# Failed promises



## Infernal Teddy (Jun 18, 2005)

Well, people, what books have you bought because they sounded way cool, but - when you finally read them - failed to deliver?

Example: for me, it was Ghostwalk. The premise was brilliant, but I couldn't find a way to logicallay build it into a gameworld, without letting it dominate my homebrew or having to rewrite an "official" setting to accomadate Manifest. Plus, I don't think the idea of the ghosts to PC's and back doesn't quite mesh with standard D&D.

So, what about you?


----------



## Thanee (Jun 18, 2005)

The XPH and Frostburn were both extreme turn-offs with great promise.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Jupp (Jun 18, 2005)

Manual of the Planes

I really did wait for that one but when I got the MotP it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! I didnt even have the motivation after that stunt to buy the Planar Handbook when that came out.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 18, 2005)

For me, the book that comes to mind immediately was Underdark. This should have been along the lines of the environment series, but instead just a bunch of player races, spells and feats with no real info on running games set in the Underdark. Very dissapointing.


----------



## Cherub (Jun 18, 2005)

For me it would be Complete Fighter...just seemed like a bunch of feats, classes and prestige classes mushed together to craft a poor excuse of a supplemental class rule book...when in fact IMHO it shouldve also been about interesting ideas and concepts and innovative facets for a class that has the potential to be rather 2 dimensional in the hands of an inexperienced player,,,in any case that thurned me off and I refused to buy anymore class or race based supplemental rule books...the last thing i want is more prestige classes and feats...like we didnt have enough of them to deal with let alone keep track of as a DM  :\ ...(pardon my gripe - just needed to get that off my chest)...


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 18, 2005)

Player's Guide to Faerun.  I guess I was expecting more...


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jun 18, 2005)

Jupp said:
			
		

> Manual of the Planes
> 
> I really did wait for that one but when I got the MotP it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! I didnt even have the motivation after that stunt to buy the Planar Handbook when that came out.




Oh, interesting. I liked that one very much and I seem to recall that MoTP is one of the best received books ever. I can still see your point, though.

I'm wracking my brain to give an example of my own but I can't seem to come up with one. Maybe it's because I don't buy stuff I'm not familiar with but I don't know for sure...

Well, 3.5 certainly didn't deliver that's for sure. Here we were expecting a books without all the errata and misprints and what do we get? More of the same. Sheesh.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 18, 2005)

*MotP was the best 3.x book, it still was a pale shadow of its primary sources from 2e*

Deities and Demigods 3e - I can't say what I was expecting, but this wasn't it. Single worst design decision made: deity statblocks in 3e. Ruined the book and I've not picked it up since I bought.

Players Guide to Faerun - I was really looking forward to this book, and it failed on most every level, and the only FR book I've returned for my money back. Updates to spells and feats, crappy cosmology details, metaplot summaries that are useless if you read the novels, and not much more.

Planar Handbook - a noble attempt, decent to good in parts, but it had large shoes to fill compared to the Planescape source material it drew from. What made this get mentioned here were the wasted 30odd pages in the back of the book detailing Planar Touchstones, the single worst implimented idea in DnD in 3rd edition. Powerups to win the game! *cue sound of Super Mario theme music*

Champions of Ruin - Book of Vile Darkness lite, and I was hoping for a bit more detail on more than a select handful of groups that had already been covered before in other 3e FR books. What really got me were stats for beings that the gods of Toril fear but who in the CR 20ish range would be smacked around and left for dead. Oh, and the admitted reason they were put in the CR 20ish range was solely so PCs could kill them, otherwise they wouldn't be attractive targets for most PCs in FR games. That's just sad.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2005)

*DEITIES & DEMIGODS* - A freakin' DEITY MONSTER MANUAL! I thought the WotC staff learned their lesson. Argh!
AEG's War
FFG's Dungeoncraft
Races of the Wild (after Races of Stone did dwarves and gnomes proud, I was expecting so much more)
Kenzer's Villain Design Handbook
Mongoose's Strongholds & Dynasties
Mongoose's Chronomancy
Mongoose's Elementalism (these two books smacked so much because the previous books in the series were so good.)
Green Ronin's Bastards & Bloodlines (this one annoyed me because both author and company are typically conceptually excellent.)
Libris Mortis (great 2e products like Van Richten's Guide and Complete Book of Necromancers and the prior book in the series, Draconomicon, left me expecting so much more.)
Did I mention *DEITIES & DEMIGODS*?


But generally, I find that if I pre-form my image of a book too much, I set myself up for disappointment. I mean, if you are like the dunderhead who pans Draconomicon on Amazon expecting something other than a game book, I don't think the fault lies with the author...


----------



## KenM (Jun 18, 2005)

For me it was Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed. All it was was a setting, but they promoted as something else, IMO.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Planar Handbook




Well, while I agree so totally (what kills me was the RACES! Still no non FR full racial writeup of planetouched, despite the face this is where they belong!), after a few botched attempts to do PS in 3e in Dragon etc., I had already lost faith in them by the time Planar Handbook was out.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 18, 2005)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Well, people, what books have you bought because they sounded way cool, but - when you finally read them - failed to deliver?



For me, I believed with utter certainty that _Beyond Countless Doorways_ would be the greatest book ever on planes, and it happened to be one of the worst... I was so disappointed that it angered me, and incited me to write a review about it for that sole reason (viewable on Enworld's reviews).


----------



## the Jester (Jun 18, 2005)

Another vote against the _Planar Handbook._

All the _Races of..._ books- I didn't even end up buying them.

[edit: and I'm a gaming whore.]

_The Book of Exalted Deeds._


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 18, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> _The Book of Exalted Deeds._




What is this BoED you speak of? ... *psychotic flashback episode* Make the terribly shallow book go away! *whine* Oh the wretched concept of the deathless that it inflicted on the world!

*curls up in the corner with a stuffed ultroloth doll, whimpering for all the so-called good to go away*


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 18, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Champions of Ruin - Book of Vile Darkness lite, and I was hoping for a bit more detail on more than a select handful of groups that had already been covered before in other 3e FR books. What really got me were stats for beings that the gods of Toril fear but who in the CR 20ish range would be smacked around and left for dead. Oh, and the admitted reason they were put in the CR 20ish range was solely so PCs could kill them, otherwise they wouldn't be attractive targets for most PCs in FR games. That's just sad.



I'll second this one.

"Hey, we just killed Dendar the Night Serpent!"
"That means we saved the world, he was supposed to destroy Toril at the end of time."
"Yeah, that was almost easy too, I wonder why in the last 20,000 years nobody else has done that.  You'd think that the Seven Sisters, Elminster, Drizzt, King Azoun, some great wyrm dragon, any of the Netherese Archmages, the gods (or their chosen, avatars, or high priests), or even Zass Tamm or Larloch would have gotten around to killing the being that was guaranteed to be the eventual undoing of the entire world.  Even the bad guys know it would destroy them too."
"You'd think that, but for some odd reason it never came up."

Some things are just too big for most PC's to ever deal with, that's part of the Realms.  It's not just the personal playground of the PC's, they can be heroes and save the day, but there are true epic challenges out there for epic level characters too (some people think it cheapens the PC's by making them not the biggest players in the world, I think it makes it more plausible since there is always a bigger fish).  Why bother having Epic level rules, and even practically inventing the epic rules set for 3e (in the original FRCS) when you don't even make the main Epic monsters of the Realms actually have epic stats?


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 18, 2005)

Here is my lkist of products that have disappointed me: FR Underdark, Masque of the Red Death (Arthaus), Portals & Planes, Broncosaurus Rex, Encyclopaedia Arcane: Chronomancy and Encyclopaedia Arcane: Crossbreeding.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 18, 2005)

Complete Arcane and Complete Divine.  They weren't complete in the least, Warrior and Adventure at least made an attempt at being complete.  

D&Dg, though I don't mind the stats for gods the sheer lack of useful info was what killed it for me

Epic Level handbook: it is high level, and it looks just like low level with bigger numbers.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 18, 2005)

Swashbuckling Arcana.  The writers put in character descriptions that could not be duplicated by the rules, and had some magic using feats with DC's that were impossible to meet.  Not just difficult.  Impossible according to the rules in the book.  You see, guys, when you change from an "exploding dice pool system" to a "d20 system" you are meant to check the DC's and either lower them or allow for lots of bonuses to that new "magic roll" that you put in.  You can't just cut and paste from your older books.  

The Last Days of Constantinople.  The fluff was ok, but the crunch let me down.  A 3rd level prostitute with chr 27 and assassin death attack?  Pass.

I must admit, that, though I like C&C overall, I was disappointed by the encumbrance rules, and the lack of monsters and treasure (although I hear that the M&T book is finally coming out).

As for official wotc stuff: And I have been disappointed by how the illusionist has been treated in 2nd edition (not wotc, but tsr) and 3rd edition, but that is the topic for a whole different rant and thread.  Let's just say that I haven't found any official or 3rd party products that have left me completely happy here.  They seem to leave the illusionist either too weak (standard stuff) or too powerful (some third party stuff).


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 18, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Epic Level handbook: it is high level, and it looks just like low level with bigger numbers.




That didn't bother me so much.

The adventure in the back bothered me, I am personally of the opinion that it was never playtested.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't see how a party of four 23rd level level characters could survive that dragon encounter outside the fortress.  I mean, use the rules (remember you aren't allowed to spend more than 1/2 your gold on a single item) and try to beat it.  You get to start out with that egg thing and that's nice, but I really don't see how that encounter can end in anything other than a TPK and it's the second one or so.  The rest of the adventure is pretty much undead and constructs.  Bleah.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2005)

How could I forget Epic Level Handbook.

Not that I loathed it. It was a useful extension to the rules, albeit with a few warts.

But the flavor is SO not worthy of the name Epic.

And I hate union with the burning anger of one thousand suns.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 18, 2005)

Dieites and Demigods.

I mean, I LIKE the book. Sure, its a Deity Monster Manual, but there's some nice info that I've been able to port into my game based on the light amount of fluff in there. I would have loved it to give a Faiths and Avatars treatment to the different pantheons presented, but I guess that was expecting too much. Still, at least WotC learned and hasn't given us that kind of book again...even Faiths and Pantheons had much more than just stat blocks.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 18, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Deities and Demigods 3e - I can't say what I was expecting, but this wasn't it. Single worst design decision made: deity statblocks in 3e. Ruined the book and I've not picked it up since I bought.




I agree and disagree.  It belongs on the list, but it would belong on the list if they didn't include stats for deities, too.  That's been part of D&D since "Gods, Demi-gods and Heroes."  

Where it fell down was the lack of focus on clerics and other worshippers of the deities.  How often will players deal directly with deities?  How often will players deal with worshippers of the deities?  Asking that question should answer where the focus should have been.

(And this is from someone whose ideal setting has the gods constantly meddling _directly_ in the affairs of mortals ala the Greek gods.)


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 18, 2005)

The biggest stinker for me was Deities & Demigods.  All it had was stats for deities, and virtually NO info on their priesthoods, beliefs, religious institutions, etc- you know, the useful stuff.

Epic Level Handbook- the most blah book ever made for D&D.  Except for some of the monsters, its extremely underwhelming.

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed (and by extension Evolved)- when I first heard about AU, I got excited thinking it would bring some new aspects to the game.  All it ended up being was a really high fantasy world with fuzzy races and minor tweaks to the recognizable PHB classes and spells.  I've since realized my gaming style and Monte's are not compatible, but I find the book highly overrated.

Book of Exalted Deeds- I still don't get this one.  Hand-in-hand with this one is the Book of Vile Darkness.  BoVD had some cool ideas, but its evil was terribly shallow and icky, and didn't help to illuminate how and why some beings are evil, the metaphysics behind evil, etc.

I've tried to like the new Ravenloft stuff.  There are a few gems among the books (the walking dead book and some of the shadow fey stuff), but most of it seems to lack direction and the creepy quality the stuff made near the end of 2e did.

Arms and Equipment Guide- just plain dumb.  Kenzer's and Mongoose's equipment books were both MUCH better.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 18, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> That didn't bother me so much.
> 
> The adventure in the back bothered me, I am personally of the opinion that it was never playtested.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't see how a party of four 23rd level level characters could survive that dragon encounter outside the fortress.  I mean, use the rules (remember you aren't allowed to spend more than 1/2 your gold on a single item) and try to beat it.  You get to start out with that egg thing and that's nice, but I really don't see how that encounter can end in anything other than a TPK and it's the second one or so.  The rest of the adventure is pretty much undead and constructs.  Bleah.



 Your PCs must not min/max enough compared to the adventure's writer 

I've found that by epic levels, it is effectively completely impossible to balance anything for "a party of 4 2Xth level characters."  You have to know your group from watching them grow (or making them send you their characters in advance and extensively playtesting them) in order to send appropriate challenges by this time because capabilities vary greatly.  My party of 3 PCs levelled 18, 19, and 20 (plus one level 16 cohort) could easily defeat the dragon encounter from that adventure, but it is also true that 4 level 23 iconics would lose.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2005)

Deities and Demigods.

Look at the most recent Goblonomicon update, download the god in there. THAT is how you detail divinity. If you enjoy statting up gods, do it yourself, like you would any other powerful monster. D&Dg should've told us how the gods operate in the campaign more, and how big an AC they could hit less.


----------



## Nighthawk (Jun 18, 2005)

D&D 3.0 Deities & Demigods. So far, nothing else has come close in my eyes (in terms of failing to deliver).


----------



## DungeonMaster (Jun 18, 2005)

3.5. I had a lot of hope that the revision would be as amazing as the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition. Or even 10% as good. Instead we got a "revised" game that's litered with moronic or arbitrary houserules by "some guy out there" who hasn't a clue, a good 40% worse than 3rd edition. There's never been a D&D release to disappoint me more. I've gone through every edition change without skipping a beat until I hit 3.5.

The 2nd edition "2.5" of the day "skills and powers" and company were also pretty dissapointing.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 18, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> My party of 3 PCs levelled 18, 19, and 20 (plus one level 16 cohort) could easily defeat the dragon encounter from that adventure, but it is also true that 4 level 23 iconics would lose.





I'm sorry to hijack the thread, but I have to know: how?  How would you get around the Dragon's Damage Resistance (3.0 rules) and Spell Resistance?  I don't mean on a lucky roll or anything.  Because that dragon can take out a wizard pertty easily.  Remember how it shows up, too.  It was hiding in lava and pops out as a surprise.  Some buffs I can see would be up (mage armor, endurance, bull's strength, etc), but not much else.  

for those who don't know: this takes place on the elemental plane of fire and there is tons and tons of lava about.  And you get a 19th (?) level ranger to help out Rystil's group.

I am not trying to pick an internet fight or anything.  I am just desperately curious.  I am a dunce when it comes to high levels and I really want to know.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 18, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to hijack the thread, but I have to know: how?  How would you get around the Dragon's Damage Resistance (3.0 rules) and Spell Resistance?  I don't mean on a lucky roll or anything.  Because that dragon can take out a wizard pertty easily.  Remember how it shows up, too.  It was hiding in lava and pops out as a surprise.  Some buffs I can see would be up (mage armor, endurance, bull's strength, etc), but not much else.
> 
> for those who don't know: this takes place on the elemental plane of fire and there is tons and tons of lava about.  And you get a 19th (?) level ranger to help out Rystil's group.
> 
> I am not trying to pick an internet fight or anything.  I am just desperately curious.  I am a dunce when it comes to high levels and I really want to know.





> And you get a 19th (?) level ranger to help out Rystil's group.



You also sometimes get an infernal 

Anyways, its rather simple.  My group's resident archmage isn't going to be getting through the thing's SR, so her only viable option is to use no-SR spells.  If you cry foul at this, then we'll ignore her for now.

Oh, the egg will do average of 725 damage to the dragon, leaving it with a bit ober 700 hp (and under 3.0 rules, for which this is written, the poor dragon would have actually taken average of 1100 damage and be left with 333 after the egg).

The party's second character is an azer cleric, so he's immune to fire, and he managed to get his pixie cohort the fire subtype too with that spell that does that.  Also, I would assume Fire protection magic will be cast since it is the Plane of Fire, so I'd imagine the breath weapon will be rather ineffective.

Anyways, Aust, the Frenzied Berserker (with 2 levels in Paladin of Freedom) can't penetrate the thing's DR, so instead he will choose to ignore the DR and just attack anyway with a fully power-attacked brilliant energy weapon, dealing an average of 3d6 + 5 enhancement from GMW + 24 Strength + 60 Power Attack and hitting automatically with four of the five attacks except on a 1 (the last attack hits on a 5).  Granted the damage reduction, so knock off 35 to reach 64 damage per attack.  Clearly, two or three rounds of Aust's smashing will kill it by himself.  And we didn't even let Cornelia cast her no-SR spells.

Now as for how Aust will survive those 3 rounds, well unfortunately for the poor dragon, it just can's hope to kill him.  Thanks to Divine Grace and the fact that Charisma is his second-highest stat, all of his saves, even Will, make the dragon's DC 21 + spell level magic spells unusable, and the poor thing doesn't have disintegrate on its list (a fatal mistake, since this is the only spell in the game that will kill a FB in frenzy if you can't make him fail a save).

Hope that helps!


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 18, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Hope that helps!




It does.

I think this is a case of evolved characters who have earned their 19 levels versus one-shot characters who start at 23.  Your guys assume they won't beat DR and SR because it's happened on a lesser scale before.  My guys weren't thinking in those terms.

Thanks for your post, I appriciate it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 18, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> It does.
> 
> I think this is a case of evolved characters who have earned their 19 levels versus one-shot characters who start at 23.  Your guys assume they won't beat DR and SR because it's happened on a lesser scale before.  My guys weren't thinking in those terms.
> 
> Thanks for your post, I appriciate it.



 No problem at all.  I'm very glad I could help you 



> I think this is a case of evolved characters who have earned their 19 levels versus one-shot characters who start at 23.



I completely, completely agree with you about this.  It has been one of my overarching principles in GMing (if I'm even an important enough person to be allowed to have principles of GMing) that you simply cannot make a balanced adventure for "A group of 4 level 22 characters" because you have to play with them from low levels (we started at level 1) and watch them evolve and grow to know their capabilities.  This came up in the thread about the new epic Dungeon adventure that appeared here a few weeks ago.  I pointed out the same thing, and then someone (can't remember who it was) posted a few level 30+ characters he created that I noticed were built in such a way that they would have lost in a fight to my PCs, even back when the PCs were level 15.  Anyways, this is why I prefer to always start at level 1 and to make up my own adventures


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 18, 2005)

DungeonMaster said:
			
		

> The 2nd edition "2.5" of the day "skills and powers" and company were also pretty dissapointing.




Gotta agree with that, as well as "spells and magic".  Its like they said "Hey, GURPS has a points system.  Let's have one too!" but did no playtesting on how munchkin a point system can get without controls.  I quickly saw how broken it was with clerics.  If you dump most of the useless spheres, you get enough points to twink out your cleric to an unbelievable amount (wizard evocation spells, fighter thaco and hp, continual spell true seeing, etc.).

Sad, really.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 20, 2005)

The one I was very excited about at the time, and completely turned me off (thank God I had the chance to borrow it before buying!) was the Epic Level Handbook.

When it was announced I really thought it was going to be a _necessary_ book. At that time I hadn't yet had a chance to play (and especially run) high-level adventures, and afterwards I realized that I much prefer not to get even close to 20th level   But this I realized only later, so it didn't influence at all my disappointment with the ELH.

Basically the ELH and its epic rules gave me the impression of being (1) completely not at all epic in the feel, and (2) very difficult to balance.

The fact that it had one of the most awful artwork selection of 3ed definitely didn't help.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Jun 20, 2005)

I completely forgot the twin abominations of Book of vile darkness and book of exalted deeds...

Thank god there are still some fools on ebay who'll buy anything...


----------



## Cherub (Jun 20, 2005)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> I completely forgot the twin abominations of Book of vile darkness and book of exalted deeds...
> 
> Thank god there are still some fools on ebay who'll buy anything...




IT perhaps you could elaborate on why those two books were such an abomination in your mind...i thought they had some pretty interesting concepts, ideas and potential hooks compared to the drivel that are found in the Complete (class) and (race) books and which were churned out as part of an obvious money spinning scheme except to the most daft of rpg players...


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 20, 2005)

For me, it was Champions of Ruin. I really liked every other FR3E book, but this one is not worthy of the Realms.




			
				Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> I completely forgot the twin abominations of Book of vile darkness and book of exalted deeds...
> 
> Thank god there are still some fools on ebay who'll buy anything...




I liked the BoVD and think that is a good (or rather Evil) book. Do you call me a fool? 



			
				Cherub said:
			
		

> For me it would be Complete Fighter...just seemed like a bunch of feats, classes and prestige classes mushed together to craft a poor excuse of a supplemental class rule book...when in fact IMHO it shouldve also been about interesting ideas and concepts and innovative facets for a class that has the potential to be rather 2 dimensional in the hands of an inexperienced player




Hm... Are you speaking of Complete Warrior, which was supposed to be a guide to combat for all classes, not a Class book for Fighters?


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 20, 2005)

I personally had fun with my BoED Vow of Poverty Monk idea.  I see the BoVD as a "DM's Book" and my DM enjoys using it.  It certainly adds a bit of urgency to the game if a bunch of wererats are chanting over your tied up friend (character-wise) and you see your DM paging through the BoVD (player-wise).  It made me go from "What is this DM playing at?  Lyncanthropy does spread by a ritual" confusion to "OH MY GOD!  We have to stop this ritual RIGHT NOW!" spur to action.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 20, 2005)

Dragonlords of Melnibone.  I love the Elric books, but Chaosium totally dropped the ball on the D20 conversion.  Everything from the writing, to the rules, to the art was completely subpar.  

Castles and Crusades: They did what they set out to do.  They made a functional D20'ish game that was simple and easy to run.  Too bad they removed much of what I love from D20.  

Beyond that, I've been pretty happy with most of the books I've bought.  Heck, I like the Planar Handbook, MotP, and Bastards and Bloodlines (though some of the races were just a little too weird)!

Kane


----------



## Psion (Jun 20, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Dragonlords of Melnibone.  I love the Elric books, but Chaosium totally dropped the ball on the D20 conversion.




How could I forget? It's been so long. Probably the first major disappointement of the d20 movement to me.

When I heard it was coming out, I was pumped. I was even defending the notion of a d20 Elric from the smack-talkers on webrpg (you remember that don't you, Quasqueton?).

Then I bought the book. And said to myself "I could do a better adaptation of this on a Sunday afternoon."


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 20, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> How could I forget? It's been so long. Probably the first major disappointement of the d20 movement to me.
> 
> When I heard it was coming out, I was pumped. I was even defending the notion of a d20 Elric from the smack-talkers on webrpg (you remember that don't you, Quasqueton?).
> 
> Then I bought the book. And said to myself "I could do a better adaptation of this on a Sunday afternoon."




At first as I read the background and details, the same basically as those in the Stomrbringer RPG, I enjoyed it. I've even nabbed the 'heroic action' bit where when going out you can do another half-action and  take 1d3 points of damage.

But using the rest of it proved that althought Elric will always remain cool, this game will not.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 20, 2005)

I totally forgot about Gamma World D20.  Just once I wish the writers of new eiditons of D20 would just listen to the fans and give us what we want for a change.  In both the D20 and the Alternity editions the fans clamored for a return to the "wahoo" style of play with mutant animals, mutant plants, and over-the-top action.  Alternity gave us a very toned down version, but at least gave us mutant animals in a Dragon Article.  The D20 version gave us nanites...great.  I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision of what GW should be like, and give us the version that we want.  

I'm calm now...and off the soapbox...

Kane


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 20, 2005)

This thing that still gets me about Chaosium on that was how based on the lackluster sales of DoM, they dtiched a lot of their D20 aspirations.  All I kept thinking was: "Duh!"  If they would have put some real effort into truly CONVERTING Stormbringer to D20 instead of changing a few stats and then cutting and pasting the rest, I have no doubt they would have sold a ton of them.  It's a shame really, since we're never really going to see any support for CoC D20, one of the best D20 games on the market.

Kane


----------



## Morpheus (Jun 20, 2005)

The 1st edition of _Conan_ was not pretty. Lucky for us, Mongoose owned up to their mistakes and fixed most of the problems (at a chepaer price).
_The Lost City of Gaxmoor_ fills me with dread to this day. Why it's still sitting on my bookshelf, I'll never know. Oh wait, that's right, nobody else wants it...


----------



## amethal (Jun 20, 2005)

Almost anything I bought from Fast Forward Entertainment - even after I knew what to expect, and only got those books I could pick up very cheaply, they often failed to meet even my minimal expectations.

Arcana Unearthed was a disappointment, but only because I had such high hopes for it. There's nothing wrong with it - and plenty of people rave about it - but it just failed to grab me somehow.

Complete Divine was a let down because of all the errors in it and the ease with which divine metamagic could be abused (especially as written, when it wasn't clear if you actually needed to have the feat you were reproducing). 

I had a very depressing conversation with someone who had maxed out his turn undead / day attempts, created a character which would have had little prospect of surviving at low levels (but who cares when he's only being played from 12th level onwards) and thought any DM who wouldn't let him have 6th level spells last for 24 hours (never mind that a persistent 6th level spell is the equivalent of a 12th level spell) was a no good cheat.

On a more positive note,

D20 Paranoia is fantastic (and free), I love the True20 system, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook was unexpectedly great.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 20, 2005)

There have been many books that I avoided purchasing because the actual product wasn't as thrilling as the concept should have been.  Of the "Races of X" (X=Destiny, Stone, the Wild, Faerun, Eberron) only Races of Eberron really caught my fancy.  I thought the planar handbook was a poor retread of Manual of the Planes, with almost nothing I could or would use.  Monte's Arcana Unearthed was highly recommended (practically the second coming of the messiah, in certain circles) but it failed to grab me in any way.  I don't think I've used a single thing from it, ever.  

The Epic Level Handbook was, of course, less than thrilling.  It seems to have made epic levels needlessly complicated to run - they distanced it as much as they could from high level D&D.  I thought that was ridiculous - if I want to play Epic Level D&D, you can probably assume that I think those levels from 15-20 work just fine and dandy. Those GM's and player's most comfortable at levels 6-12 probably aren't going to buy the book anyway, but that seems to be who it catered to.  And the setting suggestions were singularly unhelpful.


----------



## A'koss (Jun 20, 2005)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> The one I was very excited about at the time, and completely turned me off (thank God I had the chance to borrow it before buying!) was the Epic Level Handbook.



I was disappointed as well, but in retrospect it is a monumentally difficult task to extend beyond the levels of the core rules. Especially since you have only a fraction of the man-hours the core books had to develop, playtest it and so on. The core rules just do not make it easy to higher level development and it's something I hope they pay much closer attention to for 4e.

Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved... Too setting specific for my liking, and unfortunately I didn't care much for the setting. Some prunable rules, definitely, but most of the classes and animorphic races really turned me off.

A'koss.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 20, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I hope they pay much closer attention to for 4e.




I am confident that they will. Look at the trend: in 2e, you could not go even near level 20 before everything came crushing down. In 3e, you have 20 levels that work well. We can hope that 4e will be rock-solid for the first score of levels, and pretty decent beyond it.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2005)

DungeonMaster said:
			
		

> The 2nd edition "2.5" of the day "skills and powers" and company were also pretty dissapointing.




I have to agree with this sentiment. I remember getting Skills and Powers, cracking it open on the bus ride back to my apartment, and feeling the disappointment grow in that short time. Probably the single worst gaming purchase I've ever made.


----------



## Felon (Jun 20, 2005)

I find it somewhat amusing that Deities & Demigods gets knocked for providing stats for gods that are effectively invincible and untouchable, while Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Ruin were both chastised for statting out ancient, terrible opponents so that they are at least remotely touchable (you know, by plain ol' punk-ass epic-level nobodies). Sort of a catch-22.


----------



## Psion (Jun 20, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> I find it somewhat amusing that Deities & Demigods gets knocked for providing stats for gods that are effectively invincible and untouchable, while Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Ruin were both chastised for statting out ancient, terrible opponents so that they are at least remotely touchable (you know, by plain ol' punk-ass epic-level nobodies). Sort of a catch-22.




Personally, having stats for deities doesn't bother me. Having a book full of them, however, is nigh useless. Even typical epic level characters will be trounced by a typical deity.

AFAIAC, a system for quantifying deities is acceptable; though using them may be rare, it gives you a useful tool in the right game. But this very rarity makes a devoting a major part of a book to them wasteful.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 20, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> I find it somewhat amusing that Deities & Demigods gets knocked for providing stats for gods that are effectively invincible and untouchable, while Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Ruin were both chastised for statting out ancient, terrible opponents so that they are at least remotely touchable (you know, by plain ol' punk-ass epic-level nobodies). Sort of a catch-22.



Probably because people see a line between "god" and "ancient nemesis".  

The idea of using Divine Rank to quantify power levels, and the salient divine abilities to define exact powers was notable, but D&DG really almost felt more like the Monster Manual for Guaranteed TPK.  The typical role of Gods in a campaign isn't as a monster to go beat up, it's to be something distant and awesome.   Name, portfolio, alignment, domains, favored weapon, divine rank would have been enough stats (maybe, just maybe the 6 ability scores too).

Book of Vile Darkness, like Champions of Ruin, made legendary, ancient monsters into things that any typical high level party pushing 20th level can take on as a "boss fight".  When they have the mechanics to portray epic level characters into the 30+ level range, even putting them in the core with the 3.5 DMG, and most of the creatures in the ELH were newly created (here are a bunch of legendary, nigh-invincible beings with massive repercussions for your game world, which you've never even heard of before).

Archdevils/Demon Princes, legendary setting-specific creatures like Kezef the Chaos Hound (a.k.a. the Fenris Wolf), and maybe some weak demigods would have made for good monsters, not Lavawight and Winterwights (we're just like normal undead, except we do damage that can never be healed by any means and we've just got bigger stats than normal wights!).


----------



## Belen (Jun 20, 2005)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed (and by extension Evolved)- when I first heard about AU, I got excited thinking it would bring some new aspects to the game.  All it ended up being was a really high fantasy world with fuzzy races and minor tweaks to the recognizable PHB classes and spells.  I've since realized my gaming style and Monte's are not compatible, but I find the book highly overrated.




You cannot have read the book.  There is nothing "minor" about the differences in the classes, spell system, or races.  They are completely new.  It brings a lot of new aspects to the game that are not covered by the core system.  The entire feel of it is different than core 3e.


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 20, 2005)

D&Dg, definately. 

Epic Level Handbook too.

Savage Species was a bit of a let down, just because I felt it was kind of poorly balanced. At the time, it fit my play style very well, but it just wasn't too well balanced. not unusable, but iffy.

And, an odd one here: The Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. Now, before I get killed for this, let me say that this was my first campaign setting, and it was just too... deep, while at the same time not having a big hook to grab me. I had never read any FR books (still haven't), but I read the campaign setting anyway, and I just didn't get it. Now that I'm a bit more mature as far as gaming is concerned I appreciate it a bit more, but I still feel that it lacked a hook to get me really reading. I don't think the book was bad, but for me it was a big dissapointment.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You cannot have read the book.  There is nothing "minor" about the differences in the classes, spell system, or races.  They are completely new.  It brings a lot of new aspects to the game that are not covered by the core system.  The entire feel of it is different than core 3e.




Oh, I dunno about that. There are some mixing and matching and specialization in ways a bit differently from the core. But overall, I'd say the differences, in character classes and races in particular, tend to be a bit on the fussy and overblown side and not really my cup of tea.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 20, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> I find it somewhat amusing that Deities & Demigods gets knocked for providing stats




You need not write further than that. I think most people who have problems witht he starts have problems with the mere existance of said stats, no matter how high they are.



> while Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Ruin were both chastised for statting out ancient, terrible opponents so that they are at least remotely touchable (you know, by plain ol' punk-ass epic-level nobodies). Sort of a catch-22.




The Archfiends were OK. They're not supposed to be on par with the deities (IMO). 

The elder evils, on the other hand, are supposed to make even the gods think twice before attacking (for example the whole Mask-running-away-from-Kezef thing I keep going on about). 

And the elder evils might even be overcome by pre-epic characters, if you go by their CR.

On the other hand, they have a guy who doesn't figure in the grand picture of the realms, but he's CR 34 or so. There goes the explanation that the enemies are supposed to be beaten by characters.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 20, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> For me, I believed with utter certainty that _Beyond Countless Doorways_ would be the greatest book ever on planes, and it happened to be one of the worst... I was so disappointed that it angered me, and incited me to write a review about it for that sole reason (viewable on Enworld's reviews).




I had this same experience.  Not just disappointment but a feeling of being "cheated."  And it made me a bit miffed.  Maybe, it was the hype.  Malhavoc hypes their products very well and BCD just failed to deliver.   BCD sits on my bookshelf, unused, unloved.


----------



## Felon (Jun 20, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Book of Vile Darkness, like Champions of Ruin, made legendary, ancient monsters into things that any typical high level party pushing 20th level can take on as a "boss fight".




I'd say with most of those monsters you'd actually be in trouble if you were only "pushing" 20th level, and if you're not fighting legendary, ancient monsters at epic level, what's the point of being epic? What are you supposed to be doing at epic levels if not saving the cosmos? The criticism regarding the "low" CR's of cosmic threats, based on the rationale that "the gods would have destroyed them long ago" is what amuses me. It is basically saying epic-level characters shouldn't actually be out saving all of existence or doing anything of cosmic importance because if it were really important, the gods or some other high-powered muckity-muck would handle it. And for that matter, even lower-level characters shouldn't be out saving their world--don't the gods have a vested interest in protecting the place where all of their worshippers live? Who needs heroes when gods can seed the world with avatars and aspects? It's dead-end logic. 



> Archdevils/Demon Princes, legendary setting-specific creatures like Kezef the Chaos Hound (a.k.a. the Fenris Wolf), and maybe some weak demigods would have made for good monsters




I agree. But when they served them up, they got complaints that even epic-level characters shouldn't be able to touch them (employing the aforementioned dead-end logic). If folks get offended at the thought that Orcus or Kezef are anything less than untouchable, how is it a shame that they weren't included the ELH?


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 21, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'd say with most of those monsters you'd actually be in trouble if you were only "pushing" 20th level, and if you're not fighting legendary, ancient monsters at epic level, what's the point of being epic? What are you supposed to be doing at epic levels if not saving the cosmos? The criticism regarding the "low" CR's of cosmic threats, based on the rationale that "the gods would have destroyed them long ago" is what amuses me. It is basically saying epic-level characters shouldn't actually be out saving all of existence or doing anything of cosmic importance because if it were really important, the gods or some other high-powered muckity-muck would handle it. And for that matter, even lower-level characters shouldn't be out saving their world--don't the gods have a vested interest in protecting the place where all of their worshippers live? Who needs heroes when gods can seed the world with avatars and aspects? It's dead-end logic.



The Realms is a high power, high level world.  The PC's are not the only heroes running around, and even a 20th level party aren't the biggest guns on deck, each kingdom probably has at least one near-epic or low-epic level adventuring group.  Just because you're 20th level does not mean you get to start saving the entire world, defeating ancient monsters born at the dawn of time, and kill gods left and right.  You don't have to save the world and rewrite the setting to have a good adventure at any level.  Being high level is about more than just fighting monsters with more hit dice and adventures with higher DC's, it's about dealing with the bigger picture of the world and those who run around in it.  

It is not just "the Gods would have killed them by now", it's that there are a fair number of 30th+ level NPC's who have been around for centuries or millennia (Larloch, The Symbul, Elminster, ect.) who could probably stomp on something if they were a CR 21 creature (that a 30th+ level character and some epic allies could eat for breakfast) that was going to destroy the world one day.  They are supposed to be powerful enough to make the gods themselves fear them, not to be things they pummel into dirt as a warm up.

The PC's are not the stars of the setting, they are the stars of the campaign within that setting.  This is not a bad thing.  You don't have to be the most important person in the world to have fun, but you should be the most important people in the adventures your PCs undertake.  It's a lesson I learned running Star Wars.

