SCOOP! Wizards to release 3E Draconomicon

[Gez]

Don't forget the dragons in Monster Manual 2 and Oriental Adventures.

And Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn, with the brown, deep, fang, shadow and song dragons, and the ibrandlin.

Rokugan, Oathbound, and Slaine are just two of the books I could name that have production values as good as Wizards.

Which of these three were bundled together ?

Then they should save their pennies until they do [pay for the best artists], IMO.

However, you do know that in a capitalist system, it's hard for a company to get pennies to save if they don't sell things, do you ? (This reminds me of a Dilbert strip.)

RoF is the first major release to show the results of WoTC gutting their in-house art department.

Then you forgot how horrid was the art in Magic of Faerûn and Faiths & Pantheons. The FR art sucks, except in the FRCS and the Silver Marches (can't comment on Lords of Darkness). Comparing FR books with generic D&D hardcover hurts the eyes (Manual of the Planes, Psionics Handbook, Deities & Demigods are gorgeous).

And here's some preview of D&D 3 Revised:
The blackguard:

The elemental plane of fire:

Correct, but Cramer's doodles have always been offset by WAR and the like...until now.

I still can't understand the fascination for WAR. There's maybe 3 pics of his I like. That's sure 3 more than Cramer's, Baxa's, or Kaluta's, but nonetheless...

 

[Arnwyn]

Uh, I have still yet to see anything from d20 publishers that is comparible to Wotc in terms of solid, workable, balanced mechanics.

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention.

In any case, another dragon book (from WotC or otherwise)? Eh, I don't care. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

 

[Psion]

No it isn't, because that is not what I said.

My quote was a direct one. If you meant something different, then thank you for clarifying, but don't tell me you didn't say it.

"Correct" was a direct response to Crothian stating "But a pretty book does not mean good," thereby agreeing that "style" wasn't enough, or even more important than "substance". Please don't take my statements out of context in order to counter a mischaracterization of what I said.

I'm not seeing how I mischaracterized you at all. Am I not correct that you will not buy a product whose artwork you consider substandard? Because that seems to me to be pretty explicitly what you said. All the additional words you added tell me is that you will buy a product that have good artwork and good content, which I was not contending.

By the words I quoted, you will discount a book with good content if it has bad art. Is this correct or not?

 

[The Serge]

Heh heh heh.

I love these kinds of "debates."

First, let me address the initial point of this discussion. I am pleased to hear that WotC plans on publishing a 3ed Draconomicon. I liked the first one (even if I didn't agree with everything) and I'll like this one if it maintains the same level of integrity as the 2ed version. I strongly suspect that this book will be a complitation of the material on the Wyrms of the North that have been appearing at the WotC site for Forgotten Realms. That means that the spells and feats, and I would imagine a few personalities, will appear. We may also get a look at the FR official Tiamat and Bahamut, and perhaps Null and the other Draconic deities. And, if we're really lucky, WotC will beg Todd Lockwood to come back and do dragons... although I also happen to like Sam Woods' dragons as well (haven't seen too many of WAR's dragons... if any at all).

As for whether or not there's a need for more Dragon books, one could ask the same question about books on Evil or Outsiders. I think that have another perspective is always a good thing, and WotC tends to offer relatively balanced and well thought out ideas and mechanics relative to some of the other companies out there. But, this will have as much fluff as the books offered by Gygax or AEG, and that's not a bad thing to everyone.

Now, on to what this thread has evolved into: Official vs. unofficial and what defines quality.

I have bought and continue to buy third party releases. I was out there with many of you buying the first releases from White Wolf's SSS line. I've bought many of the books from Mongoose, and Green Ronin, Bastion Press and Malhavoc. I also have most, if not all, of the official books from WotC. And I'll say that I have a great deal more faith in WotC's material than I do in most (not all) of the 3rd party publishers. Does this mean that WotC is infallible? Certainly not. There are still magic items, spells, and even PrCs that seem a little out of wack. But, my observation (and those of the people with whom I play) have revealed that WotC seems to be a great deal more "cautious," and therefore tends to be more "balanced." However, that does not mean that WotC's material is necessarily superior or the be all, end all.

I think that the material put out by Green Ronin and Malhavoc are fantastic and balanced. Sure, they have a tendancy to look at things a little differently (Cook has all kinds of variants), but I think that's essential in order to keep things fresh and provide the necessary competition for WotC. I think that Malhavoc especially offers some great alternatives to WotC that are just as balanced... if not more so. Cook was one of the first to offer a new Ranger (which he tweaked even further with the recent The Book of Hallowed Might release), and both Malhavoc and Green Ronin have released fantatsic ideas for goodly, divine magic and concepts... greatly expanding on the relatively limited and sometimes front-loaded material from WotC.

"Official" is often a crutch for people afraid to experiment. Yes, there are companies out there that have produced really shoddy material. And, I've drastically reduced the amount of 3rd party stuff I've bought as a result... but, I do think that "official" has nothing to do with it. When people start vomiting out that word, it's been my experience that these are the same people that want to argue with the DM when s/he offers something new or different (on the surface) from what appears in the books. It reduces the ability for DMs and creators to look to other sources, who may be as balanced and as playtesting oriented as WotC, for alternatives.

