John Cooper reviews MMIII, and finds loads of mistakes

[johnsemlak]

In first and second edition nobody complained about the mistakes because nobody knew how to deconstruct the stats. In fact, its safe to say that there was no way to deconstruct stats because the various values were set by the designers and then playtested to ensure that the monster worked the way it was intended. In 3rd edition there is a greater emphasis on adhering to defined mathematical formulas. I think its good that these formulas exist because they make it easier to design a monster so that you can accurately predict the level of challenge it will be against a party, but by allowing your fans to deconstruct the stats, you open the door to the math check review where the reviewer isn't required to actually put the monster up against a party to see how it performs, but instead, the reviewer can just go through all of the entries to see if they were done correctly. In the process, the critique goes from whether or not these are interesting monster ideas or whether they will make for cool encounters to something more along the lines of how many mistakes the designers and/or editors made. While I agree with Sean's point above, and I do feel that designers should strive to turn in work that is as accurate as possible, I don't feel that many of the mistakes pointed out in this review will actually result in a noticeable difference in gameplay.

So, to summarize, in my own humble opinion, WotC put out a good book that would probably be getting a lot more respect right now from its fans if they had never publicly provided the information on the "correct" way to build a monster.

Does all this internet fuss really amount to MMIII not getting enough respect? I'll bet most gamers haven't noticed, and even many who do consider the stat errors to be not terribly significant.

I think WotC's provision of sound and flexible rules for building monsters helps DMs immensely in making their own monsters. In general it makes the game for flexible and gives more options. I think gamers appreciate this and it far outweighs any backlash MMIII is getting over errors in its statblocks.

 

[johnsemlak]

In first and second edition nobody complained about the mistakes because nobody knew how to deconstruct the stats. In fact, its safe to say that there was no way to deconstruct stats because the various values were set by the designers and then playtested to ensure that the monster worked the way it was intended. In 3rd edition there is a greater emphasis on adhering to defined mathematical formulas. I think its good that these formulas exist because they make it easier to design a monster so that you can accurately predict the level of challenge it will be against a party, but by allowing your fans to deconstruct the stats, you open the door to the math check review where the reviewer isn't required to actually put the monster up against a party to see how it performs, but instead, the reviewer can just go through all of the entries to see if they were done correctly. In the process, the critique goes from whether or not these are interesting monster ideas or whether they will make for cool encounters to something more along the lines of how many mistakes the designers and/or editors made. While I agree with Sean's point above, and I do feel that designers should strive to turn in work that is as accurate as possible, I don't feel that many of the mistakes pointed out in this review will actually result in a noticeable difference in gameplay.

So, to summarize, in my own humble opinion, WotC put out a good book that would probably be getting a lot more respect right now from its fans if they had never publicly provided the information on the "correct" way to build a monster.

Does all this internet fuss really amount to MMIII not getting enough respect? I'll bet most gamers haven't noticed, and even many who do consider the stat errors to be not terribly significant.

I think WotC's provision of sound and flexible rules for building monsters helps DMs immensely in making their own monsters. In general it makes the game for flexible and gives more options. I think gamers appreciate this and it far outweighs any backlash MMIII is getting over errors in its statblocks.

 

[MerricB]

I'd add Frostburn to that list.

IMHO, MMIII pales greatly when compared to the Fiend Folio, which is by far the best 3.X WOTC book, both in quality of creatures and quality of editing.

Also, of this amount, the MM3 has the most "greater" and "lesser" versions of the same creature, making the number of original creatures far less.

I query your use of the word "original", as I've noticed a several complaints about MM3 about the very small number of monsters that are sourced from previous editions, compared to FF where a very significant proportion of creatures are 'just' rewrites of older monsters.

Regardless, the greatest test of whether a monster manual is good or not is this: do people use the monsters contained in its pages?

Cheers!

 

[Maggan]

Can anyone honestly say that the MMIII has added more to the game?

For me it has. I'm going to use Brain in a Jar, Bloodmotes and Raiment as monsters some time soon. It has other stuff that I think is cool and has potential to build an adventure around as well, but I haven't got the book here so I can't list them.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Mark]

Does all this internet fuss really amount to MMIII not getting enough respect? I'll bet most gamers haven't noticed, and even many who do consider the stat errors to be not terribly significant.

I think WotC's provision of sound and flexible rules for building monsters helps DMs immensely in making their own monsters. In general it makes the game for flexible and gives more options. I think gamers appreciate this and it far outweighs any backlash MMIII is getting over errors in its statblocks.

It is the job of the reviewer to assess a product with a critical eye, with as much detail as the venue allows, and then to give us their personal opinion on it. I don't see why Cooper's reviewing style is even being debated. It's like going to a restaurant and telling them their menu should be restricted to what you intend to order.

 

[UniversalMonster]

I don't think the stat errors are significant at all. Whether an Arcane Ooze has a 21 strength vs. 22 or whatever.. it doesn't affect the CR or the encounter level or the description.

In game you could use it as-is and it would be fine. Even if errata'd there would be no playable difference.

 

[Vigilance]

It is the job of the reviewer to assess a product with a critical eye, with as much detail as the venue allows, and then to give us their personal opinion on it. I don't see why Cooper's reviewing style is even being debated. It's like going to a restaurant and telling them their menu should be restricted to what you intend to order.

I think it's as ok for people to talk about a reviewer's style (and whether or not they like it) as it is for reviewers to talk about products in any way they choose and judge them as they see fit.

For my part, I didn't have a "problem" with the review, it just seemed like the whole reason for its score were the mistakes (which were minor for the most part and would not really affect play).

He said the monsters were better than MMII or FF (this seems to lend itself to a better than average score, if not a 5), then listed a boatload of minor errors, and gave it a 3.

