280 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
280 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
=========================================
|
|
Results: 2nd Edition Ratings [Miscellany]
|
|
=========================================
|
|
|
|
Compiled by: brooks@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Goth)
|
|
|
|
[Note: This file is part of one section of the ratings posted on
|
|
December 22, 1994 to rec.games.frp.dnd; it is included in order to make the
|
|
publically available ratings as complete as possible.]
|
|
|
|
==============
|
|
Points Ratings
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
In order for a product to appear on the points rating table, it must
|
|
have at least five votes. Products are listed in points order, from
|
|
highest to lowest.
|
|
|
|
/-------------------------------------------------------\
|
|
| - Key - |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Score = the product's average rating |
|
|
| Low = the lowest rating anyone gave this product |
|
|
| High = the highest rating anyone gave this product |
|
|
| Voters = the number of people who rated the product |
|
|
\-------------------------------------------------------/
|
|
|
|
Note: Results for the Monstrous Compendiums for specific campaign
|
|
settings are included in the results summaries for those settings.
|
|
Only the generic MCs are included here.
|
|
|
|
Product Score Low High Voters
|
|
------- ----- --- ---- ------
|
|
MC1&2: Core Creatures 7.2 4 10 21
|
|
MC8: Outer Planes 7.1 2 10 19
|
|
HHQ2: Wizards's Challenge 6.7 2 8 6
|
|
MC14: Fiend Folio 6.6 2 10 14
|
|
HHQ1: Fighter's Challenge 5.7 3 8 6
|
|
HHQ3: Thief's Challenge 5.6 2 7 5
|
|
HHQ4: Cleric's Challenge 5.2 1 8 6
|
|
CR2: Deck of Priest Spells 4.8 0 10 14
|
|
CR1: Wizard Spell Cards 4.3 0 10 14
|
|
Deck of Magical Items 3.5 0 10 11
|
|
Fighter's Screen 2.1 0 6 9
|
|
Wizard's Screen 2.0 0 6 8
|
|
Thief's Screen 2.0 0 6 8
|
|
Priest's Screen 1.6 0 6 8
|
|
|
|
========
|
|
Comments
|
|
========
|
|
|
|
This next bit is a selection of comments people have sent in. I've
|
|
removed some remarks which were very similar, especially for products
|
|
which provoked large quantities of comment and I've done some minor
|
|
editing for grammar and spelling. Other than that, this is how they
|
|
were sent in.
|
|
|
|
Monstrous Compendium Series
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
The Monstrous Compendium is good, but it has many typo's, mistakes
|
|
and just plain inconsistencies that it must be used rather carefully.
|
|
|
|
The MC in binder format had embarrassingly poor artwork, and lots of
|
|
misprints, as well as being rather inconvenient. I use only the
|
|
Monstrous Manual now.
|
|
|
|
The MCs needed more binders. Good to have the monsters, but needed
|
|
indices.
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Compendium in principle wasn't a bad idea, but as usual
|
|
the delivery sucked: Cheap paper, that easily ripped by simply
|
|
opening and closing the binder; separate monsters on front and back
|
|
of sheets which made alphabetical sorting impossible; numerous typos
|
|
(when will they ever fix the breath damage for black dragons); no
|
|
complete index; no complete monster summoning tables; and no monster
|
|
level rating system. The 1st Edition books were fine. Why not just
|
|
update them for 2nd Edition, which is, of course, what they
|
|
eventually did. Now if they just would put the demons/devil/daemons
|
|
back in (without the stupid names), I'd be happy.
|
|
|
|
The MC stuff is useful, somewhat necessary, and now that I've
|
|
reorganized all my three hole MC sheets, I'm sorta sad TSR is going
|
|
away from that format.
