Anyone else overall disappointed by D&D books?

[Faraer]

D&D is 'generic' in that it's in the genre of D&D fantasy, a genre or subgenre which D&D in its various versions created.

It's not wise to expect great creativity and invention outside of specific game worlds; without context and depth such isolated bits will tend to gimmickry. Within specific game worlds, Wizards *is* publishing Forgotten Realms sourcebooks, and though they're compromised somewhat to sell as D&D books too, the imminent Serpent Kingdoms *is* largely by Ed Greenwood and Eric Boyd, who don't do less than excellent work.

 

[RFisher]

Anyone else overall disappointed by D&D books?

In 2000, I bought my first D&D book in years. Since then, I think I can safely say I've been disappointed with every D&D book released except the PHB, DMG, & MM released that year.

 

[Desdichado]

It's not wise to expect great creativity and invention outside of specific game worlds; without context and depth such isolated bits will tend to gimmickry. Within specific game worlds, Wizards *is* publishing Forgotten Realms sourcebooks, and though they're compromised somewhat to sell as D&D books too, the imminent Serpent Kingdoms *is* largely by Ed Greenwood and Eric Boyd, who don't do less than excellent work.

No, you're right, it's not wise. Every d20 game to date, complete with setting or not, comes with "implied setting", including Conan, D&D, d20 Modern (to a lesser extent), Spycraft, Star Wars, etc. Some of those, naturally, are blatantly obvious in their inclusion of a setting, as that's the point. D&D is less obvious, but the implied setting is still there, and it is no more generic than the Conan book, or the Star Wars book. In my opinion, it's also not wise to equate D&D with fantasy and say that D&D books are generic, as they obviously are not.

d20 can be more generic than it is, although it's likely it can't ever be completely generic. Using the generic classes in Unearthed Arcana, for instance, and developing a skills and feats magic system, that would fit into the standard d20 task resolution system rather than standing apart from it would make d20 more generic.

Not necessarily better, though. I'm not arguing that D&D should be more generic, just that it isn't.

 

[mattcolville]

Well, I have to take exception with that.

Go right ahead. From my point of view, when the general public thinks "fantasy" in this context, they think "Elves and dwarves and wizards and spells and dragons." That's D&D.

 

[Moorcrys]

I've actually found the books released since 3.5 a great deal more useful than the 3.0 splatbooks and such, which as I look at them now seem like a grand experiment to figure out how to balance feats and prestige classes without breaking the system... at least 1/3-1/2 of the material in the 3.0 books is not useable in my opinion. 3.5 books like the Complete Warrior are a lot more balanced and 'plug-inable' to my eye. It's not all perfect, but much better.

And I don't find the rulebooks particularly 'PC'... nor do I find them un-PC... they've brought back some of the controversial stuff like devils and demon princes etc. and the art is definitely more inclusive but if the art is good (see the next paragraph) it seems fine to me. I find the writing a great deal better than the 2nd edition writing, although I still have fond memories of Gygax's unique and complex 1st edition writing style. I'm a little sad that I don't need my dictionary anymore while reading the dmg...

If I have any trouble with the WOTC releases it's definitely the editing, which still isn't the best, and to my particular preference, the art. Half of the art in the new splatbooks annoys me -- I prefer no art to bad art... if I see a prestige class and the artist's impression of it is terrible it tends to influence my opinion of the prestige class. And I prefer a continuity of style... some of the artists thrown together in the splatbooks look like they're from completely different worlds, which I personally find distracting... and if the idea of the WOTC releases is generic fantasy please do away with the punked-out wizards with funky glasses and spikey hair and the bardic armor that came straight from a bad night at the local dance-club... c'mon, how many buckles do you need? It already looked dated when 3.0 came out -- save that stuff for the mid-'90s rave campaign setting.

Moorcrys

 

[Faraer]

I didn't say D&D was 'fantasy', I said it was 'D&D fantasy', which is its own subgenre.

 

[Desdichado]

Go right ahead. From my point of view, when the general public thinks "fantasy" in this context, they think "Elves and dwarves and wizards and spells and dragons." That's D&D.

Then your point of view must be limited to D&D junkies. Genre fans outside of gaming don't think that (as evidenced by best-selling authors like Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind or George R.R. Martin who don't use those conventions). And the "general public", if they think of fantasy, probably think of Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings movies, if anything at all.

 

[Desdichado]

I didn't say D&D was 'fantasy', I said it was 'D&D fantasy', which is its own subgenre.

I realize that, and I caught that (somewhat) subtle phrasing in your post. Although I responded directly to your post, my comments were more generic. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Turanil]

and if the idea of the WOTC releases is generic fantasy please do away with the punked-out wizards with funky glasses and spikey hair and the bardic armor that came straight from a bad night at the local dance-club ... c'mon, how many buckles do you need? It already looked dated when 3.0 came out

Mmmmh... I think this is it. This kind of art is what irritated me in the first place when perusing the Unearthed Arcana and other books, and then with burning-out and boredom after one year of DMing (and several years of DnD playing just before), I just thought: enough of it!

 

[Ghostwind]

Turanil, it sounds like you are looking for stuff that either pushes the envelope of typical fantasy or gives it a new take (especially since you seem to enjoy d20 Modern). To that end, you will likely find what you are looking for in the form of stuff from publishers other than Wizards of the Coast. A short list of material that offers something different to the game would be:

*Oathbound: Domains of the Forge (Bastion Press) - a capstone campaign setting that combines much of the high fantasy and attitude that people saw with Planescape and Dark Sun.

*Book of Erotic Fantasy (Valar Project) - this was a highly controversial book last year and, in a nutshell, gives you the rules and tools you would need to introduce elements of mature sexual themes into your game. People have vastly different opinions about the book, but politically correct isn't one of them.

*Grim Tales (Bad Axe Games) - This is about as close to a d20 GURPS book as one could ever find. Overall, I've found it to be very well written with only a few stumbling blocks that the author even admits he'd like to address in possible future books, such as magic.

*Slayers d20 (Guardians of Order) - Yes, it is based on an anime property, but the magic rules and psychological warfare rules are quite good and refreshing.

*Midnight (Fantasy Flight Games) - A fantasy campaign with a definite dark and evil feel, much like the original Ravenloft. In this world, evil has won and the PCs must plan their every move carefully or face certain death or worse.

Hopefully this gives you a few ideas that will break your 'disappointment'.