30 years of D&D Book reviewed [Archive] - Wizards Community

30 years of D&D Book reviewed [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Llathos
11-29-04, 04:55 PM Ouch. This is really...really harsh.

Of course it's also histerical and a great testament to how little many people care about the D&D license.

It's like the D&D movie just got turned into a documentary:

http://books.slashdot.org/books/04/11/29/1926224.shtml?tid=209&tid=6
Kalitharus
11-29-04, 05:04 PM The problem is that WotCwould love to take credit for the 25 years they did'nt own the D+D name... with publishing a book like this, its evident they have.

It should be 5th Anniversary... not 30th.
rogueattorney
11-29-04, 05:26 PM The problem is that WotCwould love to take credit for the 25 years they did'nt own the D+D name... with publishing a book like this, its evident they have.

It should be 5th Anniversary... not 30th.

Not really, seeing how they devote maybe only 20 pages to the first seventeen years or so of the game's existance. That's right, 20 pages detailing the 17 year history of 1e and OD&D compared to about 100 pages dealing with the five years of 3e.

Rather than trying to take credit for the earlier years of the game, it seems they are doing their best to ignore it (which can be said of pretty much every other product WotC's had anything to do with...).

R.A.
skathros
11-29-04, 09:37 PM That's right, 20 pages detailing the 17 year history of 1e and OD&D compared to about 100 pages dealing with the five years of 3e.
i want to know how they cut down 17 years of D&D down to 20 pages and how they fluffed up a meager 5 years into 100?
Lord Arkhaven
11-30-04, 09:59 AM What a shame! I wonder why WOTC can't edit a book, be it a rule suppliment or what was supposed to be a classy retrospective? How come editing has been mastered by hundreds of publishers but these guys can't seem to get it right?

Really it's just disappointing, and another stain on the reputation of the game, which to be honest isn't the most well represented of hobbies in the best of times.
Escef
11-30-04, 10:30 AM According to the review they don't even touch WotC's involvment in D&D (other than in historical summeries) until page 200 of a 284 page book. That means that more than 2/3rds of the book is about pre-WotC D&D.
ORC_Paradox
11-30-04, 10:11 PM Yeah, it looks to be harsh but I have to argee with the point of having Vin Dissel write the forward. Huh? I would have much rather had the two creators of the game give the intro.

Seriously, who cares if Vin Dissel plays D&D? Or other "celebrities" for that matter? The game is over 30 years old. Everyone has at least heard of Dungeons & Dragons at some point in their lives. And Vin is certainly no more important than say... me.

:D
Escef
12-01-04, 04:41 AM And Vin is certainly no more important than say... me.

:D

I'd say no celebrity, regardless of playing D&D, is as important as any of the WizOs.
rogueattorney
12-01-04, 10:23 AM According to the review they don't even touch WotC's involvment in D&D (other than in historical summeries) until page 200 of a 284 page book. That means that more than 2/3rds of the book is about pre-WotC D&D.

There's no table of contents and I don't have the book in front of me right now, but there are only 20 pages dealing with OD&D and 1e. Half of these pages deal with the history of GenCon.

The next third (approx. 100 pages) of the book deals with campaign settings. In this section there is about 6 pages on Greyhawk, and I found that write-up to be very uncomplimentary, mostly focusing on the setting's place in D&D history and saying very little about the characteristics of the setting itself. There is a much better section dealing with the Known World/Mystara, except that it contains almost none of the artwork from the first dozen years of existance, focusing almost completely on the artwork from the last 2 years of the setting's existance as a 2e campaign. The vast, vast, vast majority of the setting section dealt with the settings of the 90's such as Planescape, Ravenloft, etc.

The next 50 or so pages dealt with the creation of 2e and some of the various 2e products of the 90's such as the blue DM's helpers, the green historical supplements, and the red "Complete" guides. There was about 6 pages on the 1991 Black Basic box, which was a jaw-dropping amount of space devoted to an unpopular, unsuccessful, and just plain bad product. (You can still find them in their shrink wrap and covered in dust at my local FLGS.) The much more successful and higher quality Rules Cyclopedia which came out within a couple months of the Black Box merited one sentance in a completely different section of the book.

The final third of the book deals with WotC's purchase of TSR and the creation of 3e. I estimated that at about 100 pages; the posted review said 85 pages, so that's about right.

All told, in a nearly 300 page book "celebrating the 30 years of Dungeons & Dragons" there is about 20 pages devoted to products that came out druing the first 15 years of existance prior to 1989 and the production of 2e. I found the book to be WotC's extended love letter to itself, and certainly not something anyone who wanted to "celebrate" the entire 30 year history of D&D would want to purchase.

R.A.
Escef
12-01-04, 10:33 AM The next third (approx. 100 pages) of the book deals with campaign settings. [...] The vast, vast, vast majority of the setting section dealt with the settings of the 90's such as Planescape, Ravenloft, etc.

The next 50 or so pages dealt with the creation of 2e and some of the various 2e products of the 90's ...

[...]

The final third of the book deals with WotC's purchase of TSR and the creation of 3e. I estimated that at about 100 pages; the posted review said 85 pages, so that's about right.

