Worst 3.5 publishers?

[James McMurray]

A closer analogy would be 'can you network to Windows 95 machines after you upgrade to Windows 98?' Yes, you can. The other people on your network don't have to upgrade too. But if the DM decides to upgrade the game to 3.5, the players all need new players handbooks.

No, they just need a pencil and a trip to the SRD. That coupled with a halfway decent memory should suffice.

There's not enough good stuff in 3.5 to make that worthwhile.

I thoroughly disagree. The improvements in 3.5 are (IMO) almost uniformly good, and the majority of them were (again IMO) even necessary.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Hi all!

Your wish is my command, oh Most Majestic and August of Moderators.

To all who I may have offended in my replies to Darrin, I offer my apologies. Sometimes I stay in RPGnet mode when posting on different fora, forgetting that "heat" level in permissible discussion can be radically diverse. Mea culpa.

Which is why my response was also in RPG.net mode. No, you aren't on my ignore list.

To tie in to my discussion with Darrin, like some of TSR's products from the early 90's, FFE has plenty of interesting ideas. However, there is a strong lesson to be learned from game settings like Maztica or Spelljammer; cool ideas are not enough. Games need to be playable. With the coherent ruleset of 3.0 and 3.5, there shouldn't be too much of a problem in making the games playable, but to do so, designers need to know the rules.

Agreed. Although I will proudly admit to being one of the 16 fans of the Spelljammer setting. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

On that note, my criticisms of much of the setting material was harsh and not at all respectful to the people who worked on them or enjoyed them, and for that I apologize. Its a little too easy to revert back to fanboy mode when talking about products that were out in my childhood or young adulthood. I do stand firm in my defense of 3.5, but I'm not going to rebuff Treebore again since Crothian, Ankh-Morpork Guard, and others have already done so effectively.

My apologies to anyone I may have offended.

 

[maddman75]

No, they just need a pencil and a trip to the SRD. That coupled with a halfway decent memory should suffice.

And how many reams of paper? That's what I thought I was going to do when it was announced. But with almost every spell changed in some way that really isn't reasonable. A 3.0 PHB isn't a usable resource at a 3.5 game table.

I thoroughly disagree. The improvements in 3.5 are (IMO) almost uniformly good, and the majority of them were (again IMO) even necessary.

I meant to put an "IMO" in there - many of the changes I don't understand. I've never seen or even recall someone on the boards complaining about a problem that say the facing changes, weapon sizes, or small changes to many many spells would solve.

And I don't begrudge WotC trying to make money. I hope they make whole bucketsfull of it. They just aren't getting it from me for the 3.5 revision. I looked over it like I would any other gaming purchase (more carefully, actually) and decided it wasn't for me. If it's for you, if all these small changes matter to you, and if your players won't lynch you for rendering their books obselete, then more power to you. I'm not in that situation.

 

[maddman75]

No, they just need a pencil and a trip to the SRD. That coupled with a halfway decent memory should suffice.

And how many reams of paper? That's what I thought I was going to do when it was announced. But with almost every spell changed in some way that really isn't reasonable. A 3.0 PHB isn't a usable resource at a 3.5 game table.

I thoroughly disagree. The improvements in 3.5 are (IMO) almost uniformly good, and the majority of them were (again IMO) even necessary.

I meant to put an "IMO" in there - many of the changes I don't understand. I've never seen or even recall someone on the boards complaining about a problem that say the facing changes, weapon sizes, or small changes to many many spells would solve.

And I don't begrudge WotC trying to make money. I hope they make whole bucketsfull of it. They just aren't getting it from me for the 3.5 revision. I looked over it like I would any other gaming purchase (more carefully, actually) and decided it wasn't for me. If it's for you, if all these small changes matter to you, and if your players won't lynch you for rendering their books obselete, then more power to you. I'm not in that situation.

 

[Flyspeck23]

While I've got my own feelings about 3.5 ( ), I'll just comment on the worst d20 publisher.

For 2003, I couldn't name a single one.

That's not the same as "There aren't any bad publishers", mind you. But somehow I've avoided to buy any crappy d20 books - every single purchase was worth it's money.
Prior to 2003... well, that's another matter entirely.

So, is there any insight hidden in those meager lines? Probably not. But thanks to EN World one is sure to find the highlights of d20 on a regular basis, and for that I'm grateful.
Bottom line: hopefully we'll see quality gain the upper hand, compared to quantity, because quality sells better.

Agreed. Although I will proudly admit to being one of the 16 fans of the Spelljammer setting.

Make that 17

 

[JohnNephew]

BTW, let's look at the writers for that obscure Maztica adventure "City of Gold." Yup, Laws and Tweet, who are those losers?! "City of Gold" is one of the unrecognized gems of D&D. Anyone who has a love of well written adventures or games of exploration should do themselves a favor and hunt down a copy of this module.

Oh no! Laws has Tynesed me! ;-)

 

[Derulbaskul]

Not to fond of Fantasy Flight's books. The production quality on them just looks terrible IMHO.

Are you sure you really mean FFG? FFG's production quality is generally outstanding: cover art is excellent (especially for the Midnight series) and interior art ranges from average to excellent. The only glitch has been the binding on the first run of Midnight books... and that can be forgiven.

I think you mean FFE, don't you?

I don't have a vote for worst publisher because I stopped buying from those that "burnt" me two or so years ago. So, apologies to AEG and Mongoose: your first books were absolute shockers and I have never given you another chance.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Are you sure you really mean FFG? FFG's production quality is generally outstanding: cover art is excellent (especially for the Midnight series) and interior art ranges from average to excellent. The only glitch has been the binding on the first run of Midnight books... and that can be forgiven.

I like Fantasy Flight, but a lot of their books ARE bland IMO. I think it has influenced me passing on one or two of their books, if not more. What really irks me is the table of <no> contents in most of them.
When browsing, it's a good place to start for info!

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Vocenoctum, I have to agree with you on that, I would prefer an index but besides that if you have neither you should be shot.

 

[Treebore]

Maddman,

There is no concrete way to change opinions. Just voice yours, let everyone else voice theirs and go on. Either people see what you are saying or they don't. Just stick to your views and be willing to listen and consider opinions of others. This is nothing to beat your head against the proverbial wall over. Notice I haven't responded to anyone who said the same thing over again, or close to the same thing.