Frostburn v. Sandstorm

[Crothian]

The books are okay, they have some neat high fantasy ideas. But a lot of things just read as too fantastic. There is rarely much middle ground in the books Wizards puts out. If they keep making everything like this, they nothing seems that fantastic anymore. That is one complaint I have with the books. Possible not a major complaint in most people books, but it is something I have noticed.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

The books are okay, they have some neat high fantasy ideas.

And there's why we disagree, I'm a big Talislanta fan, and that's pretty high fantasty

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Ahhh, Talislanta! Just thinking about it gives a feeling of nostalgia. God, I miss my original gaming group. Talislanta, Axis & Allies and Runequest along with DnD were our favorite games to play.

 

[Crothian]

And there's why we disagree, I'm a big Talislanta fan, and that's pretty high fantasty

THat's not why...i just used high fantasy for lack of a better term.

 

[Falconnan]

I think its just what style you like. These don't work so well for me, but I have a friend who loves them, same with the "Races of . . ." series. I prefered "The Complete . . ." series. He did not care for it. Go figure.

 

[Crothian]

I found them all hit and miss personally, the complete books, the races books, none of it has really been solid from cover to cover.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

I found them all hit and miss personally, the complete books, the races books, none of it has really been solid from cover to cover.

What do YOU consider solid? No weakness? What's good example, so I can wrap my brain around were you are coming from.

 

[Crothian]

What do YOU consider solid? No weakness? What's good example, so I can wrap my brain around were you are coming from.

Of the latest books I've read Blue Rose comes to mind first.

All books have weaknesses, there is not a perfect RPG book I have read in the forever I've been reading them. Wizards books are okay, they usually have solid production values but they seem to be written to be useful for a wide variety of people and that makes them a bit weaker over all trying to aply to so many. Plus these books are designed to be filled with optional pieces. They want a wide variety of items knowing that not everything is going to be for everyone. Where a solid book (one I would define as solid) would be aimed at a smaller audience be more tighltly around certain ideas.

Eborron is the last Wizard book I think is solid. I'm not a fan of the setting, but I can still recognize a good book. Setting though have an advantage over the other books in that they are more complete and thought out. There are very few class or race books I would call solid because many are like the Wizards books that are bits here and there.

I'm not calling the books bad by any means. Many of them have some good ideas with not so good ideas. But none of them have really impressed me when I read them, but few RPG books ever really do when it comes to d20 these days.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Where a solid book (one I would define as solid) would be aimed at a smaller audience be more tighltly around certain ideas.

Cool, then this is where we disagree.

I'm in the "books are toolkits" sorta camp. I like a "Solid" setting just like you, but I also think the recent WotC books have been "Solid" generic books.

So, I guess I agree to to disagree.

 

[Crothian]

Cool, then this is where we disagree.

I'm in the "books are toolkits" sorta camp. I like a "Solid" setting just like you, but I also think the recent WotC books have been "Solid" generic books.

So, I guess I agree to to disagree.

Don't get me wrong, the toolkit books are good, and they obviously have a large following. It is just that since not all the tools are useful it reflects badly on the book for me. The only way I'd rate one of the toolkit books as solid is if everything in it was useful to me. But I can easily see why people disagree with me.