Just because there are Uber NPC's and monsters the PC's can't practically fight, doesn't mean that the PC's can't take part in the adventure.  The Fellowship had to run from the Balrog while Gandalf fought it after all.  My current Realms game is regrettably collapsing, but the climax was going to involve Larloch undertaking his master plan to deploy a huge portal network linking almost every place on Toril and much of the planes, giving free transport to all (the catch being that secretly he gets to cast spells, no-save, to anybody who uses his portals, and redirect their destinations as he pleases at will).  The temptation of these portals to the public would be enough to give him enormous control over the entire world.  The climax was going to feature a cameo by Elminster and a few other major NPC's as they go off to have their showdown with Larloch, while the PC's (in the circa 20th level range) have to destroy the actual matrix powering and directing the portals and it's dracolich guardian.  Thus the matter of how to deal with the fact that the villain is a CR 34 Lich is dealt with by having the famous characters go off to fight him, while the PC's foil his plan and have their own challenges and dangers.

Maybe it's one reason that the Realms are widely liked by some, and loathed by others, but your PC's are not the only people running around trying to change the world.  I love it, trying to pretend that high & epic level characters don't exist (or if they do stay completely out of the picture) is one reason I hate Eberron.

Even leaving out ancient eternal evils and saving the world, you've still got ancient dragons, warring nations, dangerous cults, exploring the planes, invading armies, destroying evil artifacts, and ancient ruins to explore, but Save The Entire World plots don't really work that well in that setting (personally, I also think "Save the World" plots are way overdone in fantasy and should be avoided in any setting).


----------



## kanithardm (Jun 21, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Complete Arcane and Complete Divine. They weren't complete in the least, Warrior and Adventure at least made an attempt at being complete.




I'lll seconnd thhe votte against CoA.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jun 21, 2005)

Exalted Deeds - 
I am very cautious with buying new books (and poor) and this is the only stinker that I regret ,
buying.  the only thing I have used from the book are some of the minor celestials ( I like the angelic ferrets, instantly became the messanger servants of Garl Glittergold. 
but  other than that..... 
Oh relics and rituals - it got such good press but isn't much use in 3.5


----------



## Agamon (Jun 21, 2005)

Lords of Madness.  I was very happy with Libris Mortis, and can use that book a lot with my homebrew.  I thought Lords of Madness was like Libris Mortis and could use the crunchy bits to mix things up a bit in my RttToEE game.  Sadly it's 70% fluff, which is usually not a bad thing, but these creatures don't exist in my homebrew and fluff is pretty much useless in a massive dungeon crawl like RttToEE.  And a huge chunk of the book going to the Neogi?  What the hell?

Unearthed Arcana.  Reading the book, I was all, "cool!"  Trying to impliment some of the rules in it was a pain in the you-know-where, though.  I no longer own it.

Epic Level Handbook.  Ugh, what was I thinking?  This game gets clunky over L10, why in the world would I want to try and play over L20?


----------



## WampusCat43 (Jun 21, 2005)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Lords of Darkness...



Talking about Lords of Madness here?  LoD was a (pretty good) FR book about evil organizations like the Zhents.

The book I absolutely hated was (dammit, I can't remember the title) red-bound book of encounters that were supposed to start at level 1 and take you from one to the next.  It was done by one of the original D&D contributors (Pope?  I humbly apologize if that's wrong).  The maps were supposed to be linked, and they weren't.  The keys to the maps were all off, just totally unusable...

It was just an unbelievable example of "who playtested this thing?"


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 21, 2005)

Usagi Yojimbo was somewhat disappointing, as the main combat mechanic was rock-paper-scissors, with a mod that made one of the options (say, rock) either win or else have nothing bad happen to you.  So what was the point of doing the other two options, again?


----------



## Agamon (Jun 21, 2005)

WampusCat43 said:
			
		

> Talking about Lords of Madness here?  LoD was a (pretty good) FR book about evil organizations like the Zhents.




Whoops, yes, Madness, my bad.


----------



## Yeoman (Jun 21, 2005)

For me, it was the Path of X books from Fantasy Flight Games. I got all 4 for $10 when wizards closed their retail stores. The writing style was very dry, and the classes, feats and options were really bland and uninspired. 

If you had asked me 3 months ago, I would have said that Arcana Unearthed was a near regrettable purchase, as I thought it didn't live up to all the hype. But when a friend of mine got me Arcana Evolved and I was able to see the Diamond Throne setting along with the rules it really stood out as a nifty campaign setting. Well that, and the Ritual Warrior Class.


----------



## slaunt (Jun 21, 2005)

Draconomicon. Horrible horrible book. Did not do dragons justice.

Slaunt


----------



## Felon (Jun 21, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The Realms is a high power, high level world.  The PC's are not the only heroes running around, and even a 20th level party aren't the biggest guns on deck, each kingdom probably has at least one near-epic or low-epic level adventuring group.  Just because you're 20th level does not mean you get to start saving the entire world, defeating ancient monsters born at the dawn of time, and kill gods left and right.




Sure it does. The PC's *are* the stars of the campaign. 



> It is not just "the Gods would have killed them by now", it's that there are a fair number of 30th+ level NPC's who have been around for centuries or millennia (Larloch, The Symbul, Elminster, ect.)




Oh, I also mentioned high-powered muckity-mucks as well as gods. It's all six or a half-dozen. The PC's are the stars. They are not second-string.



> The PC's are not the stars of the setting, they are the stars of the campaign within that setting.  This is not a bad thing.  You don't have to be the most important person in the world to have fun, but you should be the most important people in the adventures your PCs undertake.




Right, and after exploring some ruins and killing lots of critters, at some point those importand PC's need to do something that is actually...important. Something bigger than "save the turnip farm" (although admittedly, that's not nearly as overused as "save the world"). If Elminster or Luke Skywalker get in the way, toss them into a black hole somewhere.


----------



## Soel (Jun 21, 2005)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> for me, it was Ghostwalk. The premise was brilliant, but I couldn't find a way to logicallay build it into a gameworld, without letting it dominate my homebrew or having to rewrite an "official" setting to accomadate Manifest. Plus, I don't think the idea of the ghosts to PC's and back doesn't quite mesh with standard D&D.
> 
> So, what about you?




I totally agree with you here. I was expecting something more of a planar nature...I am still trying to eke out something useful from this book.

Lords of Madness also disappointed me a little bit, cause it din't have nearly enough abberations covered inside, and like Agamon said, what's up with the Neogi getting so much attention??


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 21, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sure it does. The PC's *are* the stars of the campaign.




There's always someone bigger. You can play in your Ptolemic campaign where everything caters to and revolves around the PCs for no reason other than they're the PCs and thus the Stars of it all. I'll go with the Copernican model TYVM. 

There's always someone bigger.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 21, 2005)

I would say d20 _Past_, except (1) I didn't buy it*, and (2) it looked like it sucked from the art preview before it was released**.

*I did, however, receive it as a gift.
**It did, in fact, suck worse than the previews suggested.


----------



## Felon (Jun 21, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> There's always someone bigger.




If that's somebody to strive take down, fine. If that's a patron who genuinely needs your help, fine. If that's somebody to actually do all of the important adventuring while the PC's do mop-up work, kindly turn in your DM credentials at the door.

That's a somewhat hyperbolic way of putting it, but suffice to say, if you don't think PC's should ever be doing anything of significance, go ahead and make sure they know that up front so they'll decide for themselves if your campaign is a waste of their time.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 21, 2005)

The previously mentioned *Dragonlords of Melnibone* is the reigning champion for me (and will likley hold the title for eternity...I don't really buy stuff sight-unseen anymore)


----------



## Maggan (Jun 21, 2005)

*For me ...*

... DungeonWorld.

A great concept, with IMO poor execution. I was disappointed.

And also the Wicked Press adventure "What's that smell?", a book that didn't live up to the adkmittedly absurd expectations I had for it (granted, those expectations came about because of the implied promise that Wick would raise the bar for presentation and game design, and teach WotC a lesson, with this module. Sadly, it didn't happen).

Also, the Withfire Trilogy. Cool world, superb illustrations, a railroad adventure with lots of heavy-handed pointers to put the PCs on track.

And, The Pit of Loch Durnan. An adventure that got rave reviews, but which I found to be less than deserving of the praise. A real disappointment for me, both plot and presentation and structure and everything was, IMO, subpar even in the early days of d20.

D&Dg is nowhere near the top of my list. It promised stats for gods, it delivered stats for gods. It's damn near to useless, but I felt it delivered what it promised.

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2005)

My biggest disappointment was Grim Tales, I was expecting a sourcebook on running pulp fantasy/sf adventure with some rules to support that.  Instead it was nothing but crunch, mostly adapted from the d20 Modern SRD (& I dislike Action Points) that did nothing to evoke the pulp genre.  Hm, I should probably buy Savage Worlds...

Actually I am a sucker for sourcebooks that promise the perfect ruleset, I have vast numbers of rules books I'll never use.  Looking for an Arthurian sourcebook I bought "Relics & Rituals: Excalibur", but it's almost entirely Prestige Classes, Feats & other PC-centred stuff.  It does almost nothing to adapt D&D to an Arthurian feel; it even keeps Monks and the regular spell lists!  There may be something useful in there but I haven't found it yet.

edit: "Bastion of Broken Souls" was crap, but I didn't have high expectations to start with, so not a huge disappointment. I hate the art in my 3.0 Monster Manual, but the stat blocks are mostly usable.  Necropolis seemed ok to start with, until I actually tried to run it...
Traveller 20 seemed a bit disappointing, both bland and too stuck to D&D's class/level system with overcomplicated NPC stat blocks, but maybe I haven't given it a fair go yet.

Lost City of Barakus initially seemed overly simplistic & a bit bland, but in contrast to Necropolis it has really grown on me.  I still think it would benefit from proper room/area descriptions, but it makes a really good campaign sourcebook, full of scenarios & scenario ideas - it's so easy to build on.  And it seems well balanced for low-level play, which is rare these days.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2005)

Morpheus said:
			
		

> _The Lost City of Gaxmoor_ fills me with dread to this day. Why it's still sitting on my bookshelf, I'll never know. Oh wait, that's right, nobody else wants it...




I generally enjoyed Gaxmoor a lot, though I paid far too much for it.  I made a big mistake though in not toning down Harecules' OTT stats, he ended up permanently killing maybe 8 or so PCs IMC before they brought in one of the toughest NPC fighters on the planet to finally kill him.  A CR 20+ BBEG in a scenario for "level 1-10" is no good.  Gaxmoor is fun (I think) and unusual in its non-dungeon design, but has no concept of balance.  The Gygaxes playtested it with I think a party of *16* 1st level PCs!  Its actual playable PC levels are roughly 4th-12th for a 4-PC group, but you need to tone down Harecules from CR 20 (actually more like 21) to about CR 14.  Detailed (numbered) maps would have been nice, too.  I gave it *** in my review.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jun 21, 2005)

Planar Handbook. I still remember my Rant of a Thousand Flames...


----------



## JediSoth (Jun 21, 2005)

My biggest disappointment were _The Deep _and_ Creature Collection_ (the first, pre-MM one). I ended up using one creature from the CC in a purely role-playing encounter and _The Deep_ looked so cool flipping through it on the shelf. When I got it home and started getting into it, though...Ugh. Well, you win some, you lose some.

I was really pleased with _Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed_. His web diaries and the hype didn't do it for me; I bought it on a lark at GenCon when it premiered and couldn't put it down the rest of the weekend. I was also really impressed with the Eberron CS. They both were just what I was looking for (though I didn't know it at the time).

JediSoth


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 21, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Actually I am a sucker for sourcebooks that promise the perfect ruleset, I have vast numbers of rules books I'll never use.  Looking for an Arthurian sourcebook I bought "Relics & Rituals: Excalibur", but it's almost entirely Prestige Classes, Feats & other PC-centred stuff.  It does almost nothing to adapt D&D to an Arthurian feel; it even keeps Monks and the regular spell lists!  There may be something useful in there but I haven't found it yet.




Off-topic, but you might like "Legends of Excalibur: Arthurian Adventures" by RPGObjects.  Instead of modifying Arthur's setting to fit the rules, they modify the rules to fit the setting.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 21, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sure it does. The PC's *are* the stars of the campaign.




The problem is that Champions of Ruin gives us the following scenario:

"Hey, are we cool or what! We all have gotten our first epic feat, when we defeated Kezef, the legendary Chaos Hound, the one even Mask runs away from. Now, if we go on adventure for another year and get another dozen of levels, we can defeat that lich there that noone has ever heard of."

We have the Elder Evils, right out from the Realms' worst nightmares, bane of the gods, harbingers of the Apocalypse. And they're a bunch of losers that will die if you accidently hit them with a rock. On the other hand, we have some no-names like Aumvor the Undying, noone has ever heard of him except the wisest of Oghma's loremasters. And he wipes the floor with the elder evils and the party that defeated them - all at once. And with his free hand, he defeats a couple of high priests.

It's really bad design. If you want the players to be stars - fine! Go ahead, make the most legendary of Creatures defeatable. But don't do it in a world where we have undead elder brains with over 40 levels of wizard to boot, and really don't do it in a book where you give the stats for a lich with 32 levels of wizard at the beginning of the very same chapter.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 21, 2005)

jumping right on a fast moving band-wagon:

*Deities and Demigods*

I was excited about 3.0. I thought an update of this old classic had to be great...

But I learned quickly with that. And thanks in large part to EnWorld I have had few serious disapointments since.


----------



## Man-thing (Jun 21, 2005)

Although it may not be popular to say so my most recent disappointment is *The Wurst of Grimtooth's Traps*.  It probably my fault and not Necromancers but I just wasn't impressed by this product.  

I think it's a case of my expectations for the product being out of line with what the product was promised to be.  I expected more new traps and not just updates of the old ones and  I expected they would update the art instead of using the old graphics from the Flying Buffalo releases.

I also noticed a couple of statblock errors that I wouldn't expect from NG.

I expected that I would feel some sort of rejuvenated happiest when I got it. Like Tome of Horrors evoked but it doesn't.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 21, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I totally forgot about Gamma World D20.  Just once I wish the writers of new eiditons of D20 would just listen to the fans and give us what we want for a change.  In both the D20 and the Alternity editions the fans clamored for a return to the "wahoo" style of play with mutant animals, mutant plants, and over-the-top action.  Alternity gave us a very toned down version, but at least gave us mutant animals in a Dragon Article.  The D20 version gave us nanites...great.  I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision of what GW should be like, and give us the version that we want.
> 
> I'm calm now...and off the soapbox...
> 
> Kane




If you have a detailed idea of exactly what you want, why, pray tell, can't you do it yourself?


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Jun 21, 2005)

Kingdoms of Kalamar (i convinced a friend to buy this heap of crap off of me, though the players guide was pretty good)

Savage Species (In my opinion the worst D&D product ive ever seen)

Mutants and Masterminds (i have to seriously house rule it for me and my comic geek friends to be even remotly satisfied with it)

Champions of Ruin (wasnt horrible but yeah the monsters where pretty weak)

Everquest (just boring)

Warcraft (again boring, I didnt feel like Warcraft)

Hero Builders guide (what the heck was this crap, good thing i rented it from the library)


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 21, 2005)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Well, people, what books have you bought because they sounded way cool, but - when you finally read them - failed to deliver?



Well, with this premise, only a couple books meets that criteria for me:
- Epic Level Handbook
- Magic of Faerun
- Book of Hallowed Might
- Libris Mortis
- Encyclopedia of Demons & Devils (FFE)

Otherwise, though, I make sure I do my research first (especially due to that FFE book...).

(Now, there have been a few books that I bought and considered 'not very good' - but I wasn't expecting them to be all that great anyways. This included Champions of Ruin, BoED, Faiths & Pantheons, and more.)


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> That's a somewhat hyperbolic way of putting it, but suffice to say, if you don't think PC's should ever be doing anything of significance, go ahead and make sure they know that up front so they'll decide for themselves if your campaign is a waste of their time.



You've been strawman-ing it up pretty badly in your defense of CoR, but this is the worst. In any case, I don't think anyone was saying any of the above. In my view, they're just saying "put the EEEs' CRs at an appropriate level that meshes with all previous information on them and makes sense in the context of the campaign world, please". _Then_ the PCs can go out and do the appropriate heroic thing.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Off-topic, but you might like "Legends of Excalibur: Arthurian Adventures" by RPGObjects.  Instead of modifying Arthur's setting to fit the rules, they modify the rules to fit the setting.




Hmm... now I'm wondering if this was the book I heard about & I bought the wrong one.   :\


----------



## Mokona (Jun 21, 2005)

Ghostwalk was the worst product but it was a bad concept to begin with so it isn't technically a failed "promise".

Savage Species on the other hand could use a serious redesign so that Monster PCs are playable without being hamstrung compared to even basic humans.

Arcana Unearthed has too many silly races.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Jun 21, 2005)

I forgot Engel, i thought it was really cool until I found out the secret of the Engel. ( im going to try and convert it to storyteller and use it as a basis for angels in World of Darkness, i didnt really like the Time of Judgements take on angels)

Urban Arcana for d20 modern was pretty bad, the setting's they have are horrible. I might as well stick with WOD (old one) for my modern gaming.


----------



## Felon (Jun 22, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> You've been strawman-ing it up pretty badly in your defense of CoR, but this is the worst.




Ahhh, you're full of it. If one side makes vague generalizations, then don't get on the other side's case for drawing inferrences in their rebuttals. I didn't get one response that actually explained how characters who've reached epic level are supposed to accomplish anything of epic significance while staying in sync with the extremely-flawed "if it's really important, a god or Elminster will handle it" logic. In fact, most replies asserted with confidence that twenty-something level characters are still just bit players and shouldn't be saving the world. 

They actually affirmed my assessment of their position, they just didn't see what's wrong with it.



> In any case, I don't think anyone was saying any of the above. In my view, they're just saying "put the EEEs' CRs at an appropriate level that meshes with all previous information on them and makes sense in the context of the campaign world, please". _Then_ the PCs can go out and do the appropriate heroic thing.




So, once the PC's get around 70th-level--a level that can pretty handily be considered unattainable--then they can go fight the World-Serpent? Sorry to be all straw-manny there, but this a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. You don't state what you think an appropriate CR range is for the 3TE's, or what "makes sense in context of the campaign world" so I have to guess at what you mean. If gods are concerned about them, do they have to be powerful enough to slay the entire pantheon?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 22, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> The previously mentioned *Dragonlords of Melnibone* is the reigning champion for me (and will likley hold the title for eternity...I don't really buy stuff sight-unseen anymore)




I have to admit that I am now embarassed that I gave it a good review. I try to look at it in context; it was a very early d20 effort by a major RPG company, and I still don't think it's as awful as it's made out to be. The biggest disappointment that stems from DLoM is that Chaosium almost certainly will never do a revamp of it. Given the financial and critical success of recent licensed products like The Black Company, Babylon 5, and Conan, I think it's clear that the potential is there for an Elric d20 product to do well. Heck, Chaosium's own Call of Cthulhu d20 is more than enough evidence.

As for my own nominee for biggest failed promise, I'd have to say the Epic Level handbook is my choice. The designers erred on the side of being safe, and sacrificed a lot of potential for fun.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 22, 2005)

Arashi Ravenblade said:
			
		

> I forgot Engel, i thought it was really cool until I found out the secret of the Engel.




What's the secret??


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 22, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you have a detailed idea of exactly what you want, why, pray tell, can't you do it yourself?



 I really love it when I hear this arguement.  It always brings sooo much to the conversation.   

It could be that I don't have the time.  Between work, family, and trying to find time to just game I don't have a lot left in the week to sit down and do something that would have been done right in the first place if the designers would have given the fans what we were clamoring for.  

It could be that I don't have the amount of talent to do it justice.  'Nuff said there.

Maybe, just maybe, I expected too much in the designers to listen to the fans when updating a classic setting to a new ruleset.  I knew that bits and peices like no mutant animals and plants wouldn't be in it, but I still bought it anyway hoping against hope that it would still be worthwhile.  It wasn't.  The GWPHB wasn't a complete washout, but it wasn't nearly as good as earlier editions.

Kane


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2005)

I tend to circle a product like a waiting vulture, so I seldom get really disappointed. (Read it a little, flutter away, read it a little more, flutter away, read it a little more, and if it has stood up to this much reading I make a purchase... though it is sad when a vulture tries to flutter...)

Most recently was the PDF for Athenium Arcane: Letters, not a major purchase, but the first real disappointment that I have had with Ronin Art's works. I gather that there is a revision being worked on, hopefully this will aleviate my concerns.

The Auld Grump


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 22, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I really love it when I hear this arguement.  It always brings sooo much to the conversation.




I think it's relevancy continues to be its most annoying trait.



> It could be that I don't have the time.  Between work, family, and trying to find time to just game I don't have a lot left in the week to sit down and do something that would have been done right in the first place if the designers would have given the fans what we were clamoring for.




You had the time to comment on it just now. You have over a thousand posts logged here. If you wrote 100 words of what you wanted for every post you added, you'd have been able to write a significant part of the book.

I can think of some folks who probably could write entire RPGs using the wordage they've spent complaining about a specific game they didn't like.

And this is where it is relevant: You and everyone else who makes this argument could, in fact, create your own worlds and your own rules tweaks on your own time. The fact is that you just don't feel like it, really.

This is fine; it's why people get paid to write/design games and supplements. No dishonour in not feeling like writing! The thing is, it gives you absolutely no entitlement to the final product's creative direction. 

You don't do the work, you don't get the input. After that, your power over the product consists of whether or not you buy it.



> It could be that I don't have the amount of talent to do it justice.  'Nuff said there.




Talent is cheap. Effort isn't. Effort trumps talent, every time. Effort *and* talent . . . well, that's the combination you want. You may have a great talent for game design, but no desire to pursue it. Again, this is not a bad thing -- but again -- it is not a significant reason to expect folks who put in the effort to consult with fans.

I think excessive fannishness is hurting gaming as a whole, just as it has hurt every other field where fan opinons are taken seriously. The comics industry in the 90s was created for hardcore comics fans -- and now comics are nearly toast. Star Trek's last decade has essentially consisted of fan-submitted fanfic and high concepts, which is why it crashed and burned. 

And even though current propaganda of various stripes denies it, AD&D2nd was defined by its fans. THAC0, the new bard -- all of 'em came from fan input. And it blew chunks.

Basically, whenever creators give the fans exactly  what they want, it kind of sucks. Fans of a specific property are just not reliable economc actors either way (they buy things they hate, or vocally hate things they'll never buy anyway), and their tastes don't synch well with the larger consumer base. Since they're participating through their own secondary creations -- which are locked up in their heads or posts in places like this -- creators have little way to emphasize one thing without treading on somebody's provate interpretation of an idea.

Given that, and given the fact that creatives are the ones actually making the effort, it's no surprise that they experiment or see things the way you don't.



> Maybe, just maybe, I expected too much in the designers to listen to the fans when updating a classic setting to a new ruleset.  I knew that bits and peices like no mutant animals and plants wouldn't be in it, but I still bought it anyway hoping against hope that it would still be worthwhile.  It wasn't.  The GWPHB wasn't a complete washout, but it wasn't nearly as good as earlier editions.




This underlines the whole problem. You were never going to get a clone of earlier editions in a thousand years. Gamma World's older editions had lousy rules and various awful systems. Were you really yearning for another set of saddle-stitched books missing half a dozen important rules, with no interior art? Do you think anyone ought to care about an atomic apocalypse in a world where there are teens to twenty-years olds with no direct experience of nuclear detente? I hear lots of talk about the Wahoo! style of play, but of course, when we actually *look at the freakin' books*, GW support was as gritty as it got. When GW was a going concern, Dragon/Ares articles had no real "Wahoo!" support. In fact, much of it (like the article on PSHs that retcons their origins as unmutated homo sapiens) existed to tone down the "Wahoo!" -- not support it.

Moving away from GW, though, you see this all over the place. In many ways, nostalgia bears little relationship with the reality of the thing. Essentially, what you're asking is for a book to replicate your reaction to another book. This is basically impossible, probably undesireable and in pure economic terms, not a good bet.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2005)

Irrelevancy, not relevancy.

It remains one of the most pointless comments of the internet. 

People want a product they buy to be good. If it isn't they have a right to complain. In his opinion GWD20 was not good. I rather agree.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Crothian (Jun 22, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> And this is where it is relevant: You and everyone else who makes this argument could, in fact, create your own worlds and your own rules tweaks on your own time. The fact is that you just don't feel like it, really.




Now, I've never written an RPG book but I'd be willing to bet that most if not all RPG writers would say that posting to a message board is a lot easier then writing a book.  Now I do write the occasional review and I know writing a review is more difficult then writing a post (something else I've done on occasion).  I'm thinking writing a book is also more difficult then writing a review.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 22, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You had the time to comment on it just now. You have over a thousand posts logged here. If you wrote 100 words of what you wanted for every post you added, you'd have been able to write a significant part of the book.




That doesn't mean that it would be balanced, well written, or honestly worth a damn.  Plus, the overwhelming majority of my posts over the last, what, 3 years have been done during slow periods at work.  I'm not dragging my game books to work to look up rules and such just to write a few words here and there.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I can think of some folks who probably could write entire RPGs using the wordage they've spent complaining about a specific game they didn't like.




The same could be said for people that complain about others complaining.   



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> And this is where it is relevant: You and everyone else who makes this argument could, in fact, create your own worlds and your own rules tweaks on your own time. The fact is that you just don't feel like it, really.




That's why there are businesses that do this.  They write books for those that don't have the time or inclination to do such a thing.  I like playing the game, not building it from scratch that's why designers have a job.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> This is fine; it's why people get paid to write/design games and supplements. No dishonour in not feeling like writing! The thing is, it gives you absolutely no entitlement to the final product's creative direction.




True to a point.  This is a hobby industry.  If you're not going to listen to the fans of your end product, then you might as well shut your doors.  Especially with something like GW that has been around for ages it would do anyone attempting a new edition of the setting to listen to what the fans want and try to let that guide what should be in the final product.  I'm not saying the fans should get the final say, just that their opinions should at least be listened to.  Especially if many of them are calling for the same things.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You don't do the work, you don't get the input. After that, your power over the product consists of whether or not you buy it.




So, you never get a little miffed when something that you have a vested interest in either through being a fan or simply just being interested in falls way short of the mark?  If not, then why read a thread that consists of people pointing out and complaining about how one book or another turned out?



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Talent is cheap. Effort isn't. Effort trumps talent, every time. Effort *and* talent . . . well, that's the combination you want. You may have a great talent for game design, but no desire to pursue it. Again, this is not a bad thing -- but again -- it is not a significant reason to expect folks who put in the effort to consult with fans.




There are a lot of fan sites on the net that took a lot of effort to put together that the end result is crap.  Heck, there are several companies printing material right now that are all effort and no talent, there were more of them, but I'll be damned if they didn't go out of business.  Without talent, effort is just wasted most of the time.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think excessive fannishness is hurting gaming as a whole, just as it has hurt every other field where fan opinons are taken seriously. The comics industry in the 90s was created for hardcore comics fans -- and now comics are nearly toast. Star Trek's last decade has essentially consisted of fan-submitted fanfic and high concepts, which is why it crashed and burned.
> 
> And even though current propaganda of various stripes denies it, AD&D2nd was defined by its fans. THAC0, the new bard -- all of 'em came from fan input. And it blew chunks.
> 
> Basically, whenever creators give the fans exactly  what they want, it kind of sucks. Fans of a specific property are just not reliable economc actors either way (they buy things they hate, or vocally hate things they'll never buy anyway), and their tastes don't synch well with the larger consumer base. Since they're participating through their own secondary creations -- which are locked up in their heads or posts in places like this -- creators have little way to emphasize one thing without treading on somebody's provate interpretation of an idea.




So the fans' opinions mean nothing?  Please.  This industry WILL FAIL if companies turn a deaf ear to desires of those that buy their product.  If the fans are all chanting for some sort of book on elves, then companies would be silly not to put a book on elves out.  Especially in an industry this small, ticking off the fans is the best way to ensure you close your doors.  Like I said, fans shouldn't have the final say or even most of the say, but they should at least be listened to in order that the final product has a chance at being something the fans will like and want to support.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Given that, and given the fact that creatives are the ones actually making the effort, it's no surprise that they experiment or see things the way you don't.




That's great.  I'm glad they do such things.  Otherwise there wouldn't be True20, AE, and so on.  Just simply being the creative doesn't mean that they should turn up their noses or ignore what their core demographic is looking for in a game though.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> This underlines the whole problem. You were never going to get a clone of earlier editions in a thousand years. Gamma World's older editions had lousy rules and various awful systems. Were you really yearning for another set of saddle-stitched books missing half a dozen important rules, with no interior art? Do you think anyone ought to care about an atomic apocalypse in a world where there are teens to twenty-years olds with no direct experience of nuclear detente? I hear lots of talk about the Wahoo! style of play, but of course, when we actually *look at the freakin' books*, GW support was as gritty as it got. When GW was a going concern, Dragon/Ares articles had no real "Wahoo!" support. In fact, much of it (like the article on PSHs that retcons their origins as unmutated homo sapiens) existed to tone down the "Wahoo!" -- not support it.




I never once said that I wanted a clone of earlier editions.  The old systems were crappy, that's why i don't play them anymore.  However, they did have some great ideas that could easily be carried over to the new edition.  All I wanted was the options the older editons had carried over to the new ruleset.  As far as the Wahoo factor goes, all I know is how we played it back in the early days.  There were lots of weird mutations, strange mutants, and wild powers.  Sure it was gritty, but it didn't always play that way.  The Alternity edition did, but they pulled away from the more wild elements that Alternity wasn't really meant to simulate, so it got toned down.  For the whole part about kids these days not living under the threat of nuclear war, ever hear of North Korea, India, Iran, and Pakistan.  Just because the cold war ended when a lot of younger gamers were too young to remember doesn't mean they don't understand the threat.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Moving away from GW, though, you see this all over the place. In many ways, nostalgia bears little relationship with the reality of the thing. Essentially, what you're asking is for a book to replicate your reaction to another book. This is basically impossible, probably undesireable and in pure economic terms, not a good bet.




I stand by my opinions.  I tried to like the book.  I actually liked the idea of nanites.  What I really disliked was some elements that many nore consider key to GW like mutant animals and plants were omitted or handwaved.  That's all fine and dandy, but S&SS should have seen the backlash coming a mile away.  Plus, the rules were spotty at best and down right horrible at worst.  Even if they had made it exactly the way I wanted (which I NEVER expect from a game book, but I do get surprised sometimes), the authors' understanding of D20 wasn't good enough to make it a good book.

As for all the rest, well, anyone that has a vested interest in just about anything is going to voice their opinion on it, for good or ill.  That's just part of being around and putting up with people.  Get used to it.  Especially on threads where the whole point of the thread is to voice their opinions on books they spent money on and didn't get a good value out of.  

Kane


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 22, 2005)

*Deities and Demigods*

I'll join the chorus, but for a very different reason.  I like the Epic Level Handbook.  A lot.  And at higher Epic levels, I'd like to see the PCs be able to tangle with the gods (without necessarily becoming gods themselves).

The gods get a lot of cheesy-stupid mechanics (always count as rolling a twenty?!  ) all to themselves, tied to what is essentially a complete 20-level progression all their own.  But they don't get Epic levels in PC classes, they don't get Epic Spellcasting, they don't get Epic Feats, and their stats, although outrageously high, are impossible to weigh against suitably Epic threats.  Worst of all, they're all arbitrarily set at 60 hit dice.  

The D&Dg stats are basically as incompatible with the ELH as, say, Tri-Stat stats for the gods would be.  Less!  Tri-Stat actually has a conversion to d20, albeit a somewhat troublesome one.

Which brings us to...

*Big Eyes, Small Mouth d20* 

I bought this to satisfy my hankering for two things: a d20 point-buy system and a system to incorporate anime-inspired elements into d20.  Unfortunately, BESM d20 is neither.  It's a clumsy port of the Tri-Stat original, losing the simplicity of Tri-Stat without gaining the compatibility of d20.

For that matter, BESM d20 is incompatible with itself!  Stacking BAB, powers and skill-based attack bonus does not a comprehensible system make.  At all.  

I've gotten a lot of use out of this book over the years and I got the "Stingy Gamer Edition," so I can't call it a waste of money, but it's one of those books that basically only works for a GM and doesn't really work even then.  Letting players use it would require constant supervision and probably coaching, since it's painfully easy to break a character to the point where he can hardly interact on the same plane as his fellows.


----------



## Mokona (Jun 24, 2005)

The conversation has gotten a little hot on this thread.

Everyone is entitled to speak their mind where appropriate and ENWorld is surely the right spot.

However, vocal fans are very different than the majority of people who buy and play RPGs.  None of us should assume that the majority of fans want what each of us individually wants.

We should still speak our minds so that designers have some idea what someone thinks but we shouldn't demand that our requests be accomdated.  Just don't spend your money on a product where the design doesn't suit your tastes.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 24, 2005)

I never demanded that the designers should do what I wanted them to do.  I simply figured that since certain elements have been clamored for in the last two editions and not delivered, they might think "Hey, the fans would like to see this and that, let's see what we can do."  It's a sound philosophy: listen and try to accomodate.  No one expects all their wishes to make it into any game book...well, maybe some do, but most don't.  Just try to keep your core demographic as pleased as possible and you'll sell more books.  After all that is the main point of being in a game business.

Kane


----------



## S'mon (Jun 24, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hmm... now I'm wondering if this was the book I heard about & I bought the wrong one.   :\




I just had another look at R&R: Excalibur.  On second thoughts if I treat it as a buffet rather than a set dinner I can use bits & pieces from it; the honour system looks good for instance.  I'm actually thinking now Arthurian setting would work better using Castles & Crusades.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 24, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> It remains one of the most pointless comments of the internet.
> 
> People want a product they buy to be good. If it isn't they have a right to complain. In his opinion GWD20 was not good. I rather agree.




I have to agree. The "don't like it, make it better" argument always sounds like the petty and childish retort of a criticized artist.

It's so very easy: If you produce crap, people will not buy it. So, you want to produce good products. You want to pruduce stuff people want. A good way to achieve this is to listen to people and then do what they want. 

If I do something improperly, I sure want others to tell me that this is the case. 

Also, you have the right to say if you don't like anything. You don't have to be able to do it better. The world just doesn't work that way. We don't make our own clothing, we don't hunt our own food, we don't build our own shelter. We do what we are best at, and get paid. With the money we're paid, we buy everything else. Great system, assuring that we have highly qualified specialists that can create better stuff than generalists who make everything for themselves. But that doesn't mean that we cannot criticize anyone.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Ahhh, you're full of it. If one side makes vague generalizations, then don't get on the other side's case for drawing inferrences in their rebuttals. I didn't get one response that actually explained how characters who've reached epic level are supposed to accomplish anything of epic significance while staying in sync with the extremely-flawed "if it's really important, a god or Elminster will handle it" logic. In fact, most replies asserted with confidence that twenty-something level characters are still just bit players and shouldn't be saving the world.
> 
> They actually affirmed my assessment of their position, they just didn't see what's wrong with it.




You're overlooking something very important here. Either players are powerful enough to save the world or they aren't. There are campaign worlds where the players will be the most powerful beings once they hit epic levels, and this is ifne. There are also worlds where there's always something that is bigger than the players, and that's fine, too. But mixing the two, and in the way CoR did it, is not good:

CoR has Elder Evils that are comparatively weak, so players will be able to defeat them to save the world. This, in itself, is no problem. But we're talking about FR here, and then it becomes a problem, because the Realms aren't one of the campaigns where the players will be the cream of the crop once they go past 20. The fact that the characters could defeat the dreaded Chaos Hound, or the Elf-Eater, even in very low epic levels, but they would be annihilated by some little-known human lich. And this lich is in the same book as the elder evils. 

So defeating Elder Evils at low epic levels is good, but this should make these players in their low epic levels the most powerful characters in that world, or nearly so. Instead we have dozens of charakters that are much more powerful.


----------



## Gomez (Jun 24, 2005)

Oh dang! I was going to agree with Kanegrundar and say that I was VERY disappointed in Gamma World d20! *ducks head*


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 24, 2005)

From 2e: Complete Psionics, Skills & Powers.

From 3.0: Psionics Handbook. (The 3.5 version is so much better.)

From 3.5: Complete Warrior, Complete Divine. Maybe the Book of Iron Heroes will turn out better, even if I have no intention of using its classes.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 24, 2005)

A lot of products passed through my mind, but for me nothing will ever top the 2e PHB.  A case of too close, yet too far.  Why the heck should I buy something that doesn't really change the rules, and yet seems to take everything I like about the system out of the game?

R.A.


----------



## Psion (Jun 24, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I just had another look at R&R: Excalibur.  On second thoughts if I treat it as a buffet rather than a set dinner I can use bits & pieces from it; the honour system looks good for instance.  I'm actually thinking now Arthurian setting would work better using Castles & Crusades.