As for plush and presentation, I'll admit that I like to see what I consider to be great art, great layouts, and glossy pages. But, I'm not going to allow something as shallow as that to stop me from giving other publishers a chance. I know that, although most of Green Ronin's stuff will be black and white, I know that the quality and integrity of the writing, game mechanics, and ingenuity will compete strongly with the writing, game mechanics, and ingenuity of WotC material. You know, WotC has really been slipping in the kind of art I like to see for months now...

So, I do recognize what Kai Lord's saying, but I don't agree. I think the attitude KL exhibits is one that tends to dominate among a lot of gamers though, and that's a shame.

 

[Yeoman]

Well I know that in my group "Official" books are always used, and 3rd party is rarely touched. Official status means a lot to a whole lot of groups. It doesn't matter to me personally as I use a lot of AEG and Mongoose stuff, but hey to each their own.

Now as to the Draconomicon, I thought it was a cool book in 2e, and I look forward to seeing a 3e version.

 

[Kai Lord]

My quote was a direct one. If you meant something different, then thank you for clarifying, but don't tell me you didn't say it.

When you edit a quote to change the meaning, you are indeed changing what was said. You're like a film marketer who takes a comment from a film critic such as, "A classic case of pure crap," and then prints it as, "A classic..." all the while standing by it as a "direct quote." I was quite clear in my position. No need to reiterate it further.

 

[D'karr]

If that's the case this thread has degenerated into "A Classic..."

I'd like to see the Draconomicon. I have books from all sources. I use them mostly for interesting bits for my campaign. I haven't found one book that I could use all the material and I find that most of the material in the splatbooks, except for MoW, was "A Classic..."

 

[Desdichado]

Official vs. 3rd party: WotC has put out some pretty slipshod products, notably Sword and Fist (bad mechanics), Song and Silence (uninspired in all regards) and have also had some pretty lousy art in recent books (ELH, for example, or MoW). Some third party companies, such as GR, Privateer, etc. have always been consistently good. I've never cared rather material is official or not, and there are at least some "unofficial" books that I'd allow in a heartbeat and some official stuff I'd never allow. Official is meaningless, at least to me.

Good vs. Bad Art: I admit, I prefer my books to be pretty as well, and I've even picked up some books almost solely on their presenation, layout and art. However, I've generally been disappointed in books that I bought solely for these reasons. I also think that WotC art has been slipping, and although it's had some good stuff, even from the very beginning it had some really bad illustrations as well. Look at the blackguard from the DMG, or anything by Kaluta in the MM, for example. Look at Roach and Cramer's works in the splatbooks, which unfortunately, was the majority of the art in some of the splatbooks, particularly the later ones. For every Sam Wood, Todd Lockwood or WAR (or other good artist) picture in a WotC production, there's an equally bad one by Michael Kaluta, BAXA, Fisch or someone else. Even some of the big name artists have some bad pieces -- I'd say Sam Wood is overall my favorite WotC artist, but he's got some real stinkers as well. If you're saying you don't look at 3rd party stuff for this reason, I completely don't understand what you're talking about. Plenty of 3rd party books are at least as good in terms of art and layout as anything by WotC.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Kai Lord
When you edit a quote to change the meaning, you are indeed changing what was said.

I did not edit the quote at all. You are translating my ommission of irrelevant surrounding statements into an accusation of wrongdoing on my part.

I was quite clear in my position. No need to reiterate it further.

Apparently not, as I am still confused to what your stance is. Your statement said to me that you will not buy any product with art you consider substandard reqardless of the content.

If this is true, then I stand by my original characterization.

If this is not true, please clarify that you mispoke/overspoke yourself with the given statement, and I will gladly retract my characterization.

Whatever your stance, at least own up to it.

But don't turn it into an attack on me. There is no need.

 

[johnsemlak]

RE the 'official' vs third party question

Several people in this thread have criticized others for not giving third party stuff a look, saying that they are missing out on some very good material by not considering 3rd party stuff.

That is a valid point, but I don't think people or consumers should be blamed for not bothering to look at certain products. It is the responsibility of all companies to sell their products, and I think that includes third party publishers.

There are many good reasons why some poeple (including people I game with) don't bother with 3rd party material: They don't know about it; some of it is shotty material; it often has lower presentation standards (illustrations, layout, etc); the authors are less known; and perhaps most imporantly, they are less available than WotC products.

Example: Many people have give Monsternomicon as an example of a third party product that is as good as WotC's stuff. That may be true, but I haven't been able to find a copy. I can't find one where I live (I can get WotC stuff easily, OTOH) and when I went home for xmas I didn't see any at several bookshops I checked. You can't blame people for not buying Monsternomicon if they can't find it.

All of us have limited resourses of time and money we're willing to devote to D&D. Many people probably buy the core books and nothing else save a few supplements. Any third party product is always going to be an 'extra' expense, so poeple are going to think very carefully about it. Also, many people are not willing to take time to read reviews and newssites to familiariize themselves with the whole myriad of 3rd party publishing. Again, I don't blame them. WotC publishes good stuff (generally), so it's easier to stick with them if they buy non-essential products.

Again, I return to my main point--don't blame others for not looking at 3rd party stuff. It's the responsibility of those companies to market and sell their products.