Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Re: Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?

You're right and I realized that while I typed it, but wanted to emphasize the fact that there are all of these "-ers" in the game now. I do remember the cloaker in the first edition MM.

Yes, I believe the mongrelmen first appeared in mass print in the module I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City and later in the first edition MM2. But my question is why isn't it in 3e MM2? Why do I have to buy Tome of Horrors?

I don't remember the Nereid's origins in D&D, but they're based on legend and appeared in an early module and MM2, I'm sure.

IIRC, that module was C4(?) - The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan (a tournament module).

--The Sigil

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Re: Re: Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?

I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that even if they just took the basic CONTENT of previous editions and put them in 3e rules, they would have still had a better product than what they're putting out right now.

There are some cases I would agree (the thief book comes to mind), but it is a double edged sword- don't you think?

Can you imagine the outcry if they provided books that were mostly conversions of old books?

Granted, the core books are pretty much just updates, but they have to be and still offer something new.

No, over all, they need to go forward- and sadly, there are times they have/will mess up. It is unfortunate that many of their more recent products have been disappointments.

But, as I said originally, they have done well for d&d over all.

FD

 

[Sir Edgar]

C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. I have it right here. Thanks, that's what I thought but wasn't sure. I just assumed it was earlier than that being what I would consider a "traditional" monster.

The gibbering mouther was in there, too, in fact. I guess that monster would be considered similar to monsters like the "choker", but it's been around so long, I guess I'm used to it.

In fact, I don't really mind the new "experimental" monsters all that much. More new monsters? Great. But don't forget the old ones that a lot of people use. They should be a priority before the new "invented" ones.

 

[Grazzt]

The Cloaker was in the 1e MM2 and before that was in a module (the name escapes me at the moment..but I believe it was one of the A-series modules).

 

[Garmorn]

First, no, it is not a matter of taste. They should have included popular monsters from past editions AS WELL AS all the monsters some other people like.

To the people I talked to they did include all of the most popular monsters. The ones you name latter as being important where hardly ever used by the 10+ groups I played in over the last 20 years. That is a example of what I meant by it being a matter of taste.

But to that aside I was speaking more of their over all line then any single book when I was talking about. What I meant by main line v.s. expermental are things that push the basic concepts of the game. Dragonstar, Deadlands, ect, Monsters that are not of fantasy but more horror or SF. Many of the more unsual things being done by the D20 companies.

Sorry for the missunderstanding. I have a hard time expressing my self with writen words.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Here, I have a few more monster names for Monster Manual 3:

Throat Eater (eats throats)
Mind Bender (bends minds)
Swordling (wields a sword)
Hand Crusher (only attacks hands of pcs)
Soul Swallower (along with all the "soul" creatures)
Monster Masher (likes to party)
Wight Spawn (Zombie Spawn, Wraith Spawn, etc.)
Muncher (lots of butt jokes here, hehe)
Soultouched (can be pc class)
Shadow Golem (made of shadow, of course)
Toothpick Golem (made of toothpicks)
Glover (oh wait that's an N64 game!)
Booter (kicks you in the butt for bad role-playing)
Spine Horror (terrible on the spine!)
Pencilman (looks like a pencil)
Cubic Zirconium Dragon (lower CR than Diamond Dragon)
Kupozzosagrati
Zikkozzabamaka
Gazzovragomilx

Of course, if WOTC or anyone else wants to use it they have to get my permission. Or is this OGL now that I've posted here? I better consult my lawyer. (Kidding)

 

[RodneyThompson]

My opinion is that Hasbro is mismanaging WotC, and we are seeing a trickle-down effect, so I really can't vote.

Ditto, ditto. Hasbro owes as much to WotC for lining their pockets as anyone else...yet, magically, when things settle down after the Pokemon boom, it's suddenly not good enough? Please. WotC was better off independent. If I had my druthers (which I don't) I'd get someone who knows what they are doing to buy it back from Hasbro, but guess it won't happen.

 

[arbados]

Overall, I am very pleased with the majority of products that WOTC has published. Additionally, I play with 5 other experienced role players who agree that the new 3rd Edition supplements may not be to the tastes of all, but do have their place and appeal.