I rather liked R&R Excalibur. But I guess that's in part because I am much more squarely in the target audience. There is just about zero chance that I would run a deFacto Arthurian game. But the chances I would have an Arthurian inspired nation, region, or plane are very high indeed, and such a region would have to work with the rules that are being used in the rest of reality.


----------



## painandgreed (Jun 24, 2005)

Arms and Equipment Guide - They just didn't seem to give anything in this book too much thought. Most things are anachronistic bordering on silly and the prices are way off. Most food is priced to the point that nonadventurers couldn't afford to eat. Wheat is cheaper by almost two orders of magnatude than things like millet, oats, and rye which were realistically much cheaper than wheat. One pound of wheat is 1cp while one pound of wheat flour is 3 gp. My favorite example is that Marzipan is 20 gp/oz while the only ingrediants of Marzipan, almonds and sugar, are 3 and 1 gp per pound respectfully. That's an 16000% mark up for mashing two things together with a mortar and pestle.


----------



## glass (Jun 24, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> ... I quickly saw how broken it was with clerics.




The more things chenge, the more they stay the same...   


glass.


----------



## glass (Jun 24, 2005)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Lords of Madness... And a huge chunk of the book going to the Neogi?




It does? Cool, I loved the Neogi. That one book that's just move up a couple of places on my to buy list.


glass.


----------



## glass (Jun 24, 2005)

Soel said:
			
		

> Lords of Madness also disappointed me a little bit, cause it din't have nearly enough abberations covered inside, and like Agamon said, what's up with the Neogi getting so much attention??




That they're a really cool monster that's had bugger all attention anywhere else?


glass.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 24, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I simply figured that since certain elements have been clamored for in the last two editions and not delivered, they might think "Hey, the fans would like to see this and that, let's see what we can do."  It's a sound philosophy: listen and try to accomodate.




Actually, no, it's not a sound philosophy.  It's a well-known fact in the industry that the most vocal fan element is also the smallest.    It doesn't make a lick of sense shaping a business plan around pleasing that small a segment of the market.

Personally, I agree with your opinion of Gamma World, I think if you're going to do a new version of a classic setting, you try to replicate that setting as much as possible.....but I do think that I needed to splash a bit of cold water on your "listen and accomodate the fans" statement.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 24, 2005)

*Dragonlords of Melnibone:* Many years later I am /still/ ticked off at this weak copy-and-paste effort. What's really sad is that all the crunchy tools are out there right now to do this setting right, but I doubt we'll ever be lucky to see a serious d20 Elric.
*The Secret Book of Necromancy:* Zeb Cook and Wolgang Baur, two of the most respected 2e designers -- check. Green Ronin, reknown for doing 3e rules right -- check. Necromancy, one of the coolest fantasy topics EVAR -- check. And the result: a few neat ideas, and lots of awkward or downright broken 3e mechanics. 
*Cry Havoc:* the need for a mass combat system was there. Skip Williams and Monte Cook sounded like the men for the job. And yet, we get a weird throwback system that scales badly.

I thoroughly agree with the other folks howling over the limitations of Deities and Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook, but at least I had a good idea going in what I was (and was not) getting with those books.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi Ravenblade
I forgot Engel, i thought it was really cool until I found out the secret of the Engel.  



What's the secret?? (end Quote)

There Not Angels


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 25, 2005)

I was somewhat disappointed in my copy of FATAL. A lot of good ideas, but the mechanics were slightly off.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 25, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> I was somewhat disappointed in my copy of FATAL. A lot of good ideas, but the mechanics were slightly off.




-5 exp for you


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 25, 2005)

Song and Silence burst my 3e bubble. I was excited by the idea of the bard from pre-3e days (thanks to Eric Noah!), but felt the PHB bard did not quite live up to potential. Then I followed the "bards suck" debates, mostly on the WotC boards but here as well. I was certain that S&S would solve this problem, and present some great options for another cool class, the rogue. 

I rushed to my FLGS on the way home from work on the day it was released. So excited was I that I locked my keys in my car. So I called the wife, who had to get 2 kids up from their naps and load them in the minivan to come let me into my car. As I sat by the car waiting, I turned to S&S to make me happy.

It did not.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 25, 2005)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> A lot of products passed through my mind, but for me nothing will ever top the 2e PHB.  A case of too close, yet too far.  Why the heck should I buy something that doesn't really change the rules, and yet seems to take everything I like about the system out of the game?
> 
> R.A.




The more I think about it, the more I come to realize I completely agree with you.

Anyway, since I've seen so many drubbings of Deities & Demigods on this thread, I have to chime in in support of it. Yes, I agree it needed more info on the actual religions, though with the way 3e's clerics are, there is no need of 2e's myriad of priests as in the "Complete Priest's Handbook." I would have paid more for a book that had such info _and_ the stats for deities. Maybe someday I'll wanna run a combat between gods - ya never know. I do like many of the concepts in the book, such as the divine ranks - divine rank 0, for example, really spices up a monster or NPC. I also enjoyed stats for einherjar and Valkyries.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 25, 2005)

Let's see:

*Cry Havoc* - I had been getting more and more disillusioned with Malhavoc Press, but this sealed it for me. I'd been very, very positive about this book before I got it, and then I discovered that it failed on every count.

*Hero's Builder's Guidebook* - Yes, it is a bad book, and many people said that about it. However, I had hope that it would be useful for newbies. Boy, was I wrong.

*Races of Destiny* - Races of Stone and Races of the Wild were great (I like RotW a lot more than Psion does ). RoD just drops the ball utterly - there are good bits in the book, but they're almost by accident (and feel like they are in the wrong book).

Cheers!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jun 25, 2005)

The ELH was a suck-fest of the highest order. Probably the number 1 offender on my list. And on an off-topic note, the new Weezer album R0xx0rz my B0XX0r.


----------



## WildWeasel (Jun 25, 2005)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> *Deities and Demigods*
> 
> I was excited about 3.0. I thought an update of this old classic had to be great...




Yeah, especially since the original D&Dg wasn't just a bunch of god-monster stat blocks with a few mishmash rules...wait...


----------



## Felon (Jun 25, 2005)

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> Song and Silence burst my 3e bubble. I was excited by the idea of the bard from pre-3e days (thanks to Eric Noah!), but felt the PHB bard did not quite live up to potential.




Hmm. Of all the crappy kitbooks, the only one I actually have fond recollections of is the Bard's Handbook. The Herald, The Skald, The Meistersinger, The Jongleur, The Jester, The Blade, The Gallant, The Loremaster, The Gnome Professor, The Gypsy--one kit after another that had special abilities with applications that were actually cool, interesting, and innovative. More than one insipient 3e mechanic was introduced. Well-done, Blake Mobley, wherever the hell you are.

Beat the hell out of Song & Silence.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 25, 2005)

Great Googly Moogly! I forgot D20 Deadlands!

While I have swiped a bunch of the mechanics for my OGL Steampunk game there were some fairly glaring problems with those books...

The Auld Grump, though I do like the autofire rules just fine...


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jun 25, 2005)

Ooh, deadlands was weaksauce too! My internal defense mechanism had blocked that one from my memory.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 25, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hmm. Of all the crappy kitbooks, the only one I actually have fond recollections of is the Bard's Handbook. The Herald, The Skald, The Meistersinger, The Jongleur, The Jester, The Blade, The Gallant, The Loremaster, The Gnome Professor, The Gypsy--one kit after another that had special abilities with applications that were actually cool, interesting, and innovative. More than one insipient 3e mechanic was introduced. Well-done, Blake Mobley, wherever the hell you are.
> 
> Beat the hell out of Song & Silence.




Agreed. I picked up the Complete Bard's Handbook before 3e came out, when I heard there would be a core bard. I think having just read it made S&S that much worse.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 25, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Ooh, deadlands was weaksauce too! My internal defense mechanism had blocked that one from my memory.



Now, original Deadlands was excellent, it was just the d20 conversion that sucked more than anything else had ever sucked before.

I realized that the original question never specified d20, so in that vein:

*The Babylon Project*.  It was everything a licensed RPG shouldn't be: no rules for playing during the actual time of the show (in fact the book says you *must* play before Babylon 5 is actually built), no pictures from the show other than an exterior shot of the station on the cover (mediocre drawings for all the illustrations, of about the quality of a talented amateur), no stats for the main characters (and a tiny disclaimer that the book in no way depicted any characters from the show, what kind of strange licensing deal did they have?), a game about warring stellar powers and no starship combat system in any way.  

Then there was the actual writing of the book, the system was a strange blend of rules-light and ultra complicated.  Very simple task resolution, but hit-location charts that were daunting to say the least.  The system was poorly explained, and you couldn't learn a dang thing from just picking it up and looking through it, I owned that book for well over a year before I even understood how the system worked, and that was only when I decided I was going to sit down and read the entire thing cover-to-cover (which just drove the lameness home).  I realized how the game was supposed to run, but I also realized it had huge holes and gaps in it that made it practically unplayable for anything other than a one-shot that was tightly scripted to work around the gaps, and that if I ever ran a Babylon 5 RPG, it would never, ever be with this system.

The game was practically unplayable with just the core book, they made one suppliment, which I didn't even bother to pick up.  I hear it had an attempt at a starship combat system, but you had to buy a suppliment to have space battles in a space game?  What is this, Star Wars Galaxies?.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 25, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The game was practically unplayable with just the core book, they made one suppliment, which I didn't even bother to pick up.  I hear it had an attempt at a starship combat system, but you had to buy a suppliment to have space battles in a space game?  What is this, Star Wars Galaxies?.




The Earthforce Sourcebook did, indeed, have a space combat system. Not just _any_ combat system, mind you, but one based on the legendary Full Thrust (available for free from GZG), which made it one of the best RPG space combat systems available. It was the best thing about the game.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2005)

3e Psionics Handbook. 

Nuff Said.


----------



## Axegrrl (Jun 25, 2005)

For as much as it was hyped and how much we paid for it vs. how useful we're finding it: Sharn.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jun 25, 2005)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> 3e Psionics Handbook.
> 
> Nuff Said.




Yeah the original Psionics Handbook was definitely suckalicious, but the XPH is much better.


----------



## Deaths_Fist (Jun 25, 2005)

I'm gonna toss in my own opinion here and go with Lords of Darkness, Races of the Wild, and Complete Divine.  I'm most disappointed of the above with LoD.  I think there was about two paragraphs in the whole damn thing that included something I didn't already know, and there wasn't enough crunch to make up for that fact.  The others were just books full of new stuff that didn't excite me in any way.  Bland spells, bland races, blah blah blah.  There's a few gems in almost any book, sure, but being mostly disappointed by the whole affair just ain't right.  I loved the ELH, and Ghostwalk had lots of potential but was just too _different_ to be usable.  I get a kick out of the Bonesinger though.  I mean...evil undead bards? Hahaha!

Personally, I liked Champions of Ruin, but also found the CRs on the Elder Evils way too low.  Then again, I see the Elder Evils as mostly indestructible immortal creatures anyway, so on the off-chance I would actually use them as a _monster_ of all things, killing them certainly wouldn't dispose of them forever.  To top that off I find the Elder Evils kind of silly anyway.  I wouldn't use them, so the _rest_ of the book is perfectly useable if they're removed.


----------



## Elemental (Jun 25, 2005)

Deities & Demigods again. Stats for the gods--don't mind that. Except, oops, you made them useless by not including CR's. So much for the epic campaign where our heroes oppose the mad god, huh? And no rules for having a PC ascend to godhood or to run a campaign where all the PC's are gods.

Not really impressed with the BoED either. "Poison is always evil! So here are these substances that have _exactly the same effect as poison_, only they're good! Undead are always evil! So here are some things that _exactly like undead_, only they're good, because they're powered by positive energy. And here's some arbitary morality that won't solve any arguments about what a paladin can do. And the grotesquely overpowered Saint template."

The Epic Level Handbook. Could have been soooo good, but most of it was basically normal D&D with the word 'epic' added in front of everything. And in the section on epic adventuring, we get a DUNGEON. Featuring the classic anti-magic field, and a beholder and black dragon that have nothing better to do with their lives than wait behind a pit or behind an illusory wall and wait for 21'st level PC's to come along. And then there are the monsters. Some are inspired, others are just lame beyond words, like the Sirrush or Brachyrus. "Let's take a normal monster, give it +20 hit dice and immunity to these PC tactics.". And the Union Sentinel. These guys could reap in millions from even a couple of adventures, but they apparently hang around and get paid 200 GP a week?

Savage Species was mostly good, despite messed-up progressions (the giants become Large at 11th level, after the minotaur, ogre and troll?) but the anthromorphic animals were atrocious. Whoever wrote the LA +0 for the baleen whale was smoking something wacky.

Monster Manual 3. Is there a houserule I missed that says that all Transmuters go stark raving mad after they learn Origin of Species? Impressive mythological creatures like the Koschei or Thunderbird remain unstatted, and instead we get giant evil tumbleweeds, a crystalline humanoid from the plane of air that hates fire and undead, a lawful good, INT 0 golem made out of light, a giant crab troop transport, and _spider-gorilla centaurs?!_ No frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads, though they'd have fitted right in. And enough with "A crazy wizard created them!" Please.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 25, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> *The Babylon Project*.  It was everything a licensed RPG shouldn't be: no rules for playing during the actual time of the show (in fact the book says you *must* play before Babylon 5 is actually built), no pictures from the show other than an exterior shot of the station on the cover (mediocre drawings for all the illustrations, of about the quality of a talented amateur), no stats for the main characters (and a tiny disclaimer that the book in no way depicted any characters from the show, what kind of strange licensing deal did they have?), a game about warring stellar powers and no starship combat system in any way.
> 
> Then there was the actual writing of the book, the system was a strange blend of rules-light and ultra complicated.  Very simple task resolution, but hit-location charts that were daunting to say the least.  The system was poorly explained, and you couldn't learn a dang thing from just picking it up and looking through it, I owned that book for well over a year before I even understood how the system worked, and that was only when I decided I was going to sit down and read the entire thing cover-to-cover (which just drove the lameness home).  I realized how the game was supposed to run, but I also realized it had huge holes and gaps in it that made it practically unplayable for anything other than a one-shot that was tightly scripted to work around the gaps, and that if I ever ran a Babylon 5 RPG, it would never, ever be with this system.
> 
> The game was practically unplayable with just the core book, they made one suppliment, which I didn't even bother to pick up.  I hear it had an attempt at a starship combat system, but you had to buy a suppliment to have space battles in a space game?  What is this, Star Wars Galaxies?.




Hmmm, I ran a campaign of BP for 3 years, and never had a problem. I rather liked the to hit system, in play it went very quickly indeed. But it _was_ one of those games that you actually had to play in order to 'get' the system.

Bacground wise it was a bit thin, getting the okays from the studio was much slower than they had hoped for, six months passing between them sending the studio a copy and getting even a 'this needs changing' response. The Earthforce supplement did help with the lack of background, and had a much better space combat system than that included with B5 D20.

As for RPGs with separate space combat systems - I can think of 6.5 off hand. Star Warriors for the Star Wars RPG, Brilliant Lances for Traveler the New Era (and Battle Rider the massed space combat game, my .5), Delta V for Space Opera, Mayday for the original Traveller, Star Cruiser for 2300AD, and the one that went with Star Frontiers that I can never remember the name of... Knight Hawks? I have no doubt that there were others.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 25, 2005)

Deaths_Fist said:
			
		

> I'm gonna toss in my own opinion here and go with Lords of Darkness, Races of the Wild, and Complete Divine.




I was slightly disappointed with Complete Divine.  It seemed like they didn't bother at all to update it to a 3.5 version, even though it was released AFTER Complete Warrior.  I once joked that I was eagerly awaiting the 3.5 version of Complete Divine.

That said, I like the Spirit Shaman and Favored Soul as classes, and might try to run a campaign where they replace the cleric and druid.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 26, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> *The Babylon Project*.  It was everything a licensed RPG shouldn't be: no rules for playing during the actual time of the show (in fact the book says you *must* play before Babylon 5 is actually built), no pictures from the show other than an exterior shot of the station on the cover (mediocre drawings for all the illustrations, of about the quality of a talented amateur), no stats for the main characters (and a tiny disclaimer that the book in no way depicted any characters from the show, what kind of strange licensing deal did they have?)




What system did that use? I know that there is a d20 Version of Babylon 5, and unless I'm mistaken it has stats for the heroes, lots of photos, and full storyline coverage.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 26, 2005)

Deaths_Fist said:
			
		

> I'm most disappointed of the above with LoD.
> 
> Personally, I liked Champions of Ruin,




We must be the complete opposite of each other. Are you perchance lawful neutral with good tendencies and love dwarves?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 26, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> What system did that use? I know that there is a d20 Version of Babylon 5, and unless I'm mistaken it has stats for the heroes, lots of photos, and full storyline coverage.




It used its own system, rolling 1 green D6 and 1 red D6, and keeping whichever was lower. Doubles equaled 0. I played it as subtracting the red from the green, which gives the same average. The system was unusual in that negative rolls were common, and the average was 0.

The combat system had a silhouette superimposed with a hex grid - how much you failed the roll by determined where the shot went, with a hit striking the hex you were aiming at. So if you aimed at the center of mass missing the shot could end up hitting the arm or head instead, as well as going into one of the hexes that was not over the silhouette.

Combat was even more lethal than in B5D20 - the average PPG shot, hitting the chest of the target, killed him dead. And you could die slowly as well, or suffer long term damage that takes months to heal (if ever).

As for space combat Rule number 1 was in place - Don't Piss Off the Minbari.

The Auld Grump


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 26, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> What system did that use? I know that there is a d20 Version of Babylon 5, and unless I'm mistaken it has stats for the heroes, lots of photos, and full storyline coverage.



_The Babylon Project_ by Chameleon Eclectic Games, copyright 1997.  The main author credit is to Joseph Cochran, although Charles Ryan worked on the book as well (he's listed inside as having an "additional material by" and editing & graphic design credits).

So it came long before d20, and came out at about the time the series was finishing its run.

It had it's own proprietary system, which TheAuldGrump summarized, the system was fairly poorly explained in the book (most of the mechanics seemed to revolve around hit location/damage determiniation tables), and as was said, space combat wasn't even in the main book at all.  There was also no way to have a PC telepath over P5 rating, end of story, and that was so expensive in terms of game mechanics, if you were a P5 telepath you began with virtually no skills.  There was even a sidebar on Page 80 saying that Ranger PC's were not allowed in the game (even though it admits that they are "one obvious idea for a team of player characters") and the game Shall Not be played in any time period other than the construction of the Babylon stations.

It had a disclaimer on the inside credits page "Original illustrations in this book are not intended to represent specific characters from BABYLON 5", and it had no information whatsoever on the characters from the series, the only character stats in the entire book (or even any illustrations from the series in any way) were a few NPC's and PreGen PC's for the sample adventure in the back where you investigate the destruction of Babylon Station (a.k.a. Babylon 1).  

At the time, it was an epic let-down since it came out when I was first getting into RPG's and the only othe RPG I knew was the d6 Star Wars game (an excellent game, with fans to this day), so I expected as much quality from The Babylon Project.

In retrospect, the entire book had the feeling that it was made under a very restrictive licensing agreement, and that it was a small company getting in way over its head to make it.

The d20 Babylon 5 was an excellent game that fixed all these problems and excelled and the best thing that Mongoose has produced, IMO, any complaints about TBP do not apply to The d20 Babylon 5 RPG.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jun 26, 2005)

Alot of books.  Most books I realize about a week after buying them aren't all they're cracked up to be.


----------



## jeff37923 (Jun 26, 2005)

*d20 Future*

No index, that was bad enough. Then it got worse as the self-proclaimed science fiction add-on to d20 Modern disembowelled the majority of science fiction conventions. No star system generation or planet generation rules. A spacecraft creation system that does not work. A spacecraft combat system that does not work. Campaign suggestions that are forced rehashes of Polyhedron articles and old TSR games. The only good thing about the book was the art, IMHO. Best part of the book was left out and that was the cyberspace/netrunning section that became a free download from WotC. I bought the book for half price at a used book store and felt ripped off.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*d20 Star Wars*

I hated this monstrosity so much that I just sold all of my books, all of my copies of Star Wars Gamer magazine, and spent the money on purchasing the out of print WEG d6 Star Wars. The rules didn't simulate the action in the movies well enough for me. The space combat system was atrocious in the first edition and didn't improve much in the revised. The community rules in the revised edition do not tell you anything about creating worlds and are just a cheap rehash of the community creation rules from the DMG. I hate the commoner rules, you might have just called them cardboard stand-ins. It just didn't work for me at all. 

The main detraction for me was how WotC transitioned from the original to the revised edition. I had purchased every book and all of the Star Wars gamer magazines and had to use just about every one to run a game. Then the d20 Star Wars Revised Edition came out and the books & magazines that I had invested in became moot with the new rules - most were incorporated into the new revised rulebook, I felt that I had blown all that money. I gave the revised edition a try and it still had rule problems that were set up in the first edition, unchanged. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that many people do like these books, more power to you. For me, they both gave me more headache in gaming then they were worth.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 26, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The d20 Babylon 5 was an excellent game that fixed all these problems and excelled and the best thing that Mongoose has produced, IMO, any complaints about TBP do not apply to The d20 Babylon 5 RPG.




B5D20 is very good, aside from the space combat. On the Mongoose boards I started a 'What Don't You Like About B5 D20' thread, and space combat is the top so far. (These are people who like the game, but have some issues with some elements of it, not folks flaming the game. The thread was even made official. Mongoose does listen to the complaints. )

Oh, another bomb that I had forgotten - Twin Crowns...

The Auld Grump


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 27, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Personally, I agree with your opinion of Gamma World, I think if you're going to do a new version of a classic setting, you try to replicate that setting as much as possible.....but I do think that I needed to splash a bit of cold water on your "listen and accomodate the fans" statement.




That was actually listen and _try_ to accomodate the fans.  Sure, the most vocal segment is also the smallest.  However, if their (our) opinions are worthwhile to listen to then why to so many publishers read message board posts?  Are they just curious?  I've got to think they want to know what even a small segment of the gaming populace is looking for in a game.  I could be wrong, but it seems silly that the small group of vocal gamers have no or should have any sway over a products direction.  After all, it's the vocal minority that tends to find most of the errors that publishers either miss or outright ignore that leads to updated copies and errata in many products.  It's seems silly that they don't listen at all.

Kane


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 27, 2005)

Let's see... Dieties and Demigods, natch. It's been said so many times it barely bears repeating again; in order for this to have been a good book, it would have needed more actual information on the gods beyond their stats, and should have more info on their interactions in the campaign world.

Book of Exalted Deeds. A lot of it is so broken. And the Celestial Lords are uninspired. Only my obsessive-compulsive monster collecting keeps me from selling it off.

Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary. Wasn't this supposed to be the monster book to end all monster books? Color me unimpressed. Wonky stats, some really poor concepts and a sinking sense of "oh, look, another CR 2 humanoid" make this one one of my biggest wastes of money.

Enemies and Allies. Yes, I bought this book. No, I don't know why.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Ravenknight (Jun 27, 2005)

The mother of all encountertables. I heard of it, preordered it, got it, read it and never used it. Such a letdown and I love encountertables...


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 27, 2005)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary. Wasn't this supposed to be the monster book to end all monster books? Color me unimpressed. Wonky stats, some really poor concepts and a sinking sense of "oh, look, another CR 2 humanoid" make this one one of my biggest wastes of money.




I certainly should have had this one on my list, as well. Atlas is a great game company, and I was really pumped up for this book, but . . . meh. 

It's certainly not awful, and does a few things really well -- it has fantastic indexes, nice adventure hooks for each monster, and crystal clear demarcation of open content. But those are all peripherals.

As far as the monsters themselves, like most compilation books with multiple authors, it lacks a certain unifying vision and has too many redundant or retread concepts. The mechanics are generally OK, but often lack tightness or elegance. And the book has a layout that's very hard to read -- all the flavor text is done in a smallish script-style typeface on a grayed-out background.

This book, probably more than any other, also exemplifies the negative impact of the 3.5 revision on third party publishers. My understanding is that Atlas had this book in the can right when 3.5 broke, and had to make an unhappy choice between delaying the relase by several months in order to update all the statblocks, or to release it as a 3.0 book shortly after 3.5 came out. That's a no-win situation, and I suspect it hurt sales on the book.


----------



## beaver1024 (Jun 27, 2005)

3.5. Enough said.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jun 27, 2005)

My major dissapointments have been mentioned: d20 Deadlands, d20 Traveller, d20 Gammaworld, Arms and Equipment Guide.

To that I would add Mythic Races and Relics and Rituals.  In their defence they were some of the earliest third party d20 offerings to come out, but ...ugh.

If we are opening up the field to old school non-d20 then I'd add FASA's Doctor Who RPG.  Man that sucked, mechanically and in emulating the feel of the series.

I'll also throw out Decipher's Lord of the Rings.  Damn that is a pretty book and looks great on my shelf, but that's about it.  Did I mention it looks pretty?


----------



## Psion (Jun 27, 2005)

Pseudonym said:
			
		

> If we are opening up the field to old school non-d20 then I'd add FASA's Doctor Who RPG.




Do we want to go there? I could start on the old TSR _Indiana Jones_ game.

I took it back to the store and demanded my money back due to the misleading packaging impying that it was a role-playing game.


----------



## Pramas (Jun 27, 2005)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> This book, probably more than any other, also exemplifies the negative impact of the 3.5 revision on third party publishers. My understanding is that Atlas had this book in the can right when 3.5 broke, and had to make an unhappy choice between delaying the relase by several months in order to update all the statblocks, or to release it as a 3.0 book shortly after 3.5 came out. That's a no-win situation, and I suspect it hurt sales on the book.




Oh, no doubt. Our Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era came out perhaps three weeks before 3.5 and sales definitely suffered because of it. Those companies that had big 3.0 books ready to go had a tough decision to make.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 27, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Irrelevancy, not relevancy.
> 
> It remains one of the most pointless comments of the internet.
> 
> People want a product they buy to be good. If it isn't they have a right to complain. In his opinion GWD20 was not good. I rather agree.




People have the "right" to do all sorts of things. I have the right to vocally complain that WotC renamed Thieves Rogues and got rid of weapon vs armour mods -- but I shouldn't expect anybody to take the above seriously.

The fact of the matter is that nobody can replicate your sentimental feelings about a book in another book without reading your mind. I owned prior editions of Gamma World. The game swayed back and forth between being a hack of AD&D and a hack of MSH, usually with minimal campaign material. The MSH kludge is a particularly terrible game and I suspect that most people like it because of the Parkinson cover, since its setting detail was nearly nonexistant and its overall quality was rushed and shoddy.

What I note, though, is that some people have complained about retreads like this with so much detail that really, they could have channelled that into their own work. As I noted before, the majority of fan material for the old GW concentrated on reducing the "Wahoo!" factor, not celebrating it.

This is where fans need to apply a certain amount of self-analysis. You are creative folks, but you aren't in a position to demand a creative partnership with designers. Thus, you might be miffed that something doesn't fit your personal vision, but nobody who was actually writing/designing had any obligation to pay attention to you in the first place. Stop acting like they do. Your "input" is with your wallet. Spend with more discrimination, and you'll get yopur message across far better.

That said, SSS got a bad deal when it came to this license, since there were things they were simply not allowed to write about. The decision to update the setting was a good one, since frankly, nostalgia for 80s nuclear anxiety is hardly something to base a 21st century property on if you want it to sell and are constrained from emulating the inspirations in full.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> This is where fans need to apply a certain amount of self-analysis. You are creative folks, but you aren't in a position to demand a creative partnership with designers. Thus, you might be miffed that something doesn't fit your personal vision, but nobody who was actually writing/designing had any obligation to pay attention to you in the first place. Stop acting like they do. Your "input" is with your wallet. Spend with more discrimination, and you'll get yopur message across far better.




So if there's something I don't like, I should just shut up and leave it in the store? 

I say that is my right to complain. Actually, I'm sure that many designers want us to tell them what we hate about their stuff. If we stop buying without saying a word, they'll sit there wondering why their sales plummet. They might thing that noone likes the game anymore and stop producing. But if a lot of people complain about how they don't like a particular thing, the designers might rething the thing, fix it in the next edition, and sales go up again.

D&D wouldn't be what it was if the fans just stopped buying.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 27, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Oh, no doubt. Our Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era came out perhaps three weeks before 3.5 and sales definitely suffered because of it. Those companies that had big 3.0 books ready to go had a tough decision to make.



 Interesting. I would have imagined that it took enough liberty with "standard" D20 to have made the 3.0/3.5 switch largely irrelevent. It had its own classes, etc...


----------



## J-Buzz (Jun 27, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> Player's Guide to Faerun.  I guess I was expecting more...




Ditto

Seemed like it was nothing more than the player info pulled from the Campaign Setting book.  It really turned me off.   I have been very leary of buying books because of that.  Although the DMG II looks interesting.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 27, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> So if there's something I don't like, I should just shut up and leave it in the store?
> 
> I say that is my right to complain. Actually, I'm sure that many designers want us to tell them what we hate about their stuff. If we stop buying without saying a word, they'll sit there wondering why their sales plummet. They might thing that noone likes the game anymore and stop producing. But if a lot of people complain about how they don't like a particular thing, the designers might rething the thing, fix it in the next edition, and sales go up again.
> 
> D&D wouldn't be what it was if the fans just stopped buying.




If you buy what you like and don't buy what you don't like, you'll get the message across pretty darn quick. I'd like it if fans simply didn't buy something they didn't like. Even though it's in a company's interest to push collectibility to make a buck, in the long term it would be better if opeopel just didn't get what they didn't go for. This says what you like in no uncertain terms.

Commentary alone is something many of us treat with suspicion, because (as Gareth alluded to) most of the time a bad vibe about a book consists of 10 or fewer people complaining on multiple boards.


----------



## Pramas (Jun 27, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Interesting. I would have imagined that it took enough liberty with "standard" D20 to have made the 3.0/3.5 switch largely irrelevent. It had its own classes, etc...




Right, well, that presumes people bothered to even look at it insteading of saying, "Oh, that's 3.0, I'm not interested." Similarly, many people missed the fact that Testament was a great resource for historical gaming because they didn't give it a closer look.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 27, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Interesting. I would have imagined that it took enough liberty with "standard" D20 to have made the 3.0/3.5 switch largely irrelevent. It had its own classes, etc...




I think 3.5 hurt third party publishers in two very different ways. One is perceived obsolescence, which made 3.0 books appear less attractive to buyers and probably depressed sales on backstock 3.0 product. Even though most gamers might rationally know on one level that the two versions are fairly compatable, on another level it's very hard to not feel like a 3.0 product was somehow . . . substandard . . . once 3.5 had hit the streets. I realize that this simply isn't true, but it's how many customers think.

The second way 3.5 hurt third party publishers was to create a huge vaccuum of capital as a substantial number of customers re-bought their core books, which presumably diverted funds away from purchases of new third party products.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you buy what you like and don't buy what you don't like, you'll get the message across pretty darn quick.




But not the whole message. The most important part of the message would be lost - the part which part of the product made people shy away from it.



> Commentary alone is something many of us treat with suspicion, because (as Gareth alluded to) most of the time a bad vibe about a book consists of 10 or fewer people complaining on multiple boards.




It's not always just a handful of people, though. I'd advise you to make a post about how you liked 3.0 harm and people should write if they disagree, and then count the different users that would post, but such a post would probably detect as a troll post, screwing the results.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you buy what you like and don't buy what you don't like, you'll get the message across pretty darn quick.




So, you can tell a book you'll like from a book you won't just by thumbing through it at your FLGS?  That's great, you're much better than I am.  There are many books that I thought I was going to like while I was standing by the rack at the shop and then got home and tried to use them and found out how horrible they were.  I don't like the book, but the publisher and designers got my money anyway.  Therefore, the only way they would know about my dislike of the book is if I said something about it.  

Kane


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you buy what you like and don't buy what you don't like, you'll get the message across pretty darn quick. I'd like it if fans simply didn't buy something they didn't like.



Well, you have thousands of market research firms and successful companies disagreeing with you. And rightfully so.


> Commentary alone is something many of us treat with suspicion, because (as Gareth alluded to) most of the time a bad vibe about a book consists of 10 or fewer people complaining on multiple boards.



Indeed. Because that kind of "market research" is the .


----------



## Mr. Patient (Jun 27, 2005)

I don't know that it really ever had great promise, or that I was especially eager to see it, but *Monsters of Faerun* was a severe disappointment, even if you give it a pass because it was such an early book.  It's full of wonky 2e-style mechanics, bizarre and clumsy flavor text, crazy CRs, and too many boring spidery creatures.  I've been thinking of posting a review to reevaluate the book in light of everything we now know about the d20 ruleset (but didn't back then), but I'm not sure it's worth doing for a four year-old book.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 27, 2005)

Mr. Patient said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it's worth doing for a four year-old book.




If you feel it is worth your personal time, then the answer is "yes".  There are plenty of older materials that I really think warrant more examination (Testament, Bluffside, etc.) Look at it this way, maybe someone is thinking about bidding on the book on eBay or something.  

Plus, it will increase your review count.  Chicks dig a large review count.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 27, 2005)

Mr. Patient said:
			
		

> I don't know that it really ever had great promise, or that I was especially eager to see it, but *Monsters of Faerun* was a severe disappointment, even if you give it a pass because it was such an early book.




Dang, that's another book that really ticked me off. It was pretty darn expensive, for what you got. And there were a lot of core monsters that got stuck in the Forgotten Realms ghetto. How are bullwugs and perytons Monsters of Faerun?


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 27, 2005)

*Testify!*



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> Right, well, that presumes people bothered to even look at it insteading of saying, "Oh, that's 3.0, I'm not interested." Similarly, many people missed the fact that Testament was a great resource for historical gaming because they didn't give it a closer look



 Hey - I bought 2 copies. I hope that helped, Chris! I did my part!


----------



## Mr. Patient (Jun 27, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Chicks dig a large review count.




With my too-hot Jonathan Levenson avatar, I'm already fighting them off with a stick.  I'll test your theory, though.


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2005)

Got a couple more to add to my list:

*Book of Fiends*: When I initially bought this, I was fairly impressed, but every time I go back and reference it for something, I get bored and put it away. The base classes don't really excite me (the Thaumaturge is boring, the Unholy Warrior relies too much on the flawed Paladin design to be anything more than a minor improvement) and many of the critters (aside from a few) just don't excite me. The best section in the book is the Demon Lord section.

*Sword and Fist and Song and Silence*: Horrible books that never saw any use.

*3e Psionics Handbook*: I remember reading through the book thinking 'I should be excited about this... but I'm not, all these powers seem really, really sucky...' The XPH is so much better...


----------



## Benben (Jun 27, 2005)

*Serpent Kingdoms:*  This book had great word of mouth and I had loved all of the other location books for FR.  I also love the idea of degenerate serpent people.  This books should have been full of evocative flavour, but instead was full of terrible, weak mechanics.  Blah!

*Epic Level Handbook:* The only thing of value in this book was the paragon template, and that's only useful for scaring the crap out of players.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 28, 2005)

Pseudonym said:
			
		

> I'll also throw out Decipher's Lord of the Rings.  Damn that is a pretty book and looks great on my shelf, but that's about it.  Did I mention it looks pretty?




Ran a campaign using this game, and it went really well. It's a pretty good game, but was so similar to d20 that had it been released as a d20/OGL game, it might've gotten as much love as, say, Mongoose's Babylon 5 or Conan games. There is a lot in it that can port over to d20 very easily. Same goes for the various sourcebooks for it.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That said, SSS got a bad deal when it came to this license, since there were things they were simply not allowed to write about. The decision to update the setting was a good one, since frankly, nostalgia for 80s nuclear anxiety is hardly something to base a 21st century property on if you want it to sell and are constrained from emulating the inspirations in full.




And yet Omega World, which celebrated Gamma World's quirkiness and reveled in the goofiness of the original game, was the most popular Polyhedron Mini-Game out of about 15.

Go figure.

--Erik Mona


----------



## Mokona (Jun 28, 2005)

I give a half-vote of disappointment to every book I've ever bought that didn't have an index.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 28, 2005)

WildWeasel said:
			
		

> Yeah, especially since the original D&Dg wasn't just a bunch of god-monster stat blocks with a few mishmash rules...wait...




The original Deities and Demigods was a *brazen* mishmash throwing together gods and heroes from a vast range of sources.

