Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse Releases a Day Early
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 8639900" data-attributes="member: 4348"><p>I'm not sure if that's the only reason it is getting those reviews. I think it is an excuse to give it one star, but I think that this may be a response to some of the "official" changes that WotC has been making and seem to be implying are official with this book. </p><p></p><p>Another option may be that people may FEEL that these are official changes from a review I read where it said that Volo's and the old Mordekainen's were no longer allowed in official play and only this one would be allowed, thus enforcing people who play that way the need to buy this book, even if they own the previous books.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure though.</p><p></p><p>If it is, it could spell trouble on the horizon. </p><p></p><p>If I recall, during the playtest WotC wanted to implement some items which were resoundly disliked by those playtesting, so they took them out. </p><p></p><p>Now, as time has passed, once again, they want to put those items back in that they wanted to originally. Instead of asking around or getting massive feedback as they did with the playtesters, they are simply saying they know better than the players (though the players may have constructive feedback if asked en masse that would have broader appeal).</p><p></p><p>This is relatively new though, and the reviews are still few in number. It could bounce back in it's rating.</p><p></p><p>If it does NOT though, it could be a reflection more on WotC's slant on things (the idea that there is no backwards compatibility with older books and thus one must buy the new one, feelings about other changes) regarding the ideas for the Anniversary edition, and it is NOT good.</p><p></p><p>I'd give it 3 months. If it bounces back, it's all good.</p><p></p><p>If it doesn't, and these things reflect what WotC is planning for the anniversary edition (the idea of planned obsolescence of all older material, changes they made without a massive playtest that were rejected once before, but they are now going ahead and including it anyways as the default), I think it might be wise to quickly go back to the drawing board and reassess what they are doing rather than push forward. This is just one release and easily gotten over, but if this is the true reaction to MotM, then the Anniversary edition is going to be HIGHLY controversial possibly, and could cause a decline in D&D sales and enthusiasm when it comes out. That SHOULD be troubling...BUT (that but is always there)...</p><p></p><p>Once again, this could just be a few naysayers who got onto Amazon reviews early on and are causing trouble. It could be that once more people have the book and review it for what it is, that review rating could go back to what is expected.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 8639900, member: 4348"] I'm not sure if that's the only reason it is getting those reviews. I think it is an excuse to give it one star, but I think that this may be a response to some of the "official" changes that WotC has been making and seem to be implying are official with this book. Another option may be that people may FEEL that these are official changes from a review I read where it said that Volo's and the old Mordekainen's were no longer allowed in official play and only this one would be allowed, thus enforcing people who play that way the need to buy this book, even if they own the previous books. I'm not sure though. If it is, it could spell trouble on the horizon. If I recall, during the playtest WotC wanted to implement some items which were resoundly disliked by those playtesting, so they took them out. Now, as time has passed, once again, they want to put those items back in that they wanted to originally. Instead of asking around or getting massive feedback as they did with the playtesters, they are simply saying they know better than the players (though the players may have constructive feedback if asked en masse that would have broader appeal). This is relatively new though, and the reviews are still few in number. It could bounce back in it's rating. If it does NOT though, it could be a reflection more on WotC's slant on things (the idea that there is no backwards compatibility with older books and thus one must buy the new one, feelings about other changes) regarding the ideas for the Anniversary edition, and it is NOT good. I'd give it 3 months. If it bounces back, it's all good. If it doesn't, and these things reflect what WotC is planning for the anniversary edition (the idea of planned obsolescence of all older material, changes they made without a massive playtest that were rejected once before, but they are now going ahead and including it anyways as the default), I think it might be wise to quickly go back to the drawing board and reassess what they are doing rather than push forward. This is just one release and easily gotten over, but if this is the true reaction to MotM, then the Anniversary edition is going to be HIGHLY controversial possibly, and could cause a decline in D&D sales and enthusiasm when it comes out. That SHOULD be troubling...BUT (that but is always there)... Once again, this could just be a few naysayers who got onto Amazon reviews early on and are causing trouble. It could be that once more people have the book and review it for what it is, that review rating could go back to what is expected. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse Releases a Day Early
Top