John Cooper reviews MMIII, and finds loads of mistakes

[Voadam]

While I agree, the devil's advocate in me feels the need to point out that there's an up and a down to the whole thing. The good part of the rules structure is that it allows for the creation of creatures that help liberate the more modest or less experienced DM from the task of 'running the numbers' too much (i.e. is the AC of this creature to high for a 4th-level party to hit). On the other hand, too much blind adherence to the rules stifles new ideas.

In essence, if I have to choose between poorly edited with minor mistakes and great ideas versus excellently edited rote and unoriginal material, I'll take the ifirst one.

There is a difference between mistakes and non-compliance with the rules.

Non-compliance with the rules for creative reasons could be something like making a non-mindless construct, or making an intelligent plant or undead creature be subject to mind-affecting abilities like telepathy.

The majority of the identified issues in MMIII are math mistakes and oversights, they do not add to the creativity of the creatures and the non-compliance with the rules does not add anything of benefit to the product.

And it is possible to change any rule, simply by adding a special quality or new feat and making it explicit. For example, undead with a con score, they duplicated that with the charisma bonus hit point mechanic special quality.

Doing things differently from the standard rules is fine, just make it explicit and deliberate for a purpose.

 

[Crothian]

A lot of this threads shows what is wrong with the RPG Industry. We get books that have errors in them, lousy playtesting, and little too no proofreading; yet the people buy them and smile and most don't even notice or care that they have errors. If we aren't going to start holding companies to higher standard then this is what we will always get.

 

[WizarDru]

A lot of this threads shows what is wrong with the RPG Industry. We get books that have errors in them, lousy playtesting, and little too no proofreading; yet the people buy them and smile and most don't even notice or care that they have errors. If we aren't going to start holding companies to higher standard then this is what we will always get.

I like what I got, though. RPGs aren't like Chess...there isn't a single way to play them. That's why you see discussions over rules interpetations, play styles and how balanced a particular piece of material actually is. I don't think anyone's condoning WotC's poor editing of the product...but I think many folks feel that the problems are, on the whole, relatively minor typos and errors (possibly stemming from many factors) that don't invalidate the value of the other content.

 

[UniversalMonster]

A lot of this threads shows what is wrong with the RPG Industry. We get books that have errors in them, lousy playtesting, and little too no proofreading; yet the people buy them and smile and most don't even notice or care that they have errors. If we aren't going to start holding companies to higher standard then this is what we will always get.

I've never obsessed much on the "RPG Industry" but I can tell you that my group plays every week, and my campaign is very successful and a lot of fun.

The errors here are mostly minor stuff- 1 or 2 points of AC or hit points or BAB, or a speed rating of 20' vice 30'. Nothing that breaks the game anywhere, or even goes outside of the challenge rating. Plus, up until the most recent editions of D&D (3.0+) you have to realize- there simply was no set rules about designing monsters. You would think of something neat, throw some stats together, and hopefully gauge the experience points correctly.

It's errata (and it's minor league errata at that) in a very cool book. Certainly it should be correct. That doesn't make people who buy or like the book wrong if they still like it.

 

[Starman]

I'm sure Crothian is not saying that it is wrong to enjoy the book. He is saying that we won't be able to get companies to care about good editing if we keep purchasing books that are poorly edited and not saying anything about it.

Out of curiousity, many people have said that many of the mistakes in MMIII do not affect their enjoyment of the book. Where is the line, though, if there is one? Is there a point where shoddy editing would lessen your enjoyment?

Starman

 

[Voadam]

I'm sure Crothian is not saying that it is wrong to enjoy the book. He is saying that we won't be able to get companies to care about good editing if we keep purchasing books that are poorly edited and not saying anything about it.

Out of curiousity, many people have said that many of the mistakes in MMIII do not affect their enjoyment of the book. Where is the line, though, if there is one? Is there a point where shoddy editing would lessen your enjoyment?

Starman

In slayer's guide to demons the editing was sloppy all over the place, contradicting itself in the rules aspects of its material and disrupting the flow of reading it. It was enough that it did detract from my enjoyment in reading the book. Oddly enough the quality of ideas for the demons was the best part of that book for me despite the entries being riddled with rules errors. But I haven't used one yet in a game.

I will not buy Mongoose's ultimate monster's guide that converts a bunch to 3e because I probably have most of the source material and I don't need an updated compilation that is riddled with errors.

In contrast, Complete Minions which updates the 3.0 Minions fearsome foes to 3.5 I think is a great book and I am quite happy with it and I'm glad I have it even though I already had the 3.0 one.