The 3.0 version _wasn't even that_. It was just less, in every way.


----------



## Psion (Jun 28, 2005)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> The original Deities and Demigods was a *brazen* mishmash throwing together gods and heroes from a vast range of sources.
> 
> The 3.0 version _wasn't even that_. It was just less, in every way.




I think it's exactly that. I just think its time is past and _Faiths & Avatars_ (and dipping into the d20 pool, _Book of the Righteous_) is a far more suitable model for what a pantheon/religion book should be like.

But I think I've said that earlier in the thread. Ah well. Until we see it done right, it can't be said enough.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 28, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think it's [Deities and Demigods] exactly that. I just think its time is past and _Faiths & Avatars_ (and dipping into the d20 pool, _Book of the Righteous_) is a far more suitable model for what a pantheon/religion book should be like.
> 
> But I think I've said that earlier in the thread. Ah well. Until we see it done right, it can't be said enough.




Ya, but the first one had more gods and funky art work and stuff (and less of that painfull, painfull text)   


(and when I thought "update this classic to 3.0" I kinday thought they would do something like you suggest)


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> So, you can tell a book you'll like from a book you won't just by thumbing through it at your FLGS?  That's great, you're much better than I am.  There are many books that I thought I was going to like while I was standing by the rack at the shop and then got home and tried to use them and found out how horrible they were.  I don't like the book, but the publisher and designers got my money anyway.  Therefore, the only way they would know about my dislike of the book is if I said something about it.
> 
> Kane




I borrow books I'm not sure about and give them a thorough read-through. 

Do you really believe that the industry is responsible for poor consumer choices? It ain't. You are responsible for how you choose to spend your money. Nobody else is.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

> Well, you have thousands of market research firms and successful companies disagreeing with you. And rightfully so.




Really? There are thousands companies that believe that the fact that they can't move a product is irrelevant to whether or not it's meeting the needs of consumers?

Actually, in gaming, I'm sure there are. That's one of the problems with the whole industry.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> And yet Omega World, which celebrated Gamma World's quirkiness and reveled in the goofiness of the original game, was the most popular Polyhedron Mini-Game out of about 15.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> --Erik Mona




Which of the other games were based on an old TSR offering that would be remembered by the aging segment you serve, Erik?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I borrow books I'm not sure about and give them a thorough read-through.
> 
> Do you really believe that the industry is responsible for poor consumer choices? It ain't. You are responsible for how you choose to spend your money. Nobody else is.



 I'm the only guy in my group that buys the books, so borrowing isn't an option for me.  

Where did I ever say that the industry is responsible for my buying choices?  I was just following up your comment about telling the publishers what I think of their product by not buying it.  

Have you never complained about a book?  You can borrow a copy of any book that you're interested in?  If that's the case, I'd say you're a LOT luckier than just about anyone else on the boards. 

Most of the time I can sniff out the crap before I buy it, but sometimes a crappy book slips through.  When it does, I will tell others about it to maybe help save them a few bucks.  That's what I do with the new GWPHB.  I just can't see how telling others about subpar product is worth all this complaining on your part.

Kane


----------



## DMH (Jun 28, 2005)

The Deep and Hunt: Rise of Evil. I like most of MEG's stuff (the Foul Locals are excellent), but editing in the Deep sucks big time and H:ROE to puts me to sleep.

Sorcery & Steam (FFG) was not what I was looking for. The rules on making devices are almost a skeleton and the PRCs are for a Victorian setting. The only good part is the intro.

Cityworks would be much better if the section on fantasy cities was more than caves, tree tops and cliff dwellings.

Warcraft- I like WC3 a lot, but the book was just meh for me.

RPGObject's Carthage pdf dissapointed me big time. No maps, a simple overview of the city state, a class I really don't want and not giving Hannibal ranks in Knowledge (tactics) all point to a poor product.

The Center Space from Frught Lupes- it looks interesting, but the background makes printing impossible for some reason. I will read short pdfs, but not one 301 pages long.

13 Nanoaugmentors (Ronin Arts)- most of the 13 are rather old concepts of cyber gear.

Top Fashion's pdfs on books and alchemical items. A list of one or two sentance descriptions is not what I wanted.

Masque of the Red Death. The new material compaired to the box set is minimal and not worth 25 or 30 bucks.

The Gamma World PH. I bought all the GW books to convert back to Alternity and the only thing in the PH that stands out is the community rules.

Midnight. I knew it was going to be depressing, but I thought there would be some way to win.

Darwin's World 1st ed. and the critter book. More depressing than Midnight and I don't like desert post apocolyptic games anyways. The creatures are mostly stupid.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I borrow books I'm not sure about and give them a thorough read-through.




Good for you. I doubt that this option is open to everyone, though.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Good for you. I doubt that this option is open to everyone, though.




If you don't know anybody else who regularly buys gaming books, it would seem to me that you either have rather . . . exessively frugal . . . gamer friends or you just don't have other gamers around. If the former, then they're kind of sponging off you. If the latter, how can you game in the first place? I think it's fair to presuppose that gamers actually know other gamers who aren't total skinflints.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

> I'm the only guy in my group that buys the books, so borrowing isn't an option for me.




Sounds like a kind of cheap group. If you're bearing the entire economic load for your group, then you have to ask whether the hobby is worth it, really. No marketing/production strategy can compensate for socially dysfunctional relationships. And "We all play, but I spend all the money," is a problem in of itself, not an excuse.



> Where did I ever say that the industry is responsible for my buying choices? I was just following up your comment about telling the publishers what I think of their product by not buying it.






> Have you never complained about a book? You can borrow a copy of any book that you're interested in? If that's the case, I'd say you're a LOT luckier than just about anyone else on the boards.




I've disliked books. I've never (as far as I can recall -- there may have been indiscretions when I was younger) complained about a book as if I was entitled to particular content. Neither of us are entitled to squat. Stop pretending that designers are duty bound to cater to your specific tastes and accept that as a consumer, it's *your* job to ensure that your tastes are compatible with the product you plan to buy.



> Most of the time I can sniff out the crap before I buy it, but sometimes a crappy book slips through. When it does, I will tell others about it to maybe help save them a few bucks. That's what I do with the new GWPHB. I just can't see how telling others about subpar product is worth all this complaining on your part.




Because the detail you spent on your comments indicated that you never needed to buy it in the first place to get the game you wanted.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you don't know anybody else who regularly buys gaming books, it would seem to me that you either have rather . . . exessively frugal . . . gamer friends or you just don't have other gamers around. If the former, then they're kind of sponging off you. If the latter, how can you game in the first place? I think it's fair to presuppose that gamers actually know other gamers who aren't total skinflints.




That doesn't work for several reasons:

There are indeed not that many players around, at least not enough I know well enough to burrow a book.

I'm occasionally interested in stuff others don't want/need, so I cannot borrow that stuff, either.

I want to read through my books myself before I even consider lending them to someone else, and I suspect that others are the same. I also don't want to give a book away for weeks until they have read the whole thing (people do have other things to do), and expect others to be the same.

So if you know a lot of people who no only buy stuff blindly - stuff you want, no less - and are nice enough to let you borrow it and read the whole thing, that's nice. But it's not like that here, and I dare saying that it is not the norm, either.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Really? There are thousands companies that believe that the fact that they can't move a product is irrelevant to whether or not it's meeting the needs of consumers?



Well, not quite. Or, rather, _not just_. Absolutely, sales is an important indicator. But market research is there because companies wants to know specifically _why_.


> Actually, in gaming, I'm sure there are. That's one of the problems with the whole industry.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Sounds like a kind of cheap group. If you're bearing the entire economic load for your group, then you have to ask whether the hobby is worth it, really. No marketing/production strategy can compensate for socially dysfunctional relationships. And "We all play, but I spend all the money," is a problem in of itself, not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Seems that this is going nowhere.

edit: I would welcome it if you wouldn't make assumptions about other people and then insult them. Thanks.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you don't know anybody else who regularly buys gaming books, it would seem to me that you either have rather . . . exessively frugal . . . gamer friends or you just don't have other gamers around. If the former, then they're kind of sponging off you. If the latter, how can you game in the first place? I think it's fair to presuppose that gamers actually know other gamers who aren't total skinflints.



Then you apparently live in an alternate universe. I've been involved in *one* group, EVER, where everyone had the core book for the game. One. In every other circumstance, the DM buys books, everyone else sponges, unless they *really* want it. That's been my experience.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 28, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Then you apparently live in an alternate universe. I've been involved in *one* group, EVER, where everyone had the core book for the game. One.  In every other circumstance, the DM buys books, everyone else sponges, unless they *really* want it. That's been my experience.




We have several player's handbooks, and those who also DM have other books as well. But most just want one feat or two from other books, and I can understand that they won't buy a book for that.

I buy the books not to make them available to the gaming group, but to make them available for me, so even if another has book X, I'm getting it, too, if I want it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 28, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Then you apparently live in an alternate universe. I've been involved in *one* group, EVER, where everyone had the core book for the game. One. In every other circumstance, the DM buys books, everyone else sponges, unless they *really* want it. That's been my experience.




Really?

Apparently, I'm also from that alternate The_Universe, because in every gaming group I've been in, every member's had their own set of core books (at least as far as D&D is concerned).  The only exception are husband / wife teams who share a single set between them.

In my current campaign - d20 StarWars, just started this weeked - roughly 80% have the Core Rule book, and a few have some splatbooks, beside.

Are you sure you aren't the odd man out?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Sounds like a kind of cheap group. If you're bearing the entire economic load for your group, then you have to ask whether the hobby is worth it, really. No marketing/production strategy can compensate for socially dysfunctional relationships. And "We all play, but I spend all the money," is a problem in of itself, not an excuse.




Wow. YOu just don't stop do you?  Once again you spout off at the mouth without knowing much of the reality.  The reason I buy all the book is because I'm the primary DM.  I set up the games, we tend to play whatever it is I want to play, and they tend to supply all the food and drinks.  Plus, I don't buy any board games, the various member of my old group do that.  It's a good trade off.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but I could care less.





			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I've disliked books. I've never (as far as I can recall -- there may have been indiscretions when I was younger) complained about a book as if I was entitled to particular content. Neither of us are entitled to squat. Stop pretending that designers are duty bound to cater to your specific tastes and accept that as a consumer, it's *your* job to ensure that your tastes are compatible with the product you plan to buy.




Where did I EVER say that I was entitled to a particular content?  All I've ever stated is why I disliked the book and what I thought would have made it better.  There's NOTHING wrong with that.  In fact, it's pretty common in society to do so in everything for books to movies to games to sports.  Designers are not duty bound to cater to my desires, but they should attempt to please the public instead doing so increases their sales.  If a publisher doesn't hear why people dislike a book, then they will never understand why they don't sell more copies.  It's up to them to either ignore, defend their positions, or modify their design philosophy to garner more sales.  




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Because the detail you spent on your comments indicated that you never needed to buy it in the first place to get the game you wanted.




The only game close to the GW experience was Darwin's World 2.  It did a good job, but there were still plenty of holes to fill, holes that were left empty until D20 Future and Apocalypse came out.  There were holes in the GW experience that GW tried to fill, but failed miserably at.  I can get past the exclusion of some elements like mutant animals and plants, but they failed to deliver a good gaming experience.  So I have to look elsewhere to get my GW-experience fix.  

Maybe that's the real issue here.  You really like the new GWPHB and got your feathers ruffled by my comments.  I see a lot of complaints about other products in a very similar vein as mine, but yet you focus on the ones made against GW.  That's fine that you like it so much, but don't get angry with those that thought it was less than stellar.

Kane


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Then you apparently live in an alternate universe. I've been involved in *one* group, EVER, where everyone had the core book for the game. One. In every other circumstance, the DM buys books, everyone else sponges, unless they *really* want it. That's been my experience.



 That's been my experience as well.  The only game I've played in in which other people had the core book other than me was a Revised Star Wars campaign.  Otherwise, I buy the books since I tend to DM.  Like I said before others buy most of the new boardgames that we play and supply the food.  It works for me.

Kane


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2005)

> Sounds like a kind of cheap group. If you're bearing the entire economic load for your group, then you have to ask whether the hobby is worth it, really. No marketing/production strategy can compensate for socially dysfunctional relationships.




Eyebeams, I take umbrage myself at your comment. Because a group doesn't have a lot of members who regularly buy gaming books, then the hobby isn't worth it?  That's a seriously flawed character judgment. Feel free to speak for your own experience, but it doesn't apply to everyone here.

I've had plenty of books that have disappointed me after buying them, but I don't fault the makers of the books. I do have access to ENWorld and RPGNet Reviews, to excerpts by the publishers, and word of mouth, as well as return policies to the stores I buy from. However, it doesn't change if a book IS a disappointment to me, and if a book disappoints a large segment of those who bought it, it just isn't plausible to chalk all of it up to simple failure to "Caveat Emptor." Sometimes, there are books that are rushed, have production problems, or JUST PLAIN BAD premises. I can't think of many, but I do know it's too big a field for this not to be true.

RE: Gamma World:
I dowloaded the free-limited-time Player's Guide from DTRPG a while back. The SSS GW just did not capture the feel I came to expect from Gamma World, despite that I like Bruce, and I think he's a good author.  It's a book and genre that was specifically made for that "aging segment" of gamer populace you criticized Erik Mona for serving, yet I don't feel it served the purpose it should have, instead trying to attract an audience that wouldn't have an interest in it.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

> Eyebeams, I take umbrage myself at your comment. Because a group doesn't have a lot of members who regularly buy gaming books, then the hobby isn't worth it? That's a seriously flawed character judgment. Feel free to speak for your own experience, but it doesn't apply to everyone here.




I stand by my comment. Obviously, not everybody is going to buy in with as much frequency, but that isn't the same as being to sole purchaser. It's:

1) Not fair to the person who buys the books.

2) Increases hassle at the table.

3) reduces the amount of variety.

4) Gives too much authority and responsibility to the person buying the books.

To wit: A group where one person buys all the books is not, in my view, a healthy gaming group. Heck, I'll go farther and say that groups where one person is constantly GMing is usually somewhat problematic as well.



> I've had plenty of books that have disappointed me after buying them, but I don't fault the makers of the books. I do have access to ENWorld and RPGNet Reviews, to excerpts by the publishers, and word of mouth, as well as return policies to the stores I buy from. However, it doesn't change if a book IS a disappointment to me, and if a book disappoints a large segment of those who bought it, it just isn't plausible to chalk all of it up to simple failure to "Caveat Emptor."




That's not the entire issue, which also has to do with fans feeling that they are entitled to input in the creative process. They aren't. It has to do with sentimental feelings and the urge to collect skewing sales, which has ended up being a short term boon for some companies, but a long term burden for everyone. If a fan buys everything for a line or a brand, good or bad, it promotes products that further alienate the broad base of gamers.

I often ask folks to look at the comics industry to see what problems can/do come up in gaming. Comics appeased fans and satisfied collectibility to the nth degree, causing the comics industry to violently implode in the 1990s.

I'm certainly not saying reviews are worthless. I'm saying the fannish idea of playing at what a property is "really" about is categorically mistaken. The property is "really" about whatever is designed for it. If you think it sucks, the property in of itself should not be ammunition for further grief, and it shouldn't compel you to buy into it anyway.



> Sometimes, there are books that are rushed, have production problems, or JUST PLAIN BAD premises. I can't think of many, but I do know it's too big a field for this not to be true.




Production problems are a different issue. If there's a misprint, that's not the same thing as whether or not the book appeals to your private fantasies about a game.

As for being rushed: 90% of game books fit that description. The fact that games are cheap, gamers are rare and few people make a lot of money at this compels publishers to churn out product at the very limit of their capacity.



> I dowloaded the free-limited-time Player's Guide from DTRPG a while back. The SSS GW just did not capture the feel I came to expect from Gamma World, despite that I like Bruce, and I think he's a good author. It's a book and genre that was specifically made for that "aging segment" of gamer populace you criticized Erik Mona for serving, yet I don't feel it served the purpose it should have, instead trying to attract an audience that wouldn't have an interest in it.




I didn't criticize Erik Mona at all, except perhaps to say that I suspect that the sample of readers is skewed. The SSS GW was not, as far as I know, entirely designed for folks who remember the original (leaving aside my opinion that people's recollections of what Gamma World was like and about are so severely skewed as to be non-fact). In fact, the terms of the license made that flat out impossible. But as far as I know, nobody's written long laments about WotC forcing one of their own properties to divert from its origin.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 28, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Are you sure you aren't the odd man out?




Nope. It's the same here. Can't remember a single group where everyone hand the core book.

Some games, I was amongst those who didn't have the rules.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 28, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Nope. It's the same here. Can't remember a single group where everyone hand the core book.




Weird.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 28, 2005)

> Are you sure you aren't the odd man out?



Pretty sure. See above.


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 28, 2005)

I've been in both situations, it really depends on the game. My D&D game, everybody has the core books. However, tonight we're playing Mutants and Masterminds, and I'm the only one that even has the core books.

It all depends on the player. I like to read, and I have a good bit of income set aside for books and such, so I end up with a tonne of gaming books. One of my closest friends, a guy that plays in just about all the games I run, has a spattering of d20 books, but not much. So when we play D&D he brings dis books, but when we play some other stuff (Spycraft, Mutants and Masterminds) he just goes with the flow. He doesn't have the money to buy a huge number of books, so I'm happy to run a game with just my one copy.

Just becuase somebody can't/won't buy a book doesn't say to me that they can't play in my games. I'm more then happy to provide a book and my GMing skills (such that they are) to anybody that'll play, even if they don't have the books. I think that's more of an indication of a 'healthy gaming group' then one where everybody has to buy books. 

I can understand books getting more expensive, but the minute GM tells me I have to buy all the same books he has to play in  his game, I'm leaving. If I had to match BardStephenFox's collection to play in his game, I wouldn't be able to pay for gas to drive to the game.


----------



## Psion (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> To wit: A group where one person buys all the books is not, in my view, a healthy gaming group. Heck, I'll go farther and say that groups where one person is constantly GMing is usually somewhat problematic as well.




So, in short, other people have a different economic arrangement than you do so you use it as an excuse to pass judgement on them and puff your shirt out as if you are better than them based on some wierd pop psychology analysis of how "healthy" the group is.

My current group has all the books for the CURRENT game (which is D&D, so no big surprise), but you go far afield from that, and I frequently see not all the players having the core book. And my group has yet to melt down or need psychological assistance.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 28, 2005)

After three years of playing with the current group, there is still one member who doesn't own even a PHB. The others own a varying amount of books, but a large number of those were bought to them as birthday presents and such. Few people in this country have money to spend on expensive hobbies. I am fortunate to be one of those few (and yet my gaming budget is sevrely limited).


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> So, in short, other people have a different economic arrangement than you do so you use it as an excuse to pass judgement on them and puff your shirt out as if you are better than them based on some wierd pop psychology analysis of how "healthy" the group is.
> 
> My current group has all the books for the CURRENT game (which is D&D, so no big surprise), but you go far afield from that, and I frequently see not all the players having the core book. And my group has yet to melt down or need psychological assistance.




It's interesting to see the broken elephone play out here. I was responding to a situation where *one* person bought the books, not where *one* person didn't buy books or not everybody owned exactly the same books.

Now that I've reminded you, feel free to reply to what I actually said: That one gamer being the constant economic contributor for the entire group is a bad idea.


----------



## Mark (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Now that I've reminded you, feel free to reply to what I actually said: That one gamer being the constant economic contributor for the entire group is a bad idea.





What if he's the head of the household and DMing for his children as he teaches them to play?


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> What if he's the head of the household and DMing for his children as he teaches them to play?




That's obviously not the context in which we're discussing this.


----------



## kingpaul (Jun 28, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Are you sure you aren't the odd man out?



Not everyone in my group owns the core books either. There's a couple folks who don't own the PHB, they just print out the portions they want of the RSRD.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 28, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Nope. It's the same here. Can't remember a single group where everyone hand the core book.
> 
> Some games, I was amongst those who didn't have the rules.





ditto. i have been the only guy other than the GM to own some books.

heck, the OD&D campaign i ran. i was the only guy to have any of the books. for years.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> That doesn't work for several reasons:
> 
> There are indeed not that many players around, at least not enough I know well enough to burrow a book.
> 
> ...





Nah. I know people who are patient, who have a good relationship with local game stores and can skim before they buy and, on occasion, one of us takes a risk on a book. That risk may mean we're goping to be disappointed with it, but nothing can ever give you a flawless consumer experience, and making perfect purchases the critera for whether you should do something makes all positions in this thread equally worthless.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 28, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> So if you know a lot of people who no only buy stuff blindly - stuff you want, no less - and are nice enough to let you borrow it and read the whole thing, that's nice. But it's not like that here, and I dare saying that it is not the norm, either.



i routinely lend out my d02 books. ones i've never even opened.


----------



## Davelozzi (Jun 28, 2005)

Eyebeam, perhaps you could start a new thread to discuss your theory on the relationship between healthy gaming groups and the way they spend money and leave the rest of us here to continue discussing the topic at hand.  Thanks.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I stand by my comment. Obviously, not everybody is going to buy in with as much frequency, but that isn't the same as being to sole purchaser. It's:
> 
> 1) Not fair to the person who buys the books.
> 
> ...




Wow.  That is so far off base it's hilarious.

1. I've already discussed the arrangement I have with my group, so I won't go into it again.  Needless to say, I don't feel like I'm being treated unfairly.

2. The only time there's hassle at the table is when we're trying out a new game for the first time.  Then there's usually one (sometimes two) books at the table being passed around while the players make their first character, after that, it's not a problem.

3. That's just crazy.  On any give gaming night we can play D&D, Star Wars, D20 Modern, Babylon 5, WHFRP, RIFTS, M&M, or any of the myriad of boardgames in the group's possession.  Even with me running 95% of the games, I have so much material at my disposal that the group never knows what they are going to face.  No variety?  Hardly.

4. I don't see how the DM has too much authority by buying most of the books.  The way I see, a good DM sees what the group wants out of the campaign and then uses whatever books he sees fit to build the campaign with the ideas the group gave him.  After all, the DM is running the game.  As for Responsibility, I don't know where that factors in to anything.  I buy gaming books because I have the disposable income to do so, not to mention the fact I like addin new elements into the game.  Even if I didn't buy any new books, I'd still be the DM just for the fact that I'm the only person that really enjoys running the RPG's.  Other players may run our sessions of Hero Quest, Warhammer Quest, Doom, and the like, but I'm the primary DM for old-fashioned RPG's.

Our group is about as healthy as it gets.  We don't get to play much anymore, but that's because I've moved over an hour away.  Now our occasional game nights are less long term campaigns and more one shots.  We're always trying something new, but we have our favorites we come back to.  There's no burn-out, no bickering, and we're all still having a good time.  It doesn't get any more healthy than that, IMO.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I didn't criticize Erik Mona at all, except perhaps to say that I suspect that the sample of readers is skewed. The SSS GW was not, as far as I know, entirely designed for folks who remember the original (leaving aside my opinion that people's recollections of what Gamma World was like and about are so severely skewed as to be non-fact). In fact, the terms of the license made that flat out impossible. But as far as I know, nobody's written long laments about WotC forcing one of their own properties to divert from its origin.




When you put out a PA game that is titled the same as a line that has the long line of material and as large of a fanbase as GW, you bet your butt that that fanbase is automatically the primary group of people that are going to buy the book.  The audience comes with a certain idea of how they would like the setting and rules to be.  If S&SS wanted to put out a PA game, they simply should have and they wouldn't have had to worry about all the flak they got from GW fans.  They still would have gotten flak for putting out a low-quality ruleset, however.  If someone put out a game called "Willow" and then filled it with Technology and tin men, they would have failed also.  Even if the rules were top notch, they still missed the mark as far as the target fanbase is concerned.

Kane


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 28, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i routinely lend out my d02 books. ones i've never even opened.




I'd say that you're too good for this world, but you are an advocat of an older version of the game, so I have to hate you


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Which of the other games were based on an old TSR offering that would be remembered by the aging segment you serve, Erik?




Spelljammer, of course. Possibly Dark*Matter. But that's just in terms of brands. We also published a wide variety of genres with strong appeal, including WW2, 70s car racing movies, mecha, etc. I think _part_ of Omega World's popularity has to do with the fact that it was tied to an existing property, but if that had been the case, why wasn't SSS's Gamma World likewise popular? They certainly had the space to do whatever they wanted, but what they ended up doing did not appeal to the pre-existing Gamma World fanbase, nor did it appeal much to anyone else.

But hey, White Wolf is in good company in this regard, because the Alternity version of Gamma World likewise missed the mark completely.

Screwing up Gamma World is a time-honored RPG industry tradition.

It's probably also worth noting that Omega World was not simply popular with our "aging" audience, but also with a lot of newer gamers since Jonathan Tweet correctly identified what made the original Gamma World fun, and focused almost exclusively on that.

For my money, that's why Omega World is popular, and why the WW Gamma World ain't.

--Erik Mona


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2005)

There was one other early D20 book (it was dual-statted actually) for Usagi Yojimbo.  It was a monster book with D&D conversions in the back.  That book, other than being of a really small size was just horrible.  The selection of monsters were terrible, the stats didn't seem right (I sold off the book a long time ago, so I might be off the mark a bit here), and the entire book felt really cheap.

Kane


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

> Our group is about as healthy as it gets. We don't get to play much anymore, but that's because I've moved over an hour away. Now our occasional game nights are less long term campaigns and more one shots. We're always trying something new, but we have our favorites we come back to. There's no burn-out, no bickering, and we're all still having a good time. It doesn't get any more healthy than that, IMO.




Everyone is ideal in anecdote, aren't they?



> When you put out a PA game that is titled the same as a line that has the long line of material and as large of a fanbase as GW, you bet your butt that that fanbase is automatically the primary group of people that are going to buy the book.




Uh, no, actually. It's not in a designer's interest to cater exclusively to existing fans of a prior edition, because:

1) They're a small and almost always shrinking group.

2) They'll buy it anyway. Complain as they might, they'll buy it anyway. 

A purely faithful treatment will just snag existing fans, who would buy the book out of brand allegiance/collectibility anyway, and as a form of fandom are likely to complain in any event. So basically, by being faithful you can only lose consumers who aren't part of prior fandom.

This is why fans need to be smarter about buying things. If you buy something regardless of how you feel about it, all the commentary in the world will not change the fact that the company has earned some money. The fact that your favoured form of recreation with the book is negative commentary is secondary to the fact that you actually *bought* it. A sale is a sale, whether it's to use  in a game, look at the pictures or even out one of your table legs.



> The audience comes with a certain idea of how they would like the setting and rules to be. If S&SS wanted to put out a PA game, they simply should have and they wouldn't have had to worry about all the flak they got from GW fans. They still would have gotten flak for putting out a low-quality ruleset, however. If someone put out a game called "Willow" and then filled it with Technology and tin men, they would have failed also. Even if the rules were top notch, they still missed the mark as far as the target fanbase is concerned.




Again, you assume you're entitled to a particular treatment of this property. You aren't. But you *can* influence what comes out greatly by using your purchasing power. If you choose not to, whose fault is that?


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The SSS GW was not, as far as I know, entirely designed for folks who remember the original (leaving aside my opinion that people's recollections of what Gamma World was like and about are so severely skewed as to be non-fact). In fact, the terms of the license made that flat out impossible. But as far as I know, nobody's written long laments about WotC forcing one of their own properties to divert from its origin.




So why bother to do the book at all if it's not designed for folks who remember the original? Why not just call the game "Nano-Future" or something unassociated with the existing Gamma World and try to pave an original path?

The answer is easy. You can probably sell more books if you slap an existing brand on something. You don't have any obligation to make it like the earlier editions. You can just lean back in your chair, smile, and count the money from all the suckers who bought it because they thought it would be Gamma World, even if it isn't.

But wait. It doesn't quite work that way, and the White Wolf Gamma World has become something of an example of how _not_ to do a nostalgia-based product tied to an ancient license. Like I said, it's in good company in this regard, since Wizards of the Coast's own Gamma World Alternity product went over very poorly (perhaps even moreso) than the White Wolf version.

Look, I can't speak to the restrictions White Wolf was under when it made Gamma World. It's possible that Wizards of the Coast said something like "We'd really prefer it if you didn't have any funny animals in this version," but I find that difficult to believe.

You, on the other hand, seem to have inside knowledge of these dealings, but since you don't sign your posts, there's really no way for anyone to know how seriously they should be taking you.

--Erik Mona


----------



## diaglo (Jun 28, 2005)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> You, on the other hand, seem to have inside knowledge of these dealings, but since you don't sign your posts, there's really no way for anyone to know how seriously they should be taking you.
> 
> --Erik Mona





you know me. i never joke about D&D.

diaglo "signing his posts wherever possible" Ooi


----------



## DMH (Jun 28, 2005)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> But hey, White Wolf is in good company in this regard, because the Alternity version of Gamma World likewise missed the mark completely.




There is a huge difference between the two.

GW5 has a setting (which is just as boring as the Barony of the Horn) and all the rules (inc many mutations) in it. The missing stuff are the player species- plants and animals. Alternity really can't handle a goofy setting where taking building smashing rays to the chest and ignoring it is the norm (one of the main reasons I hold Alternity higher than d20).

GW6 does not have a setting, has less mutations than GW5, and is more of a toolbox approach. It can have a goofy feel and the genre write ups in the GMG support that. I think the main problem with it, other than the limited number of mutations, is the poor set up of the series. The PH should have had all the mutations, no creatures, no community rules, more in depth species rules, no habitat write ups, no nuking your home town, and it should have had a chapter on how to create a GW feel- both serious and goofy for both sets of fans.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Everyone is ideal in anecdote, aren't they?




Nice.  I can't quite tell if you're calling me a liar or just had to put in a barb because you were wrong about my group...



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Uh, no, actually. It's not in a designer's interest to cater exclusively to existing fans of a prior edition, because:




You're rather adept at putting words into other peoples' mouths aren't you?  I never said that they should cater *exclusively* to fans of the line.  However, putting out a book called Gamma World automatically attracts fans of the line and automatically makes it a nostalgia product.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> A purely faithful treatment will just snag existing fans, who would buy the book out of brand allegiance/collectibility anyway, and as a form of fandom are likely to complain in any event. So basically, by being faithful you can only lose consumers who aren't part of prior fandom.




A treatment, faithful or not, done well will attract not only existing fans but new players as well.  Take a look at 3E.  It not only sold to old D&D players, but to new ones as well that had never played D&D before. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> This is why fans need to be smarter about buying things. If you buy something regardless of how you feel about it, all the commentary in the world will not change the fact that the company has earned some money. The fact that your favoured form of recreation with the book is negative commentary is secondary to the fact that you actually *bought* it. A sale is a sale, whether it's to use  in a game, look at the pictures or even out one of your table legs.




I talk about it because it sucks and I don't want to see other people end up wasting their money on shoddy product.  That has little to do with it not having some of the things I hold dear in a Gamma World game, but more with it being a bad game.  Hence the point of the entire thread.  (A point that you seem to keep missing.)



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Again, you assume you're entitled to a particular treatment of this property. You aren't. But you *can* influence what comes out greatly by using your purchasing power. If you choose not to, who's fault is that?




I want to know where this entitlement issue came from.  You keep bringing it up, but I (nor anyone else) never said that.  We can't all be perfect like you and never buy a poor book.  GWPHB was one of the poor books that got through and I stated as much.  Beyond that, I got a feeling that this is just a case of ruffled feathers from a fan...heck maybe even one of the authors seeing as how we don't know who you are.

Kane


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Are you sure you aren't the odd man out?




Definitely not. From my experience, the only groups I've been in where everyone had the core books was an old 1st edition D&D campaign, and that was only after the books had been around for 7-8 years or so. All other games, including 2nd and 3rd edition D&D, involved groups where closer to 20-50% had the core books.

As long as there's a DM or a few other players willing to teach the basic rules and willingness to loan out the books from time to time, nothing more is necessary. Quite frankly, being able to do this has made it possible for us to try many more games than if all players had been expected to buy the rules.
Hardly the sign of an unhealthy group as eyebeams would suggest, in my opinion.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

> Spelljammer, of course. Possibly Dark*Matter. But that's just in terms of brands. We also published a wide variety of genres with strong appeal, including WW2, 70s car racing movies, mecha, etc. I think _part_ of Omega World's popularity has to do with the fact that it was tied to an existing property, but if that had been the case, why wasn't SSS's Gamma World likewise popular? They certainly had the space to do whatever they wanted, but what they ended up doing did not appeal to the pre-existing Gamma World fanbase, nor did it appeal much to anyone else.




Well, except for the fact that they weren't allowed to actually use half of the GW character types. As for its appeal: It went through its run and did its thing. There was vocal criticism here, then a few months later, admissions that many of these criticisms were premature. And like most such things, the majority of the noise yay or nay was generated by a small group.



> But hey, White Wolf is in good company in this regard, because the Alternity version of Gamma World likewise missed the mark completely.
> 
> Screwing up Gamma World is a time-honored RPG industry tradition.




Yes -- one largely indulged by TSR, to boot.



> It's probably also worth noting that Omega World was not simply popular with our "aging" audience, but also with a lot of newer gamers since Jonathan Tweet correctly identified what made the original Gamma World fun, and focused almost exclusively on that.
> 
> For my money, that's why Omega World is popular, and why the WW Gamma World ain't.




Tweet didn't "identify" anything. He made up a mission statement for Omega World. The "Wahoo" style wasn't a major part of the first two editions of GW and was touched on later to justify the sloppy design of a moribund list of stats tied to the MSH engine.

This is by no means meant to slag Jonothan Tweet. Omega World's best qualities were the ways in which it did not resemble the tone of the original GW, which was a contrast between what was (for the period) marked grittiness and a very odd menagerie. This was a dumb idea, and many 80s GW fan efforts (such as Ares magazine articles) were devoted to reigning in the oddness in favour of the grit.

If anything, Jonothan Tweet ignored the direction of those fans completely by favouring oddness over grit. That he was  resurrecting the spirit of the old game is debateable.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Now that I've reminded you, feel free to reply to what I actually said: That one gamer being the constant economic contributor for the entire group is a bad idea.




Just because one player is the primary economic contributor doesn't really mean much if the other players are making meaningful contributions in other ways. Rule and source books are then only things that a gaming group needs.
I figure that as long as that book-buyer is willing to loan them out from time to time, that's enough for getting the knowledge of the rules into the players' heads. Once you've got that down, the books start to become superfluous, useful as on-the-spot references but not constantly used.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2005)

> Nice. I can't quite tell if you're calling me a liar or just had to put in a barb because you were wrong about my group...




I'm saying that I stand by my remarks, regardless of anecdotes that, true or, not, are self-interested. Would you argue that you comments are not in your self interest?



> You're rather adept at putting words into other peoples' mouths aren't you? I never said that they should cater *exclusively* to fans of the line. However, putting out a book called Gamma World automatically attracts fans of the line and automatically makes it a nostalgia product.




Sure. But it's not a fishing lure. It's a book. You're supposed to use personal discretion when you buy things.



> A treatment, faithful or not, done well will attract not only existing fans but new players as well. Take a look at 3E. It not only sold to old D&D players, but to new ones as well that had never played D&D before.




And in many ways, 3e was not a faithful treatment. There's a whole game that earns a fair bit of coin from people who didn't like what 3e did, actually. Yet Hackmaster fans who don't care for 3e don't regularly post about how the D&D brand failed them.



> I talk about it because it sucks and I don't want to see other people end up wasting their money on shoddy product. That has little to do with it not having some of the things I hold dear in a Gamma World game, but more with it being a bad game. Hence the point of the entire thread. (A point that you seem to keep missing.)




Yet your comments are impressionistic. Not once in this thread, for example, have you referred to the specific contents of the book, so it can't be said that you're providing concrete information about it with an added, "Such and such a thing didn't work for me."



> I want to know where this entitlement issue came from. You keep bringing it up, but I (nor anyone else) ever said that.




The title of this thread is "Failed promises."

FWIW, I didn't write a word of GWD20, though I'm acquianted with some folks who did. There were parts I liked and parts I didn't. But in the end, I don't think it's a big deal. There's no consistent "classic" Gamma World in the first place. Each version of the game has been all over the place and if anything what's considered "classic" is a combination of designer spin and personal preference.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> And in many ways, 3e was not a faithful treatment. There's a whole game that earns a fair bit of coin from people who didn't like what 3e did, actually. Yet Hackmaster fans who don't care for 3e don't regularly post about how the D&D brand failed them.