[...]

I found the book to be WotC's extended love letter to itself, and certainly not something anyone who wanted to "celebrate" the entire 30 year history of D&D would want to purchase.

R.A.

Ok, so a book that spends more than half of it's time talking just about 2e is WotC writing itself a love letter? Must I remind you that WotC had nothing to do with 2e? You exaggerate your case.
rogueattorney
12-01-04, 11:22 AM Ok, so a book that spends more than half of it's time talking just about 2e is WotC writing itself a love letter? Must I remind you that WotC had nothing to do with 2e? You exaggerate your case.

WotC had nothing to do with 2e? All the products produced for 2e in the two or three years after WotC acquired TSR prior to the release of 3e qualify as "something" in my book. That would include such 2e adventures as "Die Vecna Die", "The Apocolypse Stone", "Dungeons of Despair"... I could go on. The point is, WotC's history with D&D didn't begin with 3e.

and you're still dodging the fact that the book ignores or brushes aside the first 15 years of D&D's existance. I stand by my review. Feel free to disagree if you like.

R.A.
Escef
12-01-04, 01:03 PM WotC had nothing to do with 2e? All the products produced for 2e in the two or three years after WotC acquired TSR prior to the release of 3e qualify as "something" in my book. That would include such 2e adventures as "Die Vecna Die", "The Apocolypse Stone", "Dungeons of Despair"... I could go on. The point is, WotC's history with D&D didn't begin with 3e.

IIRC, many of these projects were begun before the buyout. However, I conceed that WotC had a short time to dabble in 2e. 3e had been already in preliminary planning stages before the buyout.

and you're still dodging the fact that the book ignores or brushes aside the first 15 years of D&D's existance. I stand by my review. Feel free to disagree if you like.

I dodge nothing. It hits me square in the face. :rimshot: I said nothing about it because that wasn't my issue. However, if you insist...

