Why must the Spell Compendium be innovative?

[Crothian]

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.

I think the market speaks for itself. There are many games that are very different and really try new things. And then there are the staples of the RPG Industry that innovate a little here and there but give the consumers what they want and are the tops of the industry.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think the market speaks for itself. There are many games that are very different and really try new things. And then there are the staples of the RPG Industry that innovate a little here and there but give the consumers what they want and are the tops of the industry.

A good point (and one that I've often brought up myself). I think that there's a balance to strike between innovation and function. Apparently I'm not alone, given the tendency that you mention for products that aim specifically for this kind of balance to sell better than those which go entirely for one end of the innovation/function spectrum.

Truthfully, I don't like to go without either in products that I buy - but if forced to choose, as I said, I would take function (simply because a game that I can't play, regardless of how unique it may be, does me very little good).

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I think WOTC did a fine job, if they spent the time and effort to dig up 1,000 spells, update them, and place them all in a single book.
My hat's off to those who had the unrewarding and mindwracking job of doing this, at WOTC. Kudos to you.

I am one of those people who believe that Rules are There for Your Protection.
There is not a Chess match, without rules. There is not a Bridge Tournament, without rules.
So what, you might ask.
Well ...
There is not a D&D game, without rules. All that creativity, that aspiring of the imagination, that vaunted freedom of expression and all the grand storylines, are based on rules.

I would even argue that, the more rules, the greater the freedom. (Those hobbits in the Scouring of the Shire, would hate me ...)

Well, here we are, with a book that has 280 pages of rules, brought together from 100 odd different sources and updated (a major task in itself) to fit the current rules.
The DM and players alike will have ready access to these rules, whereas before they had little access, and that was incorrect because it was not updated to the current rules.

This product may or may not be innovative, but it sure as heck will allow for innovation, creativity, imagination, and freedom.
The rules typically do.

Edena_of_Neith

EDIT: This does not mean the rules will be used, as given. That is up to the DM, and to the players. But at least they HAVE a set of rules, to base their decisions on.
For example, they may prefer the 3.0 versions of these spells. But at least they now know what the 3.5 spell versions ARE, so they may make a direct comparison. Or perhaps they (like me) prefer 2nd edition spells with their much greater power level. But at least they CAN make a power comparison, because they have the 3.5 spells laid out in a book to read.

Again, cheers to WOTC.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

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.

1. You know, you were the guy who wrote the great review taking down Magic of Incarnum. There's your original product. So what if it wasn't any good?
2. The previous mistakes are fixed. It's called an "erratum."

I think you just like this argument. Don't buy the book and move on.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

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

So does Black and Decker, but if I need a hammer, I'll buy one from them.

It wasn't intended on being imaginative or original, it's intended as a COMPENDIUM, feel free to look up the definition.

I absolutely HATE looking through 20 odd books to find spells. This'll cut down on game play time wasted, and on GM prep time wasted.

Hmmm, saves time. Is handy to look stuff up in. Doesn't take up three feet of shelf space.

Sounds good.

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.

It probably took one person to do it.

Do you KNOW that WotC R&D went to Disneyland or to Six Flags over Narnia while this was being made, or do you think that while this was occurring, R&D was also working on other products?

I'm willing to bet they were working on something else.

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.

As in for free?

They should give you the final efforts of thier labor for free?

I'm not giving to charity, here, when I shell out my hard work for their hard-earned chicken feed. If their chicken feed isn't WORTH the hard work they get from me, they need to be told to suck it up and buy something else.

I'd say it cuts both ways.

It's demanding. It's unrealistic. But so what?

You come off as an arrogant and demanding farm animal who thinks that $30 makes him the Ultimate Ruler of d20, that's 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?

Who are you, the Sergeant-Major of Role Playing Games? Should they ask your permission, call you personally?

It sounds to me like you have more of a case of "center of the universe"-ism than any real valid complain about the product.

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?

Nope, but I don't expect to hear you blathering on and on about how they OWE you a decent product so that you will deign to purchase it, and how it should be free.

