Anyone else overall disappointed by D&D books?

[Corinth]

The PHB had better be nothing more than a bunch of rules. Save the setting material for those that want it.

 

[Henry]

Turanil, perhaps you meant "misleading?"

I don't see deception, which implies they intentionally lied to you about what the product contained. However, if you feel mislead by what the cover and advertising shows you versus the material inside, I could understand it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Two days ago I just got my copy of Unearthed Arcana, along Menace Manual, Tranhuman Space, and GR Psychic's Handbook. Plus I recently bought several other d20 books (including WotC stuff, and third party publishers products).

In getting my Unearthed Arcana, I went to the conclusion that it's the last D&D book that I purchase. I first wondered if it was for being a WotC product, but since I am quite happy with Menace Manual (much more than with Monster Manual for instance), I thought it's rather only with purely D&D products. For example, I was (and I am still) quite happy with Monte's Arcana Unearthed, but I am deceived with Unearthed Arcana. I was also deceived by Book of Exalted Deeds, and likewise by other products I did read but didn't bought in my LFGS.

It seems to me that D&D is now all about a very bland, vanilla, politically correct fantasy game, with much flavor (I speak of art here) intended toward teenagers (yes: I am an old gamer). It's not only Unearthed Arcana, but I got the same deception from MoP, Book of Exalted Deeds, or Book of Vile Darkness. I still like to play D&D, although in flavored hombrew worlds, not vanilla FR or Greyhawk, but I am not getting anymore any other D&D book. Finished!

So, are there others feeling like me around? Or it is just because i am burnt out after having DMed a D&D campaign for one year (and needing rest)?

Well, I don't know how you got into (A)D&D, but it has always been written with teens in mind, even though WotC market research have indicated that their target demographic are young post-high school adults. In fact, that's how I got into D&D my first RPG, around the age of 13, many moons ago.

All of the products you have mentioned are merely rulebooks to supplement the core, with a secondary purpose of adding Greyhawk flavor material and little Forgotten Realms these days not just to cater to those fans of WotC's published campaign but to give others examples of campaign-specific material. But GH have always been the default setting for the D&D rulebook lines since the launch of 3e back in 2000. There is no deception.

So, please respond to us, how exactly are you being deceived?

 

[Alhazred]

I started playing D&D (and roleplaying games in general) just after the release of 2AD&D. I must say that 3.X is a marked improvement and, while some products, whether Wizards or third-party, are substandard, the quality has generally been high. I was particularly pleased with UA, which I purchases solely for the bloodlines, and then proceeded to adopt other ideas.

As for the *deceived* controversy, if I may be allowed to give in my two cents. The word tromper may be translated as deceived, but it may also be translated as cheated. If the latter is what was meant, then I too have felt cheated a few times, that is, felt that the product did not live up to the product advertisements. Case in point is S&S's Secrets of the Dread Realms, which was hyped as the DMG for Ravenloft, and which nearly killed the setting for me.

 

[LeifVignirsson]

I can be pretty close to 100% sure as to the level of deception here. Monte Cook's AU and WotC's UA are so close that some people (including myself) can get those switched. If you came into UA thinking that you were going to get AU, then you are going to feel like you were deceived... (hopefully everyone followed that...)

As far as the books, I will be honest and say that though they are not the greatest, they do have a lot of power behind them because of who made it. BoED was good, GOOD from AEG was slightly better, IMO. I am sure it will be the same with the RACES OF STONE book compared to the GR product that escapes my mind at the moment because I am supposed to be working yet I am slacking off at this moment and time... *gasp*

Overall, back on topic, this seems more like a user error than product error. Having high expectations for WotC because someone did something in the same vein that was better is only going to be a let down...

Man, it sounds like I am bashing WotC in this response. Please do know that I do have almost all of the released product from WotC and I do love the game... I just think some of the other 3rd party product is a bit crisper and cleaner...

Anyway, yeah... um... I am sorry you think you need to be finished with WotC books... There are going to be some interesting ones coming out here very soon indeed.

 

[Kalendraf]

I'm not sure how you feel deceived. Perhaps you chose the wrong word?

I will admit a sleight feeling of disappointment in a few of my purchases of WotC material. Most of it is quite good, but some things could have been better in a few cases. For example, I would have liked to have seen a cleaner job of editting and proofreading (3.5 books still had a number of errata!), and in others, its clear that more playtesting was warranted (XPH, for example)

I'd also prefer that they didn't insist on putting too wide a spectrum of info into each book. For example, the Miniatures handbook, which IMHO should have just been dedicated to in depth aspects of the miniatures game, instead includes a wide array of things including new classes, feats and monsters just to name a few. Other books have likewise included more than perhaps they should have. Should I really have to buy the FR books, just for a few interesting feats and spells I'd like to use in my campaign?

When I compare WotC's material to other d20 products, there's a clear difference in production level. While many d20 products are interesting, many of the feats, classes and so forth tend to have balance issues.

That said, there is at least one area that I think WotC has clearly dropped the ball compared to their competition - adventure modules. Of their original intro adventures, most are pretty bad. Meanwhile some of the other d20 companies have put out some high quality adventures, destined to be classics. To me it seems like WotC essentially gave up this segment of the market. Perhaps that was a wise move, since in general adventures will sell fewer copies than other source books. Only DMs need to buy them, and even then only those DM's that run published adventures will buy them. If so, fine. But I'm sure they could have put out some quality ones if they'd tried hard enough.

So while I do feel disappointed in some of the WotC material I've purchased, I certainly don't feel deceived.

 

[Ranger REG]

I can be pretty close to 100% sure as to the level of deception here. Monte Cook's AU and WotC's UA are so close that some people (including myself) can get those switched. If you came into UA thinking that you were going to get AU, then you are going to feel like you were deceived... (hopefully everyone followed that...)

Granted, but not everyone is naive. Many of us have prior knowledge about the difference between AU and UA, and the story behind their existence (Monte Cook did asked WotC if it's okay to use Arcana Unearthed name which is a word switch for his line of OGL rulebooks).

Sites like EN World let us know what products are being released and what they're all about before we hit the FLGS with our weeping wallets or start inputing our credit card # into RPG.now or such similar online vendor.

 

[d20Dwarf]

You guys are focusing too much on his language. He's from a non-English speaking country, so give him a break and focus on the content of his message.

 

[Nellisir]

Exactly what I like in a rulebook. Another example of this is Midnight. Rules heavy in sections, but lots and lots of little details.

Compare the 3e PH to Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. The PH comes across as stuffy and just a collection of rules. Wheras AU, even though it isnt a campaign setting in it's own right has some back story and relationships between the races, and to a lesser extent the classes.

See, I consider the PH to be a "rulebook", and Midnight & the FRCS to be "campaign books" that happen to have rules. I like Arcana Unearthed in theory, but it's neither, or both, of the above in the worst possible way. The background campaign setting doesn't appeal to me, and it's alot of work to edit out all the subtle flavor and insert my own.

So I just pull out a few little bits, use the PH, and let AU gather dust.


Anyways, yeah, deceived. By what? What exactly were you expecting that you didn't get, especially from Unearthed Arcana? It was a book of alternate rules -- that seemed pretty straightforward to me (and UA is getting alot more use than AU in my game).

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Vindicator]

You guys are focusing too much on his language. He's from a non-English speaking country, so give him a break and focus on the content of his message.

How can we discuss his content without discussing the words he chose to express that content? IF the whole content of his message is that he feels "deceived," then we have to discuss that word. If he should have used a different word, then that's a subject for another thread.