Worst 3.5 publishers?

[Carnifex]

Sorry, but since my answer to that question is "Yes", then your statement holds weight only as opinion and not as fact. I still use my 3.0 Books all the TIME for my 3.5 games...the tweaks needed are so minor its just not funny, and in the end...all you REALLY need to worry about is DR. Beyond that...who cares if that Ranger is different? Maybe he's had special training...etc etc.

'tis all a matter of opinion and I've never understood why people have screamed that 3.5 is such a horrible and incompatible system...because if you want it to be, its perfectly compatible.

Yeah, I'm quite happily able to pluck bits out of 3.5 that I want to use with my current Warhammer d20 game as easily as I can take bits out of any other d20 product. Spells, some class mods, some feats - I wanted the 3.5 ranger, and could use it with no real problems. The party consists of classes from 3.5, AU and OA. I see 3.5 as another set of options that I can draw from if I want, and really haven't had any incompatibility issues.

 

[Seule]

3.5 is not a revision, it is a total rewrite. How do I define this as being the case? Because I cannot sit down at a game where everyone else is using 3.5 and i am using 3.0 and know what is going on without reading their version of so many skills, spells, feats, and class progression rules. That is not compatible. Nor is it targeted when you have an easier time finding changes then you do finding what stayed the same. That is wide spread changes. Changes, not revisions. They are very different words with very different meanings.

Wow, so I can't use Sword and Fist, Tome and Blood, Defenders of the Faith, Song and Silence, Masters of the Wild, Book of Vile Darkness, the entire Adventure Path, Enemies and Allies, Epic Level Handbook, Manual of the Planes, Monster Manual II, the Fiend Folio, or the Psionics Handbook with my 3.5 game? Not to mention all the 3rd party stuff from 3.0 that I have incorporated? What have I been doing then, am I delusional? It all seems to work fine to me.
Sure, I don't try to use the 3.0 core books, they were rewritten for a reason: they work better. I can go through the 3.5 core books and point out improvements on nearly every page. But I can use all other books, with only minor revisions. That's what compatable means.

--Seule

 

[Merova]

Quality vs. Quantity

Hi all!

Normally, I consider it extremely rude to inflict conversation upon someone who has clearly expressed that they do not desire to engage with you in such. However, Darrin has misrepresented my position to a degree that I feel obligated to respond. My apologies for this display of poor etiquette.

Excuse me? Ignorance?!?!?!

I think this comes down to a matter of personal opinion,

Darrin is absolutely correct. In his opinion the list of product from TSR was deficient of quality, as can be inferred from his contrast to 2003's product list from WotC. My opinion is that anybody with even a shred of discernment can find outstanding quality on the TSR list, especially "in terms of setting."

My opinion is that anybody who cannot discern the items of quality on the TSR list is displaying ignorance. Harsh, but, IMO, true.

and if anyone's opinion here is offensive its that of someone who thinks its better to flood the market with a bunch of D&D crap rather than focus on the core products with a high production value and let the 3rd party publishers release the marginally interesting stuff.

I agree with Darrin again. Flooding the market is not a good thing. I expressed this opinion twice in my previous post. Obviously, statements like "Was there too much product? Yeah," are too subtle for the displayed level of reading comprehension. My apologies for the confusion.

Moreover, I never implied that I thought that allowing the 3rd party publishers to handle non-core products was a bad idea. In fact, I don't know where Darrin came up with this fabricated objection, because it is certainly not one that I would ever proclaim.

Of the list you brought up, only Menzoberranzen, "From the Ashes," and "Strongholds" has any promise of standing the test of time and of those, really, only Menzoberranzan and Strongholds are truly worthwhile. Maztica has no place on my game shelf and I don't know of anyone who even bothered with it. Ravenloft and Darksun were second tier worlds at best, and of the two, only Darksun was even mildly interesting, in my ever so humble and obviously ignorant opinion (nevermind the fact that I've actually owned all the settings in question since their original release as well as a fair number of products on the list).

Fair enough. Considerable numbers of players disagree with Darrin, but he's entitled to his opinion. Obviously, White Wolf disagrees with him regarding the lasting quality and appeal of Ravenloft products, which seem to sell quite well for them.

Moreover, as design models for worldbuilding, their influence is undeniable. Ravenloft made two important steps in gaming:

1) Exploration of "theme" through "setting/mood" rather than "plot/situation," a departure in game play from previous attempts at horror, such as Call of Cthulhu or Beyond the Supernatural. Ravenloft used the baseline D&D paradigm of game play, but altered it in a non-invasive manner through techniques of worldbuilding. The influence of this innovation can be found in almost every good d20 setting, from Dragonstar to Nymabe to Midnight.