Though there are plenty of 1st/2nd edition D&D players (or OD&D like diaglo) who constantly harp on how 3E D&D failed them and their expectation. That's what edition wars are all about. I also have serious doubts that there are no Hackmaster fans out there regularly doing the same. 
I think you're glossing over an awful lot as well as making overbroad assumptions on a good many things.


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 28, 2005)

I'm no Gamma World historian, my first encounter with it was Omega World, which I thought was great. I heard the new books weren't much like that, so I skipped them, after all, I can always dig out Omega World if I want that kind of thing.

Perhaps the new Gamma World should have taken the path of Paranoia XP? Paranoia XP has three play styles: Classic, Straight and Zap!, all of which are valid and fun. You want a grittier, darker game, yo use Straight. Over the top zany in Zap. Classic is a midpoint between. All in all, it's great. the rules vary only slightly between types, it's more of a matter of mindset, but it really gives a breadth of appeal.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Yet your comments are impressionistic. Not once in this thread, for example, have you referred to the specific contents of the book, so it can't be said that you're providing concrete information about it with an added, "Such and such a thing didn't work for me."




Fair enough.  Here's some of the things I didn't like:
Psionics rules were clunky and don't fit in with the D20 Modern norm, nor are they an improvement.  They don't play well, and feel shoehorned into the system showing a lack of understanding of the rules.

Mutations were likewise clunky.  While there were balancing factors involved, it still ended up creating characters with wildly varying power levels.  (This is the one issue I have with DW2, but the mutations in DW2 are more or less balanced against each other.)

Nanotech likewise didn't work for me.  There are some very good ideas there, and it's one of the few parts of the book that was done adequately.  However, there are several powers (the names of which escape me since IDHTBIFOM) that showed a lack of understanding in the basic principles in how D20 works.

Why are there community rules in a Player's handbook?  That chapter should have been left for the GMG.  

The lack of mutant animals and plants as PC's.  Granted, nothing says that S&SS had to add them to the game, but I (and many others) would have enjoyed their inclusion.  Plus their inclusion would have added to a bit more of a "tookit" feel to the book rather than the implied nanotech setting that was included.

There are other issues, but since I haven't read it in a while I'll have to refresh my memory.  




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> FWIW, I didn't write a word of GWD20, though I'm acquianted with some folks who did. There were parts I liked and parts I didn't. But in the end, I don't think it's a big deal. There's no consistent "classic" Gamma World in the first place. Each version of the game has been all over the place and if anything what's considered "classic" is a combination of designer spin and personal preference.




You may not have said word one about GWD20 directly, but since you only chimed in when I brought up my distaste with the book, you may as well had.  OTOH, I agree that what makes up GW is wide and varied.  A toolkit approach that offered plenty of options drawn from the previous editions as well as new ideas would have served the community much better, IMO.

Kane


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> There's a couple folks who don't own the PHB, they just print out the portions they want of the RSRD.




*raises hand*

Already bought the 3.0 PHB, DMG, and MM. Don't need to buy them again. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's not in a designer's interest to cater exclusively to existing fans of a prior edition, because:
> 
> 1) They're a small and almost always shrinking group.
> 
> 2) They'll buy it anyway. Complain as they might, they'll buy it anyway.




Not me. I waited for the preview before I even looked, because all the reviews were saying the same thing I found when I looked for myself. I could be wrong, but it seems you're lumping in "rabid fans" with "fans." They really aren't the same - the fans will spread word-of-mouth and not buy it. The rabid fans will complain and buy it anyway, because it's D&D/Star Wars/Gamma World/Star Trek, and a little is better than none at all.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> The "Wahoo" style wasn't a major part of the first two editions of GW and was touched on later to justify the sloppy design of a moribund list of stats tied to the MSH engine.




I beg to differ. Oh, how I beg.  Metamorphosis Alpha had articles in the Strategic Review called "How Green is my Mutant?" First edition had pictures of intelligent plants reading books, Fat blubbery mutant animals with wings leaping over walls with tiny little wings, and part of the artifact treasure (besides the Blasters, Mark I through V) were things like rusted out cars, slot machines, and pool tables! It was surely juxtaposed with seriousness, but the elements of the absurd were there as well, just as it was with Gary's D&D (Blastum and Gutboy Barrelhouse, anyone?)

We're just seeing different things when we look at old Gamma World, that's all - but I would ask that you consider the people you're debating before you make generalizations, first. We've been around the RPG revolution, too.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 28, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i routinely lend out my d02 books. ones i've never even opened.




For a man with a strong preference for the first incarnation of the game, I can say first hand that diaglo financially supports all versions, including the current one. 

Joe "just saved $40 by borrowing two of diaglo's books and deciding against buying them" Blank


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> A purely faithful treatment will just snag existing fans, who would buy the book out of brand allegiance/collectibility anyway, and as a form of fandom are likely to complain in any event. So basically, by being faithful you can only lose consumers who aren't part of prior fandom.




 

Or, alternately, you can gamble that elements that were sufficiently popular to attract a core of vocal fans who've stuck with it for over a decade might just be able to attract new fans.  

You suggest that a publisher use the following formulae:

Elements that nobody cared about to begin with = t3h win.

Elements that people loved enough to care about them for years = t3h sux.

Somehow, I can't see that as good business sense.  It's one thing to take a broadly popular product whose die-hard fans disagreed with the main body of consumers - the fans remember but the rest of the buyers don't.  It's quite another to take a niche product (like, well, any RPG, and doubly so a sci-fi RPG) and ignore the very elements that, it seems, made it popular to its particular niche in the first place.

What's more, there's an economic incentive to cater to the die-hard fans if you assume two things: a willingness to continue the line or produce merchandise based on it, and a die-hard fanbase whose ideas are not completely out-of-whack with the general populace.

Considering the abysmal failure of Gamma World d20, I'd say that the general (gaming) populace didn't dig the new style - or the overall poor quality of the book.  Unless one assumes the book was designed merely to ream the nostalgia crowd, in which case it should have catered to said crowd anyway, it's hard to imagine any way of describing it other than as a failure.

Omega World, on the other hand, was, by Erik Mona's own account (and I think he would know  ), the most popular Polyhedron minigame.  Whether it was accurate to the original Gamma World or not, it apparently catered to the vocal fanbase's concept of said original - and it apparently, lo and behold, clicked more with the general gaming populace than less faithful adaptations.


----------



## Mark (Jun 29, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> We've been around the RPG revolution, too.




Some of us more a-rounder than others. 

Remember that article with the tables to roll up a random mutant?  Was that in an early Dragon or an SR?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 29, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I beg to differ. Oh, how I beg.  Metamorphosis Alpha had articles in the Strategic Review called "How Green is my Mutant?" First edition had pictures of intelligent plants reading books, Fat blubbery mutant animals with wings leaping over walls with tiny little wings, and part of the artifact treasure (besides the Blasters, Mark I through V) were things like rusted out cars, slot machines, and pool tables! It was surely juxtaposed with seriousness, but the elements of the absurd were there as well, just as it was with Gary's D&D (Blastum and Gutboy Barrelhouse, anyone?)
> 
> We're just seeing different things when we look at old Gamma World, that's all - but I would ask that you consider the people you're debating before you make generalizations, first. We've been around the RPG revolution, too.




You're my personal Jesus for the day. The "wahoo" was in Gamma World from the beginning. Just look at the art in the first edition book - giant rabbits with guns, a weird mutant with feet for hands...I mean, really. Hell, that was the appeal of the game back then. It was probably the second or third RPG I ever played, and I remember the group I gamed with always commenting on just how crazy the game was. The term "wahoo" sprang up fairly early in reference to it. 

GW was anything but grim 'n' gritty - it took several years for a post-apocalypse game to appear that really _was_ grim 'n' gritty - Twilight: 2000. For example, radiation in T:2000 didn't give you powers or some kind of useful or weird mutation. It killed you after you got enough rads.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 29, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Omega World, on the other hand, was, by Erik Mona's own account (and I think he would know  ), the most popular Polyhedron minigame.  Whether it was accurate to the original Gamma World or not, it apparently catered to the vocal fanbase's concept of said original - and it apparently, lo and behold, clicked more with the general gaming populace than less faithful adaptations.




This is making me curious.  Is Omega World for sale anywhere?  Or is it out of print?

[I had fun with the wahoo-plus 1st edition gamma world].


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 29, 2005)

DMH said:
			
		

> Sorcery & Steam (FFG) was not what I was looking for. The rules on making devices are almost a skeleton and the PRCs are for a Victorian setting. The only good part is the intro.
> 
> Cityworks would be much better if the section on fantasy cities was more than caves, tree tops and cliff dwellings.
> 
> Midnight. I knew it was going to be depressing, but I thought there would be some way to win.




Whereas I liked  all of these. I am not jumping up and down yelling 'you're wrong!' (though you are...) but rather that tastes differ.

When I bought S&S I was looking for something to drop into my Iron Kingdoms game, which it fit very nicely. However I also found that my enjoyment of S&S more than doubled when Steam & Steel came out. The S&S books cover each other's lacks very nicely.

I wanted mostly human cities, without a lot of over the top stuff, and Cityworks was exactly what I wanted.

As for Midnight, I never felt that it was unwinnable, just not winnable in a single character's lifetime, except maybe a very young elf's.

To me the real clunkers are ones that just didn't make sense, had bad rules (though here I find that I have enough on my D20 smorgasborg to compensate for a lot), or were not true to their premise.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

You can find back issues (if they have any left) at www.paizo.com.  The issue you're looking for is Dungeon #92.  If you can't find it at Paizo, try other sites like nobleknight.com who may have a copy still in stock.

Happy hunting!

Kane


----------



## BWP (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Now that I've reminded you, feel free to reply to what I actually said: That one gamer being the constant economic contributor for the entire group is a bad idea.




OK, I'm replying to what you actually said: _why_ is it a bad idea?

You've made the statement, but you've offered no proof; it's merely your opinion.  If it works for your group, that's great, but what gives you the gumption to think that it's the only way it could possibly work?

In my group, people have different things that they want to spend their money on.  It would be presumptuous of the GM to _demand_ that the other players spend their money on what he thinks they should have.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 29, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I beg to differ. Oh, how I beg.  Metamorphosis Alpha had articles in the Strategic Review called "How Green is my Mutant?" First edition had pictures of intelligent plants reading books, Fat blubbery mutant animals with wings leaping over walls with tiny little wings, and part of the artifact treasure (besides the Blasters, Mark I through V) were things like rusted out cars, slot machines, and pool tables! It was surely juxtaposed with seriousness, but the elements of the absurd were there as well, just as it was with Gary's D&D (Blastum and Gutboy Barrelhouse, anyone?)
> 
> We're just seeing different things when we look at old Gamma World, that's all - but I would ask that you consider the people you're debating before you make generalizations, first. We've been around the RPG revolution, too.





i'm with Mark and Henry.

oh how i beg to differ.

diaglo "who gave up on Gamma World around 1985 or so" Ooi


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

> Or, alternately, you can gamble that elements that were sufficiently popular to attract a core of vocal fans who've stuck with it for over a decade might just be able to attract new fans.




Why? Game publishing is a business. As I noted earlier in this thread, faithfully obeying the desires of the fans has led to either crappy products or failed to really affect sales.



> You suggest that a publisher use the following formulae:




I suggested the formula I actually suggested. Feel free to respond to it. The fact is that nothing excuses indiscriminate purchases.

What allows stuff you don't like to proliferate is mostly your willingness to buy said stuff. The fannish desire to have everything with a brand name first on the block, no matter its content, is a long term burden.

If you keep buying what you think is crap, I can't think of a single company that would be unwilling to continue to sell you said crap.



> What's more, there's an economic incentive to cater to the die-hard fans if you assume two things: a willingness to continue the line or produce merchandise based on it, and a die-hard fanbase whose ideas are not completely out-of-whack with the general populace.




Actually:

1) Gamma World's "fanbase" looked pretty miniscule to me. I didn't see a preponderance of GW fanpages before any kind of adaptation. How many of you can name one off the top of your head, without googling? I also note that nobody here has really ever discussed GW's setting, either -- awfully curious for such a "die-hard" fanbase never to talk about anything specific about the game.

In reality, perhaps some folks should be honest with themselves, look back and realize that GW as a going concern has been primarily driven by company-end hype.

2) The "old school" vision of Gamma World many of you talk about was a recent invention. Yes, there was a "How Green is My Mutant" article in the Strategic Review. There were, by contrast, several attempts to dee-"Wahoo!" GW in Ares. One I remember offhand: An article on how to use genetic engineering to justify PSH's stats because they didn't make any sense otherwise. But wait -- genetic engineering is supposed to be Bad, and Not Gamma World, right? A pity nobody told the authors back in the 80s.



> Considering the abysmal failure of Gamma World d20,I'd say that the general (gaming) populace didn't dig the new style - or the overall poor quality of the book. Unless one assumes the book was designed merely to ream the nostalgia crowd, in which case it should have catered to said crowd anyway, it's hard to imagine any way of describing it other than as a failure.




Considering what again? Oh -- you mean, "Considering that a dozen or guys on a few fora complain about GWD20 and I would like to think that has some sort of connection to economic reality."

It doesn't. Sorry.

In reality, Gamma World had a more successful run than most game books -- almost definitely more than Darwin's World, the perrenially-mentioned bridesmaid that "got it right." If SSS could run the books it did, it means that SSS sold enough to justify continued printings, which automatically puts its sales an order of magnitude above anything but a WotC offering.

Yep it still might suck, despite the fact that it sold well. But don't blame them -- you guys bought it, remember?



> Omega World, on the other hand, was, by Erik Mona's own account (and I think he would know ), the most popular Polyhedron minigame. Whether it was accurate to the original Gamma World or not, it apparently catered to the vocal fanbase's concept of said original - and it apparently, lo and behold, clicked more with the general gaming populace than less faithful adaptations.




I'm having trouble parsing this, because you can't define how "faithful" GWD20 is compared to Omega World without making a claim about how faithful Omega World was in the first place.

Omega World was quite nice, but its relationship to Gamma World was pretty much like any tale about the "good old days" -- more grounded in sentiment than reality. Gamma World was a game without a central thesis and with a generally shoddy design where quick character death was easy to come by. Omega World is Jonothan Tweet's rather clever portrayal of how you actually played it -- since most of you were at most, 14 at the time, you played it with the feel of the cheeseball games people play when they're 14 or so.

Plus, Omega World was one of only a handful of rebooted minigames. And it's being compared to Spelljammer? Spelljammer's first incarnation bombed so badly it was left as fodder for Roger E. Moore's random jokes, making print because TSR printed pretty much anything.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

BWP said:
			
		

> OK, I'm replying to what you actually said: _why_ is it a bad idea?
> 
> You've made the statement, but you've offered no proof; it's merely your opinion.  If it works for your group, that's great, but what gives you the gumption to think that it's the only way it could possibly work?
> 
> In my group, people have different things that they want to spend their money on.  It would be presumptuous of the GM to _demand_ that the other players spend their money on what he thinks they should have.




Do you think it's healthy for one person in a group to constantly pay for anything? Frankly, I think I struck a nerve with that one -- and with good reason.


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 29, 2005)

Last night I ran a game where I owned several books, and the players had none. I guess I 'shouldered the economic burden,' but I don't really care. It was Mutants and Masterminds, and I had the core book, Crooks, Foes of FReedom, Freedom City, and Annual #1. Probably over $100 books that I had bought. Do I think this is 'unhealthy?' No, heck no.

I bought books I wanted to read, read them, and ran a game I wanted to play. Everybody enjoyed it, but nobody (with the possible exception of one player) has the money and/or the interest to buy the Core book (or nay other books, for that matter). I don't have a problem with this.

As for hitting a nerve, I think you have. Perhaps it's not the nerve you think, but you have. THe way I see it, RPG players (especially those that have countered your arguement) like to think of gaming as mostly imagination. When you say that it should require books, that gaming is more about ownership of materials then it is just sitting around, sharing a world and having fun, people get a little up tight.


----------



## Psion (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Do you think it's healthy for one person in a group to constantly pay for anything?




I think that lacking other facts, that is entirely not enough information to determing if it's "healthy".

Whatever you mean by "healthy" in this conxext.



> Frankly, I think I struck a nerve with that one -- and with good reason.




That gamers have found yet another way to assert that the way they have fun is somehow objectively "better"? Not precisely what I call a good reason.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

Macbeth said:
			
		

> Last night I ran a game where I owned several books, and the players had none. I guess I 'shouldered the economic burden,' but I don't really care. It was Mutants and Masterminds, and I had the core book, Crooks, Foes of FReedom, Freedom City, and Annual #1. Probably over $100 books that I had bought. Do I think this is 'unhealthy?' No, heck no.
> 
> I bought books I wanted to read, read them, and ran a game I wanted to play. Everybody enjoyed it, but nobody (with the possible exception of one player) has the money and/or the interest to buy the Core book (or nay other books, for that matter). I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> As for hitting a nerve, I think you have. Perhaps it's not the nerve you think, but you have. THe way I see it, RPG players (especially those that have countered your arguement) like to think of gaming as mostly imagination. When you say that it should require books, that gaming is more about ownership of materials then it is just sitting around, sharing a world and having fun, people get a little up tight.




You are not actually replying to what I am talking about. I'm talking about a very specific situation where pretty much nobody but you buys any of the books ever, not one where your tastes differ so in your group, different folks own different books.

It occurs to me that Kanegruder is the only person on this thread who is actually probably in the situation I'm describing, which I think is categorically dysfunctional for reasons that most of you would find obvious in any other context.


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 29, 2005)

I'm also the only one in that group with all three core d20 rulebooks, the only one with d20 Modern, the only one with GURPS, the only one with Spycraft, and the only one with a shlew of non-core D&D books. One of the other players has Paranoia XP, but only because I bought it for him as a Christmas present (it's now one of his favorite books). Really, I buy almost all of the books. For this group, I GM most every game. I think it's a helathy group, assuming healthy means "having fun playing RPGs."

I think the problem here is that you think fun must be had in your way. THere are other ways to have fun, and other gamers get along just fine buying as many or as few books as they want, not based on DM demands.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

> I think that lacking other facts, that is entirely not enough information to determing if it's "healthy".
> 
> Whatever you mean by "healthy" in this conxext.




And I think you're applying reductio ad absurdum ("Dude! How can anybody know anything, maaaan?") to avoid confronting the obvious: If one person is constantly supplying the money and effort for his or her friends, it's not a healthy dynamic.

Then again, there's a larger issue here in that lots of gamers are willing to game with people they otherwise barely tolerate, so perhaps you're missing why "friends" is important. Then again, I think that outside of a few specific exceptions, gaming with someone you wouldn't otherwise socialize with is pretty bad. But if you're willing to play in such bad circumstances anyhow, I can see why at least hoarding all the play tools provides a social edge.



> That gamers have found yet another way to assert that the way they have fun is somehow objectively "better"? Not precisely what I call a good reason.




No, I think the idea that buying all the books to lure players so that they don't have to do anything but show up is, according to any reasonable measure of common sense, obviously indicative of a group that is failing in some social aspects.

One exception is, of course, when you're running a game for your kids. But if you have to use the same tactics to run a game for your friends than for your children, you'd probably better ask yourself why, eh?


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

Macbeth said:
			
		

> I'm also the only one in that group with all three core d20 rulebooks, the only one with d20 Modern, the only one with GURPS, the only one with Spycraft, and the only one with a shlew of non-core D&D books. One of the other players has Paranoia XP, but only because I bought it for him as a Christmas present (it's now one of his favorite books). Really, I buy almost all of the books. For this group, I GM most every game. I think it's a helathy group, assuming healthy means "having fun playing RPGs."
> 
> I think the problem here is that you think fun must be had in your way. THere are other ways to have fun, and other gamers get along just fine buying as many or as few books as they want, not based on DM demands.




You are not being oppressed for being different.

You are also still not responding to my original point, as you are not actually gaming under the circumstances I am describing.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Why? Game publishing is a business. As I noted earlier in this thread, faithfully obeying the desires of the fans has led to either crappy products or failed to really affect sales.




Prove it.  Give examples.  Give us some proof to back up your blanket statements.  I ponied up with some examples of why I disliked GWD20, so you do the same.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> 1) Gamma World's "fanbase" looked pretty miniscule to me. I didn't see a preponderance of GW fanpages before any kind of adaptation. How many of you can name one off the top of your head, without googling? I also note that nobody here has really ever discussed GW's setting, either -- awfully curious for such a "die-hard" fanbase never to talk about anything specific about the game.




I can't name D&D fansites right off the top of my head.  What does that prove anyway.  Not one single thing.  Do the majority of D&D players have a fansite devoted to D&D?  Do all the RIFTS players?  Do all the V:TM players?  This point is just silly.  GW is a lot of different things to different people.  Setting isn't nearly as important as the rules with GW.  Search the boards, there has been a lot of talk of GW during my time here since ENWorld went live (even a few discussion back at Eric Noah's old boards).  Granted the amount of GW chatter is as much as D&D or fantasy D20 talk, but that's more of this being primarily a D&D new site and D&D being exponentially more popular.  




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> 2) The "old school" vision of Gamma World many of you talk about was a recent invention. Yes, there was a "How Green is My Mutant" article in the Strategic Review. There were, by contrast, several attempts to dee-"Wahoo!" GW in Ares. One I remember offhand: An article on how to use genetic engineering to justify PSH's stats because they didn't make any sense otherwise. But wait -- genetic engineering is supposed to be Bad, and Not Gamma World, right? A pity nobody told the authors back in the 80s.




The point still stands that GW has always had the absurd wahoo elements.  No matter what a few fans or articles tried to make GW into otherwise.  I have no idea where you're going with that whole genetic engineering point... :\




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> In reality, Gamma World had a more successful run than most game books -- almost definitely more than Darwin's World, the perrenially-mentioned bridesmaid that "got it right." If SSS could run the books it did, it means that SSS sold enough to justify continued printings, which automatically puts its sales an order of magnitude above anything but a WotC offering.




Prove it.  Show us some official numbers.  I don't recall hearing word one from S&SS that GW sold out their print run, but I believe that DW2 sold out it's initial print run, plus that doesn't take into account the sales of the pdfs, which I also believe are still pretty brisk.

Kane


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, I think the idea that buying all the books to lure players so that they don't have to do anything but show up is, according to any reasonable measure of common sense, obviously indicative of a group that is failing in some social aspects.




If it's a question of buying all the stuff to _lure_ in a bunch of players like some kind of pedophile with candy, then you may be right. But nobody here has made any implication that we're buying the books to lure in players. That's your spin on this and your spin alone.

Some player simply can't afford the same stuff that other people can even though they like to play the same games. End of story. I think it would be far more socially disfunctional to expect everyone to have the same level of financial commitment regardless of financial ability.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It occurs to me that Kanegruder is the only person on this thread who is actually probably in the situation I'm describing, which I think is categorically dysfunctional for reasons that most of you would find obvious in any other context.




You do realize that there a lot of different ways a group can handle the burden of paying the various costs to play the games right?  Your way is not the only right way, so stop insulting other peoples' ways of playing the game.  Why do care so much?  My group, Macbeth's group, The Universe's group all have fun even with only one or two  people sholdering the cost of the books.  That's the bottom line, having fun.

Kane


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, I think the idea that buying all the books to lure players so that they don't have to do anything but show up is, according to any reasonable measure of common sense, obviously indicative of a group that is failing in some social aspects.



Personally, I'll let a player put in as much or as little to the game as they want. Gaming is about having fun, and if they have fun by showing up, sitting down, and playing, then so be it. For some of my players, I hang on to chaaracter sheets, so they can't loose them. I'm willing to take the burden from them, so they can just drive to the game, sit down, and have fun.

I'm having fun buying books I like to read and games I like to run. They're having fun showing up and playing a good game.

One of the key points here is that I can buy books and never run them, but still get good use. Even if I buy a book and run it for others, I've still had the fun of reading it. Others got use from it (when I run a game), but I get to sit down and read, which justifies the price to me.


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 29, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Some player simply can't afford the same stuff that other people can even though they like to play the same games. End of story. I think it would be far more socially disfunctional to expect everyone to have the same level of financial commitment regardless of financial ability.



Exactly. I play mostly with college students (like myself), so from person to person, heck, from week to week in some cases, economic resources vary. I tend to be a little more stable, especially with a decent summer job right now, so I buy a lot of books. On the other hand, one of my best friends is fresh out of High School and barely scraping by, so he rarely buys anything. He's a great guy, and one of my best friends, so I have no problem buying books I want to read that he then plays a game in.


----------



## Psion (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> And I think you're applying reductio ad absurdum ("Dude! How can anybody know anything, maaaan?") to avoid confronting the obvious: If one person is constantly supplying the money and effort for his or her friends, it's not a healthy dynamic.




Nice try, no. I'm quite simply saying that you do not have enough facts to make that assertion and I don't think you have demonstrated in the least bit that an "unhealthy" dynamic necessarily follows from this one simple fact.



> Then again, there's a larger issue here in that lots of gamers are willing to game with people they otherwise barely tolerate, so perhaps you're missing why "friends" is important. Then again, I think that outside of a few specific exceptions, gaming with someone you wouldn't otherwise socialize with is pretty bad.




I am having a real hard time not seeing an implied class distinction in that statement, in the context of the fact that we were talking about economic situations a second ago. Are you trying to say that you should not socialize with someone significantly more or less wealthy than you? Because if you are not, I am not seeing how you made the jump.

Dude, I've been on either side of that situation more times than I care to count. It didn't determine who my friends were.

And, FYI, I do do "other things" with people I game with. If I couldn't, then I would feel hard pressed providing them with a few bennies otherwise.



> No, I think the idea that buying all the books to lure players so that they don't have to do anything but show up is, according to any reasonable measure of common sense, obviously indicative of a group that is failing in some social aspects.




You are, I must put a fine point on it, wrong. It coulnd be that way, yes. But you do not have enough information to make such a determination.

You could be "buying your friends". Or you could be providing for your mutual enjoyment each according to their means, without feeling of obligation. Either is perfectly plausible. Most of us are big enough boys by now that we can tell when we are being sponged off of and to make our own determinations of who is worth socializing with.



> One exception is, of course, when you're running a game for your kids. But if you have to use the same tactics to run a game for your friends than for your children, you'd probably better ask yourself why, eh?




Which goes precisely to my point: you do not have enough information to make that determination. I don't deal with my friends that way; you are interjecting your own assumptions about the social dynamic. Not that I am in precisely the situation you describe, but I do buy a vast majority of the gaming material, and I only see a shade of difference.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> If it's a question of buying all the stuff to _lure_ in a bunch of players like some kind of pedophile with candy, then you may be right. But nobody here has made any implication that we're buying the books to lure in players. That's your spin on this and your spin alone.
> 
> Some player simply can't afford the same stuff that other people can even though they like to play the same games. End of story. I think it would be far more socially disfunctional to expect everyone to have the same level of financial commitment regardless of financial ability.



 Same here.  My group is made up of two college kids I've known throughout grade and high school, my old HS science teacher and his wife.  The college students have enough trouble paying to live, no less pay for game books.  My old teacher and his wife (who are like the older siblings I never had) have had a lot of financial burdens lately.  They've had to cut way back, even to the point of not buying any games at all anymore, but they still supply the food and the place to play.  I'm in a better place financially, even with a wedding looming for me next summer.  I don't mind buying the books.  It keeps us all together to have a few laughs, some good food, and some great gaming memories.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  Too bad, eyebeams sees this as dysfunctional and unhealthy... 

Kane


----------



## Gnarlo (Jun 29, 2005)

Failed promise? A poor thread that started off interesting and devolved into Whack-a-Troll.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

> Prove it. Give examples. Give us some proof to back up your blanket statements. I ponied up with some examples of why I disliked GWD20, so you do the same.




I gave examples earlier.Want another? AD&D2nd. AD&D2nd was basically build according to the tastes of conservative playtesters. The PO series fulfilled long term fan requests. They stank.

3e was a great game in the parts where Tweet and Cook largely ignored fans, really.



> I can't name D&D fansites right off the top of my head.




Then how did you get here, pray tell?



> What does that prove anyway. Not one single thing. Do the majority of D&D players have a fansite devoted to D&D? Do all the RIFTS players? Do all the V:TM players?




The majority requirement is irrelevant. The fact is, however, that D&D and the World of Darkness have comprehensive independent fan communities. Gamma World didn't. There are no legions of offended fans.



> This point is just silly. GW is a lot of different things to different people.




What is it with all the reductio ad absurdum lately?



> Setting isn't nearly as important as the rules with GW.




Then why is this "Wahoo!" business being mentioned?



> Search the boards, there has been a lot of talk of GW during my time here since ENWorld went live (even a few discussion back at Eric Noah's old boards). Granted the amount of GW chatter is as much as D&D or fantasy D20 talk, but that's more of this being primarily a D&D new site and D&D being exponentially more popular.




Not especially, no. It's because there's no indication that Gamma World was ever that big a deal to begin with.



> The point still stands that GW has always had the absurd wahoo elements. No matter what a few fans or articles tried to make GW into otherwise. I have no idea where you're going with that whole genetic engineering point...




No, the point is that it had absurd elements because the game was haphazardly designed. Saying that it was because of a freewheeling artistic vision that was rediscovered by Tweet reminds me of the quip, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." Saying "Wahoo!" over and over again does not project it backwards in time.



> Prove it. Show us some official numbers. I don't recall hearing word one from S&SS that GW sold out their print run, but I believe that DW2 sold out it's initial print run, plus that doesn't take into account the sales of the pdfs, which I also believe are still pretty brisk.




Show me offical numbers contrariwise. Otherwise, we deal in the known scales and practices of SSS, which are:

1) SSS didn't need to sell its initial print run to sell several times what Darwin's World sells. SSS's print runs are larger than any D20 company except for WotC.

2) Since the late 90s, WW and related companies have had a policy of cancelling any line that sells under its standards. This is a known policy that has been mentioned by Joesph Carricker and others. The company does not coddle its lines and rarely loss-leads.

And as we *do* know, a failure for White Wolf/SSS would usually be a great success for any other compnay but WotC. In short: Even if it totally bombed for SSS, it's likely it still outsold any similar game.

And iven the scale of .pdf sales, they don't even touch print and hardly make a difference. PDFs make money in an entirely different fashion. There's a reason some vendors complained when RPGNow added numbers to their popularity codes -- they were embarrassingly low compared to fan expectations.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> Failed promise? A poor thread that started off interesting and devolved into Whack-a-Troll.




People who are deeply offended that people disagree at all may not find the internet to their liking.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

> Personally, I'll let a player put in as much or as little to the game as they want. Gaming is about having fun, and if they have fun by showing up, sitting down, and playing, then so be it. For some of my players, I hang on to chaaracter sheets, so they can't loose them. I'm willing to take the burden from them, so they can just drive to the game, sit down, and have fun.




If nobody but you is making any meaningful contribution to the table, it's not a good situation. But you aren't in that situation. Your situation is not actually topical to my point.



> I'm having fun buying books I like to read and games I like to run. They're having fun showing up and playing a good game.
> 
> One of the key points here is that I can buy books and never run them, but still get good use. Even if I buy a book and run it for others, I've still had the fun of reading it. Others got use from it (when I run a game), but I get to sit down and read, which justifies the price to me.




No disagreements here.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> Failed promise? A poor thread that started off interesting and devolved into Whack-a-Troll.



 You're right.  None of us should have let eyebeams get under our skin like that.  I am personally sorry for contributing to downward spiral of the thread just due to an insulting troll.  My apologies.  Back to the thread topic at hand.

Kane


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Your situation is not actually topical to my point.



Then perhaps you can expand on what you mean by a situation topical to your point? From what you've said, I think my group would be unhealthy. I buy the vast majority of books, I GM nearly all the time, and the players often show up with nothing more then a will to play. This, from your original arguement, seems like the definition of 'unhealthy.'


----------



## diaglo (Jun 29, 2005)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> Failed promise? A poor thread that started off interesting and devolved into Whack-a-Troll.



how many tickets for the Cthulu plushie?

i can whack a troll with the best of them


----------



## glass (Jun 29, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I can't name D&D fansites right off the top of my head.




Well, there's an obscure little site called EN World.   


glass.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 29, 2005)

It's not D&D, but it is D20 - I thought the original edition of Dark Inheritance left a lot to be desired. It was an interesting idea, but it definitely didn't fit with a lot of the standard D20 Modern stuff.

I've never played the Spycraft version. It might be better - I hope it is, but I have to say that the one product certainly turned me off of the rest of them.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> Well, there's an obscure little site called EN World.
> 
> 
> glass.



 Yeah, I feel a little silly there.  Mostly because I don't consider this as much of a fan site, but a news site.  It's hairsplitting, but oh well.  My goof.  Beyond that, I only know of a few fan sites right off the top of my head.  I just don't spend a lot of time on then except for here.

Kane


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 29, 2005)

In the PDF market, it seems like all the 'Shakespeare' PDFs, desigend to let you play a session/campaign based on a Shakespeare play have all been pretty disspoainting. Not so much a tool for running the play,but an extended summary with a couple of adventure hooks thrown in.

Sorry for the sidetrack.


----------



## EvilGM (Jun 29, 2005)

*Hero Builder's Guidebook* 
Worst. Book. Ever.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 29, 2005)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Well, people, what books have you bought because they sounded way cool, but - when you finally read them - failed to deliver?
> 
> Example: for me, it was Ghostwalk. The premise was brilliant, but I couldn't find a way to logicallay build it into a gameworld, without letting it dominate my homebrew or having to rewrite an "official" setting to accomadate Manifest. Plus, I don't think the idea of the ghosts to PC's and back doesn't quite mesh with standard D&D.
> 
> So, what about you?





The Shady Dragon Inn.

Worst RPG product EVAR


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Same here.  My group is made up of two college kids I've known throughout grade and high school, my old HS science teacher and his wife.  The college students have enough trouble paying to live, no less pay for game books.  My old teacher and his wife (who are like the older siblings I never had) have had a lot of financial burdens lately.  They've had to cut way back, even to the point of not buying any games at all anymore, but they still supply the food and the place to play.  I'm in a better place financially, even with a wedding looming for me next summer.  I don't mind buying the books.  It keeps us all together to have a few laughs, some good food, and some great gaming memories.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  Too bad, eyebeams sees this as dysfunctional and unhealthy...




Really, it means that you aren't in the situation I'm talking about. I'm certainly not recommending that you eschew all generosity.

Does that excuse buying without investigating what you're planning on buying. No, not really.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> You're right.  None of us should have let eyebeams get under our skin like that.  I am personally sorry for contributing to downward spiral of the thread just due to an insulting troll.  My apologies.  Back to the thread topic at hand.
> 
> Kane




Your offense and being disagreed with is not tatamount to being insulted.

The title of this thread is "failed promises." But in fact, many of the comments have little if anything to do with what the company or designers promised you.

Things that *were* promised are functions of commentary by designers, adcopy, and the like.


----------



## Gnarlo (Jun 29, 2005)

My biggest disappointment was RttToEE; I just expected something different than a never-ending slog through that elemental ring dungeon thing.


----------



## Einan (Jun 29, 2005)

I was also pretty disappointed with Dark Inheritance's D20 Modern book.  Such a great idea that never seemed to fulfill.

Also, Manual of the Planes.  It just didn't seem to add anything that I couldn't have made up on my own.

Oh yeah, and the Monster Manual!  Jeez, we get it, you got monsters.  Man.  

Einan


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

Excuse?  Who's asking for a flipping excuse.  Re-read the opening line of the original post: "Well, people, what books have you bought because they sounded way cool, but - when you finally read them - failed to deliver?"

Sometimes the headings on a thread are not 100% the point of the thread, you need to at least read the first post to truly get what the original poster was getting at.  

I bought GWD20 (as well as a few other books) in which I was interested in the premise, but disliked the implementation.  It was a disappointment.  I'm not looking for my money back.  I'm not looking for an apology from the authors.  I just simply stated that I thought it sucked.  You don't like it that I dislike the book so much.  Fine.  Whatever.  Your inane brow-beating isn't going to get me or anyone else who thought it sucked to change our minds.  So just drop it already or at least start in on everyone else on the this thread that listed a book they ended up thinking was a waste.  Sometimes people buy things that aren't what they thought it would be, everyone that listed a book here did that.  Why don't you go after them as well?  Is the GWPHB worth this much grief?  Hell no.