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Compendium series is just something I could never
|
|
get into. It seems to me that it just isn't durable enough and when
|
|
that is combined with the problem of multiple creatures per sheet so
|
|
that things can't really be kept in alphabetical order, having
|
|
multiple books of creatures just doesn't seem so bad anymore.
|
|
|
|
I liked the MC in binder format.
|
|
|
|
For the most part, your sane, standard monsters. Every DMs favorite
|
|
old standbys.
|
|
|
|
I always wondered why they didn't put out more binders for the MC
|
|
series... Mine were full after about 6 appendices, although the
|
|
dividers were very useful for my notebooks at school...
|
|
|
|
Monstrous Compendium Outer Planar Appendix (MC8)
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
The Outer Planes are now as nasty as they should be, though there
|
|
should have been more developmental stuff in the MC8 -- more
|
|
than even in the entire Planescape setting boxed set. It could've
|
|
been done in only about ten pages (or less).
|
|
|
|
Ok, contains "ultra-powerful monsters" than no character should ever
|
|
be able to touch, like the Solar. However, the "Big Bad Guys" (Balor
|
|
and Pit Fiend) are too wimpy.
|
|
|
|
Monstrous Compendium Fiend Folio Appendix (MC14)
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
The FF appendix was marginally interesting, and I use it mostly
|
|
as ideas for monsters of my own creation.
|
|
|
|
Modules
|
|
-------
|
|
Temple, Tower and Tomb is a GREAT module IMHO.
|
|
|
|
The original Wizard's Challenge is quite good and fun to play, with
|
|
a nice mystery that unfolds well. While it is fairly scripted, it
|
|
allows for enough flexibility to keep things working and interesting
|
|
both for the DM and the player. It also does a nice job of
|
|
emphasizing many of the more roleplaying aspects of being a magic
|
|
user.
|
|
Wizard's Challenge II, unfortuanately is not as interesting as its
|
|
predecessor, being a very straight forward adventure. As such,
|
|
however, it is not too bad.
|
|
|
|
Cleric's Challenge, on the other hand, is an absolutely horrible
|
|
module. It allows for minimal roleplaying and pits the PC against
|
|
many, many horrible creatures. For a single PC of the levels
|
|
specified to survive (3-5?), she or he must have quite a few NPC
|
|
allies. This goes against the whole idea of the "Challenge" series as
|
|
being for individual PC's and it creates havoc for DM and player
|
|
alike in the adventure. This was by far the most disastrous adventure
|
|
I've ever had the misfortune to have played (actually it never got
|
|
finished).
|
|
|
|
Historical References
|
|
---------------------
|
|
I highly recomend these as some of TSR's best work.
|
|
|
|
Why, oh why, did the Vikings book have to come first? While the
|
|
notes on the Berserkers were useful, everything else was sort of
|
|
dull.
|
|
|
|
With Charlemagne, one of the great problems with the books became
|
|
apparent. While the lists of the characters of the Legends of
|
|
Charlemagne are useful, who is better -- Roland or Ogier? How high is
|
|
Turpin's level. (Also, they make one mistake in the section on
|
|
Roncesvalles -- Turpin survived, although he was gravely wounded.
|
|
Well, he did in legend anyway.)
|
|
|
|
The Celts book was absolutely fabulous. However, the modifications to
|
|
the Celtic mythos in the book have been adopted wholesale by TSR
|
|
(q.v. Planescape), which sort of suggests the necessity of a revision
|
|
of the Legends and Lore book.
|
|
|
|
A Mighty Fortress continues the mistake that Charlemagne's Paladins
|
|
made, in that there are no stats for any of the major NPCs -- or even
|
|
any mention of the fictional characters mentioned on the back of the
|
|
book! I want to know if my ninth level fighter could take any of the
|
|
Three Muskateers!
|
|
Although you didn't ask, there are some Historical References I would
|
|
definitely like to see: A book exclusively on the exploration of the
|
|
Americas; an Oriental Historical Reference and books on Africa and
|
|
India (those two have had some articles in Dragon recently).
|
|
|
|
Vikings and Rome have helped me the most, as I have sections of my
|
|
campaign world with similar cultures; Mighty Fortress is almost too
|
|
advanced time-wise to fit in most campaigns, but it does contain
|
|
valuable material. Anyone wanna bet that the next one is Oriental?
|
|
|
|
Card Decks
|
|
----------
|
|
The Decks are of marginal use to the more advanced players, and
|
|
are of no use in low-magic campaigns. They are too easy to
|
|
lose/misplace/scatter.
|
|
|
|
I refuse to pay money for spell cards, when they include NO NEW
|
|
MATERIAL. Sorry, the things aren't that convenient.
|
|
|
|
Neat idea but make your own.
|
|
|
|
Personally I have no use for the spell decks, but as a product goes
|
|
they seem to be of reasonable value.
