========================================= 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 =======