So to the extent that I have a problem, as a person who doesn't own the MM III but was thinking about buying it, the review didn't really help me. The fact that a monster has an attack of +25 when it should really have an attack of +24 does nothing to let me know if the monster is good.

Chuck

 

[UniversalMonster]

The fact that a monster has an attack of +25 when it should really have an attack of +24 does nothing to let me know if the monster is good.

Chuck

At one point there's a question about whether a creatures average hit points should be 538 hp versus 537 or something.

 

[Mark]

It is the job of the reviewer to assess a product with a critical eye, with as much detail as the venue allows, and then to give us their personal opinion on it. I don't see why Cooper's reviewing style is even being debated. It's like going to a restaurant and telling them their menu should be restricted to what you intend to order.

I think it's as ok for people to talk about a reviewer's style (and whether or not they like it) as it is for reviewers to talk about products in any way they choose and judge them as they see fit.

Read, again, what I posted. You have missed my point. There's a difference between saying that you do not *like* a style, perfectly fine IMO, and saying that you think a style is not valid, which is what I was commenting on. There's a difference between going to a restaurant and telling them their menu should be restricted to what you intend to order, and simply saying you don't like a restaurant. I think the former is wrong, and as far as the latter, I'd recommend finding a different restaurant.

For my part, I didn't have a "problem" with the review,...

Why did you put the word "problem" in quotation marks?

...it just seemed like the whole reason for its score were the mistakes...

If errors exist and his style is to point them out, then he has done fine. If that is not a style that suits your needs, you should be reading another reviewer.

... (which were minor for the most part and would not really affect play).

That's a matter of opinion that not everyone shares. As with the person who likes to apply templates, advance creatures, etc., they can be very important. It's the difference between buying something where someone has actually properly done the work they claimed they were going to do, and buying something that has been improperly done and having to redo, or at least recheck, all of that work because one even have to check the correct entries to ensure they are correct when a product appears to be riddled with errors.

The real point of the whole thing here seems to be that if the predominant company in the industry says that they are putting out a product, you expect that product to be about as properly edited as any product ever sold. Somehow the focus being shifted from WotC's responsibility to get it right, to a reviewer's validity in pointing out when WotC gets it wrong.

He said the monsters were better than MMII or FF (this seems to lend itself to a better than average score, if not a 5), then listed a boatload of minor errors, and gave it a 3.

Aren't you leaving out that it is also his stance that there are more errors in this book than the others and that his style is to judge books a great deal based on editing?

So to the extent that I have a problem, as a person who doesn't own the MM III but was thinking about buying it, the review didn't really help me. The fact that a monster has an attack of +25 when it should really have an attack of +24 does nothing to let me know if the monster is good.

If that was the only error mentioned, and the only one in the whole book, I could certainly understand that view point. But to act as if that is the only editing error by offhandedly mentioning it as unimportant and to act as if that is the fault of the reviewing style, seems to be missing the point. Again, if that is not a style of reviewing that suits your needs, you should be reading another reviewer. Do you go to a movie that is a drama and then complain that it wasn't a comedy?

Some people like Cooper's style of reviewing and since he's just about the only one who does it in that manner, and since there are many, many reviewers out there reviewing products, it really shouldn't be a problem for people who don't prefer his style to find another reviewer to read.

 

[Mark]

And another thing...

The biggest mistake WotC ever made was giving the source code for 3rd edition rules to its fans (and no I'm not referring to the OGL).

I'll bite -- what are you referring to, Whisperfoot? I'm curious, because it sounds like an interesting point.

In first and second edition nobody complained about the mistakes because nobody knew how to deconstruct the stats. In fact, its safe to say that there was no way to deconstruct stats because the various values were set by the designers and then playtested to ensure that the monster worked the way it was intended. In 3rd edition there is a greater emphasis on adhering to defined mathematical formulas. I think its good that these formulas exist because they make it easier to design a monster so that you can accurately predict the level of challenge it will be against a party, but by allowing your fans to deconstruct the stats, you open the door to the math check review where the reviewer isn't required to actually put the monster up against a party to see how it performs, but instead, the reviewer can just go through all of the entries to see if they were done correctly. In the process, the critique goes from whether or not these are interesting monster ideas or whether they will make for cool encounters to something more along the lines of how many mistakes the designers and/or editors made. While I agree with Sean's point above, and I do feel that designers should strive to turn in work that is as accurate as possible, I don't feel that many of the mistakes pointed out in this review will actually result in a noticeable difference in gameplay.

So, to summarize, in my own humble opinion, WotC put out a good book that would probably be getting a lot more respect right now from its fans if they had never publicly provided the information on the "correct" way to build a monster.

"The biggest mistake WotC ever made was giving the source code for 3rd edition rules to its fans" isn't correct. The biggest mistake is not properly following it themselves. They aren't supposed to be magicians protecting the secrets to some cheap illusions.

You know, this whole thing seems like going to school for years and finally opening your own retail business, then hiring your high school math teacher to run the cash register. (In this analogy each creature block is like a day and each indovidual stat within a creature block is like a transaction. It only takes one bad transaction to make the day wrong, and all of those bad days add up.) Should you expect the register to come out right every day? I think so. Should it bother you if every once in a while it's slightly off at the end of the day? Maybe. You certainly have a right to be bothered, I suppose. If the register is off every day, or almost every day, then I think you have a right to complain vigorously. I'd have to certainly wonder how much the person ringing my register cares about their job, and cares about me, since I happen to kow that math really shouldn't be an issue. I'll bet if the cashier's paycheck was miscalculated every time it would get noticed.

The problem, the biggest mistake, isn't that we were taught how to do the math. The problem is that we are being asked to give money to someone who we know has math skills but just can't seem to be bothered to apply those skills.