't do much), lack of imagination in the player (Fabricate is one of the most powerful spells in d&d 3e, but most people don't have the imagination to leverage it), or specifics in the spell that make it difficult or suboptimal compared to other spells.

In D&D this isn't a problem.  While 50% may seem like crap to any player, 20% of 1,000 is still more than 50% of 150*.  The ability to pick and choose is what's nice.  The large number of spells also means that new spells open new doors in just what CAN be done with spells.  Late in d&d 3.5 there were a slew of brand new spells that punished targets for being highly buffed with spells**.  I'd never seen something like that and it really made the players think whether they were all that interested in getting 20 minor buff spells on them.  In Earthdawn an effect like this for Wizards would be a good idea.

In Earthdawn you're still essentially stuck with what was available as of Arcane Mysteries.  There may be a new spell or two (I haven't checked every spell), but variety is the spice of life.  My Elementalist may want to handle Crowd Control, while my buddy's Elementalist may just want to throw damage spells.  The limitation of spells makes such specialization very difficult.


As for Thread Items I wasn't aware of new items in the expansion books.  With the exception of Kratas I've already got most of the source material in either EDC or 1e format, so plopping down $30 for 5 pages worth of new items is not the best use of my dollars.  An interesting question, are the new items in Throal and Serpent River new or are they just retreads of what was already available in those books in 1e?

* these numbers are pulled out of thin air.  I don't know what the actual count is, but the Spell Compendium by itself in d&d 3.5 probably has 2x more spells than in all of Earthdawn.

** Reciprocal Gyre and Reaving Dispel come to mind

[Sethariel]

In Earthdawn you're still essentially stuck with what was available as of Arcane Mysteries. There may be a new spell or two (I haven't checked every spell), but variety is the spice of life.  My Elementalist may want to handle Crowd Control, while my buddy's Elementalist may just want to throw damage spells.  The limitation of spells makes such specialization very difficult.

I agree that there is some space for new spells. Although your example seems not appropriate to me. Earthdawn variety is already in the Disciplines variety. It seems that you are suggesting giving other Discipline's competency to the ones that are specialized in other things. If that Elementalist wants Crowd Control, he should take second, Illusionist Discipline. That's how I see it.

Anyway maybe the Earthdawn Codex book, that is being worked on, will add some new spells.

An interesting question, are the new items in Throal and Serpent River new or are they just retreads of what was already available in those books in 1e?

As for Throal, they are completely new, although rewritten from EDC Nations of Barsaive (Throal+Serpent River). As for Serpent River, I can't say at the moment. The ED3 Serpent River will be available later this year. But the EDC version (EDC Nations of Barsaive) did not have any new thread items as far as I remember.

[vitus979]

I agree that there is some space for new spells. Although your example seems not appropriate to me. Earthdawn variety is already in the Disciplines variety. It seems that you are suggesting giving other Discipline's competency to the ones that are specialized in other things. If that Elementalist wants Crowd Control, he should take second, Illusionist Discipline. That's how I see it.

Illusionism's CC is not the only type.  Wall spells, difficult terrain, etc... (after all, what else is Icy Surface than CC?) are all perfectly within the Elementalist shtick.

I guess to my mind the shticks for the Discplines are much less well defined in Earthdawn than d&d.  Sure, flavor for spells falls into obvious categories, and even a few spell types, but not nearly to the extent that I'd consider the Illusionist the "CC Specialist".  If you were to tell me "I want to make a Mind Effect" my first question would be "Are you an Illusionist?", but if you were to say "I want to make a spell that slows down a target" there are any number of ways using Elementalism (roots grab your legs), Nethermancy (spirit infests your body fighting you for control), and Illusionism (you believe that the ground has expanded and thus have farther to run) to accomplish this.

Separating specialties is even harder because nearly every Discipline has a sprinkling of spells that do "X".  Healing, damage, CC, buffs, etc...

[arma]

I guess Sethariel understood your "crowd control" to actually mean controlling/influencing people (socially).

