Anyone else overall disappointed by D&D books?

[MDSnowman]

(Mind you, I'm not saying that FR is a BAD setting. It's just not the most logical, and very very borrow-happy, as fans and foes alike know well)

Hehe let me be the one to say it then

Honestly though I was reading Eberron and my heart sank because I got a vibe from the FRCS there for a minute. It quickly passed however, because as I read on I realized how well thought out and intergrated everything was. You got the feeling that a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make sure the game followed its own internal logic. I think that makes the setting infinetly more enjoyable.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Thanx

Anyway, I have got a few other week points of D&D books. One of them is faith. I miss typical in almost every normal culture present archetypal gods and consistent mythology behind the pantheons. It is just name, one sentence like creator of sth. or protector of sth. and finally domains. Perhaps with some new domain. This used to be good at Greyhawk setting, that there was at least some feeling, that there is some story behind it (and there were more than one pantheon based on different cultures, although the mixed it together in PHB so horribly.) And that's pity, because love or hate between gods coud be base for some intricate plots.

Excuse me?

Even the D&D Core Rules (who aren't really there to provide campaign information) have a handful of gods, and if you get a proper supplement to get more of them, like Deities & Demigods (for the D&D, Olympian, Pharaonic and Asgardian Pantheons) or Faiths and Avatars (for the FR Deities), you have more than enough deities, including background information.

And you miss love and hate between gods? Let's look into the PHB and we find:
Two half-brothers who are the gods of valor and tyranny, respectively, and who are engaged in an eternal struggle against each other.
We have two demihuman gods who can't stand each other cause the one put out the the other's eye.
We have two "small" deities who hate each other because the one pulled a prank on the other.

And these are only the animosities that are spelled out. There are others if you think about it one minute, like Pelor vs. Nerull and their quarrel over the Undead; Moradin and Gruumsh which is a racial thing; Boccob and Vecna over their respective opinions about the speading of knowledge; Or Erythnul vs. St. Cuthbert. Alliances will include things like Corellon and Ehlonna, Garl and Olidammara.

 

[Greg K]

I understand Turanil's disappointment with WOTC products for DND. Outside of the core books (PHB, DMG, and MM), I liked the UA, but I found the other sourcebooks to be disappointing for me tastes. For example, if I am lucky, BoED, Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Miniatures Handbook each contain maybe five pages of crunchy bits that I like. Thankfully, I have avoided purchasing these products by taking the time to sit down and read through the books in the store.

 

[Remathilis]

Tired of very bland, vanilla, politically correct fantasy game?

Have I got the Game for You!
(yes, I am joking)

 

[MDSnowman]

Tired of very bland, vanilla, politically correct fantasy game?

Have I got the Game for You!
(yes, I am joking)

Bah every campaign has a scene where blue midgets attack you and your incubus boyfriend while you're making out in a cave.

 

[JoeGKushner]

As I'm looking through the Expanded Psionics Handbook, once again, I just fail to see the 'blah' factor some have mentioned.

While at Barnes & Nobles the other day, I got to take a look at the new campaign setting and man, it looks pretty fantastic, at least art wise and presentation wise. Didn't get a chance to dig into it too much but it's one nice looking book. The Forgotten Realms may have a contenter when it comes to great looking books.

 

[Greg K]

My problem with the expanded psionics handbook is that I don't like the majority of the powers and the feel they generate. Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook and even the old Mayfair Psionics supplement are much closer to the feel I like.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, I am disappointed by D&D books for quite a long time. And I bought just a few of them, core rulebooks and about three or four other. What I really dislike is the fact, there is just nothing interesting, nothing creative in them.

I as a DM want consistent world with functional ecology, economy, politics and so on. And what I get are just inconsisten fragments don't fitting together. Forgotten Realms, however it is nice setting are a good example of this approach. One million inteligent races, one million nations and countries and no connection between them.
It is said, that when butterfly flutter his wings, there is the storm elsewhere. But when in these "fantasy world" there is cathastrophy, most of the time, even the closest neighbours don't care.

We play in our own world. With just three big nations and several small city states and some tribes, because we don't need more for good, long exciting campaign. There are just few intelligent races (even less then in PHB) and there are just few well known monsters, which fit into the setting. We do not use more feats, more prestige classes, more spells, domains, magic items etc. because we do not need them for nice, thrilling and breathtaking campaign.

This game is not about rolling dice and arithemtic it is about roleplaying and none of DnD books helps with this problem. There are no ideas for really good plots, interesting and elaborated persons, completely mapped and described intresting places. This is what I miss in DnD books, although rules are fine, I do not need pregenerated statistics and tables. Even my trained chimp coud make them. So this is I am disappointed by DnD and d20 books. (Yes, I know, there are few exceptions - I bought them, but most of the books are just crap.)

Sorry for mistakes, I am not native speaker. :-(

You do have a point. There has to be a balance between crunch (game stats) and fluff (RP and non-game info) material in a product. But WotC is dictated by the demand of the majority of gamers.

IOW, the majority wants crunch.

 

[Ranger REG]

My problem with the expanded psionics handbook is that I don't like the majority of the powers and the feel they generate. Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook and even the old Mayfair Psionics supplement are much closer to the feel I like.

I guess you and I are in the minority when we prefer this approach to psionic powers.

I'm not saying the PsiHB and the XPH are bad. Maybe many of you do like that approach to psionics. We simply like the skill-n-feat method.

 

[Incenjucar]

Skill and Feat situations can be muddy, if only because many people seem to feel that feats and skills are not allowed to be class features in and of themselves (you've seen the gripes on it on the WotC boards). I, personally, am not so adverse to the idea of feats and skills holding more power, I just don't have the time or money to invest in material that's not going to be supported by the mainstream.

Of course, I'm also in the opinion that they need to introduce -more- types of casters, particularly elementalists, direct manipulators, and ceremony-based casters.