Why must the Spell Compendium be innovative?

[Vanye]

This seems like a luxury item, an extravagance that's nice to have if you don't mind paying twice for material you already have in your gaming collection - for some gamers it may prove to be a useful tool, but so is an index to spells and the books where they're found offered as a free web enhancement.

And for those of us who DON'T ALREADY HAVE the original sources, it's even better.

I have bought three WOTC books that I can think of in the last year: Races of Eberron, Champions of Ruin, and Lost Empires of Faerun.

I haven't bought any of the generic Races of books. I haven't bought the environmental series. I haven't bought Weapons of Legacy. I never bought the Miniatures Handbook. All of those sources had things that I found interesting, such as the feats, the spells, the magic items...but I had other things to spend my money on (rent, car payments, food, children...). Something that gathers all the spells, from all the sources that I DON'T have, in addition to the ones I already do have, would be worth it.

Will I buy it? I don't know. I'll evaluate it when I see it. I don't really NEED more spells, since my players tend to stick with the PH spells unless I beat them over the head with my other available sources...but the compendium itself could be of great utility for those like myself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why is Wizards being attacked? Because they made an unimaginative, unoriginal, derivative product.

I don't think the compendium had to be original. I think they could've spent time and effort doing something that WAS, however. And still given us the compendium.

I do think that WotC, as the people who published the flawed spells in the first place and who invalidated some of their own work by releasing a .5 edition, DO have a moral, if not actual, obligation to make good on their previous mistakes without asking for any compensation.

It's demanding. It's unrealistic. But so what? Shall I let them slouch their way to another couple of thousand dollars, or should I make them defend every choice they make as a business and as a provider of my entertainment? Should I pay for mediocrity and not say "Hey, this isn't up to snuff"? What do you want me to do, shut my trap and tow the line and praise the design gods of Wizards when they have the common sense to update their own material and charge me for it?

I'm under no delusions that my message board gripes will change anything at any higher level. I don't really care. I call it as I see it, and there's no way that you can honestly tell me that Spell Compendium *is* a rich wellspring of brand new and imaginative material, is there? It ain't, unless you want to argue THAT point. I was running under the assumption that these boards were for the discussion of d20/D&D gaming, and part of that discussion is, yes, offering my opinion that this product is lazy, simple, and basic.

This doesn't invalidate what it does. I never once said it was a horrible product, or that it isn't useful, or that it is an affront to all that is decent, or that it is an embarassment to gaming (all of which I've either leveled at other products or have seen in other product reviews). I'm not being unfairly biased against everything Wizards does. I'm usually in their camp, defending a product I think is quite solid. That doesn't make this product imaginative, though. I'm not even questioning it's usefulness, so saying "But it is very useful!" isn't really much of a defense, is it? Yes, it collects and updates all the spells, a very USEFUL thing. I'm just not impressed at something useful. Chimps make useful things. I'll very proudly hold Wizards to a higher standard than I hold Pan Troglodytes, especially when they're going to charge me and others for this neat little termite stick.

You're welcome to think it's an excellent product. You're welcome to like crap. It really isn't going to bug me at all. That doesn't mean that I can't voice my opinion, right? To ask me why I took Wizards to task ("attacked" them?) for making an unimaginative product somehow seems to assume that they shouldn't be attacked for making an unimaginative product.

So, tell me, then: Why *shouldn't* I attack Wizards on an internet message board for making a product which completely lacks fresh and imaginative new material, and thus is inferior in that respect to every other book they've ever done (with the possible exception of the 3.5 core books)?

 

[Greg K]

There is no reason that a product like this need be innovative as its purpose is clearly utility.

 

[Greg K]

For the person who enjoys playing these classes, this book is a godsend. Edena_of_Neith

Provided that the DM allows the spells in the campaign. I can guarantee that 95% or more of the spells from Complete Divine, Defenders of the Faith, and Book of Exalted Deeds will never see use in any game that I run.

 

[GQuail]

Provided that the DM allows the spells in the campaign. I can guarantee that 95% or more of the spells from Complete Divine, Defenders of the Faith, and Book of Exalted Deeds will never see use in any game that I run.

The first is the only one that's in this book, isn't it? DotF was mostly superceded by Complete Divine, and BoED was clearly marked as being for mature gamers so moving things from it wholesale into a conventional book would be somewhat unlikely.