There's a point to his general argument that Discipline A shouldn't meddle too much in Discipline B's playground, in any case.
Doesn't mean this totally prevents new abilities to be introduced, you just got to be careful, and in some borderline cases, the GM shouldn't stop himself from removing something that might allow one Discipline to take another Discipline's spotlight.
(Not generally a friend of limiting players choices myself, but for example, Bedazzling Display of Logical Analysis doesn't exist IMB if there's a Discipline built around Interaction Tests in the group.)

An interesting question, are the new items in Throal and Serpent River new or are they just retreads of what was already available in those books in 1e?

As a rule of thumb, we try to give every (location) book the same bit of everything:
- adventure hooks, 2 or more per chapter
- adventure frameworks, usually 3
- new non-threaded magical items
- new threaded items from all categories (focusing on legendary since ED3)
- new creatures
- adventures/campaigns in ~this place~
- additonal general game info if required (like shopping rules for kratas)

ED1 books didn't usually have everything. For example, Throal had hooks and frameworks, but no creatures and no items of any kind. Serpent River had creatures and items, but no hooks and frameworks.

We add(ed) the respective content and sometimes expand(ed) it, though it doesn't always make sense. For example, Throal doesn't have creatures, because what creatures would there be? it has NC stats for soldiers, guards, mercs, and whatnot instead, but not as many as a full creature chapter would have.

Adding spells in this type of book is a bit difficult. If we added 5 pages of spells, it would only benefit a few Disciplines. Plus you'd have your spells scattered over several books. Plus you'd have the "buy the whole book for 6 Nethermancer spells" problem again. And they're supposed to be related to the books, which is extra hard on design.
But it's not what you were asking for anyway. So just as a general information on why we don't have them in there if we don't do a new AM book.


That said, I've been thinking about doing some kind of rules book for some time now, with a slightly different concept from anything you've seen so far. Just not getting to do anything about it because recently and at the moment, there's tons of design work for rules-heavy sourcebooks (Namegivers, Cathay).

[ED_Chronicler]

Wouldn't the "Codex" with Player Submissions be a potential consideration for said desire?

[arma]

Are you addressing my last statement specifically (asking because PenAgain and Sethariel already mentioned the Codex, don't know if you didn't see that and simply addressed Vitus)?

[stormcrow]

I don't think a crunch book is sooo needed.

Just want to put my 2 cents in here. I don't think vitus is saying that it is absolutely necessary just that he would enjoy more crunch. Technically, you don't really need anything bar the core books but people buy more because they enjoy the expansion of the ED world. Some people like that world to be expanded by books detailing nations etc, some like crunch books and some like adventures. Not trying to box people in to categories as I myself like both the crunch and the fluff but it seems to me a while since a good crunch book has come out. Namegivers being the last one (I'm talking about classic of course I have the new one on order). I'm hoping Cathay will sate my interest but I'm a little worried that I won't be able to use much of its content, seeing as it is set in a different content.

Having said that, I tend to agree that it is better to be cautious before adding a large number of new spells which might unbalance the game or make a discipline or ability redundant. However, I believe it'd be ok as a smaller part of a larger book that details some sort of expanded rules for other disciplines (oh and creatures. I still think they need fleshing out a bit).  What there really does seem to be missing though is a coherent and much more specific spell design system. As far as I remember, part of the reason for not including one was because there was not an opportunity to redesign the existing spells before 3rd ed came out. Still a design system that created less powerful spells would not go amiss as it can indicate that the existing spells are more established. Not that I'm looking for a hugely crunchtastic system as these can be abused as or more easily than the more general approach, but imo more specific guidelines, particular about what circle spells should be would be helpful.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I'm quite happy with the production schedule and the amount currently coming out.  Just giving a shoutout to all the crunch munchers so that we don't get neglected (which I'm sure we won't be as Cathay and the Codex will whet our appetites.

PS can I get copy right on crunch munchers? I'm quite pround of that term 

[ED_Chronicler]

Mainly the last paragraph in your post caught my eye and thus my response.

Not really a statement expecting a response, more of a "something to consider" type statement.

[vitus979]

I guess Sethariel understood your "crowd control" to actually mean controlling/influencing people (socially).

Ah, my bad for using MMO terminology and assuming everyone would know what I was talking about.  Crowd Control in MMOspeak is anything that stops or strongly hinders an enemy from being effective in combat.  Polymorph, Sleep, Wall of Stone, Icy Surface, Pain, Grasping Hand of Earth, Maze etc... are all CC.  And yes, some of those are d&d spells.