 

[WizarDru]

Where is the line, though, if there is one? Is there a point where shoddy editing would lessen your enjoyment?

Certainly. That line is sometimes hard to define, though. In the case of MMIII, the problems are mostly with the monster stats, possibly involve math errors or simple typos. I wouldn't be suprised if certain creatures were changed in editing, and the editor forgot to give the monster more skill points and a bonus feat, for example.

But let's be clear, here: most of the editing mistakes in MM III are minor and rules-related. If you don't spend a lot of time working with leveling monsters, making your own monsters and so forth, you might not even notice some of them. That doesn't excuse them, but the core function, for me, of the MM III was not impeded. Specifically, it gave me new monsters with stat-blocks, interesting variants and ideas and good artwork to show my players when describing the creature. The MMIII does what I need it to do; it gives me a resource of pre-designed, ready-made monsters to supplement my existing collection. It does so with style, nice artwork and some fun ideas. Had it delivered on several levels as poorly as some monster books have, then I'd be very down on it....as it is, I think it's a good work, blemishes and all.

 

[Knightfall]

So far, I'm loving Monster Manual III. Way more than MM II, although I like that one too. I'm not a big stickler about rules, especially if a creature's AC, BAB, or grapple score is only off by one or two points. Would I prefer it if the book didn't have any errors, of course, but that's not how I solely judge a monster book. The book has to scream "ideas, ideas, ideas" to me, and MM III does that.

And people wonder why we. as consumers, don't get more upset at WotC, or insert-name-here d20 company company, about rules mistakes. Well, the reason has already been stated on this thread. We have someone online who is willing to do a comprehensive review of the book, including pointing out errata in the review.

Me, I've already cut and pasted that information into a word document, printed out, and stuck it in the back of my MM III. It might not be official or complete but it gives me errata on some of the more important statistics. I don't care about minor spelling or grammar errors because a game product is NEVER perfect on that level. Some come close, but perfect is nearly impossible.

To me, the worse mistakes are when a creature's statistics are so error riddled that it makes it unplayable. So far, that isn't the case with MM III. The worse mistake I've read about so far is the sand giants AC being off by 10 points (salt mummy as well). Now, that's a bad mistake and is more "noticable" and "game affecting" then John's point about the sand giant champion's sand blaster and grapple errors. (However, those errors combined make the sand giant champion a bad encounter to run without modification, as its AC is also off by 10.) However, this won't stop me from using the sand giant in my homebrewed campaign, just with an AC of 18 and not 28.

Anyway, all this is why John gave it 3 out of 5 stars. If it had been proofread better then it would have likely got 4 or even 5 stars. That's what good reviews are all about.

Cheers!

KF72

 

[Non-human Resources]

As I was reading this thread I was reminded of the saying “Fast, cheap, good quality: choose any two.”

Apparently, WotC thinks of their books as fast and cheap.

It’s true that a lot of these errors will never make a real difference in anyone’s game. If the difference in an attack bonus is only +1 then it will only make a difference 5% of the time.

On the other hand, +2 damage can add up really quick, even in just a few rounds. It’s like giving an extra “Weapon Specilization: Claw” feat. Is that enough to justify increasing the CR of a critter? Probably not. Would you let your PCs get away with that? Definitely not.

I want to make two points here:

1) Playing with inaccurate stats is tantamount to cheating. Saying “It’s only a difference of 1” or “its WotC’s fault not mine” doesn’t make that better, nor does ignorance of the fact. (However, ignorance does make it forgivable for those who trust WotC to produce quality products.) I wouldn't let my players get away with that and I shouldn't let my game designers get away with it.

2) People who have decided not to buy this book (such as myself) on the basis that it is error ridden should email WotC and let them know of the fact. If enough people have said “I’m not buying Monster Manual III/Book of Exalted Deeds/Complete Divine for these reasons” Wizards will know what the problem is and how to fix it.

I’m not trying to take moral high ground here (but it seems I may have). I’m just tired of having to choose between good ideas+bad editing and bad ideas+good editing. Why should we have to choose?

For the record I think MMIII is a cool book. And I will borrow a friend’s copy if I need it. But I don’t think that this book is fast enough or cheap enough to justify the number of errors in it. I'm not buying it because I want WotC to fail, but instead because I want them to succeed. A better product will help that happen.

Edit: Some typos, because while not perfect I do try.

 

[Nightfall]

Bah. John has yet to review an S&SS product (or even an S&SS Affilate!)

So while he's good I'd like to see him take on bigger names than Mongoose or Silverthorne Games.