The Fiend Folio reappears and takes the D&D monster book line to better heights then previous volumes. Better then the other Monster Manuals, the Fiend Folio makes improvements to the monster book series.
Post originally by Eric Brennan at 2003-05-12 20:09:43
Converted from Phorums BB System
While I thought this was a decent enough "capsule" review, I thought it was /really/ brief, and the brevity was highlighted by the formatting -- between the disclaimers, the D&D logo, the graphics, and the "opening shot," your preamble is as long as the actual review.
I would've liked to see /more/ in the review -- clearly, you've got the chops to be a solid reviewer, I just desired more material after such a big buildup.
Post originally by Kevin Ahearn at 2003-05-12 21:05:35
Converted from Phorums BB System
"While some of the Fiend Folio original monsters reappear, the Fiend Folio itself reappears without the neat styling that it had when it first appeared in my gaming spheres as almost the first hardcover book I picked up at Payless but my parents didn't want my influenced by D&D (which was too late)."
Does anyone else's head hurt from reading that sentence?
Post originally by Alex deMorris at 2003-05-12 22:08:17
Converted from Phorums BB System
------------------------------
"While some of the Fiend Folio original monsters reappear, the Fiend Folio itself reappears without the neat styling that it had when it first appeared in my gaming spheres as almost the first hardcover book I picked up at Payless but my parents didn't want my influenced by D&D (which was too late)."
Does anyone else's head hurt from reading that sentence?
------------------------------
You must not have long winded friends.
I'm sorry if I wasn't brief enough for you. It's probably not the last time someone will bash me for being stream-of-conscious with my sentences.
Post originally by Alex deMorris at 2003-05-12 22:18:37
Converted from Phorums BB System
Eric Brennan wrote:
-------------------------------
I would've liked to see /more/ in the review -- clearly, you've got the chops to be a solid reviewer, I just desired more material after such a big buildup.
-------------------------------
Note to self: Don't review four monster books simultaneously, it’ll lead to thinking you’ve said more then you have.
I put my mind in a viewpoint of looking at the monster books as if I was developing one (which I have, but it sucked).
As I'm retooling my monster book, I wanted to see how Wizards handled theirs. The Monster Manual sucked in terms of presentation, too much of a good thing, too little space. The Fiend Folio opened up and played nicely with content. Layout was nice and easy on the eye; some neat ideas came out in the book's development.
I covered the neatest ideas in the briefest of sentences, so for that I'm sorry.
What would you have done differently, and what would you have put emphasis on?
Post originally by Eric Brennan at 2003-05-13 06:36:55
Converted from Phorums BB System
Well, I hesitate to say "More writing," because I don't want you to pad just for the sake of padding. But there were several key sentences in the review that could've been topic sentences for paragraphs of their very own -- what did you think of the way symbionts and grafts were handled? What were your opinions on the fiends in the book and the prestige classes? I get a brief kind of "sense" of what you think, but I'd like to hear more explicit opinions.
Like I said, it's a good review, but a /little/ more in this case is better -- I felt like I was listening in on a rushed review by a guy at a game store rather than something where you could take the time to really go over the bits you liked or didn't care for.
Post originally by Ed McEneely at 2003-05-13 07:56:03
Converted from Phorums BB System
I think the problem is that "stream-of-conciousness" writing is very post-modern, whereas a good review usually has too much punctuation to be post-modern.
Or, to put it in a less ironic fashion, the sentence is in fact a run-on sentence, and it's also missing a comma. This makes it hard to parse.
Post originally by Jay Verkuilen at 2003-05-13 14:33:24
Converted from Phorums BB System
Ed McEneely wrote:
-------------------------------
I think the problem is that "stream-of-conciousness" writing is very post-modern, whereas a good review usually has too much punctuation to be post-modern.
Or, to put it in a less ironic fashion, the sentence is in fact a run-on sentence, and it's also missing a comma. This makes it hard to parse.
<<<
There is nothing to guarantee that your point will NOT BE MADE like using stream of consciousness writing. Writers owe their readers better.
Whenever I receive an e-mail from a student "written" in this kind of style, I append a note that says "When you have taken the time to write me in plain English, I will take the time to answer your question."
(Note that I used to teach college, where you can get away with this sort of thing.)
Post originally by Cedric Chin at 2003-05-13 14:43:02
Converted from Phorums BB System
<< What would you have done differently, and what would you have put emphasis on? >>
I would have just started a thread on the forums. I think it **would** be worthwhile to analyze WotC MM's vs. 3rd party ones. But not as a review.
BTW, I have some comments about how 3rd parties should present their monsters, as downloads. They're on the forums; start a new thread there if you can't find them.
Linear Mode