Non-core books do come in many flavours of "balanced", but the spells in this book come from such a mixture of sources I think it'd definatly be worth at least a browse for most people. I certainly intend to give it the once over. :>

 

[Greg K]

I think it'd definatly be worth at least a browse for most people. I certainly intend to give it the once over. :>

I do plan to give it a once over as well.

 

[GQuail]

I don't think the compendium had to be original. I think they could've spent time and effort doing something that WAS, however. And still given us the compendium.

This seems to be your core gripe: "Why waste time publishing this, when they could do something that's more unique?"

To which the obvious answer is, "They already have". They recently did some far more eclectic books, like Weapons of Legacy and Magic of Incarnum, and I suspect that with the traditional D&D titles already covered for this edition we'll see more of this.

At no point does putting together all these old spells and selling them in a unified product mean they've had to "give up" on publishing Races Of The Tablefolk, or Heroes Of Romance, or Warlocks Of Eletroit or whatever other new trick it is they have planned. Rather, after several of those books, we have here a more "core" book that all games can benefit from.

In short, you seem to be complaining about a non-existant problem. The existance of this useful, but not terribly innovative, book does not prevent a book that isn't "crap" from coming out. ;-) Sure, it takes up some R&D space, and some printing time, but considering these spells were already playtested and errata'd before, surely it's not as big a deal as another book?

Oh, yeah, I think complaining that thre's an "obligation" by a company to provide you with fixed spells is a bit unfair when, erm, there already are errata sheets up for some of these books, and for free. Is it for all? I don't know for sure, and the 3.0 ones may not have been converted before. But if you've only just started playing the game and can't get the now out of print 3.0 books, that's quite a collection of "new" spells for ya! :>

Previous books have printed "fixed" copies of old spells before, so there's a precedent for them fixing things on the fly and not necesarilly issuing errata for the old printing: complaining about it for this book rather than the whole line. Not that I'm saying that's a good thingL it can be irritating when there's multiple copies of a spell floating about yoru groups book collection: I suspect this is thinking from the Magic the Gathering team, who reprint old cards with changed text and the tournament players assume all older versions of this card "obviously" now play with this new text. Easier said than done when two books with the same printing year have different versions of the same spell and the DM needs to work out which is the "fixed" one.

 

[Justin Bacon]

I don't think the compendium had to be original. I think they could've spent time and effort doing something that WAS, however. And still given us the compendium.

Okay. So your complaint is not that they're publishing a very useful compendium. Your complaint is that you believe that WotC is passing up on the opportunity to publish some sort of extremely innovative product, and you're just slagging the compendium because... because... uhh.... You're grumpy? I dunno. The point at which you said "and still given us the compendium" is the point where you lost all credibility.

But, out of curiousity, what, exactly, is the extremely original product you feel WotC hasn't delivered to us?

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Kamikaze Midget
Why *shouldn't* I attack Wizards on an internet message board for making a product which completely lacks fresh and imaginative new material, and thus is inferior in that respect to every other book they've ever done (with the possible exception of the 3.5 core books)?

Because you're doing the equivalent attacking a garden-tool company for releasing a new shovel instead of some product that will "revolutionize" gardening, or saying that Bruce Springsteen has lost his creative edge because his last release was a "Best of" CD.

Your target du jour is something that was not intended to be revolutionary, its a product of utility. Don't hold it up as an example of what's wrong with WOTC's production choices.

WOTC, like any other company, is worthy of scrutiny by its target customers, but if you want to criticize WOTC for having creativity problems, choose a target that has some kind of claim of creativity- that its introducing something new...a Races book. A campaign setting. A new system of magic.

Not a compendium.

 

[jdrakeh]

This is absolute madness.

Couldn't have said it better, myself. Some people involved with RPGs (either as hobbyists or designers) have a totally messed up sense of values, where 'different' is (for some reason I can't fathom) prized far above 'functional'. Given a choice between a publication that is different and one that works, I'll take the latter every time.

A truly great product should probably be both different and functional, but a lot of people (both designers and fans) get hung up on the 'different' and in their zeal to obtain it, exclude the 'functional'. The opposite can be said of folks who get too hung up on 'functional'.

Still, though, functional wins out every time over different (for me).