Jim Ward still doesnt get it.

[JacktheRabbit]

I would like to point out that I never called anyone an idiot. It has been proven that their products have been riddled with errors and are monty haul to the next level but that is it. It has also ben said by several people in the past that Mr. Ward is quite rude when people try to point out errors in his products.

Just take a look here:

When I talked about this on the company web page, Jim Ward said I was "being stupid" "99% of the people using this book could care less about CRs."

from
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/revi...here=active&reviewer=JustaPlayer&product=EODD


So please, I may have said several things. But I didnt call anyone an idiot.

I'm going to preface this by saying I didn't much care for Demons and Devils I nor did I care that much for Swords of Power. (The descriptions were much too long and there was little meat to them. Not mention the meat that was there didn't make sense d20wise.)

However, I will be the last one to say Jim Ward is an idiot. Jim Ward is a publisher and I try to give most publishers the benefit of the doubt about improving. After all, my beloved S&SS is doing a revision of Creature Collection 1, after the troubles with trying to do a massive errata, plus the fact the print run was nearing the end. So perhaps while I'm uncertain if I will ever like any FFE's products as much as some others (Green Ronin, Bastion Press and a few others stand out there.) I will say give Jim and his crew a chance.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I am not flaming him. I am opposing his view that 3E is by nature Monty Haul and that ELH proves this.

What's so bad about that? I played first edition for a lot of years - until about 1998, actually, and had LOADS of fun. Were it not for 1e, there would be no 3e. If it's not your style of play, don't play it. But why flame the man?

 

[Piratecat]

I am opposing his view that 3E is by nature Monty Haul and that ELH proves this.

I certainly agree with this.

A lot of people are (at least initially) weirded out by the concept that 3e encourages the buying and selling of magic items. I still am, a little bit, and would much rather have PCs make new items than try to purchase them. Nevertheless, the treasure-by-level tables do a darn good job of keeping things balanced. This sort of guidance was missing in previous incarnations of the game, making things difficult for new DMs. I know lots of people who got in trouble by giving out magical items that were too powerful.

The statement that the ELH "proves" that D&D is Monty Haul is just silly, though, because it only looks at one stage in a PC's lifestyle - and that's a stage that the vast majority of campaigns will never reach. You can't look at this in isolation and make a valid judgment. If this were the case, you could just as easily take the amount of magic that people will have at 1st level and claim that D&D is horribly magic poor! Is that a valid analysis? Nah, of course not. In my opinion, the only way to legitimately decide is to look at the average amount of magic and power that PCs acquire over the life of their characters, and judge from that.

Jim, you out there? It'd be interesting to hear you elaborate.

 

[Sulimo]

A lot of people are (at least initially) weirded out by the concept that 3e encourages the buying and selling of magic items. I still am, a little bit, and would much rather have PCs make new items than try to purchase them.

I sit in this camp. I also have a bit of trouble with the assumptions 3e makes in relation to what treasure PC's have. It forces DM's who run treasure low games to jump through a few more hoops when designing encounters.

 

[Mulkhoran]

It's obviously fine if you don't like FFE's stuff, but I think you'd be much better off phrasing it as your own opinion, not as unalloyed fact. And if you make claims like "poorly designed Monty Haul fests" and the aforementioned "dragon's hoard" comment, you're better off if you back them up with examples.

Happily.

From Slave Pits of the Goblin King, paraphrased:

The characters, during the course of this adventure, can gain abilities from the "essences" of dragons. Keeping in mind this adventure is billed as an adventure for 4-6 characters of 5-9th level, here are some examples of these essences. These are PERMANENT:

- Strength increases by three
- Constitution increases by three
- Immediately begin gaining spells per level as a sorcerer of your level -4
- Breath weapon. Damage scales with level, but character becomes immune to the type of damage the breath weapon inflicts as soon as he gets this ability.


There are others, but it's impossible to tell how powerful they really are, since they duplicate spell-like abilities, and no guidelines for what level they act at are given. Sure, it's probably character level, but still.

This is just an example of the problems with the book. The numerous Challenge Rating and Encounter Level inconsistencies, as well as editing gaffes (Expertise(punch dagger) ???? ) are too numerous to list here.



