Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merova" data-source="post: 1293424" data-attributes="member: 2505">Quality vs. Quantity? Bogus!Hi all!Yeah, my pocket book is happy too, but Darrin's comment of "quality vs. quantity" expresses a level of ignorance that needs to be challenged.First of all, I'm not a 3.5 enthusiast, but neither am I a nay-sayer. I still use 3.0 in most of my games, but am slowly drifting them into 3.5. Games that I've started since October have all been 3.5.Likewise, I agree that 2003 WotC releases have all been of dependable value. I don't like most of them, but the quality both in terms of actual mechanical implementation and production values is undeniable. The one book that I really love is Ghostwalk; I think this product is wonderfully imaginative and sets up games of exploration in an area that hasn't been overdone in previous D&D play. Unapproachable East is another very good book, a must buy for Realms enthusiasts.Overall, I think that WotC is a good company that puts out good products, even if the vast majority of them are not to my liking.However, the TSR release list was stuffed with product, of wildly variant quality and utility. In terms of setting, they were fantastic. The Dark Sun products listed contain some great stuff, including "Road to Urik" and "Valley of Dust and Fire." Anybody who disses the Al-Qadim line is betraying poor "gamer" breeding; "Golden Voyages" is a marvelous look at constructing an explorationist seafaring campaign and building the encounters based upon player incentive. This degree of passive player narrative currency was unheard of at the time.How about Ravenloft? It was a banner year. Islands of Terror and the Forbidden Lore set each gave greater campaign depth and narrative width to the setting. The VR Guide to Ghosts remains the classic book for constructing "ghostly tales" for D&D play ever printed; nothing else comes close. As for adventures, "Thoughts of Darkness" and "Night of the Walking Dead" are both fun and frightful. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'm no fan of the "Complete" splatbooks, but it's absurd to deny the fun and utility that countless players gained from the Elves book. The Bard book wasn't as popular at the gaming tables, but it had some valuable social simulationism, like the rules for setting up concerts or having a fan base, as well as having a huge listing of instruments. I had problems with both books, but I also have problems with the BoED and the Complete Warrior, so design choices that do not fit my style of play can be found on both lists.Then there's the historical supplements. Mighty Fortress, Celts and Charlemagne's Paladins are all exquisitly written. For fans of "historical" roleplaying, their value vastly exceeds anything recently put out by WotC, or even the d20 market as a whole, although I do think that Mongoose's Slaine does a great job with a magical celtic setting, and I have high hopes for the upcoming Medieval Player's Handbook from Green Ronin for replace my "Charlemagne" book; I have faith in David Chart and the GR folks to put out a great product.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.I can go on through the list; Menzoberranzen, "From the Ashes," "Tales of the Lance", Strongholds, these products have stood the tests of time and actual play utility. Yes, there is some garbage in the mix, but let's not get into the "3.5 hating" here. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />My apologies for the rant, but Darrin's statement was so offensive that I couldn't allow it to stand. It's shocking to me that an actual game writer would hold such an ignorant position on one of the most creatively expressive years of D&D's history.Was there too much product? Yeah, but nothing compared to the d20 market today. Nobody was making me buy TSR's Dragonlance stuff then, just as nobody is making me buy Sovereign's Dragonlance stuff now. I was free to buy as I wished to buy.ON TOPIC: I'm still not a fan of Fast Forward.Thanks for reading.---Olivia</blockquote>

Verification