What is most unfortunate for me is the lack of proof reading on the part of WOTC when they release their products. Missing entries, numerous spelling errors; this irks me.

I read the posts on these boards on a daily basis and it seems that people love to bash WOTC for the majority of their products which are released. Sometimes I think this may be due to higher expectations from the "head" honcho.

I think the OGL is great and was fantastic for WOTC to develop. It gives all role players greater choice in what and from whom they purchase.

Finally, the books WOTC produce aren't bound with a Wizard Lock. Go to your nearest hobby shop, pop open the book, take a look inside and if you don't feel that it is the type of product you are going to be satisfied with, DON'T BUY IT.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it useless. Maybe to you, but certainly not in general.

Most of the monsters you deem worthless from the MM seem pretty useful to me. Some of the ones you deem mainstays or basics - such as Mongrelmen - are kind of lame in my eyes.

Deities & Demigods is nowhere near 100% useless. Personally, I liked it. There were aspects of it I didn't particularly care for (I would've liked more pantheons or more detail to the ones they had), but I still find it generally useful. It gives me enough to construct a pantheon of my own, or adjust one that I've used for a while.

The Book of Challenges is a great book. Very, very useful. I'd love to see more of its kind. Boring it isn't. It fills a very specific niche, and does it very well.

originally posted by Wolfen Priest:

However, I do wonder why, if it truly is all about $ with them, did they decide to produce so much crap lately. I mean, Dieties & Demigods was not worth buying, IMHO (which is why I didn't buy it BTW, I could tell immediately it was completely useless), that Book of Challenges seems pretty dull, the ELH did not quite live up to people's expectations (although I'm still very unclear on what those expectations actually were), and the Stronghold builder's guidebook really failed to inspire.

The problem is, you give no specific reasons as to why you think any of these are so bad, besides broad generalizations. How could you immediately tell Deities & Demigods was completely useless? Why was Book of Challenges pretty dull (what were you expecting, specifically)? Now, you could simply say that these are your opinions, and you don't want to detail them, but it's hard to discuss the matter on such terms.

originally posted by Sir Edgar:
For some people, this statement itself could be considered provocative and rude, especially to the people at the r.g.f.d., rpg.net, or WOTC boards.

Maybe, but he wasn't posting at those places. He happens to be a moderator here, not there. And this place is definitely more polite than those other places. Being combative right out of the box is a good way to be placed on a lot of "ignore" lists.

originally posted by Sir Edgar:
I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that even if they just took the basic CONTENT of previous editions and put them in 3e rules, they would have still had a better product than what they're putting out right now.

I disagree. This is my opinion, as that was yours. Neither is objectively provable. A lot of that earlier content was lousy - in my opinion, of course.

Choker, Cloaker, Digester, Breath Drinker, Dark Clutcher, Deathbringer - All these names seem much more evocative than any of these: Aerial Servant, Brownie, Hippocampus, Kelpie, Leprechaun, Mongrelman, Nereid, Spriggan, Yeti.

Grazzt - I believe the Cloaker first appeared in A2 - Secret of the Slavers Stockade.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yes, that's a very diplomatic and well-worded response. However, I don't think that my argument is based upon "personal preference and taste". Why did they take out so many commonly used monsters and put in so many "experimental" ones? Later editions of any product should add and improve, not subtract and worsen. To me, that is like buying a 2002 model car and not getting a cup holder that was in the 2001 model and instead a pen holder. I don't need that pen holder! If you want to add a pen holder, fine, but keep the cup holder, too. Anyhow, right now the poll is about evenly split, so clearly this is not a matter of my personal taste. I never asked for an MM with my personal list of 250 favorite monsters. But whichever ones you did not include, please put in the MM2.

Now how is any of this not purely "personal preference and taste"? It's all opinion. What are "commonly used monsters"? The ones you named were almost never used by me or anyone I gamed with in 23 years of gaming.

Deities & Demigods is a shameful product that doesn't even deserve discussion.

Unless you can empirically prove this, this is also purely personal preference and opinion.