The Inside Scoop on Gaming

I've looked forward to a new third edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons for a long time, long before TSR was bought out by Wizards of the Coast. While second edition was perfectly playable, it had its flaws and, more importantly, there were so many rules, spells and monsters scattered across a piles of books that it made things real difficult. When Wizards of the Coast bought TSR, I knew it wouldn't be all that long before a new edition of AD&D came out because that was a potential cash cow that they just couldn't overlook. (Which, by the way, I have no problem with. Companies that don't make money go out of business, just like TSR.)

When Wizards announced at GenCon last year that they would indeed be coming out with a third edition of the game I've played for far more years than I care to admit, I was the only person in my circle of gaming friends who was excited or planned to buy it. And when it finally arrived in stores, I went out, got it, came home, sat down to read it, and promptly fell asleep.

Well, I was a bit tired, so after my little unplanned nap I got up, ate, did some things, drank a Coke (caffeine seemed like a good idea just then), then proceeded to read the new Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook: Core Rulebook 1. I should amend that despite my awareness of the game's new third edition, I began reading this book without any knowledge of the revised game system or other goodies within. With this in mind, I wasn't too concerned when I saw lots of formulas telling me to add lots of modifiers to a d20 roll I figured somewhere along the line it would be explained to me how to determine when a roll is successful or not. I read and read and read and, as of yet, I am still unclear on that one. More on that later.

After several days of reading, then, I've come to the conclusion that despite its pretty appearance, the new Player's Handbook is to gaming what Ishtar was to the movie industry in the 80s: big name actors, large budget, and a bomb at the box office. If this baby is going to be the thing that saves the gaming industry, then it's time to look for a new hobby because it's not going to last for long.

But before I explain why I believe that this new version of D&D is just plain bad, I'll start by giving it a few compliments. I like the idea of a universal resolution system, skills, and feats. I think the spell system needed updating and, while similar to the old one, there are welcome improvements (like alphabetizing the lot of them instead of separating them). I thought the addition of the barbarian, monk and the new sorcerer class was good, too. The elimination of the level limitations wasn't ground breaking considering most people have ignored it anyway, but now it's official and it certainly makes sense. Finally, I like the demo character creation CD that's included with this game. It's pretty and seems to work.

Sadly, it only took a mere paragraph to explain what I like about the game. But I could (and will) go on for several paragraphs explaining what I don't like about this game. First, as I mentioned earlier, the game system isn't explained. OK, I know I have to roll a d20 and add a billion modifiers to it. But what number do I need to roll to determine if it's a successful roll? For a game whose main selling point is the game system rather than its campaign setting, this is a rather important bit of information. The game's system ought to be explained right away, and it needs to be marked as obvious. Burying it within the text without having a heading saying, "Hey, This is The System and Here's How It Works!" is sure stupidity. I need to know how the game system works before I can understand how skills, feats and a million other modifiers affect it.

Speaking of modifiers, that is where I will delve next. I thought the first and second editions of AD&D were bad when it came to modifiers, but this system is even worse! There are so many modifiers to be added to a roll it's a wonder that a calculator didn't come packaged with this book. Of course there are far too many tables as well. Tables and overzealous modifiers are the worst thing a roleplaying game can have, and here's why: the purpose of playing a roleplaying game is to roleplay. You want to develop a character and, like a good actor, make it come to life. If you can convince someone that you really are a homicidal maniac because that's what your character is, then you've successfully roleplayed. But who has time for roleplaying when you're flipping through pages trying to find various tables and charts? It seriously cuts down on the time there is to roleplay and, worse yet, promotes a hack-and-slash style of play--the sort of thing that almost all beginners start with simply because the game appears to be geared toward that sort of thing. Modifiers and lots of tables (especially ones for combat) belong in tabletop war games (like Warhammer), not roleplaying games. And if you believe that you need a detailed system of combat in your roleplaying game, chances are you aren't doing much of the roleplaying and you really ought to go play war games instead.

In fact, that's really what I dislike about this new edition the most: this book is supposed to attract millions of new roleplaying gamers across the nation, yet it spends all its time explaining technical details, combat and spells, and virtually none promoting roleplaying itself. Unbelievably, this game doesn't even start out with a standard "What is Roleplaying" heading with a fictitious screenplay of a roleplaying session for those who didn't understand the actual explanation.

