[RPG]: Gamma World Player's Handbook, reviewed by Joshua Kubli (5/4) [Archive]

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 11:49 AM

Post originally by Buzz at 2003-12-05 11:49:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Yeah, this is not a perfect product; but then, anyone who's been reading Charles Ryan's Bullet Points column on the Wizards of the Coast website knows just how extensive the compiled errata for the D20 Modern rulebook will be."

www.otherniceman.net has compiled errata for d20 Modern and its length isn't particularly notable (8 pages of 12-point full-width type in plain text). It's actually far less than the first printing of the 3.0 PHB had. I don't really see much of a comparison between the (quite obviously) substandard editing of GW and the "industry-standard" editing of d20M. The former is far worse than average, the latter about average.

I also agree with the other RPGnetter who thought your scores didn't quite match your review. Your good and bad points seem about 50/50, which would suggest a Substance rating of 3 at best, IMHO.

Anyway, I guess I already reviewed the game, so I won't again. I will say that Ken Hite seems to basically share the proliferating poor opinion of GWd20, though:
http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=88

I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that Bruce & Co. do a better job with Adventure d20 and Trinity d20.

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 12:13 PM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-05 12:13:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

Buzz,

I just read Hite's review. I think you've mischaracterized it, badly.

Jim

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 12:15 PM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-05 12:15:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

Patrick Riley wrote:
-------------------------------
What score DO you give for perfect products?

I'm just guessing, but I'd say, "10".

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 12:26 PM

Post originally by jwlandry at 2003-12-05 12:26:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

I read this as an apologia, not really a review. It's clear that it's written because the reviewer likes GWd20 and feels like it hasn't gotten a fair shake at rpg.net

There's nothing wrong with that, but give me something to go on here. There is very little specificity in this review - it's mostly general and wishy-washy.

If you are going to write an apologia, you should be very specific and very comprehensive, especially after Buzz's long review.

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 12:47 PM

Post originally by Dan Buterbaugh at 2003-12-05 12:47:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

It's a decently done apocalyptic setting, but it isn't Gamma World. They just slapped the name on to sell a couple extra copies. It has none of the properties that made Gamma World great, and one of it's authors even says he avoided the old editions so that they wouldn't mess up his work (see big GW d20 bash thread).
I bought it, read it, and sold it.

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 02:08 PM

Post originally by Buzz at 2003-12-05 14:08:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don't think so. It's not the roasting that I gave the book, but he definitely seems less than impressed.

"...not without some small trouble."

"Similar restrictions apply to mutations (of which there are very few..."

"...decent nanotech, mediocre psi rules, and rudimentary cybertech somewhat make up for the lack..."

"All the writing... is pretty good, although the editing (by the usually more reliable Ellen Kiley) is patchy."

"Unfortunately, these rules are only half finished..."

"This whole section... needs to be finished, and then moved to a GM's Guide."

"The resulting space might even have made room for mutant squirrels." (I.e., he, like many others, misses the zany fun of previous editions.)

Ultimately, I think that the truth may lie somewhere between opinions like mine and those of the current reviewer, i.e., while neither supremely sucky nor exceptional, GWd20 is at best mediocre.

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 03:49 PM

Post originally by tetsujin28 at 2003-12-05 15:49:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

It is _so_ Gamma World.

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 04:50 PM

Post originally by Samurai at 2003-12-05 16:50:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

I just thought I'd point out a few things that I disagreed with...

You say you own GW 3rd edition, but if that's true, you should know that Plant PCs were in 3rd ed, as well as 4th (See pg 6 and 52-54 of the 3rd ed Rule Book). And while not official PC races, mutant plants were part of the game all the way back to the beginning.

GW4th ed was IMHO not the most wacky and gung-ho. I'd say 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ed were all wackier than 4th ed. This is really a matter of opinion, though...

The overall look and feel of the game is haphazard. Much of the art is of mediochre quality, and the border pattern, page number and title placement, etc, changes almost every chapter. I suppose this was a conscious decision, but many people don't like it, and it can actually make it harder to find the section you want, not easier, because the location of the chapter name keeps moving all over the page.

Listing "the worst feature of a book" as the disgruntled fan reaction on a website is just not right... you should review the book itself, not complain about other peoples' opinions on it. They have theirs and you have yours.

Speaking of which, the 5/4 rating doesn't match your review. You give both good and bad points, and say "It's quirky, and more-or-less a work in progress", and then give it a nearly perfect score? Honestly, with its numerous problems, the book doesn't deserve anything higher than 3/3, and that's if I'm feeling very generous...