2) The "capstone" world concept. Ravenloft was a spice to add to your campaign for variety, a place to visit for a few evenings of play. This concept has been less influencial, but still can be found aplenty, from Redhurst to Nyambe to Oathbound. Play begins in your campaign world, then the opportunity to experience to "new" is introduced.

Dark Sun also made lasting contributions to game design. Most notable, it explored the "power up" paradigm of D&D play, which has led us to things like Epic-level play and the Oathbound campain setting. The use of "metaplot" within setting advancement is also worth noting.

In fact, the majority of DMs actually run their own worlds, so you can promote Darksun, Maztica, and Ravenloft all you want, but the fact is that there are very good reasons that WotC isn't making books in those lines or similar ones anymore.

I'm always happy to promote quality.

Moreover, I am aware of the economic realities of setting sales. I understand and respect WotC's publishing decisions. I never expressed otherwise. Darrin must be enjoying bashing on this strawman.

The main thing thats going to be the most utility are products that give players more options for character customization. That's what 3rd edition is about. How many good DMs can't take a basic setting book and produce their own material to fill in the necessary blanks? Sure, it won't be nicely bound and go on for 100 pages more than is necesary, but it will fill the need they have at the time.

Again, I agree with Darrin. Tools for utilization in actual play are good things; I'm happy that WotC is focusing on this aspect of design.

Personally, I like games of exploration. Therefore, settings are of high utility for me, while another book of "splat-craft" isn't. YMMV.

However, my position in the initial argument was that the TSR list had many things of quality in it. The statement of "quality vs. quantity" was incorrect. It appears that Darrin lost sight of our point of contention, choosing to bash on this handy strawman instead of expressing his opinion on why the TSR list was of low quality.

After all, there is a difference between "low quality" and "low sales," right? Just because a product sells more doesn't mean that it's of higher quality. Look at the Ghostwalk book; it's got great new ideas and is filled with quality design. However, it probably didn't sell anywhere as well as the BoED, a book that I found somewhat lacking in imaginative value. BTW: both are WotC products.

If you want more books, go buy D20 stuff. Midnight stands head and shoulders above Maztica and Darksun. Go buy the 3rd edition Ravenloft stuff produced by Sword and Sorcery Studios. They're still making it, so it isn't like its not available. I guarantee you that my statement was not based on ignorance.

I have Midnight and I have played it as well. It is an excellent game, but it's paradigm of play is radically different to Dark Sun and Maztica. Honestly, I like it more as well, and game mechanics have advanced over the last decade. Is it "head and shoulders" above the others? Maybe, but that's a matter of personal evaluation.

Regarding ignorance, perhaps I was too harsh. How about undiscerning? The fact that quality game design exists today in no way negates the quality of game design from yesterday. The fact that this seems to be Darrin's stance indicates a severe lack of discernment on his part.

Because of the OGL you have more choices now that you had then, and many of the campaign setting material from these third party publishers is more innovative than it was back in the early '90s anyway. If you haven't checked it out then I recommend doing so before crying ignorance. If you have and you've decided not to like it, then you're one of those people still hung up on the fact that the logo on the cover is D20 rather than D&D.

Looks like more kicks to the strawman.

To be honest, I love the d20 movement with its vast creativity and innovation. I totally agree that the gaming possibilities dwarf those of the early 90's. Howver, that isn't the point of contention. Discerning quality amidst a vast quantity is as much a problem today as it was back then, except that there are now more publishers involved.

Oh yeah, welcome to my ignore list.

I love Ignore Lists. Over at RPGnet, I've got nearly 200 names on my list. However, announcing the placement of someone on the list is tacky and indicative of poor manners, as well as being the height of "drama queening."

Well, since Darrin isn't reading this, I don't feel bad to say that the theme of exploration was a primary focus on the '92 TSR list. There's is a lot to learn from these quality game products, as I indicated in my previous post.

The example of creating explorative situations into the unknown was honed and intelligently discussed in many of these products. I think Darrin's adventure for the Oathbound campaign setting, "Waters of Akaya," could have been vastly improved, if he had taken note of the techniques to be found in this era of game design. Unfortunately, he didn't; it's a rather mediocre adventure as a result, which fails in its setting introductory premise. But it's a free pdf product, so you get what you pay for.

In any case, thanks for your patience and your time. My apologies for this tangent. Good gaming!

---Olivia

 

[Bards R Us]

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

 

[Emiricol]

FFG stuff has gotten better, particularly with their covers and front sections. The rest of each book is still not great in regards to production values though.