And to add salt to this festering wound, alignments still exist. All they do is limit the roleplaying potential even more by shaping characters into more cardboard molds. "You're character can't act that way because he's lawful good," is a phrase I've heard one too many times. People don't fit neatly into the black and white alignments presented in this game in the real world, and well-written fictitious characters don't, either. Worse, many character classes are severely penalized for changing their alignment, often the consequence being that their class abilities can never increase. Even more peculiarly, if a monk character suddenly goes multiclass, that character can never again raise its monk abilities. This makes no sense at all. Of course a philosopher might be able to rationalize the logic behind this rule, but then again, philosophers have also proved that the human race does not in fact exist.

The book's overall art and writing styles are as erratic as everything else. I've read more interesting college textbooks than this thing. I thought I fell asleep because I was tired. Nope, I was just so bored I instinctively reacted by falling asleep before I was exposed to any more of it. The writing style also seems a bit too patronizing for my taste as well, being written as if readers are complete idiots.

At first glance the layout seems nice, especially with it being full color, but that, too, is but an illusion. This layout has some serious problems: first of all, there are pages with a parchment-like background that obscures the text and makes it hard to read. Second, the art is way too inconsistent; there are way too many styles and types. For some reason the roleplaying industry seems to believe that layouts which contain a variety of artists are better than those that use the art of just one person. The truth of the matter is that most professional graphic artists (like myself) know better than to place varying styles of art in a piece unless there is a really good reason for it. Wizards of the Coast has some fine artists on hand, but they ought to have picked just one and left it at that. Strangely, they also placed some really bad line art in the spell descriptions section, and I have to wonder who allowed that to happen?

I must admit that the cover is beautiful, the fonts chosen are very good, and the page layouts themselves are really good. (In this case I mean the placement of tables, art and so forth rather than the art itself.) With full color available, it also baffles me that they included a lot of line art, but that complaint goes along with the fact that they used so many different types of art in the first place.

In any case, I would not recommend this game to my friends, and I suggest that my enemies avoid it as well. It's a pity that a project that had some much potential was such a disaster.

Style: 3 (Average)
Substance: 2 (Sparse)

Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 3rd Edition
Author: Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook and Skkp Williams Category: game Company/Publisher: Wizards of the Coast Line: D&D Cost: $20.00 Page count: 285 ISBN: 0-7869-1550-1 SKU: TSR11550 CapsuleReview by Mark Strecker on 08/24/00. Genre tags: Fantasy	I've looked forward to a new third edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons for a long time, long before TSR was bought out by Wizards of the Coast. While second edition was perfectly playable, it had its flaws and, more importantly, there were so many rules, spells and monsters scattered across a piles of books that it made things real difficult. When Wizards of the Coast bought TSR, I knew it wouldn't be all that long before a new edition of AD&D came out because that was a potential cash cow that they just couldn't overlook. (Which, by the way, I have no problem with. Companies that don't make money go out of business, just like TSR.) When Wizards announced at GenCon last year that they would indeed be coming out with a third edition of the game I've played for far more years than I care to admit, I was the only person in my circle of gaming friends who was excited or planned to buy it. And when it finally arrived in stores, I went out, got it, came home, sat down to read it, and promptly fell asleep. Well, I was a bit tired, so after my little unplanned nap I got up, ate, did some things, drank a Coke (caffeine seemed like a good idea just then), then proceeded to read the new Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook: Core Rulebook 1. I should amend that despite my awareness of the game's new third edition, I began reading this book without any knowledge of the revised game system or other goodies within. With this in mind, I wasn't too concerned when I saw lots of formulas telling me to add lots of modifiers to a d20 roll I figured somewhere along the line it would be explained to me how to determine when a roll is successful or not. I read and read and read and, as of yet, I am still unclear on that one. More on that later. After several days of reading, then, I've come to the conclusion that despite its pretty appearance, the new Player's Handbook is to gaming what Ishtar was to the movie industry in the 80s: big name actors, large budget, and a bomb at the box office. If this baby is going to be the thing that saves the gaming industry, then it's time to look for a new hobby because it's not going to last for long. But before I explain why I believe that this new version of D&D is just plain bad, I'll start by giving it a few compliments. I like the idea of a universal resolution system, skills, and feats. I think the spell system needed updating and, while similar to the old one, there are welcome improvements (like alphabetizing the lot of them instead of separating them). I thought the addition of the barbarian, monk and the new sorcerer class was good, too. The elimination of the level limitations wasn't ground breaking considering most people have ignored it anyway, but now it's official and it certainly makes sense. Finally, I like the demo character creation CD that's included with this game. It's pretty and seems to work. Sadly, it only took a mere paragraph to explain what I like about the game. But I could (and will) go on for several paragraphs explaining what I don't like about this game. First, as I mentioned earlier, the game system isn't explained. OK, I know I have to roll a d20 and add a billion modifiers to it. But what number do I need to roll to determine if it's a successful roll? For a game whose main selling point is the game system rather than its campaign setting, this is a rather important bit of information. The game's system ought to be explained right away, and it needs to be marked as obvious. Burying it within the text without having a heading saying, "Hey, This is The System and Here's How It Works!" is sure stupidity. I need to know how the game system works before I can understand how skills, feats and a million other modifiers affect it. Speaking of modifiers, that is where I will delve next. I thought the first and second editions of AD&D were bad when it came to modifiers, but this system is even worse! There are so many modifiers to be added to a roll it's a wonder that a calculator didn't come packaged with this book. Of course there are far too many tables as well. Tables and overzealous modifiers are the worst thing a roleplaying game can have, and here's why: the purpose of playing a roleplaying game is to roleplay. You want to develop a character and, like a good actor, make it come to life. If you can convince someone that you really are a homicidal maniac because that's what your character is, then you've successfully roleplayed. But who has time for roleplaying when you're flipping through pages trying to find various tables and charts? It seriously cuts down on the time there is to roleplay and, worse yet, promotes a hack-and-slash style of play--the sort of thing that almost all beginners start with simply because the game appears to be geared toward that sort of thing. Modifiers and lots of tables (especially ones for combat) belong in tabletop war games (like Warhammer), not roleplaying games. And if you believe that you need a detailed system of combat in your roleplaying game, chances are you aren't doing much of the roleplaying and you really ought to go play war games instead. In fact, that's really what I dislike about this new edition the most: this book is supposed to attract millions of new roleplaying gamers across the nation, yet it spends all its time explaining technical details, combat and spells, and virtually none promoting roleplaying itself. Unbelievably, this game doesn't even start out with a standard "What is Roleplaying" heading with a fictitious screenplay of a roleplaying session for those who didn't understand the actual explanation. And to add salt to this festering wound, alignments still exist. All they do is limit the roleplaying potential even more by shaping characters into more cardboard molds. "You're character can't act that way because he's lawful good," is a phrase I've heard one too many times. People don't fit neatly into the black and white alignments presented in this game in the real world, and well-written fictitious characters don't, either. Worse, many character classes are severely penalized for changing their alignment, often the consequence being that their class abilities can never increase. Even more peculiarly, if a monk character suddenly goes multiclass, that character can never again raise its monk abilities. This makes no sense at all. Of course a philosopher might be able to rationalize the logic behind this rule, but then again, philosophers have also proved that the human race does not in fact exist. The book's overall art and writing styles are as erratic as everything else. I've read more interesting college textbooks than this thing. I thought I fell asleep because I was tired. Nope, I was just so bored I instinctively reacted by falling asleep before I was exposed to any more of it. The writing style also seems a bit too patronizing for my taste as well, being written as if readers are complete idiots. At first glance the layout seems nice, especially with it being full color, but that, too, is but an illusion. This layout has some serious problems: first of all, there are pages with a parchment-like background that obscures the text and makes it hard to read. Second, the art is way too inconsistent; there are way too many styles and types. For some reason the roleplaying industry seems to believe that layouts which contain a variety of artists are better than those that use the art of just one person. The truth of the matter is that most professional graphic artists (like myself) know better than to place varying styles of art in a piece unless there is a really good reason for it. Wizards of the Coast has some fine artists on hand, but they ought to have picked just one and left it at that. Strangely, they also placed some really bad line art in the spell descriptions section, and I have to wonder who allowed that to happen? I must admit that the cover is beautiful, the fonts chosen are very good, and the page layouts themselves are really good. (In this case I mean the placement of tables, art and so forth rather than the art itself.) With full color available, it also baffles me that they included a lot of line art, but that complaint goes along with the fact that they used so many different types of art in the first place. In any case, I would not recommend this game to my friends, and I suggest that my enemies avoid it as well. It's a pity that a project that had some much potential was such a disaster. Style: 3 (Average) Substance: 2 (Sparse)

Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 3rd Edition