If you don't like it, don't buy 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?

Nope, and it was never touted as such.

It looks to me like you've just got an axe to grind, and are using the equivelant of a spell encyclopedia to do it. What's next, will you gripe about Britannica putting out thier encyclopedia with no new material in it, just real world things that anyone could find out about if they read enough or went enough places?

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.

I'm arguing that it took time to gather it up all up, do layout, then a substantial cost to print it. I'm arguing that it's a nice resource for those of us who don't want to buy all the Ebberon and FR crap out there, and just want access to the spells without purchasing $500 in books.

Sounds like they did me a favor, there.

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.

Wow, so in other words, they shouldn't have created something useful.

Well, when you get right down to it, the entire d20 system is nothing but your "neat little termite stick" for something 5 year olds can do. Make believe.

I'm sure that the car designers at Ford and Honda are glad to hear that they're Chimps. After all, a car is just a useful thing.

What do you make? New life forms? Star systems? New physics theorums?

You're welcome to think it's an excellent product. You're welcome to like crap.

Wow, thanks for your permission, God.

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.

Fine. What's the last imaginative thing you did?

I think you're jumping on unimaginative as merely a way of showing your displeasure that they dared charge you for something you think they should have provided out of the goodness of thier hearts.

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)?

Well, then trot right on over to the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Wikipedia sites, since they make unimaginative products.

I'll take utility every time over imaginative.

I have my own imagination, thanks anyway.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

You know, the whole frikkin rant is just hilarious.

All you have to do is look as his signature.

Talk about irony.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

If I think every WotC product should be a seminal mark in gaming quality (and I do), why shouldn't I hold it up as something wrong with WotC's production choices?

Why don't I have the right to be arrogant and demanding on a d20 message board?

Nope, but I don't expect to hear you blathering on and on about how they OWE you a decent product so that you will deign to purchase it, and how it should be free.

They do. They created the original to sub-par quality and they created the revision that invalidated the odler versions. When I do a job wrong, I am expected to do it over and do it right and to not demand compensation for my mistake. It may be unrealistic to hold a business to those standards, but what, pray tell, is gained here by realism?

You know, the whole frikkin rant is just hilarious.

All you have to do is look as his signature.

Talk about irony.

"HA HA HA! I CAN CRITICIZE HIM TOO! HA HA HA!"

And do I somehow ask you like a wounded puppy why you dare attack me? Heck no. Do it and do it again. And I will do likewise to WotC. Better brutal honestey.

Yeah, the Compendium wasn't trying to be innovative. Those that constantly parade that fact as if it will somehow revolutionize my position are kind of missing the point. I didn't ever demand that the Spell Compendium do other than what it tried to do. I demanded that it be free, and that WotC should be trying to do more.

Are those demands unreasonable? Yeah, probably. Do I have every right to make them? Oh, quite definately. To act as if WotC should not be attacked for not making what I don't want out of them is to somehow deny me the freedom of expression of my opinion. You're free to say it's unreasonable, unfair, and arrogant. Hell's Lords, I'll be one of the first to agree with you.

Does it change the fact that the Spell Compendium is a bland, if sublimely useful, product? I dunno, it seems like that criticism is accurate, even if that criticism doesn't matter at all to anyone but myself.

Does it have to be full of bursting creativity? In my opinion, EVERYTHING should be full of bursting creativity. It's impossible, but that doesn't mean that I won't hold that standard. Just because you can never achieve perfection doesn't mean that no one should ever demand it. Just because you never stay clean doesn't mean you shouldn't ever take a shower.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

If I think every WotC product should be a seminal mark in gaming quality (and I do), why shouldn't I hold it up as something wrong with WotC's production choices?

Why don't I have the right to be arrogant and demanding on a d20 message board?

You have every right to be. Just like we have the right to point it out.

They do. They created the original to sub-par quality and they created the revision that invalidated the odler versions. When I do a job wrong, I am expected to do it over and do it right and to not demand compensation for my mistake. It may be unrealistic to hold a business to those standards, but what, pray tell, is gained here by realism?