But I do like much of the content they put out, so I overlook it

 

[maddman75]

Sorry, but since my answer to that question is "Yes", then your statement holds weight only as opinion and not as fact. I still use my 3.0 Books all the TIME for my 3.5 games...the tweaks needed are so minor its just not funny, and in the end...all you REALLY need to worry about is DR. Beyond that...who cares if that Ranger is different? Maybe he's had special training...etc etc.

'tis all a matter of opinion and I've never understood why people have screamed that 3.5 is such a horrible and incompatible system...because if you want it to be, its perfectly compatible.

The main thing is whether or not it is useable as a player for me. Now, is the 3.0 Player's Handbook usable in a game of 3.5 D&D?

IME, by far the most common time a player will need to refer to the PHB is to look up the exact effects of a spell. Now, as noted by Darrin above one of the choices they made was to rewrite virtually every spell. Often making small changes such as a different range or area of effect.

Now, can a player use his 3.0 PHB in a 3.5 game for this most common task? Of course not! All the information he gets out of it is going to be wrong. Or has a good chance to be wrong. Now if they were just going to put in all the errata and fix a few problem spells such as Haste and Harm, then the 3.0 books would still be usable with a small list denoting what spells had changed. But that isn't what was done, therefore the Player's Handbooks aren't compatible.

This is probably the largest factor in my not converting, as I don't want to tell my seven players they all need to go buy new books when their current ones are in fine shape.

 

[NPC]

I wish publishers would upgrade their existing products to 3.5e in the form of free PDF errata.

For example, I have both Relics and Rituals I and II. Really like the books, but I'm a little bummed that there aren't going to be any upgrades to the spells in those books.

Sure I can buy R&R III when it comes out, but I'd be surprised if it included 3.5 versions of all the spells listed in R&R I and II.

 

[Erik Mona]

>>>
Of the list you brought up, only Menzoberranzen, "From the Ashes," and "Strongholds" has any promise of standing the test of time and of those, really, only Menzoberranzan and Strongholds are truly worthwhile.
>>>

Time to go back to meditation, Darrin. You know not of what you speak. When you have reflected upon your ignorance, please return and share what you have learned with the class.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon Magazine

 

[seankreynolds]

Technically Monte is now the owner of a competing business

Darrin....

The d20 license has not created competitors to WotC. No d20 publisher's books could ever really _compete_ with WotC. The sales numbers aren't even in the same league.

The d20 license created an _opportunity_ for other companies to grab some of the money that's small enough to slip between WotC/Hasbro's giant corporate fingers. There's no way WotC can make every single product that gamers want, they simply don't have the manpower. But all of those products that WotC isn't making are still driving sales of the PH, DMG, and MM. The "competition" is making WotC money.

Monte doesn't see himself as a competitor to WotC. He understands what his role is as a d20 publisher. He admits there is a certain level of "I wouldn't have done it that way," but he doesn't look at WotC as a competitor.

(Not that I speak for him, but we've had enough conversations about this that I think I can express his point of view adequately enough.)

 

[Treebore]

Obviously i have a much more demanding opinion of what the definition of compatible and revison mean. Can you play a 3.5 game with only 3.0 books? No. There are so many changes you have to have the 3.5 material available to you in order to play.

I know i can integrate this material. I know it is relatively easy to do, i have been doing it with various products for over 19 years now. However, it is my opinion that the changes were not done in a targeted fashion, or even for a better game. It was done to resell the same product to the same consumer.

Obviously you would rather call me an avid 3.5 hater. If you would read my post(s) with a less biased view point you would notice I never write that 3.5 sucks or that it is a bad thing to buy. I write that I will not buy it. I write why I will not buy it. Do I think others should not buy 3.5? Yes, but only to show WOTC that the average gamer is not willing to buy a lie. However, I am in the minority about 3.5 being a lie. Fine, it is not the first time my standards have been different from the majority and it won't be the last.

The only thing I said I hate is liars. WOTC has met my criteria for being a liar, 3.5, as a game, has not. 3.5 is what it is, and it is useable. I have even said I use the class re-writes from it. So I am obviously not a hater of 3.5, I am a hater of how it was presented and marketed. So I do the only meaningful thing I can do. I refuse to buy 3.5 when WOTC would receive profit from it. Simple as that.

edit:
Sorry, but when I write about such contentious things I refuse to use specific names. I trust those who read this to figure out if what I say is in response to anything you have written to me. And to realize I am not trying to insult you. If you think I have insulted you please wait a little while and then re-read it again, to see if you can correctly understand what i have written. If you still think i have insulted you quote it and ask me to rephrase it in a way you won't find it insulting. You should also be able to e-mail me, if you prefer.