Not that i expect you to answer this publicly, but have you ever been the source of an illegally-shared RPG PDF? You just don't strike me as the type. Or do you suspect some sour grapes over previous reviews? I may not always agree with your conclusions, because our tastes differ, but your reviews are always fair and informative, and thus useful to me.Psion said:
John Cooper reviews MMIII, and finds loads of mistakes
- Thread starter johnsemlak
- Start date
Well, can't speak for others, but by "higher standard" i mean "at least as high a standard as i'd set for anyone else, and probably a bit higher," not "about the same, or even a little lower." I haven't seen a 5/5 product from WotC yet (IMHO, of course), and that's assuming flat standards across the board, not demanding more from WotC. I've seen a whole bunch of D20 System products that i'd consider 5-out-of-5, however, and some of them are from quite small operations (most are from middling-sized companies, however). If WotC can't even keep up with SSS, Atlas, Green Ronin, or Goodman Games, they certainly aren't managing to meet a "higher standard."dreaded_beast said:A few posters mentioned that "WotC should be held to a highter standard."
Where does the bar for "higher standard" end? For WotC, it sometimies seems that it is at the point where any mistake is unforgivable.
Is it really fair that WotC get nitpicked upon more thoroughly than others (but then again, devil's advocate, WotC is a bigger company afterall and you can't really please everybody out there.)
Does that mean that other d20 publishing companies are treated a bit more leniently in terms of errors in their products?
Hopefully this isn't offensive, just curious.
So, mistakes are perfectly forgiveable. A fair number of mistakes are even forgiveable. Lots of mistakes are not. Bland content is not. Really wonky balance is not. But those aren't forgiveable from any publisher--only thing i give the little guys more slack on are production times and production values.
Why not? If they're having more fun because they're off by a couple points, who cares? If a player goofs up her hitpoints, and it's an honest mistake (not cheating), i probably won't point it out. If someone says "oops--i should've missed last round, because i forgot about the -2 from being poisoned" i'll say "don't worry about it--just count it from here on out".Non-human Resources said:
Honestly, there's no way i'm gonna check all the stats. If the error isn't sufficiently glaring to jump out at me, i'm not gonna catch it. So, yeah, i'm ignorant of the errors. If i'm gonna have to double-check every stat, not only won't i be buying any commercial products (it's almost as much effort to check them as to invent them myself), but i sure as heck won't be playing something with the mechanical complexity of D20 System. My players like all the fiddly bits. Only way i can stand them is by having lots of shortcuts to keep me sane: things like statted monsters, and Everyone Else. 'Cause if i had to do all this on my own, i just wouldn't--i'd pull reasonable numbers out of the air, fudge all the die rolls, and make sure everyone was getting the right level of challenge to have fun.
Oh, and in the playstyle i enjoy, there's no such thing as cheating, so there can't be anything tantamount to cheating.
You don't. Get some Malhavoc stuff--great-to-awesome ideas, good-to-great editing. Or check out some Atlas--always great or awesome ideas, always good editing. Grab some of the Horizon line from FFG. Look at the Green Ronin stuff. I hear nothing but praise about the Iron Kingdoms stuff (Privateer Press?). There's plenty of quality D20 System stuff. It just doesn't come from WotC. (well, there's a list as long as my arm of companies that aren't producing quality D20 System stuff, but that's the one relevant to the thread.)
The review was quite thorough, and I was impressed by the time John Cooper took to look up everything. I'm glad he found the mechanical errors, though I usually don't worry too much about them, as I often adjust on the fly for my games.
Some of the creatures I have a simple difference of opinion on. For example, I'd love to play a lumi, despite the fact they have floating heads. I don't know why, they just seem cool. And another thing is, I love oozes. Give me any kind of ooze to stick in a dungeon and I'm a happy girl. This book has lots of oozes, from the small, to the large, from the magical, to the mundane. Until now, I had to turn to Tome of Horrors I and II for my ooze fix, but now WotC has joined the fray, giving me yet MORE oozes with which to tormet my players. This makes me a giddy little gamer.
Ok, I'm going to go sit down in my Jell-O bath now...
Some of the creatures I have a simple difference of opinion on. For example, I'd love to play a lumi, despite the fact they have floating heads. I don't know why, they just seem cool. And another thing is, I love oozes. Give me any kind of ooze to stick in a dungeon and I'm a happy girl. This book has lots of oozes, from the small, to the large, from the magical, to the mundane. Until now, I had to turn to Tome of Horrors I and II for my ooze fix, but now WotC has joined the fray, giving me yet MORE oozes with which to tormet my players. This makes me a giddy little gamer.
Ok, I'm going to go sit down in my Jell-O bath now...
Last edited:
ecliptic
First Post
You know I have no problem with people pointing out errors of books, but did that book really only deserve a 3/5?
I have read it cover to cover and it is the best monster book since Monster Manual I. Those errors are barely noticeable and wouldn't effect gameplay what-so-ever.
I have read it cover to cover and it is the best monster book since Monster Manual I. Those errors are barely noticeable and wouldn't effect gameplay what-so-ever.
NeghVar
First Post
Frankly - I look forward to John's reviews. I print them out, fold them up, and put them in the appropriate book. Considering it takes months - sometimes years for WotC to post an "official" errata file.
I really, really like the content of the MMIII way more than that found in the FF or MMII. After reading John's review - my initial personal review slipped from a 5/5 to a 4/5. Still a winner in my book, just with a few issues.
Thanks for the review John.
Later!
I really, really like the content of the MMIII way more than that found in the FF or MMII. After reading John's review - my initial personal review slipped from a 5/5 to a 4/5. Still a winner in my book, just with a few issues.
Thanks for the review John.
Later!
Psion
Adventurer
woodelf said:
Oh, I wasn't saying they were doing it because of me, and I have no reason to suspect that they would (especially considering that White Wolf hasn't sent me stuff since the Ghelpad hardbound or so.) A lot of PR managers are looking for ways to cut costs and get more reviews, this is one way.
That said, I can tell you that DRMs are likely to get very low priority from me, just like traditional PDFs. I already give publishers who send me print products more because it costs the publisher more to do it. Anyone can send 100 PDFs to potential reviewers and not have it cost them a cent directly. DRMs aren't any different (except they possibly have less utility and more annoyance for me.)
Further, I do not feel I can fairly review the graphical aspect of a product with the PDF. Many products that look great on the screen come out poorly as a printed product, and many that look dull on the screen look sharp as a printed product.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