Debuffs do not usually fall in the same catagory, though especially potent debuffs might be considered such as the penalty is so large that it effectively renders the target's actions worthless.

There's a point to his general argument that Discipline A shouldn't meddle too much in Discipline B's playground, in any case.
Doesn't mean this totally prevents new abilities to be introduced, you just got to be careful, and in some borderline cases, the GM shouldn't stop himself from removing something that might allow one Discipline to take another Discipline's spotlight.

I get where you're coming from here, but at the same time my previous example shows how if you simply want an effect there are any number of ways to go about it using any of the playgrounds of any of the Disciplines.  To add to the example a Wizard could make a spell that creates a pair of Astral shackles that hinder movement.

Earthdawn is very strong when it comes to CAUSES, aka how something gets done.  Elementalism is all about natural elements, Nethermancy about spirits, life, and death.  Illusionism is about mental control and Illusions.  Wizardry is about knowledge and raw magic manipulation.  As such when a player comes to me with a new spell idea it's very easy for me to tell if the spell fits the shtick.

However Earthdawn is very weak when it comes to splitting out EFFECTS aka what gets done.  All the spellcasters have some kind of healing (I believe), damage, CC, AoE, etc...  Thus any given effect can fall into most/any shticks.

We add(ed) the respective content and sometimes expand(ed) it, though it doesn't always make sense. For example, Throal doesn't have creatures, because what creatures would there be? it has NC stats for soldiers, guards, mercs, and whatnot instead, but not as many as a full creature chapter would have.

Given the surrounding mountains as well as the cavern network I'd think it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to come out with some critters.  I *do* agree though that it makes more sense to have NPCs as Throal is more of an urban setting.

[PenAgain]

I... realize this doesn't put me in a very popular camp (why start now?) but I feel compelled to say, "Why should we be trying to make this game more like any other game?"

Especially D&D. I thought (at least in my corner of the universe) Earthdawn's strengths were its differences from the norm, not its adherence.

Do I think more spells are a good idea? Of course! But I also *like* that the magician disciplines blend like they do, because all too often I only get 1 magician in my party, and if the effects are too cleanly delineated that makes for a mess when it comes to playing with the best parts of the game (the pervasive mid/high magic). To recap: I like the well defined cause separation but the muddled effect definition. I also dislike MMO-effect classification. And, truth be told, most everything that the MMO mentality has brought to tabletop design of the new era. Which again, makes me not popular. 'S cool.

*shrug* This is of course just my opinion, and not anything official by any stretch. I know what I like, and I know what I don't... and that's really all I *do* know. So I should shut up now.

*back to work behind the curtain*

[stormcrow]

I... realize this doesn't put me in a very popular camp (why start now?) but I feel compelled to say, "Why should we be trying to make this game more like any other game?"

Especially D&D. I thought (at least in my corner of the universe) Earthdawn's strengths were its differences from the norm, not its adherence.

I'm not sure why you think that puts you in the unpopular group. I thought that was the general consensus of players of Earthdawn. On reading vitus's posts I don't think he was implying that ED should be like other games or MMOs. Rather he was using examples and terminology he knew to point out what he believes is an area that needs development. It's always useful to get a consensus of what people want no? Even if everyone wants different things

[PenAgain]

Very true Stormcrow.

I guess what I'm looking for is a reason why there needs to be a firmer line between what a Illusionsit can do and what a Nethermancer can do (for example). Not the method by which they do it, of course, but the actual product of their magic (the 'effect' in Vitus' description above).

So I think I rather illogically jumped to the conclusion that he was saying "We need a harder line because in D&D3 and MMOs, this is how it's done." Which, to be fair, Vitus never said. I said that for him, which isn't my place.

So back around to the real point: What are the reasons (and anyone can answer this really) that the output of the magicians should be further separated? What does doing this add to the game?

And clearly I'm lugging around the baggage that trying to teach tabletop RPGs to my sixteen and seventeen year old students has generated. In a world of lines in the sand I have come down firmly on the opposite side of both MMOs and LARPs. Bah, I say. Stick in the mud is ME!