Qs about The Quintessential Fighter.

[baseballfury]

I find that the Quintessentual books, and actually 90% of the books that moongoose publishing puts out, are far better in content that the stuff wizards put out. Though the layout and artwork are not the same quality as wizards (they are bigger and got more cash), the content of the books is far superior to that of what wizards produces.

Puh-leese. I guarantee you that if the Mongoose books were published by WotC, people would be lining up to trash them seven days a week. For good or ill, d20 companies are generally not held to the same standard as WotC. I find the Mongoose books are full of rules gaffs, poor design choices and far too much bad fiction. Wrap that up in generally weak visual presentation and it looks like a much worse bet than WotC books.

 

[Holy Bovine]

But I think that since you appear to be a playtester and your efforts went into the final product, you are more than a little biased and see Mongoose's stuff through rose colored glasses and your claims of vast superiority are vastly exagarated. Likewise, I don't think that Mr. Ibach (a fellow playtester) should have written a review of Chaos Magic as he is similarly biased.

Is this really true? That Urklore is a playtester? If so I find it highly objectionable that s/he would post in such a way.

 

[Psion]

Is this really true? That Urklore is a playtester? If so I find it highly objectionable that s/he would post in such a way.

Of the products at hand, a "Bill 'Urklore' Schwartz" is listed in TQF and Chaos Magic as a playtester.

Of course, I don't object to Urklore expressing his opinion... but I do dispute his opinion. Now I do object to Mr. Ibach (another playtester of both products) reviewing products he playtested and having that review as part of the average on ENWorld.

 

[Davelozzi]

By contrast, the Slayer's Guide to Sahaugin is a much cleaner, more usable product. They have gotten better.

But then so has wizards. Song & Silence doesn't have near the errata in it that Sword & Fist did. If you are going to compare them, compare apples to apples.

That's not really fair. Wizards, as the successor to TSR, has had 25 years design experience. They have also had the 3e rules available to them through the whole design process. Sword & Fist should not have suffered like it did. Mongoose on the other hand, was new to the game when they put out the first few slayers guides.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I have to say that his posting of his opinion without saying who he was is more then a little hypocritical. I will thumb through the book and decide for myself but I hope the book is a little more honest then the people directly associated with it.

Of the products at hand, a "Bill 'Urklore' Schwartz" is listed in TQF and Chaos Magic as a playtester.

Of course, I don't object to Urklore expressing his opinion... but I do dispute his opinion. Now I do object to Mr. Ibach (another playtester of both products) reviewing products he playtested and having that review as part of the average on ENWorld.

 

[Crothian]

It's one guy and only a playtester. Sure, morally he should have come clean from the beginning, but I'm not going to look down on Mongoose for it.

And now we know only to trust Psion's reviews.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's one guy and only a playtester. Sure, morally he should have come clean from the beginning, but I'm not going to look down on Mongoose for it.

And now we know only to trust Psion's reviews.

I sincerely doubt that Mongoose put him up to it-- but Urklore should have known better. If I were Mongoose I would be pissed.

Mongoose and other small d20 publishers should definitely make it clear to playtesters that they are NOT to review products they work on-- and I might even take it a step further and cut Urklore off my playtester rolls.

At the very least, he should revise his review to clearly state that he served as a playtester on the product.

Oof. Bad form, Urklore, bad form.

Wulf

 

[Psion]

At the very least, he should revise his review to clearly state that he served as a playtester on the product.

Oof. Bad form, Urklore, bad form.

Actually, I am not aware of Urklore writing any reviews of products he has playtested. That was Mr. Ibach.

Mr. Ibach did state up front that he was a playtester. That he wrote a self-review does not bother me in that light. But having it counted as part of the ENWorld score is wrong IMO.

Just to give you an idea of how sensitive the issue of conflict of interest is, I have had nothing at all to do with the writing, development, and playtesting of Natural 20's Wild Spellcraft book. However, I have been asked not to review it because Natural 20's association with ENWorld. And, of course, I will respect that request.

 

[Mongoose_Matt]

Hi guys,

A bit of a storm here! Let see if I can't go through these one by one. . .