My point here is, you and others here seem to be advocating this view that there is no variation of quality in D20 product publishing, that there is no such thing as a 'bad" product. It's just a "different style of play".

This is not healthy, or helpful to the game as a whole. When shoddy, inferior, poorly-thought out products are produced with a game system logo on them, one has a right to a minimum expectation of quality.

 

[Gothmog]

While I don't agree with the Monty Haul style of gaming (50 k gold and half a dozen magic items from defeating a tribe of orcs), I did play in a campaign in 1E for probably 3 years that would be more towards the Monty Haul style of play- and dang it, it was fun! The DM played pretty fast and loose with the rules, and character death rates were pretty high, but some of my more wild/memorable gaming moments occurred during that game.

Having said that, would I want to run a Monty Haul style of game? Definitely NO. Its much harder on the DM to impress the PCs with interesing new items/monsters, because everything seems pretty old hat quickly. Also, because the PCs have huge amounts of resources to draw from, many situations and opponents that should be a challenge for them end up being cakewalks. Not to mention you get the "Another +2 flaming burst greatsword? Throw it in the closet with the other 3." from the PCs.

However, there is something I strongly dislike in 3E- the idea that PCs should have x amount of wealth or equipment by y level. To me, this is more of a DMs call, and whether he wants to run a high or low magic game. Instead, many players come to the table with the notion that unless they get 49000 gp worth of equipment for their 10th level character, he is somehow "worthless" or "underequipped". I like to run a low magic game, and even when I explain this difference to people, it still drives me nuts. I don't specifically make items in the game for specific characters- I guess I am more old school in that regard- characters should find random items, but I monitor what I give out and downgrade the power if necessary. What do the rest of you do?

 

[Piratecat]

Happily.

Thanks! And you're quite correct; that's far beyond what I'd find reasonable or balanced, even if the group was at the far end of the level range. The elemental immunity and the sorcerer spells both seem especially questionable.

My point here is, you and others here seem to be advocating this view that there is no variation of quality in D20 product publishing, that there is no such thing as a 'bad" product. It's just a "different style of play".

Nope. That's not the case, at least for me. I detest poorly designed and balanced RPG materials, especially if I spent money on them myself.

What I am advocating (wearing my jaunty little moderator hat while I do so) is that if someone accuses a RPG designer/company of incompetence or poor work, providing corroborating evidence of their points makes the thread a lot more palatable. Anyone can rant without backing themselves up. On EN World, where a number of industry professionals hang out as well, it's only fair to illustrate such a complaint with actual examples.

 

[ced1106]

Well, back in ye olde days of D&D, I ran Monty Haul games. They **were** fun, but "something changed" and you couldn't put three Cloud Giants into a 10x10 room anymore. Nowadays, I just give gaming crap for Halloween instead of MH game.

Anyway, a few quotes from the article: "The only real problem in giving your players a lot of magic items is providing upscale dangers that can still threaten them. ... I’ve run many people through such high level dungeons and fantasy cities, and had great fun."

"Although I think giving a guide for how much treasure is a good idea, I don’t want that guide to become a straightjacket to DMs everywhere. "

"If you want to look down your nose at my high level treasures and tougher encounters, fine; but you are missing out on a level of play allowing characters to have even more fun."

Myself, I think JW is only promoting high-level / high-magic play.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Buttercup]

On EN World, where a number of industry professionals hang out as well, it;s only fair to illustrate such a complaint with actual examples.

Here's another example then. On pages 8-11 of Treasure Quests, which detail the village of Stret and it's tavern, *first level PCs* will find the following treasure:

50 gold
2000 gold
1 ruby worth 1000 gold
13 gold (x 6)
masterwork longsword
gemstones worth 1000 gold
a statuette worth 22,000 gold (Yes, that's the correct number of zeroes.)
+1 chainmail
+1 battleaxe
a chest worth 500 gold

There are *maybe* enough encounters/traps/other xp generating situations to net the party 250 xp each. This is totally over the top in my view.

 

[Piratecat]

Buttercup, that works out to roughly 30,000 gp worth of gear... enough to outfit 4 PCs between 4th and 5th level.