What makes a Product Good?

[Hussar]

Looking at the product survivor thread, this happened to catch my eye:

Yeah, I suppose since this is a popularity contest, the book with "wider appeal" should win. But "wider appeal" should not be confused with "good". PHBII of course has "wider appeal" than Race of Anything or the Complete Anything because PHBII covers everything. But I don't think it did it very well. Broad yes, all that good, no.

((Sorry to pick on you Maggot, it just happened to catch me. Not meant as a shot in any way))

To me, as I said in that thread, the best supplement is the one that gets used the most. For example, I adore MEG's Urban Blight city supplement. 20 mini encounter locations that you can toss into pretty much any city. When I ran campaigns, this book got used almost every session that the players were in a city. I used at least two thirds of the locations in the book. Meanwhile, my Shelzar, City of Sin book, which was the campaign supplement for my Shelzar campaign, gathered dust on my shelf most of the time. Not that the locations in there were not good, it's just that most of the locations were very bare bones and the Urban Blight ones were better for me.

Take another example. Tome of Magic. I like this book. I really do. Beautifully done, innovative and very interesting. Dripping with color. Yet, it gathers dust on my shelf because I just can't seem to shoehorn it into my campaigns. It's been almost a year before I finally got to use anything in the book, and, even then, it was with a truenamer cohort for one of my players.

While I understand that wider appeal doesn't necessarily mean best book, I really have to wonder what the criteria is for "best book"? Is it the one that's prettiest? Most interesting? I don't know. For me, best book is the one that is used the most. And that generally coincides with widest appeal.

 

[delericho]

To me, as I said in that thread, the best supplement is the one that gets used the most.

While I understand that wider appeal doesn't necessarily mean best book, I really have to wonder what the criteria is for "best book"? Is it the one that's prettiest? Most interesting?

For me, it depends on the intended purpose of the book. I will call a book 'good' if it fulfils its intended purpose well.

So, for a 'utility' book like "Complete X", "Player's Handbook 2" or "Spell Compendium", it is good if it gets used often at the game table. In the Complete series, what I'm looking for is good base classes, good prestige classes and good feats. Added points are given for good secondary elements (spells, psionic powers, magic items), but these are only a boon if the rest of the book is good. The same is true of PHB2, except for the lack of PrCs. "Spell Compendium" is a good book because it gets near-constant use from the spellcasters in the party (or, at least, it should - that doesn't seem to be the case with my group).

Adventures are good if they get used. The more of the adventure that gets used, the better it is. And, the fewer changes I have to make to the adventure to fit it into my campaign, the better. As such, adventure quality will always be hugely subjective.

By contrast, books like the "Fiendish Codices", "Frostburn", and "Cityscape" strike me more as inspirational reading, being encounter and adventure generators. As such, the more material I can spin-off from those books for my own campaign, the better I rate the book. That's why I rate "Lords of Madness" as the best in that particular series - although it lacks the breadth of the others, the flavour text was so evocative I found myself awhirl with all the ideas it generated.

I don't know how you would rate a 'utility' book against an adventure against an 'ideas' book. Just as I don't know how you really rate the quality of a director versus the quality of a singer. Provided each is good in their niche, I'll be happy.

 

[Umbran]

Hr. Tough one.

Sometimes, there are really popular movies - wide appeal, big box office gross and all that - that are, in some sense complete garbage. You see similar things in books - there's a number of "best sellers" out there that are, in critical terms, horrible.

On the other side, critics often don't know what they are talking about, and they spit on something that's prettty good.

And, of course, some things that many agree are simply marvelous works (for example, Alternity's "Dark Matter" setting book), just don't sell well.

So, I don't think sales and popular appeal are a measure of "quality" in the general sense, mostly because the term "quality" does not have a meaning in the general sense. We usually talk of quality within an assumed frame of reference.

I don't even know if I can list out what makes a book good for me, in particular, because I am always running into things that have qualities I didn't think of beforehand - originality is something I value.

 

[Ant]

I've used nothing out of PHB II yet I think it's a wonderful product.

• Good art
• Enjoyable to read
• Stirs my imagination
• Potential to be useful
• Evidence of quality

That's the five things I look for.

 

[Shade]

For me, "most useful" doesn't equate to best.

Some of the best books of Third Edition, in my opinion, are the two Fiendish Codices, Lords of Madness, Fiend Folio, Manual of the Planes, and Player's Handbook II. None of these see nearly as much use at the game table as the three core books. Several of those I listed are niche products that are only needed at the game table when using the specific monsters or locales within. Fiend Folio probably gets the most use of those I listed. Even PHBII, while a broader product, only sees use when a player or NPC uses a specific class, spell, or feat from that book, or the rare occasion when retraining is needed.

For me, "best" equates to most idea-inspiring, most faithful to what has come before, least error-ridden, and well-organized.

 

[Hussar]

Now, Shade, that's a bit interesting. You think the Core Three are the books that get used the most? I'll admit to almost never cracking the spine on my DMG. Granted, I use the Hypertext SRD fairly often, but, then again, 99% of the things I'm checking are either in the MM or PHB. Other than the xp tables, what do you actually use in the DMG?

 

[Glyfair]

For me, "most useful" doesn't equate to best.

I think one thing to remember here that there is a difference between what makes a product good and what makes a product best.

It's much easier to call something good. I can simply say that if I can use it and want to use it, then it's good.

However, when you get into comparisons, that's when it gets tricky. If two products are equally good in isolation, is the one that will get more use "better"?

 

[Shade]

Now, Shade, that's a bit interesting. You think the Core Three are the books that get used the most? I'll admit to almost never cracking the spine on my DMG. Granted, I use the Hypertext SRD fairly often, but, then again, 99% of the things I'm checking are either in the MM or PHB. Other than the xp tables, what do you actually use in the DMG?

Maybe not so much anymore, but if I feel that if I'm going by memory of information in a book, then the book is still being used. Same goes for using electronic aids or cheat sheets based off those books.

Of the core books, I most frequently look up the rules on movement, grappling, aerial and underwater combat, environment and weather effects, and magic items.

After the core books, I most frequently use the FRCS, the Epic Level Handbook (both the campaign I run and play in are currently in epic levels), Spell Compendium, and Manual of the Planes. I don't think anyone would consider the Epic book "best" by a longshot, but it is needed for epic-level play.

 

[maggot]

((Sorry to pick on you Maggot, it just happened to catch me. Not meant as a shot in any way))

No offense at all. Happy to start a discussion.

 

[Shade]

However, when you get into comparisons, that's when it gets tricky. If two products are equally good in isolation, is the one that will get more use "better"?

To me, it would depend on the focus of the product. The Fiendish Codices and Lords of Madness obviously target a smaller niche than say the Monster Manuals, but when dealing with those niche areas, the quality and depth clearly outshines the MMs, IMHO.

As for usefulness of an environment book like Frostburn vs. a wide-range product like the Spell Compendium, I'm not sure that usefulness would be the deciding factor for me.