Kane


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Your offense and being disagreed with is not tatamount to being insulted.
> 
> The title of this thread is "failed promises." But in fact, many of the comments have little if anything to do with what the company or designers promised you.
> 
> Things that *were* promised are functions of commentary by designers, adcopy, and the like.




Ah, but what people have complained about wasn't a simple disagreement. It was a comment from you about gaming groups in which one person does all the buying have a bad social dynamic. For those of us who have groups with one predominant buyer and a fine social dynamic, it was, in fact, tantamount to being insulted, especially because you persisted even when contradicted by people who know their own games. 

Now, as far as the comments living up to the title, I see no problems with them. Promises are not merely declarations made by the authors or companies, but also indications of things to come from any source. Hence you get things like "promising young player" based on an athlete's early achievements, or the "promise of spring" based on anything from a thaw, the advancing calendar, or the appearance of geese flying north.
In the case of gaming materials, the promise might be from early industry buzz, an author's previous track record, or the inherent attractiveness of the subject matter. None of these are express declarations of the author or publisher.

And I too would include Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in the list of products that didn't live up to their promise. I would have expected a lot more of Monte Cook and any product that tried to build on the original adventure.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Ah, but what people have complained about wasn't a simple disagreement. It was a comment from you about gaming groups in which one person does all the buying have a bad social dynamic. For those of us who have groups with one predominant buyer and a fine social dynamic, it was, in fact, tantamount to being insulted, especially because you persisted even when contradicted by people who know their own games.




Actually, I persisted after people described situations that didn't resemble what I was talking about, even after reminding them it wasn't what I was talking about. If people choose to see themselves in something I said after repeated warnings to be careful about it, the blame passes from my hands.



> Now, as far as the comments living up to the title, I see no problems with them. Promises are not merely declarations made by the authors or companies, but also indications of things to come from any source. Hence you get things like "promising young player" based on an athlete's early achievements, or the "promise of spring" based on anything from a thaw, the advancing calendar, or the appearance of geese flying north.
> In the case of gaming materials, the promise might be from early industry buzz, an author's previous track record, or the inherent attractiveness of the subject matter. None of these are express declarations of the author or publisher.




A definition of promise that includes vague, unsupported preconceived notions is not one that's amenable to discussion. Again, the reductio ad abrudum. "Bud d00d. Anything could be a promise . . ." Yeah, sure it could. But who cares? If you expected something that the author/publisher did not tell you would be there, then your expectations are unrealistic. The vague conflation of a promise you get from adcopy with the warm fuzzy feeling you get when seeing geese do not have an equal claim on validity.

1)"Reading the entrails of this frog, I was told that 3.5 would be classless! This is an outrage!"

is not the same as

2)"3.5 adcopy said they'd have a classless option, but they don't. This is an outrage!"

but it *is* the same as:

3)"3.5 could have gone classless because of its structure. I wanted that but didn't get it. This is an outrage!"

1 and 3 have about the same argumentative weight. 3 just sounds smarter. 2 (if it existed, which it didn't) would be a legitinmate gripe. 1 and 3 would not. No amount of getting fuzzy over what "promise" means will really change that.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Why? Game publishing is a business. As I noted earlier in this thread, faithfully obeying the desires of the fans has led to either crappy products or failed to really affect sales.




Well, crappy products is, I assume, subjective.  "Failing to really affect sales" is hopelessly unclear - did it fail to affect them, or didn't it?  How much is "really?"  Based on that statement, it had some, apparently nigh-irrelevant, affect.  A fraction of a percent, maybe.  Was that fraction a plus or a minus?



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I suggested the formula I actually suggested. Feel free to respond to it. The fact is that nothing excuses indiscriminate purchases.




 

Good gracious, I didn't know I had to have an Excuse for my purchases!  Not that they're indiscriminate, anyway; I buy stuff almost exclusively for market research, and not much at that.

Not to mention the fact that you're misquoting yourself.  You explicitly said that favoring the wishes of fans would make a product sell less.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> What allows stuff you don't like to proliferate is mostly your willingness to buy said stuff. The fannish desire to have everything with a brand name first on the block, no matter its content, is a long term burden.




Spelljammer is the sole brand I ever bought for the name, and last I checked, no one was even producing crap for it.  I'd gladly take crap over nothing.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you keep buying what you think is crap, I can't think of a single company that would be unwilling to continue to sell you said crap.




I can't either... well, sort of.  Any company that would produce what it considers crap obviously has no self-respect, and any company with self-respect wouldn't produce something it considers crap.

On the other hand, I can think of many companies, among them Green Ronin, Privateer Press, Malhavoc Press, White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast, who produce products that some people consider crap, and perhaps still purchase, but which they consider high-quality.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually:
> 
> 1) Gamma World's "fanbase" looked pretty miniscule to me. I didn't see a preponderance of GW fanpages before any kind of adaptation. How many of you can name one off the top of your head, without googling? I also note that nobody here has really ever discussed GW's setting, either -- awfully curious for such a "die-hard" fanbase never to talk about anything specific about the game.
> 
> ...




Wouldn't know.  Never played Gamma World, nor had much interest in it.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Considering what again? Oh -- you mean, "Considering that a dozen or guys on a few fora complain about GWD20 and I would like to think that has some sort of connection to economic reality."
> 
> It doesn't. Sorry.
> 
> ...




Never bought GWd20, couldn't care less about it.

If it was a big seller, then perhaps SSS made the correct decision with it.  My understanding was that it failed from a financial perspective as well.  I saw it in stores briefly, it apparently sold over time, and they never bothered to get more.  It never saw any splatbooks or adventures or monster books, to the best of my knowledge.  Considering the number of lines that received more support (including, off the top of my head, d20 only, non-WotC: M&M, Warcraft, AU/AE, Conan, Babylon 5, DragonMech, Iron Kingdoms, DragonStar, Spycraft, L5R, Scarred Lands, Kingdoms of Kalamar, Dragonlance, Nyambe, Midnight, Slaine and Everquest), I figured it for a flop.

I'd seen Darwin's World once, didn't care about it one way or another, and never saw it again, so that doesn't surprise me.

However, I know quite a few of Mongoose's books have continued printings, so you're wrong about that.  IIRC, Green Ronin, Privateer and Malhavoc have all had multiple printings, and I'm sure there's others.  Certainly White Wolf's WoD, various Palladium products and GURPS have had multiple printings.  I guess GWd20 wasn't 'orders of magnitude' greater than anything not from Wizards of the Coast. :muchmissedrolleyessmiley: 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'm having trouble parsing this, because you can't define how "faithful" GWD20 is compared to Omega World without making a claim about how faithful Omega World was in the first place.
> 
> Omega World was quite nice, but its relationship to Gamma World was pretty much like any tale about the "good old days" -- more grounded in sentiment than reality. Gamma World was a game without a central thesis and with a generally shoddy design where quick character death was easy to come by. Omega World is Jonothan Tweet's rather clever portrayal of how you actually played it -- since most of you were at most, 14 at the time, you played it with the feel of the cheeseball games people play when they're 14 or so.




I can't speak for Mr. Tweet or, indeed, GW's fanbase, since I never played the game, am not a fan of it, and know Mr. Tweet by reputation only.

I can, however, say that appealing to sentiment is damned fine marketing, and a lot better than appealing to what something may or may not have actually been, but apparently few people remember it as.

I can also say that at 14, I was not playing cheeseball games, at least by the standards you've defined.

I assume, judging from your comments, that you were neither 14 at the time, nor did you like the wahoo or cheeseball style games of Gamma World, but that, in point of fact, you were a fan of the opposite style of Gamma World.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Plus, Omega World was one of only a handful of rebooted minigames. And it's being compared to Spelljammer? Spelljammer's first incarnation bombed so badly it was left as fodder for Roger E. Moore's random jokes, making print because TSR printed pretty much anything.




You be dissin' the 'Jammer, foo?  And dissin' ROGER MOORE?  In the SAME SENTENCE?

 

I shouldn't have bothered arguing with you in the first place, sir; yours is a level of bad taste so alien, so unutterable, so eldritch, so cacodaemonical, so non-Euclidean - so cosmically horrific as to defy the very existence of a sane reality!


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 29, 2005)

Cut it out, people! This discussion stops right here. If you want to continue it, you're all perfectly able to open a new thread about it. This one has been derailed enough.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Well, crappy products is, I assume, subjective.  "Failing to really affect sales" is hopelessly unclear - did it fail to affect them, or didn't it?  How much is "really?"  Based on that statement, it had some, apparently nigh-irrelevant, affect.  A fraction of a percent, maybe.  Was that fraction a plus or a minus?




It fails to significantly affect sales when people buy something without seeing whether or not they would actually like it. Buying something because of a brand and not because of content is an example of this.



> Good gracious, I didn't know I had to have an Excuse for my purchases!  Not that they're indiscriminate, anyway; I buy stuff almost exclusively for market research, and not much at that.




If you don't impulsively buy something to collect or out of brand affiliation, you are obviously not representative of what I'm talking about.



> Not to mention the fact that you're misquoting yourself.  You explicitly said that favoring the wishes of fans would make a product sell less.




Sure, if it's at the expense of creating broad appeal for a book. And actually, you were misquoting me. I welcome responses to what I actually wrote, instead of a reworked paraphrasing.



> Spelljammer is the sole brand I ever bought for the name, and last I checked, no one was even producing crap for it.  I'd gladly take crap over nothing.




I think this is a problem, too. In my opinion, no product is better than bad product.



> I can't either... well, sort of.  Any company that would produce what it considers crap obviously has no self-respect, and any company with self-respect wouldn't produce something it considers crap.
> 
> On the other hand, I can think of many companies, among them Green Ronin, Privateer Press, Malhavoc Press, White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast, who produce products that some people consider crap, and perhaps still purchase, but which they consider high-quality.




I think most companies realize that they don't bat 1.000. But the best way to help them realize that is to exercise care in purchases, look, research and talk to people you trust before you buy. Inevitably, this means that someone will take the plunge first, but *no* method of buying wisely is absolutely perfect, and what I'm talking about trumps buying blindly any day.

To bring it back to the topic: If you don't want "failed promises," don't make *yourself* promises about what a book will be like that you can't back with evidence.



> If it was a big seller, then perhaps SSS made the correct decision with it.  My understanding was that it failed from a financial perspective as well.  I saw it in stores briefly, it apparently sold over time, and they never bothered to get more.  It never saw any splatbooks or adventures or monster books, to the best of my knowledge.




As I mentioned, a failure for SSS would be considered a success for many other companies. But as a matter of fact, it did have a monster book: Mutants and Machines, and a splatbook: Cryptic Alliances and Unknown Enemies.



> Considering the number of lines that received more support (including, off the top of my head, d20 only, non-WotC: M&M, Warcraft, AU/AE, Conan, Babylon 5, DragonMech, Iron Kingdoms, DragonStar, Spycraft, L5R, Scarred Lands, Kingdoms of Kalamar, Dragonlance, Nyambe, Midnight, Slaine and Everquest), I figured it for a flop.




The line had 6 releases -- that's more than several of your examples. My point, though, was that for all the complaints, it still is the most popular line in its niche.



> However, I know quite a few of Mongoose's books have continued printings, so you're wrong about that.  IIRC, Green Ronin, Privateer and Malhavoc have all had multiple printings, and I'm sure there's others.  Certainly White Wolf's WoD, various Palladium products and GURPS have had multiple printings.  I guess GWd20 wasn't 'orders of magnitude' greater than anything not from Wizards of the Coast. :muchmissedrolleyessmiley:




Of course, I was referring to comparable products, not every non-WW/SSS book in existence.



> I can't speak for Mr. Tweet or, indeed, GW's fanbase, since I never played the game, am not a fan of it, and know Mr. Tweet by reputation only.
> 
> I can, however, say that appealing to sentiment is damned fine marketing, and a lot better than appealing to what something may or may not have actually been, but apparently few people remember it as.




No argument there, but it also means that claims about being "True to Gamma World" are pretty much invalid.



> You be dissin' the 'Jammer, foo?  And dissin' ROGER MOORE?  In the SAME SENTENCE?
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldn't have bothered arguing with you in the first place, sir; yours is a level of bad taste so alien, so unutterable, so eldritch, so cacodaemonical, so non-Euclidean - so cosmically horrific as to defy the very existence of a sane reality!




They were fine jokes. Roger E. Moore is a funny guy. But they got in there because nobody really cared about the setting.


----------



## Belen (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It fails to significantly affect sales when people buy something without seeing whether or not they would actually like it. Buying something because of a brand and not because of content is an example of this.




This thread has gone so far past the intended topic that it is now rounding the M31 Galaxy.  No offence guys, but I think you're arguments are have the unstoppable force versus immovable object scenario.  Neither side is willing to budge.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> This thread has gone so far past the intended topic that it is now rounding the M31 Galaxy.  No offence guys, but I think you're arguments are have the unstoppable force versus immovable object scenario.  Neither side is willing to budge.




Which I'm finding amusing as hell, because one participant in the argument has been working in the industry for quite a while, and knows what he's talking about, and the others have anecdotal evidence that they think somehow puts them on equal footing.

So, in other words:  Pretty much par for the course for every industry-related internet argument, ever.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It fails to significantly affect sales when people buy something without seeing whether or not they would actually like it. Buying something because of a brand and not because of content is an example of this.




Fair 'nough.  I would like to see market research to back up your belief that this blind fan loyalty 'really affects sales.'  Many products have fans who actually do like them.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you don't impulsively buy something to collect or out of brand affiliation, you are obviously not representative of what I'm talking about.




I never claimed to be representative of what you're talking about.  Rather, as a neutral party, I considered your views on the matter wrong.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Sure, if it's at the expense of creating broad appeal for a book. And actually, you were misquoting me. I welcome responses to what I actually wrote, instead of a reworked paraphrasing.




Actually, I responded to a quote specifically from one of your posts.  

You'd previously stated the point in the manner you do here, and the manner I did in my post - catering to fans at the expense of broad appeal is a mistake.  However, the specific post to which I responded didn't make that clear.

Either way, I've yet to see evidence of said broad appeal in the specific instance (but see below), or a response to my claim that what made fans in the first place might generate new ones.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think this is a problem, too. In my opinion, no product is better than bad product.




I really couldn't say how I feel about this, generally.  Some bad products sully what went before and offer nothing new.  Some sully the past but offer something new.  Still others don't do any harm but offer nothing new.  Some are bad but still provide new content worth adapting or fixing.

I generally find it easier to fix than to make from scratch, so I'd rather see the last type than nothing.

There's also the matter of HOW bad something is.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think most companies realize that they don't bat 1.000. But the best way to help them realize that is to exercise care in purchases, look, research and talk to people you trust before you buy. Inevitably, this means that someone will take the plunge first, but *no* method of buying wisely is absolutely perfect, and what I'm talking about trumps buying blindly any day.
> 
> To bring it back to the topic: If you don't want "failed promises," don't make *yourself* promises about what a book will be like that you can't back with evidence.




Probably true.

D&Dg is a fair example.  Perhaps I shouldn't have expected Epic compatibility; it wasn't advertised anywhere.

BESM d20 is an example of something that specifically promised to translate Tri-Stat BESM to d20 and to work for anime d20 roleplaying... and basically failed, IMO.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> As I mentioned, a failure for SSS would be considered a success for many other companies. But as a matter of fact, it did have a monster book: Mutants and Machines, and a splatbook: Cryptic Alliances and Unknown Enemies.
> 
> The line had 6 releases -- that's more than several of your examples. My point, though, was that for all the complaints, it still is the most popular line in its niche.




Wow... I never saw any of those splatbooks!    I never imagined the line was that extensive.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Of course, I was referring to comparable products, not every non-WW/SSS book in existence.




That was unclear.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> No argument there, but it also means that claims about being "True to Gamma World" are pretty much invalid.




Not really.  Tales of the good old days matter far more than the actual good old days, because the tales are sentimental (and hence can be marketed to) and potentially instructional (and hence have societal value, though I doubt that applies to Gamma World).



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> They were fine jokes. Roger E. Moore is a funny guy. But they got in there because nobody really cared about the setting.




Nobody, eh?  That's flatly wrong.  I know of at least one person who cared about the setting far more than any other game product ever released - yours truly.

However, as long as you weren't dissing Roger Moore, I suppose I can tolerate your misguided thoughts on Spelljammer.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, I persisted after people described situations that didn't resemble what I was talking about, even after reminding them it wasn't what I was talking about. If people choose to see themselves in something I said after repeated warnings to be careful about it, the blame passes from my hands.




You actually repeated the commentary about social dysfunction more than once (posts 178, 188, 195, 207 in which you specifically said something that Kanegrundar took as a direct insult... with good reason, 230, and 233) before you made vague statements about people's descriptions didn't match what you were talking about (first post with that caveat #236), without really elaborating on what you were, in reality, talking about.
Just how are we supposed to take your comments? You are responsible for your own comments.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> A definition of promise that includes vague, unsupported preconceived notions is not one that's amenable to discussion. Again, the reductio ad abrudum. "Bud d00d. Anything could be a promise . . ." Yeah, sure it could. But who cares? If you expected something that the author/publisher did not tell you would be there, then your expectations are unrealistic. The vague conflation of a promise you get from adcopy with the warm fuzzy feeling you get when seeing geese do not have an equal claim on validity.
> 
> <snip>




It is, nevertheless, clear from the very first post on this topic that it was the 'fuzzy' promise that was germaine to the topic. A product that "sounded way cool" doesn't sound to me like like being way cool was explicitly promised. And reading frog entrails or other straw men has nothing to do with it since I already mentioned other means of assessing a product's promise (industry buzz, track record of author, inherent interest in subject matter).


----------



## Belen (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Which I'm finding amusing as hell, because one participant in the argument has been working in the industry for quite a while, and knows what he's talking about, and the others have anecdotal evidence that they think somehow puts them on equal footing.
> 
> So, in other words:  Pretty much par for the course for every industry-related internet argument, ever.




A bit annoying in this case as it started out as an interesting thread.  I like to hear what others thought about books that have purchased.

For instance, I bought Dragonlords of Melnibourne, which was godawful, and it is good to know I was not the only sucker.  

Then again, I am one of those people who purchase first and get disappointed later.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2005)

I was too, until I started working harder at checking books out from the library first. It's how I usually review WotC publications now. It's why I didn't bother buying the Monster Manual III. I checked it out, read over it, and decided that there simply weren't enough monsters in it that would add to my campaign. So I didn't buy it.

Unfortunately, the library system doesn't stock many other game systems.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

Being a professional in the industry doesn't give anyone the right to make wild accusations on how any group is ran, the way people buy their books, and if they got disappointed in a book excersising their right to tell others about how much they thought the book stank  (the actual point to the whole thread, which he missed).

Kane


----------



## diaglo (Jun 29, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Being a professional in the industry doesn't give anyone the right to make wild accusations on how any group is ran, the way people buy their books, and if they got disappointed in a book excersising their right to tell others about how much they thought the book stank  (the actual point to the whole thread, which he missed).
> 
> Kane



i don't think Erik Mona said any of that.


----------



## Belen (Jun 29, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Being a professional in the industry doesn't give anyone the right to make wild accusations on how any group is ran, the way people buy their books, and if they got disappointed in a book excersising their right to tell others about how much they thought the book stank  (the actual point to the whole thread, which he missed).
> 
> Kane




So forgive my ignorance, but who is the professional?


----------



## Gomez (Jun 29, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I shouldn't have bothered arguing with you in the first place, sir; yours is a level of bad taste so alien, so unutterable, so eldritch, so cacodaemonical, so non-Euclidean - so cosmically horrific as to defy the very existence of a sane reality!





That sir is a quotable line for a signature if I ever saw one!   

Bravo!


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

I wasn't referring to EM.  I thought that Gareth was referring to eyebeams as an industry professional.  I could be wrong.  If so, I meant no ill to Erik.  

Kane


----------



## diaglo (Jun 29, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I wasn't referring to EM.  I thought that Gareth was referring to eyebeams as an industry professional.  I could be wrong.  If so, I meant no ill to Erik.
> 
> Kane




if he is an industry professional...

well... i'm glad my hat of d02 knows no limits.


----------



## Gomez (Jun 29, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I was too, until I started working harder at checking books out from the library first. It's how I usually review WotC publications now. It's why I didn't bother buying the Monster Manual III. I checked it out, read over it, and decided that there simply weren't enough monsters in it that would add to my campaign. So I didn't buy it.
> 
> Unfortunately, the library system doesn't stock many other game systems.




The first rpg game that I ever GM'd was _Metamorphosis Alpha_ in which I had checked out from my junior high library!   

And if it matters any, I purchased the Gamma World d20 book in advance just on the brand name alone. Of coarse, I sold it at a half price book store one week later. So Sad!


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

I've held onto GWD20 to see if any of it will work well within the framework set forth in D20 Future and Apocalypse.  I'm re-writing a few of the mutations, and then I'm selling it this weekend.  I'll put that credit towards more minis or the new edition of Runebound.

Kane


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2005)

This is what I've heard so far. This thread is about "Failed Promises." But, according to various posters, a promise:

1) Could be an actual designer's promise or adcopy.

2) Could be something you came up with off the top of your head for no particular reason.

It's failed to live up to a brand identity when:

1) It doesn't fit what the brand was like.
2) It doesn't your recollection of what the brand was like.
3) It doesn't fit what somebody else told you the brand was like, but you liked hearing.

To respond to this you should:

1) Make your purchases carefully.
2) Buy everything anyway, because it is impossible for you to ever buy something using reasonable discretion.
3) Buy everything anyway, because even if you're careful, you still might make a mistake, so it's better not to try at all than to try a bit.

When I said one person should not shoulder all the financial burdens of the group, it meant:

1) One person shouldn't buy all the books, all the time.
2) Hey, one person in *my* group doesn't have a book I use. I am offended!
3) Hey, I buy a few more books than other people in my group. I am offended!
4) Hey, I have some books another guy in my group doesn't have. I am offended!

A game company measures  a book's success:
1) Through sales backed by statistical research.
2) When somebody complains about a book they bought anyway on the Internet.
3) When somebody complains about a book they not only buy but *use(http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=137092)* on the Internet.
4) Whatever guesses people have about how well its doing.

I believe this is a reasonable conflation of the statements here. Feel free to decide which ones are reasonable positions, which ones are poppycock, and how some of you might reconcile either with what you've been saying.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 29, 2005)

I picked up GW D20 in my FLGS with the intent to buy it...but its festering evil burned the flesh from my hands. I dropped it and ran from the store, but not before my failure to recite the sacred words resulted in an army of deadites rising from their unquiet graves to feast upon the living!  

...or something like that...

But its poor quality did burn me so much that I didn't buy it. That much is absolutely true....


----------



## Psion (Jun 29, 2005)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> Failed promise? A poor thread that started off interesting and devolved into Whack-a-Troll.




Well, it's a product bashing thread, which invariably turns to taste bashing and value judgements. I'm not of the mind it was headed to stellar heights to begin with.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, it's a product bashing thread, which invariable turns to taste bashing and value judgements. I'm not of the mind it was headed to stellar heights to begin with.




Dingdingdingdingdinggg!!!

Give that man a cee-gar!


----------



## Pants (Jun 29, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, it's a product bashing thread, which invariable turns to taste bashing and value judgements. I'm not of the mind it was headed to stellar heights to begin with.



Well, it remained civil for 5 pages or so.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> Well, it remained civil for 5 pages or so.




Unless, say, you were one of the writers of a product that was being bashed.....


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 29, 2005)

Biggest Failed Promise: this thread. I thought there was going to be intelligent disussion.


----------



## Psion (Jun 29, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> Well, it remained civil for 5 pages or so.




And dad was sober for TWO weeks...


----------



## Gomez (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's failed to live up to a brand identity when:
> 
> 1) It doesn't fit what the brand was like.
> 2) It doesn't fit your recollection of what the brand was like.




Which is very true of my experience with GW d20 in addition to being a piss poor effort. IMHO!




> To respond to this you should:
> 
> 1) Make your purchases carefully.
> 2) Buy everything anyway, because it is impossible for you to ever buy something using reasonable discretion.
> 3) Buy everything anyway, because even if you're careful, you still might make a mistake, so it's better not to try at all than to try a bit.




Well I guess I am the _Village Idiot_ that bought a book before I had a chance to thoroughly research it or wait for 5 or 6 reviews to come out. Just because I am a fan of the genre and game. But that does not prohibit me from critiquing the said material or making my feelings know. I like to discuss on this board if I liked a gaming product or not. Heck, I have bought books that I never will never to use in a game setting but because I LIKE gaming in general and would like to just read the sucker!


----------



## Pants (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Unless, say, you were one of the writers of a product that was being bashed.....



Most of which were WotC products 

Still, not to sound mean or anything, but anyone who sells a product should be prepared for bashing, whether it's through inane, fanboy comments or well-thought out reviews. If I ever start writing, then I'll just unplug the internet connection to my computer, I'm not sure I'd be able to take the bashing.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> Still, not to sound mean or anything, but anyone who sells a product should be prepared for bashing, whether it's through inane, fanboy comments or well-thought out reviews.




So, in other words, being insulting is OK, but only if you're insulting to a writer...because they're asking for it.

Nice.


For what it's worth, I didn't do any work on any of the products mentioned, nor, as far as I know, did eyebeams.    I just wanted to point out that one man's "critique" is another man's insult....something that *everybody* should be more aware of.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> So, in other words, being insulting is OK, but only if you're insulting to a writer...because they're asking for it.
> 
> Nice.




Of course not!

Editors are _much_ more deserving targets.


----------



## Gomez (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> So, in other words, being insulting is OK, but only if you're insulting to a writer...because they're asking for it.
> 
> Nice.
> 
> ...




Well Mr. Sharka,

 I have wanted to get this off my chest of ages. As for your product, _Skull and Bones_, it has to be one of the most......Brilliant.....pieces of gaming material that I have ever bought! I loved it and I really appreciate you and the others that worked on it! 


Plus I am really looking at getting your _Thrilling Tales_ stuff too! It looks GREAT!!


so there!


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> So, in other words, being insulting is OK, but only if you're insulting to a writer...because they're asking for it.
> <snip>
> 
> I just wanted to point out that one man's "critique" is another man's insult....something that *everybody* should be more aware of.




He didn't say it was OK. He said that they should be prepared for it. After all, it will happen. 

There's a difference between honest critique and blantant insult. Writers who are the targets of honest and respectful critique should take the responsibility to accept it in stride. People who blatantly insult should take the responsibility to acknowledge what they are doing.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

Which is why writers (or anyone else in the public eye) need to have thick skin.  Sure, some comments might be a bit below the belt.  Especially in an industry that is very much based on people's *perceptions* of the product and one where the perceptions can be very charged emotionally.  Whether or not those perceptions are valid is up for debate.  (That debate would likely end up much like this thread has.  )  If an author can't take the criticism or outright bashing, then maybe he should stick to merely writing fan material.  That way he/she can tell them to pike off since the person complaining didn't pay for the product in the first place.

Kane


----------



## Psion (Jun 29, 2005)

Gomez said:
			
		

> I have wanted to get this off my chest of ages. As for your product, _Skull and Bones_, it has to be one of the most......Brilliant.....pieces of gaming material that I have ever bought! I loved it and I really appreciate you and the others that worked on it!




It does quite rock, doesn't it?

_/me fights off the temptation to run yet ANOTHER one-off game at GenCon._


----------



## Gomez (Jun 29, 2005)

*Inigo Montoya:* Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father and slandered my new RPG prepare to die. Now, offer me money. 
[slices Count Rugen's cheek] 
*Count Rugen:* Yes. 
*Inigo Montoya:* Power too. Promise me that. 
[slices Count Rugen's other cheek] 
*Count Rugen:* All that I have and more. Please... 
*Inigo Montoya:* Offer me a 5 star review on EN World. 
*Count Rugen:* Any thing you want. 
*Inigo Montoya:* I want my father back and a 3 year writing deal with WOTC, you son of bitch.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2005)

While I don't always agree with Gareth, I do have to agree that Adamant's work has been top notch on every product I've picked up.  It's all good stuff from Skull and Bones to all the D20 Modern material.

Kane


----------



## Pants (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> So, in other words, being insulting is OK, but only if you're insulting to a writer...because they're asking for it.



Wait... so saying that 'X book is bad' or 'that I didn't care for X book' insults the writer? Odd. 
I always thought that saying 'X writer sucks and should never write again lest the infinitesimile hordes of hell crawl up his nether regions and do not nice things to his innards' was insulting to the writer

You need to seperate the work from the person.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> As for Midnight, I never felt that it was unwinnable, just not winnable in a single character's lifetime, except maybe a very young elf's.




I've read a WHOLE lot of "What is an RPG" blurbs in my time, and I can't think of one that says "RPGs are a game with a winner and a loser." In fact, I can't think of one that *didn't* say "RPGs aren't a game with a winner and a loser." So when I hear "Midnight can't be beat" it makes me wonder if the person's talking about a computer game or something.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I believe this is a reasonable conflation of the statements here. Feel free to decide which ones are reasonable positions, which ones are poppycock, and how some of you might reconcile either with what you've been saying.




Can I just declare your post poppycock so the discussion can get back on track?


----------



## Prince Atom (Jun 29, 2005)

I can't think of any books I've ever bought that I just thought stunk, but here's a list of books that I picked up, read (or leafed) through once, and haven't picked up again...

Deities & Demigods (meh)
Return to the Temple etc.
GURPS Voodoo
GURPS Faerie
GURPS Spirits
RIFTS
Palladium Fantasy

On a related note, I have been highly disappointed with the quality of the binding in GURPS 4th edition.  I haven't had my Basic Set:  Characters for a year, and it's already falling apart!  The old stuff is much better bound; and really, I could do without the gloss paper and full-color art.

Now, some folks on this discussion might say that I should have considered the quality of the binding before I paid for it.  I think this is a legitimate complaint, because their prior quality of construction led me to believe that their new line would be just as well-bound.  Before anyone says that I can't compare softbound books (i.e., GURPS High-Tech) to hardbound books (GURPS Basic Set, 4th Edition), I'd like to say that my hard-bound GURPS Basic Set, 3rd Edition, Revised has taken a lot more thumbing-through, and I haven't even broken the spine or torn a page!

Sacrificing quality of books for flash and glamour is not a good choice.  If it comes down to my having to buy another Basic Set because my old one fell apart under treatment that my other books have taken for years (quite mild treatment, I daresay), then I'm afraid Steve Jackson might have to do without any more of my money.

TWK


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Unless, say, you were one of the writers of a product that was being bashed.....




That's what I was thinking.  But, one thing I can't do is make people smarter.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Unless, say, you were one of the writers of a product that was being bashed.....




Saying "I was disappointed with a product" is not being uncivil.


----------



## Pants (Jun 29, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> That's what I was thinking.  But, one thing I can't do is make people smarter.



I've heard that a shovel works marvellously in situations like these...


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Saying "I was disappointed with a product" is not being uncivil.




No, but ranting irrationally about one for pages on end just makes you an internet kook.


----------



## Psion (Jun 29, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I've read a WHOLE lot of "What is an RPG" blurbs in my time, and I can't think of one that says "RPGs are a game with a winner and a loser." In fact, I can't think of one that *didn't* say "RPGs aren't a game with a winner and a loser." So when I hear "Midnight can't be beat" it makes me wonder if the person's talking about a computer game or something.




I think you are conflating two different things here. I think that you and I both know that when we speak of winners and losers, we speak of participants as adversaries, which in an RPG they typically are not. That says little to nothing about whether or not you can prevail against the villain of the setting in your lifetime. That's not a participant adversary situation; that's a setting design choice.

It's just a preference. I deal with the same thing when I hear people complain they can't change anything on the galactic stage in a huge setting like Traveller. But it's as valid a preference as any.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> No, but ranting irrationally about one for pages on end just makes you an internet kook.




I'm only really seeing one person doing that.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm only really seeing one person doing that.




Ok.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think you are conflating two different things here. I think that you and I both know that when we speak of winners and losers, we speak of participants as adversaries, which in an RPG they typically are not. That says little to nothing about whether or not you can prevail against the villain of the setting in your lifetime. That's not a participant adversary situation; that's a setting design choice.
> 
> It's just a preference. I deal with the same thing when I hear people complain they can't change anything on the galactic stage in a huge setting like Traveller. But it's as valid a preference as any.




I don't believe settings establish villains to be overcome; adventures do that.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

Gomez said:
			
		

> I have wanted to get this off my chest of ages. As for your product, _Skull and Bones_, it has to be one of the most......Brilliant.....pieces of gaming material that I have ever bought! I loved it and I really appreciate you and the others that worked on it!
> 
> 
> Plus I am really looking at getting your _Thrilling Tales_ stuff too! It looks GREAT!!
> ...




You heartless BASTARD!

How DARE you!!!


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 29, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> Still, not to sound mean or anything, but anyone who sells a product should be prepared for bashing, whether it's through inane, fanboy comments or well-thought out reviews.




I agree with this sentiment 150%.  

When you buy a product you buy a ticket to praise it to the skies or burn it to the ground as you see fit as it was your dollar.  You buy the right along with the product.

Designers unable to stand the heat need to avoid the kitchen.  If they are looking for uncritical acceptance, to borrow a phrase - get a dog.  

The internet is a known quantity as regards "discussion" and "criticism."  Enter at your own risk.  Nothing says criticism must adhere to some standard of "fairness" or "objectivity."  The best criticism will be of the constructive variety but most will fall short of the "ideal," particularly as gaming is a hobby in which many "invest" at a personal level and as taste is so subjective in any event.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I agree with this sentiment 150%.
> 
> When you buy a product you buy a ticket to praise it to the skies or burn it to the ground as you see fit as it was your dollar. You buy the right along with the product.




Nobody's talking about rights, but retards. Just because you have a ticket doesn't mean you aren't a retard. Reasonable or intelligent criticism is good, unreasonable or unintelligent criticism deserves to be mocked. (And misguided criticism deserves attention, discussion, and correction. There's definitely room for different tastes, but erroneously calling a product bad because of your own...limitations...isn't a fair criticism and should be addressed.)


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Saying "I was disappointed with a product" is not being uncivil.




No, but:


" it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! "
"crappy "
"The biggest stinker for me"
"the twin abominations...."
"I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision...."
"fills me with dread..."
"Horrible horrible book."
"It did, in fact, suck worse than the previews suggested."
 (Product) "was crap."

...and that's just from the first two pages.

Hardly what anyone would call civil.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Designers unable to stand the heat need to avoid the kitchen.  If they are looking for uncritical acceptance, to borrow a phrase - get a dog.




I'm not talking about uncritical acceptance....I'm talking about treating designers like they're people, and not the shadowed memories of bullies from your past that you feel the need to demonstrate your superiority over by lambasting them with Kewl Insults on Teh Intarweb.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> So, in other words, being insulting is OK, but only if you're insulting to a writer...because they're asking for it.




Depends, I think.

Hypothetical.  Setting X canon says the sky is blue.  Writer Y does a product for Setting X and says the sky is orange without explanation.

One can, I think, legitimately criticise the work for failing to adhere to canon for Setting X.

One can also, I think, legitimately criticise the writer for sloppy design that defeated expectations for Setting X without rationale.

Writers have ownership of what they write - and you can criticize BOTH legitimately in the right circumstances.

IMO


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Writers have ownership of what they write - and you can criticize BOTH legitimately in the right circumstances.




Pay close attention:   criticism DOES NOT EQUAL insults.   They are two different things.

Criticism is fine, when based in reality.   "THIS PRODUCT SUXX0RZ & TEH WRITAR IS CRAP" is not.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 29, 2005)

DMH said:
			
		

> Midnight. I knew it was going to be depressing, but I thought there would be some way to win.




Now that's an odd comment. 

Midnight's whole raison d'etre is that Evil has already "run the ball in for the big win". Every bit of literature I've ever read about Midnight made it pretty clear (to my mind) that that's what the setting was soffering.

How that qualifies as a "Failed promise" is a bit beyond me.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about uncritical acceptance....I'm talking about treating designers like they're people, and not the shadowed memories of bullies from your past that you feel the need to demonstrate your superiority over by lambasting them with Kewl Insults on Teh Intarweb.




No argument - everyone should be treated like they are people.   Even demi-humans and humanoids.  

However, when a writer invests in their work and a gamer invests in the game and the specific product, I think it can be a fine line between legitimate comment and insult, with both sides as likely to step over the line at a percieved slight.

Sure.  The critical gamer should try to keep it civil.  So should the writer.  I've seen both fail to do so, each with a palpable sense of entitlement.  Nobodies entitled to anything.  You earn whatever.

