=========================================
Results: 2nd Edition Ratings [Miscellany]
=========================================
Compiled by:
[email protected] (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
=======
