Book of the Righteous Dethroned!

[d20Dwarf]

There is nothing wrong with the occasional bad review as long as they are honestly meant and clearly explained. What I find kind of annoying now, is the pattern of going back and getting 3-4 year old products, which are not as slick as new products, and reviewing them by current standards. In some cases they are not even still on shelves.

It is like reviewing Jaws this week and saying the shark looks cheesy.

As long as the author doesn't knock points off for the book using 3.0 rules, then I don't really see the comparison here. Bad art, layout, editing, and ideas remain bad no matter how long it's been since they were published (I'm not saying BotR has any of these). If things have truly gotten much better now, then it's legitimate to say that a book doesn't stand the test of time.

 

[Desdichado]

I'll take it off your hands for you; I was using a friend's copy, who since moved, and I find I'm without my BotR fix, which -- as someone mentioned above -- is great "bathroom reading" at least.

I probably wouldn't use it either, because I have very clear ideas already in mind for the cosmology of most settings I use (which means I often simply reuse at least some aspects of my cosmology from setting to setting) but I found BotR a great read.

Seriously. If you're interested in selling it to me, fire me a note at jdyal@wowway.com

 

[EricNoah]

Mr. Greathouse has the cred and the rep to pull this off; plus the review itself is not overly emotional and ranty. That makes the review work for me regardless of how I feel about the product.

Reviewing old products isn't necessarily too weird in this hobby, either -- who knows if GR might end up selling this (or any of their older stuff) as a PDF someday? Plus a lot of folks buy used/second-hand books.

It is kind of funny to see how a lot of early products got high reviews that (in my guestimation) would not get nearly the high marks were they reviewed in today's more competitive market.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

As long as the author doesn't knock points off for the book using 3.0 rules, then I don't really see the comparison here.

It sounded like he did, though. For example, one of his complaints was that the Holy Warrior was too frontloaded - but that's a remnant of the fact that the 3.0 paladin was frontloaded as well.

 

[Crothian]

frontloaded is frontloaded, no matter what the edition. Just becasue the paladin was like that doesn't make it any better.

 

[Jaws]

It is like reviewing Jaws this week and saying the shark looks cheesy.

Damn. How did he know that I was a cheesehead?


Peace and smiles

j.

 

[Psion]

frontloaded is frontloaded, no matter what the edition. Just becasue the paladin was like that doesn't make it any better.

True, but the paladin was the standard. A standard that it would have to compare to if people were going to take the class seriously.

(I am reminded of the 2e priest book, which put the priest on even ground with other classes -- which would totally make one not want to play one when a standard cleric was available.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

It sounded like he did, though. For example, one of his complaints was that the Holy Warrior was too frontloaded - but that's a remnant of the fact that the 3.0 paladin was frontloaded as well.

I was comparing it to the 3.0 paladin, which it is based on. It was (and is) my opinion that the many abilities granted to that particular holy warrior made it considerably more powerful -- especially, but not exclusively, in games in the DMG's recommended 25 - 32 point buy spread.

 

[baseballfury]

Mr. Greathouse has the cred and the rep to pull this off; plus the review itself is not overly emotional and ranty. That makes the review work for me regardless of how I feel about the product.

I don't know anything about Mr. Greathouse, but this review does not work for me. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it a hachet job. Mr. Greathouse seems completely unable to seperate his personal preferences from those of others. A critic should not just answer the question, "Did I like it?" which is all that he does here. A good reviewer will also answer the questions, "Does this book achieve what it set out to do and would other people like this book?" By giving this book a 2, Mr. Greathouse is saying, "Not only do I not like this book, but no one else will either." I think that is demonstably false. Tons of people love this book and have gotten a huge amount of use out of it. It's fine if he didn't, but this review smacks of pettiness and a deliberate attempt to "dethrone" the book. I might not have agreed with a score of 3, but I'd find it a whole lot more believable than a 2 or the 1 he says he wanted to give it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't know anything about Mr. Greathouse, but this review does not work for me. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it a hachet job. Mr. Greathouse seems completely unable to seperate his personal preferences from those of others. A critic should not just answer the question, "Did I like it?" which is all that he does here. A good reviewer will also answer the questions, "Does this book achieve what it set out to do and would other people like this book?"

I agree that reviewers should seperate their personal preferences from th abstract quality of a work. I feel that my review has so done -- with the exception of portions at the end which are clearly my experience, the review stays with the book and its merits, not with my preferences.

My specific issues with the book (from the review) were: game balance issues with the holy warrior, lack of creativity in the creation mythos, and a cosmology strongly slanted toward good, and lack of creativity in the gods and churches themselves.

Admittedly, the alignment issue is arguably one of personal preference. It is, however, a distinct change from core D&D and something I felt should be pointed out to potential buyers.

The other complaints seem more general to me. Do you feel this is not the case?

By giving this book a 2, Mr. Greathouse is saying, "Not only do I not like this book, but no one else will either." I think that is demonstably false. Tons of people love this book and have gotten a huge amount of use out of it.

If I thought that no one else should read the book, ever, I would have rated it a 1. A rating of 2 is "poor", and I feel this is well-deserved.

I do not rate products on the basis of others' reviews (as, indeed, the rules forbid). As a result I base my rating on my perception of the quality of the book, not taking into account (to whatever degree possible) my preferences.

I do not have a genre bias working against the BotR. I have no issues with GR, and have in the past enjoyed their work greatly (especially Legions of Hell and Armies of the Abyss).

It's fine if he didn't, but this review smacks of pettiness and a deliberate attempt to "dethrone" the book. I might not have agreed with a score of 3, but I'd find it a whole lot more believable than a 2 or the 1 he says he wanted to give it.

I would be happy to answer any particular question you have about my review. If you feel my review is inappropriate, I recommend that you send an email to one of the review moderators requesting its removal. I cannot, in good conscience, change the score to 3 because I do not feel the book merits a 3.