IMO


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> No argument - everyone should be treated like they are people. Even demi-humans and humanoids.
> 
> However, when a writer invests in their work and a gamer invests in the game and the specific product, I think it can be a fine line between legitimate comment and insult, with both sides as likely to step over the line at a percieved slight.
> 
> ...




In my experience, writers and designers handle criticism of their work better than internet badasses handle criticism of their complaints.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 29, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I've read a WHOLE lot of "What is an RPG" blurbs in my time, and I can't think of one that says "RPGs are a game with a winner and a loser." In fact, I can't think of one that *didn't* say "RPGs aren't a game with a winner and a loser." So when I hear "Midnight can't be beat" it makes me wonder if the person's talking about a computer game or something.




Oh piffle! (I have often wanted to use that line.) What is being discussed, both by me and by the person who was disappinted by Midnight, is the central conflict of the campaign. Much like an RPG set during the Great War has a conflict, and it is the conflict, not the game that is being described as winnable or unwinnable.

The original commentor (I am too lazy to look up his name) feels that the _conflict_ is not able to be won by the faction that the PCs represent, while I feel that it is winnable, but the work of more than one generation. (The line that I was thinking of when contemplating a Midnight campain was 3 or 4 generations, about 60-80 years.)

And you honestly have never heard a player say 'we beat that adventure'? I have. While the DM has not lost the scenario has been beaten.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 29, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> In my experience, writers and designers handle criticism of their work better than internet badasses handle criticism of their complaints.




That's it Upchurch, you're dead!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No, but:
> 
> 
> " it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! "
> ...




Generalize much?  

None of those fall outside the realm of criticism I would expect from fellow gamers over something I did, voluntarily, with no pay whatsoever, for a fan site or homebrew.  In fact, I've heard far, far worse and never thought twice about it.  That includes 'in person,' by the way, so this isn't some Internet thing.

For a product someone paid me to write?  Or that I published myself?

I would expect nothing less from people who didn't like it!  Would I be disappointed to hear it didn't click for them?  Sure.  Would I be offended?  Heck no.

The only problem I have with most of those criticisms (but not most of the complete posts from whence they came) is that they aren't terribly constructive.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 29, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> ...And you honestly have never heard a player say 'we beat that adventure'? I have. While the DM has not lost the scenario has been beaten.




Um...dude...



			
				d20dwarf a page back said:
			
		

> ...I don't believe settings establish villains to be overcome; adventures do that...


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> And you honestly have never heard a player say 'we beat that adventure'? I have. While the DM has not lost the scenario has been beaten.




Of course. I said earlier adventures are written to be "beaten," while campaign settings are not.  

Nowhere in Midnight is the promise of defeating Izrador even hinted at, much less stated as a goal of the product. That's what I'm trying to correct...there is no promise there.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 29, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Pay close attention: criticism DOES NOT EQUAL insults. They are two different things.




  I'll try. 

Yes.  They are two different things.  Differentiating between the two can, however, be problematic.

In the hypothetical I set out, supra, criticism of the writer's unexplained disregard for the canon of Setting X would be difficult to "depersonalize."  Any writer, one might imagine, would have the opportunity to aquaint themself with the canon.  If they either did not or held it in such low regard that they felt free to disregard it without explaination, any criticism of the writer along such a line will have an inevitable personal component, I think, that will be very hard keep distinct from a percieved "insult." 

Criticism and insult are different things but they may "overlap" at times or all but, given the right circumstances - and yet may be legitimate.  Calling "insult" at criticism that looks to the writer's responsibility for what they write is a cheap trick.

IMO


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 29, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> In my experience, writers and designers handle criticism of their work better than internet badasses handle criticism of their complaints.




We won't name names.    Its a two way street.  Nobody rides for free.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 29, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> In the hypothetical I set out, supra, criticism of the writer's unexplained disregard for the canon of Setting X would be difficult to "depersonalize."  Any writer, one might imagine, would have the opportunity to aquaint themself with the canon.  If they either did not or held it in such low regard that they felt free to disregard it without explaination, any criticism of the writer along such a line will have an inevitable personal component, I think, that will be very hard keep distinct from a percieved "insult."




However, at the core of that criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this industry operates.    The criticism leveled at the writer is an insult, because he (or she) is being blamed for the decisions of editors, line developers and publishers. 

Writers don't make these decisions.  They write.   Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given.

Besides which, you'd be hard pressed to defend "it's crap" or "YUCK!" or "abomination" as a reasonable criticism.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 29, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Of course. I said earlier adventures are written to be "beaten," while campaign settings are not.
> 
> Nowhere in Midnight is the promise of defeating Izrador even hinted at, much less stated as a goal of the product. That's what I'm trying to correct...there is no promise there.




Balderdash! That is where a GM comes in! (Sorry, I have been setting up an 1880s campaign lately.) It does not say whether defeating Izador is either possible or impossible, but it _does_ say thet he has been defeated before (which I call a _big_ hint). Call of Cthulhu (which I also like) _does_ say that the situation is hopeless, since Midnight does not, it is not. They have avoided (so far) the mistake that a lot of settings have done, of nailing down the outcome of their central conflict. (Forgotten Realms during the changeover to 2nd ed.)

Don't take Balderdash and Piffle personally, I freely admit that they are hyperbole.

The Auld Grump


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 30, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Balderdash! That is where a GM comes in! (Sorry, I have been setting up an 1880s campaign lately.) It does not say whether defeating Izador is either possible or impossible, but it _does_ say thet he has been defeated before (which I call a _big_ hint). Call of Cthulhu (which I also like) _does_ say that the situation is hopeless, since Midnight does not, it is not. They have avoided (so far) the mistake that a lot of settings have done, of nailing down the outcome of their central conflict. (Forgotten Realms during the changeover to 2nd ed.)
> 
> Don't take Balderdash and Piffle personally, I freely admit that they are hyperbole.
> 
> The Auld Grump




I'm not taking anything personally, I'm just not sure you're arguing the same thing I am. I'm saying campaign settings, by their very nature, do not establish winnable scenarios. They are settings, not adventures. You saying that you can create adventures that are winnable doesn't change the nature of a campaign setting.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> "I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision...."




I was a little overzealous there.  I'll admit that.  I still stand by my idea that if designers would listen every now and then to the fans to what they would like to see out of a product, especially a nostalgia line, and not blow them off then those products may be better received.  There was very little in the new GWD20 book that really sold me that it was really GW except it had some of the creatures (a really weird thing to put into a Player's handbook), and a few mutations.  However, I could have gotten past that even as long as the mechanics were sound, but alas, they weren't.  So what I bought was a pale rendition of GW that ended up being a lesser GW than the Alternity edition (which was ok, but Alternity clearly wasn't the system to handle it, IMO).  

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the fans, the writer's bread and butter, of a nostalgia product expect to see certain things.  Nanotech was ok, the mechanics were off in several places, but it was a neat idea.  However, it wasn't GW.  Combine the strange implied setting with bad mechanics, and you have a book that fails many fans' expectations.

Kane


----------



## Staffan (Jun 30, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I've read a WHOLE lot of "What is an RPG" blurbs in my time, and I can't think of one that says "RPGs are a game with a winner and a loser." In fact, I can't think of one that *didn't* say "RPGs aren't a game with a winner and a loser."



I'm pretty sure Hackmaster's "What is an RPG" blurb says something along the lines of "Some people will tell you that a role-playing game doesn't have any winners or losers. Well, that's a load of (bleeped out to appease various maternal ancestors)."


----------



## Pants (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> However, at the core of that criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this industry operates.  The criticism leveled at the writer is an insult, because he (or she) is being blamed for the decisions of editors, line developers and publishers.



That seems an unfair generalization.
Sometimes the fault does lie with the writer...


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> That seems an unfair generalization.
> Sometimes the fault does lie with the writer...




Are you honestly saying that writers are managing to get stuff into print without it being signed off on by editors and line developers?  

Uh....OK......


You may call it an "unfair generalization"....I call it "how things actually work, as seen during my decade or so in the business."


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 30, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I'm not taking anything personally, I'm just not sure you're arguing the same thing I am. I'm saying campaign settings, by their very nature, do not establish winnable scenarios. They are settings, not adventures. You saying that you can create adventures that are winnable doesn't change the nature of a campaign setting.



However the adventures are often defined by the central conflict. 

I _think_ (but do not _know_ that DMH (I finally looked it up) was saying that because the central conflict appears unwinnable then so were the scenarios - that in the long run they made no difference, and it is this that I am disagreeing about - that the central conflict is stated outright as un-winnable... I just think that it will take a long time. The term 'win' first showed up in DMH's post.

For another example: Last Days of Constantinople has the fall of the Golden City as the central conflict. The PCs can not stop this fall, even if they survive they may well end up being sold into slavery. Whether the adventure can be beaten or not is arguable, but the conflict can not be overcome - ie it cannot be won. 

I agree that we are having two separate arguments, but it is kind of fun.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Pants (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Are you honestly saying that writers are managing to get stuff into print without it being signed off on by editors and line developers?
> 
> Uh....OK......



Consider:
Writer has an idea for a PrC/feat/monster.
Person who buys book doesn't like PrC/feat/monster in question, so it must be the editor or line developer's fault!

I'm not saying that EVERYTHING should be blamed on the writers, hell, I'm particularly hard on editors myself. But at some point, the writer should be held accountable for what he/she's written. If something questionable slips past the editor and gets into print, while the editor may technically be at fault, the writer still wrote it.

That's my point.

Still, if the products had to get past editors and line producers, and someone bashed the product, then the writer shouldn't really care. I mean, he was only given guidelines... what does he care if the book sucks? It's not his fault...

Though I still really don't see any people flaming writers, just products. 



> You may call it an "unfair generalization"....I call it "how things actually work, as seen during my decade or so in the business."



So... writers shouldn't be held accountable for anything they write? That sounds fair...


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No, but:
> 
> 
> " it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! "
> ...




The thing is, when someone tries to be civil in a discussion like this - like, say, me; take a gander at my posts earlier in the thread - they almost always get ignored. But let someone say something bluntly disparaging, then they get quoted later on. That doesn't really encourage anyone to _be_ civil in a discussion like this.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 30, 2005)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> The thing is, when someone tries to be civil in a discussion like this - like, say, me; take a gander at my posts earlier in the thread - they almost always get ignored. But let someone say something bluntly disparaging, then they get quoted later on. That doesn't really encourage anyone to _be_ civil in a discussion like this.




Civility is its own reward, my good Colonel!


----------



## Psion (Jun 30, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> In my experience, writers and designers handle criticism of their work better than internet badasses handle criticism of their complaints.




That's because in any altercation in which you are involved, the designer is the cool guy.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 30, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's because in any altercation in which you are involved, the designer is the cool guy.




Yeah!    

Hey, I like you better when you aren't reviewing my products.





What?


----------



## Psion (Jun 30, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Nowhere in Midnight is the promise of defeating Izrador even hinted at, much less stated as a goal of the product.




Perhaps not. But I think that a lot of people saw the grim, Epic struggle of Lord of the Rings in the setting, which you are going to have a hard time convincing me was accidental. And we all know how that story ended.

I don't think you should be surprised some people had that expectation.

(Of course I perceive there is a difference between "expectation" and "promise", but I'm just sayin')


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 30, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Perhaps not. But I think that a lot of people saw the grim, Epic struggle of Lord of the Rings in the setting, which you are going to have a hard time convincing me was accidental. And we all know how that story ended.
> 
> I don't think you should be surprised some people had that expectation.
> 
> (Of course I perceive there is a difference between "expectation" and "promise", but I'm just sayin')




And, even though I would disagree with the decision, it is within any DM's power to have his PCs destroy Izrador. I understand people's expectations, for sure, I just don't think it's rational to judge a product by them. (I could see an argument for that with a rehash of an old setting, but not with something completely new.)


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> The thing is, when someone tries to be civil in a discussion like this - like, say, me; take a gander at my posts earlier in the thread - they almost always get ignored. But let someone say something bluntly disparaging, then they get quoted later on. That doesn't really encourage anyone to _be_ civil in a discussion like this.




That's a really, really good point.

Not sure what can be done about it.


----------



## Soel (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No, but:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Civil? This is a message board, you know? Anyone who can join has the right to post their opinions on a product, even if it is expressed with shallow, tactless comments...(not saying the above are shallow or tactless even...)


Any time you produce a work for any audience, you should expect this, and having 10 years in the business, I am surprised that you still take objection to this sort of feedback.
It would be nice if everyone went into the whys, but they don't. Just makes the nice, detailed comments seem that much sweeter...


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> However, at the core of that criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this industry operates. The criticism leveled at the writer is an insult, because he (or she) is being blamed for the decisions of editors, line developers and publishers.
> 
> Writers don't make these decisions. They write. Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given.



Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.

A publisher usually provides but general guidelines to a writer, not exacting specifics to the point that the writer is but the publisher’s amanuensis or automaton.

The editor usually edits and avoids rewriting a competently written manuscript.

The writer remains the principle architect of the manuscript, particularly in the details.

It goes too far, I think, to say there is a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the process, certainly to an extent that would absolve a writer for the chiefmost responsibility for what is written. 

I think you make too much of the publisher’s and editor’s roles.

In any event, a good writer has two audiences, I think. One is, of course, the publisher. The other is the ultimate consumer, the gaming public. The good writer should write for both. 

While it is not likely good form to "blame" a publisher for a particular, mandated design decision, the writer, in response to criticism, can explain why things were done the way they were in the manuscript, short of "blaming." At the other end of the spectrum, if the writer anticipates a potentially strong reaction from the public, the writer should take pains to explain matters within the text. To paraphrase - a sound explanation turn’eth away wrath.  

Where there is an established canon, a writer ignores or disregards it, without sound explanation, at his or her peril. Gamers invested in a particular subject matter, fans, can hardly be faulted for expecting the writer in such case to write to the generally accepted expectations of the setting or for becoming loudly critical of a writer who wrote without care as to what has come before. For the writer, it may be a job but for the gamer it is more likely to be a particular point of interest, even passion. That may seem silly at some level but it is a reality with respect to how any number of gamers see what they consider "their" game. Indeed, the hobby would likely not exist, or certainly be poorer, were it not capable of engendering such strong feelings from a goodly number of gamers. A good writer will write accordingly and, I believe, can be held a less than good writer if they simply do what they will without regard to or for the consumers’ feelings which will be grounded in such notions of "canon." Writers unable or uncomfortable with such expectations should limit themselves to writing entirely new material with no prior history. However, even in such event, a topic may have certain conventions, the functional equivalent of canon.

A writer is not hogtied by either canon or convention, but where such are present must be creative within such bounds. This seems not unreasonable or unworkable to me.

Is a writer insulted if it is said he or she "screwed up" by failing to be mindful of accepted canon or convention without explanation? I think not for such insult is at an irreducible level synonymous with the otherwise impersonal criticism. That one might say "the work" ignores canon, rather than the "the author" ignores canon, is a fine point of politesse without a meaningful difference, save a lessened likelihood of hurt feelings.

I think in the final analysis the writer cannot avoid criticism for what they wrote, even personal criticism, if such is appropriate, being attributable to the writer’s choices or decisions.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

Soel said:
			
		

> GMSkarka said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with Soel.

True story.  

In another forum, I took to task Eberron adventures publshed in Dungeon Magazine in sober but no uncertain terms.  Keith Baker, one of the authors and author of the setting, surprisingly responded asking for more explicit details that would flesh out my comments.  I responded soberly but in no uncertain terms, at one point explaining to the man who created Eberron that I believed, and why, that his Eberron Dungeon adventures failed to capture the essence of the setting.  Did I insult him?  Not to to judge by his response.  He explained his reasoning and/but conceded one of the points I had made. I, in turn, after having heard his explanation, had to concede that, under that explaination, his decisons made sense, even if I was still not enthralled with the result.

Mr. Baker could have easily begun his response "How dare you question the creator of . . ." or something dismissive/sarcastic along those lines but he did not.  I was greatly impressed with his even-tempered responses - to the point that I reread the material in question with his explaination in mind and found myself less critical overall and with a greater interest in the setting sufficient to have now seen me pick up more Eberron material out of curiosity.

If you are a writer and choose to frequent internet forums, you are by some measure a public figure/celebrity, and you should act like it.  Short of someone saying bad things about your momma, I think, the best response is a measured one.  You don't have to roll over for critics, Mr. Baker held my feet to the fire, but neither do you have to react in a way you would object to others reacting, nor, failing that, pout about it (not suggesting anyone is pouting).  

IMO


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> It goes too far, I think, to say there is a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the process, certainly to an extent that would absolve a writer for the chiefmost responsibility for what is written.
> 
> I think you make too much of the publisher’s and editor’s roles.




Only in gamer-internet-land would someone actually make this sort of claim to somebody who has actually worked in the field for more than a decade, with extensive first-hand knowledge of how things are actually done.

Unbelievable.


Well, since over a decade of game industry experience isn't enough to sway you that I might actually know what I'm talking about, let's just "agree to disagree."  (Which is a polite way of saying that I'll be over here, bashing my head against a wall in disbelief.)


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> If you are a writer and choose to frequent internet forums, you are by some measure a public figure/celebrity, and you should act like it.




I'm still not entirely sure where it says that a "public figure/celebrity" has to put up with random abuse from every Internet Badass that wanders in.....I hear this argument put forth again and again, and I still don't buy it.   Nobody, public figure or otherwise, needs to put up with jerks, and yet I hear this from gamers a lot.  It's almost like it's "payback" or something, to even out the "fame and fortune" that we supposedly get, or that we should put up with it because we "get to write games." (which some gamers think is tantamount to PLAYING games).

Well, it's just a job, like any other.   The fame is extremely small-scale, the fortune even smaller, and a deadline is a deadline.   Nothing in there makes me somehow deserving of catching crap from passerby, because I'm a "public figure."


----------



## billd91 (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Only in gamer-internet-land would someone actually make this sort of claim to somebody who has actually worked in the field for more than a decade, with extensive first-hand knowledge of how things are actually done.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> ...




Well, let's look at it this way. If the writer was so constrained by the guidelines, editors, and other external factors, that he cannot accept responsibility for his work and accept the criticism, then maybe his name ought not to be the one most prominently displayed on the by-line. 
That by-line should tell us, the reading audience, who the primary author of the work is and who should be taking responsibility for it.


----------



## Pants (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Only in gamer-internet-land would someone actually make this sort of claim to somebody who has actually worked in the field for more than a decade, with extensive first-hand knowledge of how things are actually done.
> 
> Unbelievable.



While you are most likely correct in how the process works (I'm not going to argue with you over how it works), I still think the writer deserves a fair bit of blame when something bad happens and the writer also deserves a fair bit of the praise when something good happens.

This is ignoring any 'extenuating circumstances.' (ie the writer is the editor and publisher, or the work was massively changed and rewritten by the editor).



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I'm still not entirely sure where it says that a "public figure/celebrity" has to put up with random abuse from every Internet Badass that wanders in.....I hear this argument put forth again and again, and I still don't buy it.



Nobody said life was fair, unfortunately. 
The stupid and the uncivil will play their game and you can either drop to their level and play their own game, or ignore them as the ignorant masses they are.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 30, 2005)

Out of about a half dozen things I've seen someone take exception to in my published work, only one was an editor's decision; all the others were all me.  Now, I'm not saying I agree with the criticism in any of those cases, just that it was, in fact, my 'fault' as a writer.

That's not years of industry experience speaking, but nor is it unpublished fan gripe.  I'm published in this industry and have been in others (electronic RPG and sports journalism) where the fans were vastly more insulting.

I didn't take exception to them, either.

I don't expect to take 'crap' because I'm a 'public figure;' I expect to take 'crap' because I'm providing a good or service that isn't always perfect, and I expect to pass said 'crap' on to any other screwups who are equally, or even more, extreme in their imperfection.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I've read a WHOLE lot of "What is an RPG" blurbs in my time, and I can't think of one that says "RPGs are a game with a winner and a loser." In fact, I can't think of one that *didn't* say "RPGs aren't a game with a winner and a loser." So when I hear "Midnight can't be beat" it makes me wonder if the person's talking about a computer game or something.




The way Midnight is set up, the standard PC goal is "defeat Izrador."

It's a reasonable point of view that in Midnight the standard goal of the PCs is effectively unattainable by the PCs.  Hence "unwinnable" by the PCs.  Normally in most settings the default goals of the PCs (eg "get money & treasure" or "defeat the Scarlet Brotherhood") are potentially achievable by the PCs.

Edit: I'm talking about the internal aspect of the Player Characters, what their primary goal in life is.  Not the goal of the players, or the goal of the campaign or the GM.  The players' goal may be "experience what it's like to live in a world without hope" but the character generation rules for Midnight PCs are designed to create Heroes whose goal is "defeat the Shadow", not ordinary guys just trying to exist, or minions of the Shadow (can be done, but not much challenge there).  Hence the game is built on this tension - you are expected to play people whose overriding goal in life is not attainable.  Some people like this, some don't.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Unless, say, you were one of the writers of a product that was being bashed.....




Lol, maybe not even then. The book of mine that got mentioned ("Legends of Carthage") prompted a "oh yeah that was bound to happen, nobody likes that one for some reason" reaction from me.

I enjoy seeing that sort of reaction/discussion more than who is/should be buying books discussions 

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.
> 
> A publisher usually provides but general guidelines to a writer, not exacting specifics to the point that the writer is but the publisher’s amanuensis or automaton.
> 
> ...




Not only does it not go too far to call what you're saying a "fundamental misunderstanding" I'd put a little finer point on it and describe your comments as "woefully uninformed".

In the writing of a recent book my "general guidelines" completely altered the product before it even got off the ground. You see, this product was book two in a major line and had to conform to the rules laid out in the first book of the line.

Now even though *I* wrote the first book in the line, whole sections of changes to the combat system I wanted to implement were out. 

In other words, to promote compatibility within the line, a game about Samurai was going to function by the same combat rules as a game about Arthurian knights. 

I didn't have to like it, but those marching orders were (more or less) set in stone because we wanted the books to be compatible with each other, and were trying to keep the books close enough to the core rules that GMs could adapt modules. 

This was before a single word was written.

AFTER the book was written, more changes were made.

And one of the things I was told specifically *not* to do were laid at *my* feet in a review. 

Conversely, one of the things I was *asked* to do was considered a bug not a feature and again laid at my feet.

And I have *more* input than most writers in the industry I chat with, not less.

Most writers are micromanaged beyond belief and then when the manuscript is done, things are changed without their consultation. 

Chuck

PS Dont take this as me complaining about the RPGO creative process. As mentioned above I have a lot more input than a lot of writers in the biz and "blow by blow" of the process I give above is not to be taken as a shot at my boss or anyone else. 

Even when I disagreed with the changes I understood the reasons for them. I merely revealed the information above in an attempt to dispel what I saw as a big lack of understanding.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Can I just declare your post poppycock so the discussion can get back on track?



heck, Storm Raven and I never agree. and in this all i can say is Seconded.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Hardly what anyone would call civil.




All perfectly valid assessments of products. I didn't see anyone insult the writers, or their families. I saw their work product being criticized, sometimes harshly. Saying "this particular piece of work is crap" is well within the boundaries of a normal discussion of this nature.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Pay close attention:   criticism DOES NOT EQUAL insults.   They are two different things.
> 
> Criticism is fine, when based in reality.   "THIS PRODUCT SUXX0RZ & TEH WRITAR IS CRAP" is not.




Of course, no one posted this sort of thing, so your hyperbolic assessment is just a fantasy of your own creation.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Well, it's just a job, like any other.   The fame is extremely small-scale, the fortune even smaller, and a deadline is a deadline.   Nothing in there makes me somehow deserving of catching crap from passerby, because I'm a "public figure."




If someone believes the conditions are so bad, perhaps they should not continue to work in the field?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> However, at the core of that criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this industry operates.    The criticism leveled at the writer is an insult, because he (or she) is being blamed for the decisions of editors, line developers and publishers.




But, ultimately, it is the author's name on the cover, meaning they get the praise or the blame. Most writers seem all too willing to enjoy what adulation they are given for well-received products. But when something turns out badly it is the line editor's fault?

The writer's name goes on the cover. That makes them ultimately answerable for the content, like it or not. Those who don't want to accept this sort of situation should probably consider alternate careers.



> _Writers don't make these decisions.  They write.   Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given._





If you don't like the guidelines given for a project, perhaps you should pass on it.


----------



## Psion (Jun 30, 2005)

> Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given.




Depends on which critics you are talking about. 

I, for example, totally blame the very "marching orders" behind DDG for its weaknesses as a product, not the writing itself (which was fine.) And I have pained to say so in the past.


----------



## Belen (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No, but:
> 
> 
> " it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! "
> ...




Most of those comments are directed at the books themselves, not at specific people.  And, if you have ever read a novel or saw a movie that sucked and purposely decided not bash it, then you're a saint.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Most of those comments are directed at the books themselves, not at specific people.  And, if you have ever read a novel or saw a movie that sucked and purposely decided not bash it, then you're a saint.



Peter Jackson's vision of the LotR....

i'll be civil and just say i disagree with him.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Only in gamer-internet-land would someone actually make this sort of claim to somebody who has actually worked in the field for more than a decade, with extensive first-hand knowledge of how things are actually done.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> ...







			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Not only does it not go too far to call what you're saying a "fundamental misunderstanding" I'd put a little finer point on it and describe your comments as "woefully uninformed".




GMSarka (and Vigilance),

Your experiences are, obviously, your own and I cannot pass judgment on them in any particular.
You assume, however, that your experiences are normative. That does not necessarily follow.

You also assume your knowledge and experience are superior to those to whom you address yourself. That does not necessarily follow.

Things are likely somewhere in a middle ground.  I’ll leave that there.
Your description of the writing and publication process would have the writer a non-factor in their own writing, immune to criticism because all major decisions are the publisher’s or editors, not the writers. The writer in your description becomes just a tool for the expression of the publisher’s or editor's creativity and their ideas. You describe the writer as mere scribe.

Perhaps, you are and have been nothing more that a scribe, as you describe. Perhaps, your publishers and editors have found it necessary to direct/rewrite your work in minute detail. You seem to suggest that this has been your experience. Maybe, you have just had bad experiences. Or use hyperbole for emphasis.  I suspect the latter.

What I believe I can know is that such an extreme description is an exaggeration, at best, when applied beyond your personal experiences. Yes. Publishers will set guidelines and will ask writers to follow them. Yes. Editors will edit. Neither will, however, generally so confine the writer that his or her work is not his or her work to the greatest degree as compared to the publisher’s or editor’s input. Your description is so strained to make your "point" that you make writing for a publisher sound like confinement within a Dickensian workhouse. You blow too hard upon your horn, unless you really have worked for one E. Scrooge, Publisher or his like.

You need to differentiate between direction from a publisher/editor and the publisher/editor all but writing the work themself. There is a vast difference you seem to overlook. One does not need "10 years" experience to detect the strong perfume of exaggeration in service of a failing point, that now flails and fails all the more for having been caught out as an overstatement. If your point is that publishers and editors are _sometimes_ responsible for what sees print and not the writer, you are correct, I think. If your point is that publishers and editors input is generally so great/pervasive that it practically absolves a writer from any criticism for what was written, you are in error, I believe.

In any event, assuming arguendo that your "point" has validity at least as to your own personal experiences, as another has pointed out - you take the credit with the criticism.

I do not mean to seem harsh here but the posture you have chosen to assume bespeaks of little regard for a reader’s native intelligence, let alone their experiences. I think we wander from a basic point of agreement into the bushes. 

I think we agree writers should be spoken to with civility and recognized as people, not faceless monoliths. And vice versa. I think there is some disagreement as to what constitutes "civility" within the confines of a message board. 

It is a truism, if not an excuse, that people will generally express themselves on the internet in ways they might not in person. That may be bemoaned but it remains a truism to which we must accommodate ourselves. As I attempted to illustrate with the anecdote about Mr. Baker, I think a writer can make their life very much easier by looking to get to the source of criticism rather than simply denying its validity (or they can absent themselves or assume a "nom de guerre," "nom de internet?" if the heat proves too hot). If there is no source other than personal preference, which is legitimate even if a particular expression may be questioned, that will soon stand out in sharp relief. If there is something more there, it can be gotten at to everyone’s advantage. 

The writer/critic relationship is adversarial at some irreducible point. It need not, I think, be antagonistic or hostile. Both parties need to be generous in allowing their counterparts fair leeway in the expression of their feelings, mindful that there is no writer without reader, nor reader without writer, at least in any meaningful sense.

IMO


----------



## Belen (Jun 30, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson's vision of the LotR....
> 
> i'll be civil and just say i disagree with him.




lol!

MY point is that saying book x sucks is not then same as saying Wil Upchurch, Monte Cook, or Keith Baker is a bad writer and should burn in hell.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

Gomez said:
			
		

> Well I guess I am the _Village Idiot_ that bought a book before I had a chance to thoroughly research it or wait for 5 or 6 reviews to come out. Just because I am a fan of the genre and game. But that does not prohibit me from critiquing the said material or making my feelings know. I like to discuss on this board if I liked a gaming product or not. Heck, I have bought books that I never will never to use in a game setting but because I LIKE gaming in general and would like to just read the sucker!




So having chosen option 3 (Buy without thinking ahead of time, because if you bothered to think about it, you might make a mistake anyway, so why bother?), what exactly makes it defensible?

You can feel whatever you like. You merely cannot reasonably said to have been "promised" something you didn't get -- unless your definition of "promise" involves really likeing a logo, reading omens about the product from animal entrails and so forth. If your definition of "promise" includes the latter, then you may be of a mind with a few posters here, but again, it doesn't end up being particularly meaningful, either.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Out of about a half dozen things I've seen someone take exception to in my published work, only one was an editor's decision; all the others were all me. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the criticism in any of those cases, just that it was, in fact, my 'fault' as a writer.
> 
> That's not years of industry experience speaking, but nor is it unpublished fan gripe. I'm published in this industry and have been in others (electronic RPG and sports journalism) where the fans were vastly more insulting.
> 
> ...




The other side of the story!  Thank you.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Can I just declare your post poppycock so the discussion can get back on track?




It would certainly be more convenient than actually mapping yourself to the answers, wouldn't it?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> lol!
> 
> MY point is that saying book x sucks is not then same as saying Wil Upchurch, Monte Cook, or Keith Baker is a bad writer and should burn in hell.



 My point exactly.  Just because I may speak out against one book or another, and even outright dislike an author's vision on said books, it doesn't mean I mean them harm or wish them to burn in the fires of Hell.

Kane


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> My point exactly.  Just because I may speak out against one book or another, and even outright dislike an author's vision on said books, it doesn't mean I mean them harm or wish them to burn in the fires of Hell.
> 
> Kane




This is odd. I didn't think that the author was a factor at all in this thread. But I suppose it's a more comfortable diversion than actually discussing what constitutes a "promise" from a game.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It would certainly be more convenient than actually mapping yourself to the answers, wouldn't it?




Given that _no one cares about your answers_, it seemed much more expedient.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> This is odd. I didn't think that the author was a factor at all in this thread. But I suppose it's a more comfortable diversion than actually discussing what constitutes a "promise" from a game.



 Much like your rants about how a group shoulders the financial load had anything to do with anything, huh? 

Kane


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that _no one cares about your answers_, it seemed much more expedient.



ditto. edit: in that once again i agree with Storm Raven.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that _no one cares about your answers_, it seemed much more expedient.




The answers are taken directly from other posters' positions, so this is categorically untrue.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Much like your rants about how a group shoulders the financial load had anything to do with anything, huh?
> 
> Kane




I dunno. You brought it up as a reason why you couldn't be expected to investigate something before buying it. Really, if you don't want to talk about something, you might not want to mention it.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

So, I guess there are books that some people found disappointing after they bought them (or, in some cases, just while they were flipping through them at the store). Does ANYBODY want to talk about that? I mean besides me.

And it would be really cool if we could talk about it without eyebeams blasting us with his righteous consumer wisdom, because he has apparently NEVER PURCHASED ANYTHING that was anything other than perfectly satisfactory. I mean, I appreciate his attempts to enlighten us, but this is getting retardiculous (yes, i just made up that word). 

I wasn't a big fan of the original D20 Star Wars (even though I bought it). I thought the revision was pretty cool, though. Anybody else feel that way?


----------



## Gomez (Jun 30, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> So having chosen option 3 (Buy without thinking ahead of time, because if you bothered to think about it, you might make a mistake anyway, so why bother?), what exactly makes it defensible?
> 
> You can feel whatever you like. You merely cannot reasonably said to have been "promised" something you didn't get -- unless your definition of "promise" involves really likeing a logo, reading omens about the product from animal entrails and so forth. If your definition of "promise" includes the latter, then you may be of a mind with a few posters here, but again, it doesn't end up being particularly meaningful, either.




Well that’s the rub. I am not trying to defend myself from your snide personal attacks on my buying habits. What does it matter to you if I dislike a certain book? Do I have to give a complete critique and ways to fix some book that I happen to dislike? No! Plus in no way is my stating that I dislike a book a personal attack or insult to the writers, editors, or publishers of said book. And I am sorry that anyone feels that it is. I bought Gamma World d20 sight unseen because I am a FAN of the older versions. If that makes me a hick or stupid your eyes then that's your opinion. When it did not live up to my expectations then I have a right to not like it. I am sorry that if by voicing my said dislike that I have offended anyone. That was not my plan or intention. But to bash me because I bought a book unseen is just plain mean and elitist on your part.  

I have the highest regard for Mr. Skarka, Mr. Upchurch, and any person who had the guts, talent, and drive to produce gaming material for my consumption. Nuff Said.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

I never mentioned wishing harm on the authors.  Not once, not ever.  I was commenting on a matter that was brought up by another poster.  Not you.  

As far as the matter of me not be expected to investigate a book, well, we've hashed this out into oblivion.  It's a dead issue.  Drop it.  Quit talking about it.  Everyone else has.  It's not getting anyone anywhere.

Kane


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 30, 2005)

Just wanted to say that I have found this very thread useful in finding out warning info ahead of time about various games.  Sort of capsule reviews, as it were.  It especially helps if people say *why* they were disappointed, since then I can more accurately judge if I would be disappointed in the same way.

Thus this thread has justified its existence for me, in a way that even Eyebeams would have to appreciate, since Eyebeams is apparently concerned with people finding out info about products before buying them.  

In that light, I dug out of my memory an old regret (from my childhood, before I was a discriminating buyer, so Eyebeams's comments don't apply).

Fantasy Roleplaying: Sexist, Homophobic, and worst of all, too complicated.  One of those Fantasy Heartbreakers you hear about.

And just for variety, here is my advice on board games:

For 2nd edition Talisman, all expansion sets beyond the first expansion set subtract from the game.  Wow, wish I knew enough to stop at just the main game and the first expansion set (I do now: got pristine versions of them offa ebay).  That said, 2nd edition Talisman itself rocks!

Starfarers of Cataan Expansion Set: Don't do it, boys and girls, it breaks the game!  You get a traveller's planet that give Real Ultimate Power to the first trade shop to land there, so the game stops being about resource management and becomes a simple race to the Traveller's planet.

Lord of the Rings: Sauron Expansion set --- The game stops being cooperative as they add an antagonist.  Again, destroys the original good points of the game, and becomes a version of Buffy the board game.  And Buffy does it better.

There you go, folks!  Be forewarned!  (Marley rattles his chains a bit).


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I mean, I appreciate his attempts to enlighten us, but this is getting retardiculous (yes, i just made up that word).



You, sir, are my hero. Consider that my new favorite word.

I've not bought Star Wars, as I  can't weigh in on that subject. (If I do run Star Wars, it would probably be using Mutants and Masterminds rules, oddly enough).

One book that I felt dissapointed by was Gary Gygax's World Builder. Now, this one was entirely my fault. It was my problem that I expected something more along the lines of Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe or Magical Medieval Sociey: Ecology and Culture. I really should have thumbed through the book before I got it, but the shop I was at had it shrink wrapped. When I first got it I was greatly disappointed, but after I got used to what I should expect out of it, I thought it was a reasonably good book.


----------



## Gomez (Jun 30, 2005)

*back to normal discussions. sorry for the rant*

I was disappointed in the duel stated Five Rings splat books. I could never get myself to purchase   the darn things because half of the crunch in the books was useless to me. I was only interested in the d20 rules.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I wasn't a big fan of the original D20 Star Wars (even though I bought it). I thought the revision was pretty cool, though. Anybody else feel that way?