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the spell cards/item cards serve very little
|
|
purpose beyond that of making money for TSR.
|
|
|
|
The cards (Spell and Magic Item) are absolutely fabulous. They keep
|
|
the book searching (especially during combat) to an absolute minimum
|
|
and speed my games along infinitely. Also, since I'm a DM who tries
|
|
to keep lots of secrets from the players, I can give them a Magic
|
|
Item card and keep them out of my DMG.
|
|
|
|
Both spell cards are nice ideas, but problems arise when you have
|
|
lots of addition spells.
|
|
|
|
The CR2 deck itself is OK, but is unneccesary and takes up a lot of
|
|
space.
|
|
|
|
I liked the idea, but the practice bombed. The cards are of unsual
|
|
size (too big to carry in some ways) and lack specifics (tables). The
|
|
holding case was too small for all the cards, causing them to mix up
|
|
and move around during transport.
|
|
|
|
I can't really say I'm familiar with any of the "Decks of..." but I
|
|
will say that I saw them and promptly pretended they didn't exist. I
|
|
haven't missed them any, either.
|
|
|
|
I didn't rate these because a) I didn't buy them or b) I don't want
|
|
to admit to doing so.
|
|
|
|
Accessories
|
|
-----------
|
|
Treasure Maps is a true dog, if you run any of the adventures
|
|
straight, as is, as one-shots. However, there are good story
|
|
skeletons and idea kernels to base real adventures on, so the score
|
|
gets raised somewhat. I may even break down and buy Treasure CHest
|
|
one of these days, just to see if anything in there sparks some good
|
|
ideas for adventures.
|
|
|
|
Battlesystem Accessories
|
|
------------------------
|
|
Battlesystem Skirmishes is one of the most pointless accessories I
|
|
have ever seen. It is basiclly AD&D with Hits instead of hps. Anybody
|
|
could easyily come up with the rules. Skirmishes doesn't even speed
|
|
up mass combat very much.
|
|
|
|
Battlesystem Rules is a great set of rules for a fantasy wargames.
|
|
It's only flaw is the points system, but many wargames have flawed
|
|
points systems. The rules for converting characters work very well,
|
|
and I have implemented them into my campaigns in which mass battles
|
|
occur.
|
|
|
|
Player's Screens
|
|
----------------
|
|
The Fighter's Screen would have been better if the extra sheets were
|
|
on the screen.
|
|
|
|
I can't think of a single reason why I could possibly want to buy
|
|
a Player's Screen. Or that moronic "Player's Kit" TSR have just come
|
|
out with.
|
|
|
|
I've not seen any of these screens in detail, but the whole idea is
|
|
very bad, totally superfluous and foolish!
|
|
|
|
For some reason the Priest's Screen mostly sucked, the Thief's Screen
|
|
kinda sucked, and the Fighter's Screen was brought down by the lack
|
|
of quality of the ranger and paladin sections.
|
|
|
|
I don't care how convenient the tables are, players simply cannot
|
|
have screens. The screen symbolizes the isolation inherent in the
|
|
DM's power (Hey, this is how I pass English!). Players should not be
|
|
able to hide their sheets or their rolls behind screens, and if
|
|
they're separated by screens, they think less like a party. It would
|
|
be hard to use miniatures, if they can only be viewed from directly
|
|
overhead due to the screens, etc.
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's completely appropriate for me to rank the Player
|
|
Screens since they obviously aim for a different market sector, but
|
|
I must say that even when I was much younger and playing D&D I would
|
|
never have bought such a product (that's better than the new Player
|
|
Packs, which I would have been embarrassed to even carry around -- at
|
|
least if someone bought me a screen I might use it).
|
|
|
|
The Screens are almost worthless because I can do the same thing with
|
|
more information in less than 1/2 an hour.
|
|
|
|
Generally the screens are useless, and if they are meant to hide your
|
|
character from the other players, why are they class-specific?
|
|
|
|
=======
|
|
The End
|
|
=======
|
|
|