The material you mention was neither ignored nor "brushed aside" (a phrase that can mean different degrees of ignoring to many people), so I once again say you exaggerate your case. From the information I have recieved it was given very cursorary coverage, which I agree it deserves better than. Further, exaggeration is a poor arguementive style, one that has always failed to impress me. It reminds me of the time I was trying to tell some drunk teenagers to get off of the property of the gas station I worked at a few years back. One made a comment about my shirt saying it went out of style in the '80s, which was "like a million years ago". :rolleyes:
skathros
12-01-04, 05:04 PM From the information I have recieved it was given very cursorary coverage
IMNSHO, 15 years (half the game's lifespan) is worth more than a very cursorary coverage Why bother calling it 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons? Call it a Celebration of WotC and be done with it!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Llathos 11-29-04, 04:55 PM	Ouch. This is really...really harsh. Of course it's also histerical and a great testament to how little many people care about the D&D license. It's like the D&D movie just got turned into a documentary: http://books.slashdot.org/books/04/11/29/1926224.shtml?tid=209&tid=6
Kalitharus 11-29-04, 05:04 PM	The problem is that WotCwould love to take credit for the 25 years they did'nt own the D+D name... with publishing a book like this, its evident they have. It should be 5th Anniversary... not 30th.
rogueattorney 11-29-04, 05:26 PM	The problem is that WotCwould love to take credit for the 25 years they did'nt own the D+D name... with publishing a book like this, its evident they have. It should be 5th Anniversary... not 30th. Not really, seeing how they devote maybe only 20 pages to the first seventeen years or so of the game's existance. That's right, 20 pages detailing the 17 year history of 1e and OD&D compared to about 100 pages dealing with the five years of 3e. Rather than trying to take credit for the earlier years of the game, it seems they are doing their best to ignore it (which can be said of pretty much every other product WotC's had anything to do with...). R.A.
skathros 11-29-04, 09:37 PM	That's right, 20 pages detailing the 17 year history of 1e and OD&D compared to about 100 pages dealing with the five years of 3e. i want to know how they cut down 17 years of D&D down to 20 pages and how they fluffed up a meager 5 years into 100?
Lord Arkhaven 11-30-04, 09:59 AM	What a shame! I wonder why WOTC can't edit a book, be it a rule suppliment or what was supposed to be a classy retrospective? How come editing has been mastered by hundreds of publishers but these guys can't seem to get it right? Really it's just disappointing, and another stain on the reputation of the game, which to be honest isn't the most well represented of hobbies in the best of times.
Escef 11-30-04, 10:30 AM	According to the review they don't even touch WotC's involvment in D&D (other than in historical summeries) until page 200 of a 284 page book. That means that more than 2/3rds of the book is about pre-WotC D&D.
ORC_Paradox 11-30-04, 10:11 PM	Yeah, it looks to be harsh but I have to argee with the point of having Vin Dissel write the forward. Huh? I would have much rather had the two creators of the game give the intro. Seriously, who cares if Vin Dissel plays D&D? Or other "celebrities" for that matter? The game is over 30 years old. Everyone has at least heard of Dungeons & Dragons at some point in their lives. And Vin is certainly no more important than say... me. :D
Escef 12-01-04, 04:41 AM	And Vin is certainly no more important than say... me. :D I'd say no celebrity, regardless of playing D&D, is as important as any of the WizOs.
rogueattorney 12-01-04, 10:23 AM	According to the review they don't even touch WotC's involvment in D&D (other than in historical summeries) until page 200 of a 284 page book. That means that more than 2/3rds of the book is about pre-WotC D&D. There's no table of contents and I don't have the book in front of me right now, but there are only 20 pages dealing with OD&D and 1e. Half of these pages deal with the history of GenCon. The next third (approx. 100 pages) of the book deals with campaign settings. In this section there is about 6 pages on Greyhawk, and I found that write-up to be very uncomplimentary, mostly focusing on the setting's place in D&D history and saying very little about the characteristics of the setting itself. There is a much better section dealing with the Known World/Mystara, except that it contains almost none of the artwork from the first dozen years of existance, focusing almost completely on the artwork from the last 2 years of the setting's existance as a 2e campaign. The vast, vast, vast majority of the setting section dealt with the settings of the 90's such as Planescape, Ravenloft, etc. The next 50 or so pages dealt with the creation of 2e and some of the various 2e products of the 90's such as the blue DM's helpers, the green historical supplements, and the red "Complete" guides. There was about 6 pages on the 1991 Black Basic box, which was a jaw-dropping amount of space devoted to an unpopular, unsuccessful, and just plain bad product. (You can still find them in their shrink wrap and covered in dust at my local FLGS.) The much more successful and higher quality Rules Cyclopedia which came out within a couple months of the Black Box merited one sentance in a completely different section of the book. The final third of the book deals with WotC's purchase of TSR and the creation of 3e. I estimated that at about 100 pages; the posted review said 85 pages, so that's about right. All told, in a nearly 300 page book "celebrating the 30 years of Dungeons & Dragons" there is about 20 pages devoted to products that came out druing the first 15 years of existance prior to 1989 and the production of 2e. I found the book to be WotC's extended love letter to itself, and certainly not something anyone who wanted to "celebrate" the entire 30 year history of D&D would want to purchase. R.A.
Escef 12-01-04, 10:33 AM	The next third (approx. 100 pages) of the book deals with campaign settings. [...] The vast, vast, vast majority of the setting section dealt with the settings of the 90's such as Planescape, Ravenloft, etc. The next 50 or so pages dealt with the creation of 2e and some of the various 2e products of the 90's ... [...] The final third of the book deals with WotC's purchase of TSR and the creation of 3e. I estimated that at about 100 pages; the posted review said 85 pages, so that's about right. [...] I found the book to be WotC's extended love letter to itself, and certainly not something anyone who wanted to "celebrate" the entire 30 year history of D&D would want to purchase. R.A. Ok, so a book that spends more than half of it's time talking just about 2e is WotC writing itself a love letter? Must I remind you that WotC had nothing to do with 2e? You exaggerate your case.
rogueattorney 12-01-04, 11:22 AM	Ok, so a book that spends more than half of it's time talking just about 2e is WotC writing itself a love letter? Must I remind you that WotC had nothing to do with 2e? You exaggerate your case. WotC had nothing to do with 2e? All the products produced for 2e in the two or three years after WotC acquired TSR prior to the release of 3e qualify as "something" in my book. That would include such 2e adventures as "Die Vecna Die", "The Apocolypse Stone", "Dungeons of Despair"... I could go on. The point is, WotC's history with D&D didn't begin with 3e. and you're still dodging the fact that the book ignores or brushes aside the first 15 years of D&D's existance. I stand by my review. Feel free to disagree if you like. R.A.
Escef 12-01-04, 01:03 PM	WotC had nothing to do with 2e? All the products produced for 2e in the two or three years after WotC acquired TSR prior to the release of 3e qualify as "something" in my book. That would include such 2e adventures as "Die Vecna Die", "The Apocolypse Stone", "Dungeons of Despair"... I could go on. The point is, WotC's history with D&D didn't begin with 3e. IIRC, many of these projects were begun before the buyout. However, I conceed that WotC had a short time to dabble in 2e. 3e had been already in preliminary planning stages before the buyout. and you're still dodging the fact that the book ignores or brushes aside the first 15 years of D&D's existance. I stand by my review. Feel free to disagree if you like. I dodge nothing. It hits me square in the face. :rimshot: I said nothing about it because that wasn't my issue. However, if you insist... The material you mention was neither ignored nor "brushed aside" (a phrase that can mean different degrees of ignoring to many people), so I once again say you exaggerate your case. From the information I have recieved it was given very cursorary coverage, which I agree it deserves better than. Further, exaggeration is a poor arguementive style, one that has always failed to impress me. It reminds me of the time I was trying to tell some drunk teenagers to get off of the property of the gas station I worked at a few years back. One made a comment about my shirt saying it went out of style in the '80s, which was "like a million years ago". :rolleyes:
skathros 12-01-04, 05:04 PM	From the information I have recieved it was given very cursorary coverage IMNSHO, 15 years (half the game's lifespan) is worth more than a very cursorary coverage Why bother calling it 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons? Call it a Celebration of WotC and be done with it!