Book of the Righteous Dethroned!

[Lord Pendragon]

Sounds like your review needs to be panned. If you cannot use even a "single" domain in your campaign then you are anal retentive to a level that really makes your opinion irrelevant to anyone else who might be interested in the product.

I haven't seen you post in a while, Doc. Nice to see that you're as needlessly hostile as ever.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I haven't seen you post in a while, Doc. Nice to see that you're as needlessly hostile as ever.

Hostile huh.

All I did was point out that if there was not one single idea in the entire book he could use then obviously he is reviewing it in a manner that is only relevant to his pesonal campaign.

I mean come on he could not use a single domain? A domain is a list of spells and a fairly minor ability that can be used once or more per day. Generally they are so generic that they can be used in any campaign.

So yes he is being extremely anal. He reviewed the book specifically as to how useful it would be to "his" gaming style and "his" campaign. Since none of use are in his campaign or probably play the same game style as him what use is his review besides knocking a product many more people have liked.

Besides he practically admitted that he wrote the review because he wanted to review a product because it irked him that its review ranking was perfect.

Hostile. Whatever.

 

[DaveStebbins]

Hostile huh.

Needlessly so, yes. You could have said that it seems to you that his review was tainted by his specific campaign views and needs, and that this lowers its value to others without resorting to name calling. Calling someone anal retentive to a degree which makes their opinion irrelevant to others is needlessly hostile.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I mean come on he could not use a single domain? A domain is a list of spells and a fairly minor ability that can be used once or more per day. Generally they are so generic that they can be used in any campaign.

So yes he is being extremely anal. He reviewed the book specifically as to how useful it would be to "his" gaming style and "his" campaign. Since none of use are in his campaign or probably play the same game style as him what use is his review besides knocking a product many more people have liked.

I have over 10,000 pages of 3E (3.0 and 3.5) material, with easily 200 domains. I can afford to be choosy if I want to.

While the majority of the material I use comes from 27 particular books, most of the remainder of my D&D library have had some sort of use to me.

For example, I enjoyed reading AEG's Evil, though I don't use any of their domains, spells, or the like. The evil archetypes were useful (as examples to players as well as DM inspiration). The 'defining evil' section was similarly good -- "Who says we're evil?" is especially interesting.

I may not use the NPCs or magic items, nor even the strongholds themselves, in Atlas' Seven Strongholds, but the strongholds did inspire some of my own, with modification and in little pieces.

The Book of the Righteous, though, hasn't inspired me like Evil, nor provided me with lootable plot/location/whatever ideas like Seven Strongholds. It certainly hasn't provided me with tangible mechanics like so many of my books have.

Besides he practically admitted that he wrote the review because he wanted to review a product because it irked him that its review ranking was perfect.

If you believe this is the case and my review is in violation with the EN World review rules, I suggest you take this up with one of the review moderators by private email.

 

[Krieg]

Anyway, I find the mere existance of this thread disturbing, because it seems to be that if you don't fit into the beliefs of everyone else, then your opinion doesn't matter. Some people didn't like the BoR. But it seems like their opinions don't count, and their reviews are discarded. How is that fair, exactly?

CRGreathouse's is certainly entitled to his opinion, but no more so than anyone else. Should the folks who disagree with him be barred from voicing their opinions?.

It is a two way street.

And yes for the record I am in the boat with the folks that feel that the review in question reads more like a personal rant than an attempt at an unbiased review.

BOR is a competently done product, still it is not going to appeal to everyone's tastes. Still a reviewer should at least make an honest attempt to separate his personal bias from objective qualities the book may possesses. IMO CRG failed to do so.

Individuals who disagree with CRG should be just as free to state their opinion as he was to state his. That being said CRG should not be subject to personal attacks or slanderous comments for opining in a public forum.

 

[Mark]

I have over 10,000 pages of 3E (3.0 and 3.5) material...

While the majority of the material I use comes from 27 particular books, most of the remainder of my D&D library have had some sort of use to me.

How many have you reviewed?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Needlessly so, yes. You could have said that it seems to you that his review was tainted by his specific campaign views and needs, and that this lowers its value to others without resorting to name calling. Calling someone anal retentive to a degree which makes their opinion irrelevant to others is needlessly hostile.

I disagree I do not think his review is tainted and of less use to others. I think his review is worthless because of obviously how anal he runs his campaign. To not be able to find a single spell, domain, magic item, anything in a book of 320 pages shows that the problem lies with him and his campaign and not with the product.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

How many have you reviewed?

Just to make the point Mark is making quite obvious I will answer this question.

He has done 2 reviews. The other review by the way has a very interesting statement by CRG

To say that I was impressed would be an understatement, and I'm not easily gratified. Some of you might remember me as the curmudgeon judge of the 2002 ENnies -- nothing was good enough to escape my criticism.

So a guy who takes pride in being critical of products no matter how good they are panned a product that up to this point was considered excellant.

I am sure the review was completely objective and he took no pleasure at all in being the guy who knocked it from its former status.


Yeah right.

 

[CRGreathouse]

And yes for the record I am in the boat with the folks that feel that the review in question reads more like a personal rant than an attempt at an unbiased review.

I would be happy to answer any specific issues you have with my review, if you'd like. It was my intent to write an informative, unbiased review; if any points feel unsupported or any major issues are left uncommented, I'd be happy to edit the review to better reflect my feelings.

How many have you reviewed?

2. Sorry, man... writing a good review is hard work, and responding to firestorms is even more.

I disagree I do not think his review is tainted and of less use to others. I think his review is worthless because of obviously how anal he runs his campaign. To not be able to find a single spell, domain, magic item, anything in a book of 320 pages shows that the problem lies with him and his campaign and not with the product.

As I said, I have enough depth of material that I can choose to use nothing from a book if nothing interests or inspires me. This was the case with the Book of the Righteous.

To be perfectly accurate, though, there are things I might have used (but have not). For example, I remember that there was a moderately useable monster, and the Beauty (name?) domain filled a niche I needed. As it tuned out, I used monsters from other sourcebooks and wrote my own version of the domain -- the one in the BotR just didn't seem to have appropriate spells.

 

[Mark]

Just to make the point Mark is making quite obvious I will answer this question.

He has done 2 reviews.

I am not making a point. I do not know that he hasn't done reviews elsewhere. I do know that he has extensive experience with d20 mechanics from his work with the Standard Stat Block Foundation. That's why I was asking a question and not trying to make point as you suggest.