I mentioned earlier in this series of reactions that, while I respect and admire Gary Gygax for many reasons, that doesn’t change one simple truth:
He should never have been allowed to organize a rulebook.
Write? Sure. Like James Maliszewski (although perhaps not to quite the same fervent degree) I’m actually a fan of his prose and I find his style to be very evocative. But once he’s done writing, it’s time to call in the professional editors to clean up the mess.
Let me give you just two examples. First, from page 19 of Volume 1: Men & Magic, is the section “Level Above Those Listed”, which comes immediately on the heels of the various class progression tables:
Levels Above those Listed: Progressions of Dice for Accumulative Hits, Fighting Capability, and Spells & Levels may not be evident. An 11th level Lord would get 10 +3 dice and fight as he did at the 10th level; but at 12th level, he could get 11 + 1 dice and fight at Superhero + 2. At 13th level dice would be 11 + 3 with Fighting Capability at Superhero + 2. A 17th level Wizard would get 9 + 3 dice and fight as a 16th level, just as an 18th level Wizard would get dice of 10 + 1 with no change in Fighting Capabilities — the change coming at the 19th level, fighting then being done at Wizard + 3. An 11th level Patriarch would get dice of 7 + 3 with Fighting Capability unchanged; at 12th level dice would be 8 + 1 with no change in fighting; and at 13th level the Patriarch would get 8 + 2 and fight as a Superhero – the next change in Fighting Capability coming at the 17th level.
Spell progression for Magic-Users is: 17th level Wizard — 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5; 18th level Wizard — sizes across the board; and so on. Spell progression for Clerics is: 11th level Patriarch – 4, 4, 4, 3, 3; 12th level Patriarch — fours across the board; 13th level Patriarch — 5, 5, 5, 4, 4; and so on.
Umm… couldn’t you have just put that info on the actual class tables? I mean, you still didn’t bother to actually explain the methodology behind the progressions, so all you’ve accomplished is to take a big chunk of information and arbitrarily convey it through a different (and much more confusing) method.
The second example is the “chapter” dedicated to spell descriptions. And like every edition of the game except for 3rd Edition, the spells are grouped together according to their level.
Was there ever a less useful method of organizing that material? The only way to find the spell you’re looking for is if you’ve memorized the level of the spell. So you’re basically demanding people to achieve system mastery just to find information in the rulebook.
And then it stuck around for the next 25+ years as some sort of horrible “legacy”.
Admittedly, part of my objection here is philosophical. In organizing a rulebook you have to look at how that rulebook will be used. When it comes to roleplaying manuals, there are three uses:
(1) Learning the game
(2) Character creation
(3) Playing the game
Problems arise because these uses are not always compatible with each other. For example, organizing spells by spell level is useful for character creation because you want to quickly know which spells you can use to fill your available spell slots. On the other hand, it’s completely frakkin’ useless when you’re actually playing the game and trying to figure out how a particular spell works.
I believe that there are usually ways to structure the manual so that all three uses can be satisfied simultaneously. It can be difficult and sometimes it might mean repeating information, but it can almost always be done. And if push really does come to shove, then I think it’s better to favor utility in playing the game.
(Why? Because you spend more time playing the game than you do creating a character.)
As an example of how to do it right, you can look at 3rd Edition’s method for handling spells. There are spell lists which groups the spells together according to level (which provides the necessary utility for character creation), but then the spell descriptions themselves are completely alphabetical (which makes it easy to find the specific spell that you’re looking for). So you get the best of both worlds and full utility out of your rulebook.
(4th Edition, of course, promptly went back to doing it the stupid way. It doesn’t have spells, but they arranged all the powers by level.)
ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Rob
Your post about by-level organization makes some good points, but I think there is a little more to it than that. Which method is better depends a lot on the audience. By-level organization is an absolutely terrible means of organizing a reference manual for people who don’t care about the level. You can’t easily see what goes where without the reference – say, if you are a DM being referred to a spell-like ability from the Monster Manual, or a fighter who needs to look up the abilities of his magic sword.
On the other hand, its fantastic for players who are *actually referencing their spell list*. If you’ve got the spell in one of your spell slots, you already know what level it is (if only by virtue of what slot you wrote it in), and your class and power level of your character restricts the amount of text you have to search for the entry. You don’t go looking for Magic Missile in a giant list filled with Magic Jar, Meteor Swarm, and Monster Summoning VII. While I would never write a basic rulebook this way, I always print out spell reference sheets for my magic-users in this format because the restricted search space is so much faster to flip through while playing than a huge number of encyclopedia entries. YMMV, I suppose.
The real trouble with Gygax using that organization in the AD&D PHB is that – like much of the rest of AD&D – it began life intended for a narrow purpose (a reference for spells learned by spellcasting PCs) and ended up adapted for a wider one (the ultimate reference for all spell-like effects ever). The writers of 3E were a bit savvier – unlike Gygax, they realized that the spell list was going to be the primary reference for other things, so they wrote the spell entries as a universal reference.
For this reason, I think that whatever that system’s (numerous) other faults, 4e’s decision to sort powers by level is actually a pretty decent one. Rogues and Rangers don’t share any powers, barring the odd multiclassing corner case, so there isn’t much point at all in mixing the lists of class powers, and I really appreciate having the search space for my 1st-level character’s powers dropped from forty pages to two.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 10:34:26 AM
“John Lee”
4e’s power setup is different, true. However, powers are simply not spells; they are not used the same way, and there is no need to arrange them any differently from what they already have. (Rituals, on the other hand, do need to be arranged alphabetically – and they are). Why are you looking for a specific power? In 3e, you looked for a spell because you needed to use it to solve a problem. In 4e, all powers solve the same problem – living, hostile, enemies. You don’t need to look for a specific power, because every power is just a different type of combat attack. They vary considerably, but certainly not enough to require organization by anything other than level. Combat is intended to be about efficient use of the abilities you have; not looking into next level’s powers to find a fubar trick.
Rituals, however, do function like the spells of D&D-prime; and ought to be organized accordingly. And they are; lying in the rulebook in a convenient alphabetical order. In the same section is a list of rituals by level. I have many gripes with 4e; but this is definitely not one of them.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 6:34:13 PM
Draz74
[nitpick] Technically 4e does have spells. Any arcane power is defined as a spell. [/nitpick]
Yes, much more practical to arrange the things alphabetically in favor of gameplay utility. Very strange how they couldn’t figure that out in most editions.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 10:13:51 AM
Tetsubo
I didn’t know that about 4E.
Yet another reason to despise that game. I still refuse to consider it an edition of D&D.
Monday, March 16, 2009, 4:48:11 PM
I will point out 1EAD&D does the different thing because of certain designed utilities. 1. players need to understand that Continual Light is better than Light, Alphabetical doesn’t cut it. 2. Class wise many of the spells are different. Clerics and Mages have different spells named the same thing with subtle alterations, moreso than just level it can be cast at (Light again springs to mind various detects as well). 3. the PHB has abilities that are not the same as abilities in the Monster Manual (Read the Nighthag’s magic missile ability).
One thing I will say in Gary’s defense despite the fact he did need a stronger editor, he was among the first. Don’t discount 3EAD&D’s 20+ years of experience at learning from others mistakes in order to decry Gary a little.
Sidebar: 3EAD&D was so bad they had to demolish it and create 3.5AD&D 1EAD&D never had that level of issues.