misterspock wrote:I remember at the time FF came out, I thought it was a huge letdown (and I was in 4th/5th grade at the time ). There are some cool creatures in there (Githyankis for one), but there's way too many useless and unimaginative ones. I think there's a lot of uninspired work in there. I didn't realize at the time so many were compiled from previously published articles (since I live in the US obviously), but looking back I think a good deal of the creatures needed to be edited or re-thought-through from a creative standpoint. As much as I like some of the art, there's some real poor choices in there, too.

"Huge letdown" was the universal American reaction to the Fiend Folio.

The Fiend Folio was so intensely British that it struck many American purchasers as rather strange and possibly (for me) somewhat nauseating.  The artwork was typical of White Dwarf magazine at the time, which is where most of that book originated.  We were expecting Monster Manual II...but that was still years in the future.

My biggest beef with the Fiend Folio was that there were so many low hit dice monsters with essentially the same nuisance monster game niche.  How many dark creepers, jermlaine, meazles, meenlocks, gibberlings, bookas, mites, bullywugs, killmoulis, berbalangs, snyads, norkers and xvarts can a DM actually deploy in a campaign?  

Then there were the gadget monsters like the adherer, blindheim, quillan, terithran, triapheg, gambado, frost man, eye killer, screaming devilkin,  algoid, Pillsbury Doughboy, al-mi'raj, lava children, disenchanter, doombat, flind, crypt thing, assassin bug, carbuncle and a host of other tricksy and really stupid one-shot monsters designed so the DM can say "gotcha."   (Oooo, you tricked me!   )

Why do we need a protien polymorph?  Ever heard of the mimic or the doppleganger?

"Oh - and the devil dog - he somehow bites your throat out in spite of the fact that this violates the basic concepts of the rules."  

All of these were wasted space in the Fiend Folio.  (Of course, that did not stop me from deploying the osquip from time to time.   )  

But a re-read of the Fiend Folio with adult eyes reveals a book full  of monsters that were highly imaginative and...some...highly useful.  In amongst the strangeness were the fog giant, mountain giant, the gith, the slaadi, firedrake, death knight, the daemons, scrarecrow, skeleton warrior, the oriental dragons, troll variants and others that were worth using.  I still go back to the Fiend Folio to find ideas for useful twists and monsters that break the routine.

Instead of one lizard king, how about 30 of them, all pissed off and lurking in the nearby swamp?

One other question about the Fiend Folio might be - why did they hide the best artwork in the appendices?  That's where you will find, for instance, Erol Otus and Jeff Dee lurking.

Oh, and the cover - the githyanki on the Fiend Folio cover looked wierd at the time, but it has become an iconic AD&D image.

Kingofpain89 wrote:I agree though....the artwork was quite a bit "different" than that other books and in my opinion is the main reason the book didnt go over as well.

   

It looks like he has a belt, yes, but that's the oddest looking "loin cloth" you've ever seen.    

I really enjoyed the Fiend Folio. Noone liked the Aboleth? Makes for a nice addtion to the outer reaches of the underworld. I voted for the DMG because it was my first hardback and I spent so much time DM'ing and writing dungeons I had the thing memorized. The MM and PH were next and then FF. I used a ton a creatures from FF for my campaigns. They are all 10's to me.

FormCritic wrote:"Huge letdown" was the universal American reaction to the Fiend Folio.

One of my players wanted to return it and get his money back!

FormCritic wrote:I still go back to the Fiend Folio to find ideas for useful twists and monsters that break the routine.

That's a great idea

FormCritic wrote:Oh, and the cover - the githyanki on the Fiend Folio cover looked wierd at the time, but it has become an iconic AD&D image.

I wish I knew enough about art to figure out what's weird about the cover.
But it is definitely wrong.
Iconic, but wrong.

No vote.

My favorite AD&D hardback is

FFoulkes: The Armourer and his Craft.

F

Art is supposed to evoke an emotional response, right?

What I like is the title page sketch with the Forlarren beckoning.
Or the Princess of Mars homage (rip off?) on pg 60.
Either would've been a better cover.

Some great interior art in the FF, much better IMHO, then most of the art in the MM2-I respect Jim Holloway, but never cared much for his style.

FormCritic wrote:
Does DRAGON #55 include the negative review about Fiend Folio that outraged Gary Gygax?  Something like, "Flat Taste Didn't Go Away?"

Apparently, some of the staff members were under the misconception that they were independent journalists.

The githyanki picture wasn't bad.  It just wasn't what we were expecting.

Yes, there's actually three articles-"Flat taste didn't go away" was was written by some hack named Ed Greenwood...wonder what happened to him?  

My vote went without hesitation to the Players Handbook. The reason is that I as referee can have any number of manuals and maps and tables and notes on my side of the screen (I tend to use OD&D/JG materials), but what I really need in a published book is an attractive and thorough book aimed solely at presenting the game to players. To me, the PHB has never been outdone in that goal—the players never need to go to another book, and they are never given information they don't need. For the spells and equipment lists alone it is worth the price, but having all the races and classes detailed is handy indeed, not to mention all the adventuring advice. The only thing I wish was added is the excellent "Portentous Runes & Glyphs" section from the 1980 The World of Greyhawk folio. I know this is nebulous, but for me, if a character is 1e PHB-legal then it is a "real" D&D character in my eyes. The PHB is the real thing, everything else is an optional expansion or poor imitation in my eyes.