I felt the same way.  It was OK, but not nearly as good as the Revised edition.  Starship combat could have been better still, but WotC has yet to do that aspect of sci-fi gaming right yet.

Kane


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> So, I guess there are books that some people found disappointing after they bought them (or, in some cases, just while they were flipping through them at the store). Does ANYBODY want to talk about that? I mean besides me.




Sure. This thread was actually about this numinous thing called "potential" and how a book "promised" it, but didn't deliver.



> And it would be really cool if we could talk about it without eyebeams blasting us with his righteous consumer wisdom, because he has apparently NEVER PURCHASED ANYTHING that was anything other than perfectly satisfactory. I mean, I appreciate his attempts to enlighten us, but this is getting retardiculous (yes, i just made up that word).




Sure I have. Everybody makes mistakes. What I object to is the position that people have no responsibility for their own spending habits -- a position articulated in this very thread. If you buy a piece of garbage on impulse, you do yourself and the hobby a disservice. You own something you don't like; the company notices that you bought it, and that's more important to them than your feelings about it.

What really surprises me is that it is so important to a minority of gamers to feel victimized by a company or product that it angers them to be told that they *could* actually make a difference and save their money, to boot. They would rather buy, complain, and buy, and complain again.



> I wasn't a big fan of the original D20 Star Wars (even though I bought it). I thought the revision was pretty cool, though. Anybody else feel that way?




I don't like the way AoO changes the feel of Star Wars combat, myself, but the class builds were, in my opinion, superior. I think a version of SW that came out now would be much better, since D20 design has matured quite a bit.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I felt the same way.  It was OK, but not nearly as good as the Revised edition.  Starship combat could have been better still, but WotC has yet to do that aspect of sci-fi gaming right yet.
> 
> Kane




i prefer a modified Freedom in the Galaxy boxed set use for starship combat.


----------



## Belen (Jun 30, 2005)

I have mentioned it before, but Dragonlords of Melnibourne was a bad purchase.

I also regret buying the Quintessenital books from Mongoose.  The mechanics are not sound, although the Bard and Monk ones were fairly decent.

Planar Handbook:  It was not any good.
Deities and Demigods:  I wanted a 3e Legends and Lore, but got...deity stats!?  WTF?!
Epic Level: Just did not make me feel epic.  It was just more combat options with nasty creatures and gear.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i prefer a modified Freedom in the Galaxy boxed set use for starship combat.



 I never picked up that set.  How easy was it to modify?

Kane


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I felt the same way.  It was OK, but not nearly as good as the Revised edition.  Starship combat could have been better still, but WotC has yet to do that aspect of sci-fi gaming right yet.
> 
> Kane



 I just think that 3D combat is hard to do in a game.  Making it miniatures dependent makes it essentially 2D, since it's all happening on a tabletop, but it does make things a little easier to manage. Make it abstract enough to include the 3rd dimension, and you run into the problems that the non-revised edition, because it ends up being *too* abstract.  

You almost need to have an entirely seperate game if you want to reflect space combat in a way that parallels the film entirely perfectly. I think it's just a problem with space combat, not with any game entirely. I've never played an RPG that did it particularly well. Some are better than others, but, at best, they get to "passable" for me. 

My problem with the non-revised core rules is that they seemed really lifeless (the classes seemed boring in a lot of cases), and they failed to fill some of the important archetypes that appear in the films.  It wasn't a horrible book, and it *looked* really nice. It just wasn't a particularly thrilling game. Revised still isn't perfect, but it's definitely better.


----------



## Gnarlo (Jun 30, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i prefer a modified Freedom in the Galaxy boxed set use for starship combat.




Whoah, D, that's something I haven't drug off my shelves and opened in 15 years, thanks for reminding me I have it.   I'll have to open it up and re-read the combat section.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

Gomez said:
			
		

> I bought Gamma World d20 sight unseen because I am a FAN of the older versions.  . . . When it did not live up to my expectations then I have a right to not like it.




Well said.  

In an earlier post, I mentioned "canon."  I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think that is what you are talking about.  There is a GW canon and you anticipated that any product with a GW title would adhere, more or less, to that canon, absent perhaps some reason to deviate from it.  When what you purchased deviated from your canon expectations without sufficient explanation or substitution, you were disappointed.   Please forgive me if I am misreading you.

If the canon of Setting X says the sky is blue and writer declares the sky orange, without explanation, both the product and writer may be legitimately criticized by fans of Setting X, who expected the sky to be blue (ie the party assenting to the unexplained deviation from canon).

Arguably, the purchaser could have discovered the deviation and not purchased the product but that is not the only legitimate option.  Feedback is fundamentally legitimate.  And fans follow their favorite setting, through good and bad times.  I have heard this referred to as "The BOS Factor."  BOS = Buy On Sight.  I would argue that it is this very devotion that animates the hobby and that the hobby would be poorer if fewer gamers did not feel so strongly about their favorite settings or products.  

So what to do when you BOS a product and it turns out that it deviates from canon without explaination?  You complain!  And you don't have to hide your head when you do so!  And you do not have to be made to feel silly because you didn't look first, or having looked, still BOSed because you are a fan of the setting.

I imagine every game publisher would kill to produce nothing but material judged to be BOS products by consumers; TSR used to call them "must haves."  It is disingenuous to imagine otherwise as publishers are in the business of selling product and BOS products have a guaranteed sales base.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I never picked up that set.  How easy was it to modify?




very easy. do a net search for some ideas still used today. here is an example: http://www.thewargamer.com/FreedomInTheGalaxy.html


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

Gomez said:
			
		

> Well that’s the rub. I am not trying to defend myself from your snide personal attacks on my buying habits. What does it matter to you if I dislike a certain book?




Does this mean that designer should ignore what you have to say completely, then? I thought people here were rooting for the opposite. All I'm saying that there *is* a more effective way for you to exert influence.



> Do I have to give a complete critique and ways to fix some book that I happen to dislike? No!




Did I say you did? Nope. But it's a fact that the sophistication of a criticism is what determines its merits. You can say anything you like, buy rants about how something stinks carry less weight than a John Cooper review.



> Plus in no way is my stating that I dislike a book a personal attack or insult to the writers, editors, or publishers of said book. And I am sorry that anyone feels that it is.




This isn't even topical.



> I bought Gamma World d20 sight unseen because I am a FAN of the older versions. If that makes me a hick or stupid your eyes then that's your opinion.




It wasn't a good purchasing decision, no.



> When it did not live up to my expectations then I have a right to not like it. I am sorry that if by voicing my said dislike that I have offended anyone. That was not my plan or intention.




You ought to ask yourself what the basis for your expectations were. That's all I'm saying, If you don't take the time to find out, there's a good chance you might not get what you're looking for. That's your risk to take. But don't pretend you were "promised" anything that wasn't in adcopy or similar buzz.



> But to bash me because I bought a book unseen is just plain mean and elitist on your part.




Do you really feel that the fact that I don't think people should buy sight unseen, and you did, personally offensive? Is it really "elitist" to believe that people ought to actually think about what they buy?


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

> I don't like the way AoO changes the feel of Star Wars combat, myself, but the class builds were, in my opinion, superior. I think a version of SW that came out now would be much better, since D20 design has matured quite a bit.



That would be interesting, I admit. I liked attacks of opportunity, since it helped explain the advantage of jedi charging into melee against primarily ranged-oriented stormtroopers, etc. They shoot, you get to cut first. Huzzah. 

That being said, if a new edition did come out now, it would have to be almost PERFECT. I've already bought a D20 Star Wars RPG twice. I have a hard time believing that 3 times would be the charm. I'm not even sure I could imagine how to reach the kind of perfection it would have to be...


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I just think that 3D combat is hard to do in a game.  Making it miniatures dependent makes it essentially 2D, since it's all happening on a tabletop, but it does make things a little easier to manage. Make it abstract enough to include the 3rd dimension, and you run into the problems that the non-revised edition, because it ends up being *too* abstract.
> 
> You almost need to have an entirely seperate game if you want to reflect space combat in a way that parallels the film entirely perfectly. I think it's just a problem with space combat, not with any game entirely. I've never played an RPG that did it particularly well. Some are better than others, but, at best, they get to "passable" for me.
> 
> My problem with the non-revised core rules is that they seemed really lifeless (the classes seemed boring in a lot of cases), and they failed to fill some of the important archetypes that appear in the films.  It wasn't a horrible book, and it *looked* really nice. It just wasn't a particularly thrilling game. Revised still isn't perfect, but it's definitely better.




3D is possible. just go find Star Fleet Battles.   

diaglo " who came to OD&D from wargames " Ooi


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> 3D is possible. just go find Star Fleet Battles.
> 
> diaglo " who came to OD&D from wargames " Ooi



 Very true - that should have been obvious. But, it fits in with the general point of my comment: in order to get good starship combat, it pretty much has to be a completely different game (which starfleet battles is).


----------



## Gomez (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Very true - that should have been obvious. But, it fits in with the general point of my comment: in order to get good starship combat, it pretty much has to be a completely different game (which starfleet battles is).




By a different game do you mean one that uses a totally different means of calculation success or failure? Like not using a 1d20 plus bonuses versus a target DC?

_*BTW, I am no longer going to let Eyebeams bother me anymore. I just will not read his posts!   *_


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Well said.
> 
> In an earlier post, I mentioned "canon."  I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think that is what you are talking about.  There is a GW canon and you anticipated that any product with a GW title would adhere, more or less, to that canon, absent perhaps some reason to deviate from it.  When what you purchased deviated from your canon expectations without sufficient explanation or substitution, you were disappointed.   Please forgive me if I am misreading you.
> 
> If the canon of Setting X says the sky is blue and writer declares the sky orange, without explanation, both the product and writer may be legitimately criticized by fans of Setting X, who expected the sky to be blue (ie the party assenting to the unexplained deviation from canon).




In the specific case of Gamma World, what might be asked is whether a writer should follow fans' notions about what Setting X was regardless of whether those notions match reality. IN GW's case, I don't think they do.



> Arguably, the purchaser could have discovered the deviation and not purchased the product but that is not the only legitimate option.  Feedback is fundamentally legitimate.  And fans follow their favorite setting, through good and bad times.  I have heard this referred to as "The BOS Factor."  BOS = Buy On Sight.  I would argue that it is this very devotion that animates the hobby and that the hobby would be poorer if fewer gamers did not feel so strongly about their favorite settings or products.




I disagree. It's damaging this hobby and has damaged it before. It leads to poor quality, warped consumer feedback (because feedback that bears little relationship to sales is not particuclarly useful -- not all feedback is *equally* legitimate) and, in time, mass rejection by casual hobbyists.



> So what to do when you BOS a product and it turns out that it deviates from canon without explaination?  You complain!  And you don't have to hide your head when you do so!  And you do not have to be made to feel silly because you didn't look first, or having looked, still BOSed because you are a fan of the setting.




I completely disagree. And frankly, if someone's feelings get hurt because they failed to exercise the basic discretion required to live well in a consumer society, I have little sympathy. BOS is a pretty enough term, but it's really just a manifestation of pointless consumerism. And it's *bad* for gaming. Publishers like it as a kind of economic junk food, and if you want a better hobby, you have to wean them off it.



> I imagine every game publisher would kill to produce nothing but material judged to be BOS products by consumers; TSR used to call them "must haves."  It is disingenuous to imagine otherwise as publishers are in the business of selling product and BOS products have a guaranteed sales base.




And look what happened to TSR. TSR produced a bunch of crap as "must haves" and people bought it until the crap factor became so large that they just stopped. Looking outside of gaming, Marvel incraesed the BOS factor/collectibility of its comics until they produced foil-covered crap that was rejected by everyone except for the hard core. Historically, these were major crashes and burns.

As soon as sales are divorced from content, content goes downhill. The guaranteed sales base of people who will buy anything labelled as a must-have is smaller than you might think.

It is *much* better to encourage companies to push the envelope of quality by buying cautiously.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> That would be interesting, I admit. I liked attacks of opportunity, since it helped explain the advantage of jedi charging into melee against primarily ranged-oriented stormtroopers, etc. They shoot, you get to cut first. Huzzah.
> 
> That being said, if a new edition did come out now, it would have to be almost PERFECT. I've already bought a D20 Star Wars RPG twice. I have a hard time believing that 3 times would be the charm. I'm not even sure I could imagine how to reach the kind of perfection it would have to be...




I agree. The appropriate thing to do, if they wanted to incorporate elements of Episode III that weren't known by the game designers as of Episode II, would be to put out a sourcebook to supplement the revised rules. The rules already got a good upgrade from original to revised, I don't think they need another major revision.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I just think that 3D combat is hard to do in a game.  Making it miniatures dependent makes it essentially 2D, since it's all happening on a tabletop, but it does make things a little easier to manage. Make it abstract enough to include the 3rd dimension, and you run into the problems that the non-revised edition, because it ends up being *too* abstract.
> 
> You almost need to have an entirely seperate game if you want to reflect space combat in a way that parallels the film entirely perfectly. I think it's just a problem with space combat, not with any game entirely. I've never played an RPG that did it particularly well. Some are better than others, but, at best, they get to "passable" for me.
> 
> My problem with the non-revised core rules is that they seemed really lifeless (the classes seemed boring in a lot of cases), and they failed to fill some of the important archetypes that appear in the films.  It wasn't a horrible book, and it *looked* really nice. It just wasn't a particularly thrilling game. Revised still isn't perfect, but it's definitely better.



 I agree.  The only system that I've found that does starship combat alright was one of the old Traveller rulesets.  (Megatraveller, maybe?  I forget now.)  I use the D20 system right now, but abstract it down quite a lot.  It's all in the descriptions, and I base the DC's on the players' descriptions.  It flows ok, but it could be better.  I think RPGObjects' new Blood and Space Starship Construction book has a revised starship combat system, but I haven't gotten a chance to read the whole book yet.  I know one of the new Dawning Star books is supposed to have a new system as well.  If it's as good as the core setting was (both in mechanics and overall writing), it ought to be be pretty good.  We'll see when it comes out though.

Revised SWD20 is pretty good, IMO.  I like the mechanics for Force Powers.  While some characters from the movies are still a little shoehorned in the system, it's does a good job of modelling the fell of the movies.  It may be a little lethal at times, but not so much that the players are playing heroically like the characters in the movies.  

Kane


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> What I object to is the position that people have no responsibility for their own spending habits -- a position articulated in this very thread. If you buy a piece of garbage on impulse, you do yourself and the hobby a disservice. You own something you don't like; the company notices that you bought it, and that's more important to them than your feelings about it.




Begging your pardon, I'm a Greyhawk fan.  If it says "Greyhawk," I'm going to buy it because I'm a Greyhawk fan.   I don't feel silly or stupid saying that and I reject any suggestion to the contrary.  I'm even going to buy it knowing it is junk, if that is indeed the case.    And even in such case, I will feel free to complain that it is junk.  

Your position does not take into consideration what being a more than casual "fan" means.  A fan follows their setting through good times and bad, like a baseball fan perhaps does as well, still buying tickets when you know you are out of the pennant race or were never in it. :\ 

Of course, the legitimacy of a particular criticism is another matter. But the right to criticise?  I bought that when I paid for the product, just like I get to criticize "those bums" when they make more errors than runs.  

There is a more than "dollars and sense" component to being a gamer and a fan of a particular setting that you are ignoring.  It is not as cut and dried as you make out.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

Thanks, Diaglo.  I give these a look see when I get off work tonight.

Kane


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

Gomez said:
			
		

> By a different game do you mean one that uses a totally different means of calculation success or failure? Like not using a 1d20 plus bonuses versus a target DC?
> 
> _*BTW, I am no longer going to let Eyebeams bother me anymore. I just will not read his posts!   *_



 Maybe, but maybe not. In my experience, it's not the dice and calculation thereof that present the issues, but in trying to make starship combat "fit with" or reflect other parts of the game.  I'm not saying it *couldn't* work, just that it *hasn't*


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 30, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> lol!
> 
> MY point is that saying book x sucks is not then same as saying Wil Upchurch, Monte Cook, or Keith Baker is a bad writer and should burn in hell.




I can't believe you want me to burn in hell!!!!   

 

Seriously, my beef in this thread has never been about personal comments, so don't sweep me up in GMS's discussion. I'm focused only on incorrect criticisms of the works themselves. I have no problem with legitimate criticisms...I think I've been more than willing to discuss problems with books I've worked on without getting offended. But that doesn't mean I'm going to always agree, or watch a product, any product, get bashed for irrational reasons.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 30, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I felt the same way.  It was OK, but not nearly as good as the Revised edition.  Starship combat could have been better still, but WotC has yet to do that aspect of sci-fi gaming right yet.



I think they did it pretty well in Alternity. Though Alternity was mostly written in the TSR era, the main people responsible still work for WOTC (Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker).


----------



## billd91 (Jun 30, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> In the specific case of Gamma World, what might be asked is whether a writer should follow fans' notions about what Setting X was regardless of whether those notions match reality. IN GW's case, I don't think they do.




So you're saying that 10,000 Elvis fans can, in fact, be wrong?   
While that may be true about establishing obscure facts that any particular subset of 10,000 Elvis fans might be ignorant of, it isn't true about subjective issues of taste.

In the case of Gamma World, if the character of the new product doesn't fit in with the older versions, then it's clearly not Gamma World at all. It is something different. Calling it Gamma World when it fundamentally isn't is failing to live up to the promise that using the Gamma World name entails.
Now, there may be wiggle room between different players' versions of Gamma World (or GH, or FR, or anything else)  because of the way individuals approach the game (and gaming in general), but if a large number of the fans say something simply doesn't fit versus one author or game company that says it does, then the fans have been let down and the product does not live up to the promise of its line.


----------



## Gomez (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Maybe, but maybe not. In my experience, it's not the dice and calculation thereof that present the issues, but in trying to make starship combat "fit with" or reflect other parts of the game.  I'm not saying it *couldn't* work, just that it *hasn't*




The thing is there can be several different types of Space Combat involved. A system that can simulate a trench run in an X-Wing might not work for a full-fledged space battle with multiple Star Destroyers and Corellian (sp?) Cruisers. And how do you get the player involved is a big factor.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

Beyond the Horizon for GWD20 was a book that was OK that didn't deliver on promises. I remember reading that the book was going to contain new races. I was leery thanks to the core rules, but Machines and Mutants was much better, so I bought the pdf. All in all, it was OK, not great, but unless my eyes are deceiving me there were no new races in the book. Failed promise right there. I was disappointed, but the rest of the book was alright. I may not use much, if any, of it, but at least it was an interesting read much of the way through.

Kane


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 30, 2005)

This doesn't quite qualify for the thread, except in the meta-sense of "the game had promise, so why did they squander it by producing *this*??"

*Shadowforce Archer*. When you've crafted a fun, playable spy game, I fail to see why you would decide to make a third-grade "secret supernatural" setting the official baseline of the game.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> In the specific case of Gamma World, what might be asked is whether a writer should follow fans' notions about what Setting X was regardless of whether those notions match reality. IN GW's case, I don't think they do.




As I don't know enough about the recent GW, I can't comment. I didn't buy it. I do take your point that what is "canon" may be open to extremely wide interpretation.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> BOS is a pretty enough term, but it's really just a manifestation of pointless consumerism. And it's *bad* for gaming. Publishers like it as a kind of economic junk food, and if you want a better hobby, you have to wean them off it.




It is a manifestation of being a fan, of following "dem bums." Much like baseball. I take your point that publishers can see this as an opportunity to bring other than their A game but smart publishers will not do so for reasons you identify - TSR.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> As soon as sales are divorced from content, content goes downhill. The guaranteed sales base of people who will buy anything labelled as a must-have is smaller than you might think.
> 
> It is *much* better to encourage companies to push the envelope of quality by buying cautiously.




I agree that sales divorced from content is not generally good. It is, however, sometimes inevitable for the fan. 

I agree as well that buying cautiously is also a good thing in most cases. BOS products do exist, however, especially for fans of a particular setting. 

I think it is a matter of proportion. When possible, limit your personal BOS list. It is not possible, I think, for a fan to totally do so but one can try.

In no event, however, does a purchaser _ever_ give up the right to be critical of what they bought, however.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 30, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I think they did it pretty well in Alternity. Though Alternity was mostly written in the TSR era, the main people responsible still work for WOTC (Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker).



 I played and loved Alternity.  I however never used the starship combat rules.  I tend to use Alt for GW'ish sci-fantasy where the planet to planet travel was done via wormholes and portals.  I sold my original books shortly after D20 Modern came out, but I did pick them up in pdf, so I'll have to look at those as well.

Kane


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

Gomez said:
			
		

> The thing is there can be several different types of Space Combat involved. A system that can simulate a trench run in an X-Wing might not work for a full-fledged space battle with multiple Star Destroyers and Corellian (sp?) Cruisers. And how do you get the player involved is a big factor.



 That's definitely part of it, yes.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> This doesn't quite qualify for the thread, except in the meta-sense of "the game had promise, so why did they squander it by producing *this*??"
> 
> *Shadowforce Archer*. When you've crafted a fun, playable spy game, I fail to see why you would decide to make a third-grade "secret supernatural" setting the official baseline of the game.



 If *Alias* can do it, why not Spycraft?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> If *Alias* can do it, why not Spycraft?




Because Alias did it well! 






J.J...*does the "call me" gesture*


----------



## Belen (Jun 30, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Seriously, my beef in this thread has never been about personal comments, so don't sweep me up in GMS's discussion. I'm focused only on incorrect criticisms of the works themselves. I have no problem with legitimate criticisms...I think I've been more than willing to discuss problems with books I've worked on without getting offended. But that doesn't mean I'm going to always agree, or watch a product, any product, get bashed for irrational reasons.




I was just naming a few designers that I respected rather than associating you with anything said in this thread.  

By the way, Midnight rocks hard!  I own every book in that series and the setting only gets better over time.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 30, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I was just naming a few designers that I respected rather than associating you with anything said in this thread.




I know, I just wanted to cut it off before it happened. 

Thanks for the compliments. FFG was really lucky to get a few hardcore fans that were also great, imaginative writers, to work on the later Midnight products. It's through their hard work that the setting has continued to grow.


----------



## King of Old School (Jun 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Your position does not take into consideration what being a more than casual "fan" means.  A fan follows their setting through good times and bad, like a baseball fan perhaps does as well, still buying tickets when you know you are out of the pennant race or were never in it.



Actually, his position is quite clear on the more-than-casual "fans" -- they're bad for the industry, because their willingness to buy crap sight unseen means that more crap is published than would otherwise be the case, and this crap services a market which is ever-shrinking by definition (since the crap drives away all but the hardcore).  If there were fewer of these "fans" then products would have to sink or swim on merit.  He's already expressed this position in this thread, and I agree with Eyebeams on it.  I don't agree with his position on expectation though, and particularly where a legacy brand like GW is concerned (notwithstanding that I personally liked GWd20).

(Incidentally, such fans can in extreme cases be bad for professional sports as well; taking your baseball example, a team with a fanbase that will sell out the park and snap up merchandise regardless of on-field results encourages a non-competitive owner to deliberately lowball the on-field product because, hey, why pay big dollars for a good roster when you can make the same cash fielding a bunch of bums on the cheap?  And yes, this does actually happen in the pro sports world and it's not good for the game(s).)

As for my personal "failed promise" product: WitchCraft, by Eden Studios.  Not because it was so horrible, but because it was not nearly what all the glowing reviews and testimonies online suggested it was.  An example of how researching a product before buying doesn't always work...

KoOS


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> *Shadowforce Archer*. When you've crafted a fun, playable spy game, I fail to see why you would decide to make a third-grade "secret supernatural" setting the official baseline of the game.




That has to do with a sad fact of the business, I'm afraid.....genre products mixed with supernatural/fantasy elements always sell better than "straight" genre products, for some reason.

Look at the relative successes of:

Boot Hill (or any other straightforward western) vs. Deadlands
Sengoku (or Bushido or any other straightforward feudal Japan game) vs. L5R
Cyberpunk vs. Shadowrun

For whatever reason, if it mixes fantasy into the genre, it sells better.  I suspect that was behind the AEG decision.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Your experiences are, obviously, your own and I cannot pass judgment on them in any particular.
> You assume, however, that your experiences are normative. That does not necessarily follow.




Unbelievable.

I....

Forget it.  Never mind.   You've got more than one person, who have worked many years, for many different publishers, telling you how things are, and you're still clinging to your view of "how things are" like a drowning man.

...and clothing your argument in as many Debate 101 phrases as you can doesn't change the fact that your position basically boils down to "Nuh-uh.  Is NOT.   LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Your description is so strained to make your "point" that you make writing for a publisher sound like confinement within a Dickensian workhouse.




My description is not strained, at all, in fact.   Do you work in this industry?  Have you ever?   I've done freelance work for a dozen or more publishers, worked on staff for one, and been the owner of two....and you?  Do you even know how much a writer in this business makes?

You know what?  Never mind.   I have no desire to read a long convoluted post that re-iterates your woefully uninformed (no, wait:  not informed, because I, and others, have tried to inform you, but you're just not listening...how about "willfully ignorant?") position.

We're done, I think.

I apologize to everyone else for dragging this thread even further off-topic.


----------



## tonym (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> ...Besides which, you'd be hard pressed to defend "it's crap" or "YUCK!" or "abomination" as a reasonable criticism.



What GMSkarka said.

When a person calls a book an abomination, he is insulting the writer, IMO.  After all, no writer would write an abomination on purpose.  Saying a book is an abomination is much like saying the writer is a "miserable failure as a writer."

Calling a book crap is like he is calling the writer a "crap-maker," and that is also insulting, IMO.

Saying "Yuck!" to a book is like saying, "I didn't like it A LOT!"  This doesn't seem to insult the writer....but it actually does.  "Yuck!" is usally exclaimed by children whenever something distasteful is applied to their tongue.  Therefore, saying "Yuck!" to a book is like calling the book "a brussel sprout in the mouth of a 4-year-old."  Which is much like calling the writer a torturer of small children.

My 2 cp.

Tony M


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Therefore, saying "Yuck!" to a book is like calling the book "a brussel sprout in the mouth of a 4-year-old."  Which is much like calling the writer a torturer of small children.
> 
> My 2 cp.
> 
> Tony M



i loved brussels sprouts as a 4-year-old. i love them still.


----------



## Macbeth (Jun 30, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i loved brussels sprouts as a 4-year-old. i love them still.



Brussel Sprout AND OD&D? Wow. You are quite the strange fellow. (And I mean that in the best way possible)


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i loved brussels sprouts as a 4-year-old. i love them still.




Mutant.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 30, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Saying "Yuck!" to a book is like saying, "I didn't like it A LOT!"  This doesn't seem to insult the writer....but it actually does.  "Yuck!" is usally exclaimed by children whenever something distasteful is applied to their tongue.  Therefore, saying "Yuck!" to a book is like calling the book "a brussel sprout in the mouth of a 4-year-old."  Which is much like calling the writer a torturer of small children.




It's not torture. It's building character.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 30, 2005)

Macbeth said:
			
		

> Brussel Sprout AND OD&D? Wow. You are quite the strange fellow. (And I mean that in the best way possible)



somebody else must've had Bubble and Squeak as a kid.

i'm not the only one in this world with an English Mum.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> My description is not strained, at all, in fact.   Do you work in this industry?




Yes.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Have you ever?




Currently do.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I've done freelance work for a dozen or more publishers, worked on staff for one, and been the owner of two....and you?




I've done freelance work in this industry and in sports journalism, and used to own, operate and edit submissions to a major electronic RPG website.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Do you even know how much a writer in this business makes?




$600 a month in a good month, for me.  Usually less.  Of course, I'm fairly new and hope that will become the low rather than high end, or else I'm in a pickle down the line.  

I'll reiterate.  Out of about a half-dozen fan complaints I've received about my work in this industry, only one was due to an editor's change.  All the rest targeted my own authorial vision.  About 75% of my freelance work has appeared in print in basically unedited form - I'm excluding only those works where content rather than presentation changed after I sent it in.  Most of the complaints in this thread are about content, not presentation, content, not writing.


----------



## Henry (Jun 30, 2005)

Hey, Back off Brussels Sprouts! Some awesome food. 

And for that matter, let's try and get back to topic, if we can? The Universe, Gomez, and several others are trying admirably, but it keeps seeming to slide into "are not!" "is too!" waters. _Any return to the original concept of books that you felt disappointed with after buying, and reasons why other than "because it sucked", would be appreciated._

Thanks.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 30, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> What GMSkarka said.
> 
> When a person calls a book an abomination, he is insulting the writer, IMO.  After all, no writer would write an abomination on purpose.  Saying a book is an abomination is much like saying the writer is a "miserable failure as a writer."
> 
> ...




While writing about electronic RPGs, I received death threats over innocuous writing.  I've been called a "F'ing retard" over innocuous writing.  I've been accused of "catering to fanboys," of lying, of cheating, of intentionally shooting childhood memories in the face (possibly with a hammer, for WotC boardgoers), of being ignorant, uneducated, stupid, mendacious, arrogant, cruel, tyrannical, brutal and generally unsociable.

Aside from the death threats, I never much cared; to tell you the truth, those weren't terribly worrying, either.

I certainly don't care if somebody goes "yuck" about something I write, or calls it "crap" or an "abomination" - unless it impacts sales for my publisher and hence, possible future work for me.  That seems somehow unlikely.  I mean, come on.  How can someone possibly give a rat's posterior about this?! :\


----------



## Belen (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> My description is not strained, at all, in fact.   Do you work in this industry?  Have you ever?   I've done freelance work for a dozen or more publishers, worked on staff for one, and been the owner of two....and you?  Do you even know how much a writer in this business makes?




May I ask why you do it?  If the editors constrain you that badly, you get paid crap, and hate to hear it when people do not enjoy what you have written, then why write?

I worked for a 3rd party publishers for 18 months.  It sucked and I was happier just developing my campaign world for my players and my own enjoyment.  As for writing, I prefer my short stories and novel, which I am steadily getting finished.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 30, 2005)

King of Old School said:
			
		

> Actually, his position is quite clear on the more-than-casual "fans" -- they're bad for the industry, because their willingness to buy crap sight unseen means that more crap is published than would otherwise be the case, and this crap services a market which is ever-shrinking by definition (since the crap drives away all but the hardcore).  If there were fewer of these "fans" then products would have to sink or swim on merit.  He's already expressed this position in this thread, and I agree with Eyebeams on it.  I don't agree with his position on expectation though, and particularly where a legacy brand like GW is concerned (notwithstanding that I personally liked GWd20).
> 
> (Incidentally, such fans can in extreme cases be bad for professional sports as well; taking your baseball example, a team with a fanbase that will sell out the park and snap up merchandise regardless of on-field results encourages a non-competitive owner to deliberately lowball the on-field product because, hey, why pay big dollars for a good roster when you can make the same cash fielding a bunch of bums on the cheap?  And yes, this does actually happen in the pro sports world and it's not good for the game(s).)




"Non-competitive owners" are the problem, not dedicated fans - at least in the sport I'm most familiar with, pro basketball.

Frankly, in most pro sports, it doesn't much matter if the fans are loyal or not.  Revenue sharing keeps teams like the NBA's Atlanta Hawks afloat even when, in the immortal words of then Denver Nugget Jon Barry, playing in Atlanta is like "playing in a morgue" because so few people attend the games.  Yet the Hawks keep on chugging along (and putting a terrible product on the court, last I checked).

On the flip side, who doesn't think that the LA Lakers would sell out every game regardless on-court product?  Yet the Lakers are reliably a top franchise.  The Sacramento Kings sold out every game even when there team hadn't made the Playoffs in about a decade.  Yet when the current ownership came in, they put together an elite team.  That didn't pack one more fan in, and it cost a lot more than having a loser - but that's what a competitive owner does.

I for one don't believe that many RPG publishers would intentionally lowball a product or throw it together just because they expect dedicated fans to buy it.  If nothing else, the fierce competition for WotC's scraps keeps companies on their toes - not to mention TSR's eventual collapse.  This isn't a successful enough industry to keep the RPG equivalent of the Hawks afloat, and even if it were as successful as the NBA, it doesn't do revenue-sharing.


----------



## Einan (Jun 30, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The way Midnight is set up, the standard PC goal is "defeat Izrador."
> 
> It's a reasonable point of view that in Midnight the standard goal of the PCs is effectively unattainable by the PCs. Hence "unwinnable" by the PCs. Normally in most settings the default goals of the PCs (eg "get money & treasure" or "defeat the Scarlet Brotherhood") are potentially achievable by the PCs.
> 
> Edit: I'm talking about the internal aspect of the Player Characters, what their primary goal in life is. Not the goal of the players, or the goal of the campaign or the GM. The players' goal may be "experience what it's like to live in a world without hope" but the character generation rules for Midnight PCs are designed to create Heroes whose goal is "defeat the Shadow", not ordinary guys just trying to exist, or minions of the Shadow (can be done, but not much challenge there). Hence the game is built on this tension - you are expected to play people whose overriding goal in life is not attainable. Some people like this, some don't.




I think that Midnight is fun precisely because the players have to alter their view that the goal is "Defeat Izrador."  When I introduce players to it, I tell them that their PCs need to alter their views to a more survival oriented modality.  Goals go from defeating the Great Evil to helping my family to move to a safer area or avenging my father's death at the hands of the orcs.  It bring the epic nature of the game down to a more personal scale and provides a grittier motivation for playing.  It's no longer "we're out to storm the castle," it's "we're out to survive."

Just my two cents.  I dig the Midnight, I do.

Einan


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

It is my intention to follow Henry's request and get back on topic, but I wanted to respond to this direct question:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> May I ask why you do it?  If the editors constrain you that badly, you get paid crap, and hate to hear it when people do not enjoy what you have written, then why write?




One, because that's what writers do.  As an author friend of mine once said to me, writers write because they can't imagine NOT writing.  They have to.

Two...I don't really write for others any more.  I own my own company, produce the stuff I want, and get paid much better than I was as a freelancer.  The freelance work that I do nowadays falls under two categories:  writing for properties that I'm a fan of, and (more commonly), writing for friends in the industry, because they're friends.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Unbelievable. . . .




ROFL! Reminds me of the movie, The Princess Bride . . . "Inconcievable!"  

For your reading pleasure, I give you MoogleEmpMog -



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I've done freelance work in this industry and in sports journalism, and used to own, operate and edit submissions to a major electronic RPG website. . . .
> 
> I'll reiterate. Out of about a half-dozen fan complaints I've received about my work in this industry, only one was due to an editor's change. All the rest targeted my own authorial vision. About 75% of my freelance work has appeared in print in basically unedited form - I'm excluding only those works where content rather than presentation changed after I sent it in. Most of the complaints in this thread are about content, not presentation, content, not writing.




Not as black and white as you seem to imagine, now is it?

You err by imagining your experience is a microcosm of all experience. 

You want to whip out your "experience" and me whip out mine and see whose is "bigger?" I'm a shy fellow and I do not denigrate a person's opinion because they haven't "lived the life." In any event, I have little cause to stoop to your level of argumentation and prefer to let you twist in the proverbial wind with your superior attitude and condescention wrapped tightly around your neck for all to see. The merits of your argument are fully evident in how you choose to present them.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> We're done, I think.




I'm done. With your attitude, you're finished. I can imagine no publisher listening to you describe your experiences who would want their name associated with yours lest you "defend" your work by blaming the publisher. But that may be just me. 

No hard feelings otherwise.  

And I'll see your de rigueur "apology" and raise one "But I'm just a newbie to EN World! Please forgive my trespasses!"  

Now, what was the topic again?


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

> Now, what was the topic again?



 It's dead, and I'm tired of casting resurrection. I'm done.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> About 75% of my freelance work has appeared in print in basically unedited form




You've got to be kidding me.   Who were you writing for?   

You weren't writing to a specified project outline to begin with?  There was no Line Development occuring?

I mean, at this point, it's a lost cause, since GVDammerung has taken your single dissenting voice as proof that he's right, but I have to admit that your above statement is so outrageous that I'm really very curious.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> You want to whip out your "experience" and me whip out mine and see whose is "bigger?" I'm a shy fellow and I do not denigrate a person's opinion because they haven't "lived the life."




Call me crazy for thinking that people who actually work in the business might have a better idea of how it operates than those who don't.   That's not "whipping it out and seeing whose is bigger"-- that's just common sense.


----------



## Henry (Jun 30, 2005)

I think we're all done. It's just kept de-volving and de-volving to the point where all people want to do is toss insults. The topic needs a rest. Thread closed.


----------