Ysgarran: We knew the Quintessential series would do well, but it has surprised us, and not a few gaming stores. With any luck, enough stock should be ordered of future books to stop this happening again.

Kobold: We like pure fighters too One of the main drives behind the Quintessential series is to reward players who stick with one class. However, we also wanted to provide some more generic prestige classes that curved away from 3e's current high-high fantasy feel. I am not too fond with those, and I have a feeling there are more than a few traditionalists out there.

RangerWickett: Something been annoying you lately? A very catty response. Regardless, I have to say that we at Mongoose do not have a problem with the female form.

Psion: You are one of the chaps I always make a point of reading reviews from. Note to everyone else - this guy usually knows what he is talking about. Usually

If the Chaos Mage prestige classes had meant to add to the casting level, we would have said so - we use playtesters, proofreaders (professional ones at that) and editors to ensure that what you read is what is intended. Speaking of Chaos Magic, were you the gentleman who did the review on RPGNet?

Damage bonus in the OMCS. Umm, p101, under Recording Damage. They are no longer 80 strong, they are 10 strong. Of course there is no other bonus. . . I have to admit, I may be off base here with what you are trying to get at. . .

Amazing Agility - I have to say, you are the only gentleman that has brought this up. Anybody else share this view? Tell me now, and I'll make sure we won't do it again

Bhadrak: First off, I would refer to anyone using Character Concepts to the very last sentence of the first column on p4. That is what they are intended for. However, if a twink comes along and starts to power up his fighter, what is the beef? How much further will he get with that one feat, as opposed to others he may choose instead. Feat choices at 1st level for fighters are all important - as is equipment, which can bve a real pain if you have suddenly had your gold docked and are still exdpected to take the front row position. . .

And remember guys - twinks are people too

Baseballfury: Don't worry, we have people just waiting to knock us Incidentally, for fiction each is to his own, but I would not mind hearing about books _full_ of rules gaffs. First time I have heard that one. . .

About Urklore, Ibach and the Rest: Leave them alone guys. First off, they are not part of Mongoose, they are just volunteer playtesters. The only thing they get from us is a free copy of the book. What they do outside of playtesting is absolutely none of my concern and I will not make it so.

Davelozzi: Our first three Slayer's Guides (Hobbers, Gnolls and Centaurs) do have some minor errors in the Reference Section. The reprinted Hobbers corrects this, as does the reprint of Gnolls. However, we have since brought on a few 'd20 freaks' and, all gods willing, such things will not rear their head again.

DocMoriartty: I have to say, I have to take issue with any suggestion of dishonesty on the part of Mongoose.

Wulf: The only thing I am honked off about is that people seem willing to make an issue of it. However, if it makes everyone a little happier, I would be quite willing to ask Morrus to take down Jeff's reviews on EN World - for all the difference that will make.

If anyone wishes to take issue with any of this, feel free to contact me either on this forum (I drop in now and again) or privately. Go ahead, you have a free shot

Catch you all later

 

[drnuncheon]

Mr. Ibach did state up front that he was a playtester. That he wrote a self-review does not bother me in that light. But having it counted as part of the ENWorld score is wrong IMO.

Speaking as a mere ENworld user, I have to say that having Mr. Ibach's score counted as partof the review score doesn't bother me at all - at least, since he identified himself as a playtester. If he hadn't done that, I'd definitely think it was misleading.

The score is pretty much immaterial - it's the meat of the reviews I am interested in. They let me know how much weight to give to the the reviewer's score. (That's why I hate seeing 2-line reviews. They give me no indication of what the reviewer liked or disliked, and consequently the number they assign is meaningless to me in determining whether the product is worth buying or not).

On the other hand, while I might not always agree with Mr. Kohler's opinion, I can get a good idea of his likes and dislikes as compared to mine. That lets me get a decent estimate of whether or not I'd like the book - which is all a good review needs to do.


Now, what would be very cool would be an AlexLit-type setup, where everyone could rate the d20 products they had, and it would suggest other products that you would probably like. (Oh, 90% of people that rated The Quintessential Fighter a 4 also rated Death in Freeport highly. I'll suggest that.)

That's probably a bit too much to ask for, though.

J