Avoiding an ulcer. Realizing that it doesn't work that way.

By your logic, Microsoft owes me a refund on: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0, Windows XP Home Edition. After all, I bought Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and that was buggy, and isn't each edition merely an attempt to fix up the holes in the original.

Sorry, but that's not how it works in the real world. Nobody MADE you buy them. WotC didn't release Air 2.0, now with more breathability, they released a second edition of the d20 system, in response to customer feedback and complaints.

It was up to you if you wanted to buy it or not. I hear lots of people still run 1E games.

"HA HA HA! I CAN CRITICIZE HIM TOO! HA HA HA!"

If that's all you got, in your call for ingenuity, innovation, originality, and a demand that since the product didn't have those, you should recieve the book for free, you're sadly mistaken.

I was pointing out that you are doing something that isn't innovating, and just building on the work of others.

Pot, this Kettle, come in. Pot, this is Kettle, you are rusty, over.

And do I somehow ask you like a wounded puppy why you dare attack me? Heck no. Do it and do it again. And I will do likewise to WotC. Better brutal honestey.

Except your complaints are not honestly. They forgo a basic honest rule.

WotC is a business that provides a good that is not neccessary to life. Whether you choose to buy it or not is your business. They owe you nothing.

Yeah, the Compendium wasn't trying to be innovative. Those that constantly parade that fact as if it will somehow revolutionize my position are kind of missing the point. I didn't ever demand that the Spell Compendium do other than what it tried to do. I demanded that it be free, and that WotC should be trying to do more.

OK. You demand it should be free.

Let's ignore the hours of cut and paste to move it there. Nevermind the artwork. Never mind the print run costs. The distribution costs.

They should give it to you.

Shall they also give you $500 and a free kitten?

Expecting a company that has invested man-hours and cash into a product to give it to you for free is like expecting record companies to give you "Best of..." CD's for free.

Wish all you want, but it ain't happening, your foolish to think it will, and honestly, after the expense they put up, why should they?

Are those demands unreasonable? Yeah, probably. Do I have every right to make them? Oh, quite definately. To act as if WotC should not be attacked for not making what I don't want out of them is to somehow deny me the freedom of expression of my opinion. You're free to say it's unreasonable, unfair, and arrogant. Hell's Lords, I'll be one of the first to agree with you.

Does it change the fact that the Spell Compendium is a bland, if sublimely useful, product? I dunno, it seems like that criticism is accurate, even if that criticism doesn't matter at all to anyone but myself.

Does it have to be full of bursting creativity? In my opinion, EVERYTHING should be full of bursting creativity. It's impossible, but that doesn't mean that I won't hold that standard. Just because you can never achieve perfection doesn't mean that no one should ever demand it. Just because you never stay clean doesn't mean you shouldn't ever take a shower.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Every product put out should be bursting with creativity.

For a game of make believe that snags heavily from just about every source.

I can tell that the arguements of how unreasonable you are being don't matter. That no matter what, you feel that because WotC somehow failed to live up to some yardstick you possess they OWE YOU.


I want to know how many other things you can purchase for less than $150 and have as many hours of non-repititious fun with?

 

[Yair]

The spell compedium is one of the few products I am actually considering purchasing in the near future. It may not be innovative, but it sure sounds useful.
I couldn't care less about innovative. I want fun. This product can increase the fun of my games, and that's the only criterion.

Right now, I just started a new game with some RP newbies. I wouldn't change the rules even if the best gaming system came up and slapped me in the face, and I am not about to accept any innovative system whatsoever, probably for the next two years.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

It may not be innovative, but it sure sounds useful.
I couldn't care less about innovative. I want fun. This product can increase the fun of my games, and that's the only criterion.

That sums up my opinion.

I respect KM's stance that he shouldn't have to buy it, and I encourage him not to if he doesn't want to.

Personally, I don't care about the product one way or another, I just don't believe that every product has to be innovate.

Sometimes utility takes precedence over innovation.