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 08:03 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-05 20:03:50
Converted from Phorums BB System

I have owned many game products that I've been forced to part with over the years. My point is that I'm a Gamma World fan, not that I remember all the rules from all the editions. I was unclear, though.

You disagree with some of what I said; that's fine. No review is going to make everyone happy ... I've been told that the first thing one should do before writing is decide on one's audience. My audience wasn't people who own D20 Gamma World, or who have read it and so made up their own minds. I often read RPG.Net before purchasing a new RPG product, and my audience was those who're undecided.

I believe that if many people have a negative reaction towards a game before they play it, it'll be harder to find players, and reduces the likelihood the game will last as long as its fans might wish.

As for my ratings, ... I rated the most obvious positive and negative points to the game, and then summarized my reaction to these points. Technically, I want the reader to form their own opinion, based a mix of positive and negative information; maybe I should've not rated it at all. I think this is a valid format, but it isn't what people have grown accustomed to.

Samurai wrote:
-------------------------------
I just thought I'd point out a few things that I disagreed with...

You say you own GW 3rd edition, but if that's true, you should know that Plant PCs were in 3rd ed, as well as 4th (See pg 6 and 52-54 of the 3rd ed Rule Book). And while not official PC races, mutant plants were part of the game all the way back to the beginning.

GW4th ed was IMHO not the most wacky and gung-ho. I'd say 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ed were all wackier than 4th ed. This is really a matter of opinion, though...

The overall look and feel of the game is haphazard. Much of the art is of mediochre quality, and the border pattern, page number and title placement, etc, changes almost every chapter. I suppose this was a conscious decision, but many people don't like it, and it can actually make it harder to find the section you want, not easier, because the location of the chapter name keeps moving all over the page.

Listing "the worst feature of a book" as the disgruntled fan reaction on a website is just....

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 08:10 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-05 20:10:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

You opinion is valid. However, I would say that rather, there are a lot of Gamma World knockoffs out there, virtual clones of older Gamma World editions. Therefore, I would say that this game is Gamma World; but in a sense, so are those other games.

There are post-apocalyptic RPGs that aren't made in the strict Gamma World mold; Twilight 2000, Rifts. But it seems that the more popular ones have followed in Gamma World's footsteps.

The fact that this edition didn't spend dozens of pages on the Cryptic Alliances, or that it didn't have UFOid aliens with glowing crystal technology as the cause of the apocalypse, doesn't make this edition "not Gamma World". It has _more_ than other editions, nanotech, biotech, etc.; therefore, one could just as easily say it is more than Gamma World.

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 08:12 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-05 20:12:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks!

I'll see about posting more reviews, as I have time!

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 08:16 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-05 20:16:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

Obviously, perfect would be 5 for Style and 5 for Substance. The sum of these two is 10, so technically yes, a perfect product would be a 10.

I have seen other products I would give 4s and 5s to, but offhand I cannot think of any "perfect" products, that would deserve a 5/5.

Does anyone care to point out a "perfect" product, one they feel deserves a 5/5? If so, then someone _will_ disagree with you ...

Jim DelRosso wrote:
-------------------------------

Patrick Riley wrote:
-------------------------------
What score DO you give for perfect products?

I'm just guessing, but I'd say, "10".

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 08:18 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-05 20:18:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

Anytime!

King of Old School wrote:
-------------------------------
I really enjoyed reading this. Thanks for writing it.

KoOS

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 10:52 PM

Post originally by Wes Johnson at 2003-12-05 22:52:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

There was nothing wrong with this review. A solid piece by an established reviewer.

If there is a GWd20 review you would like to see done, you shoudl do it yourself rather than grouse about a review not being written as you might like.

It is the reviewer's work, not yours. Be it good, bad or otherwise...

RPGnet Reviews

12-05-2003, 11:19 PM

Post originally by Richard Wells at 2003-12-05 23:19:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

There just seems to be a disconnect between the very positive ratings and the review text indicating a flawed incomplete product with promise. You may well like the GWd20 more than most and give it much higher ratings but 5/5 ratings tend to suggest the game is near the pinnacle of perfection.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 05:36 AM

Post originally by camazotz at 2003-12-06 05:36:37
Converted from Phorums BB System

I concur! I enjoyed your review, felt it was concise and not overly long-winded, as far too many people on RPG.net seem to want. And once again, as I read through the inane and repulsive threads connected to this review, I am reminded of why I haven't been to this site in months.
But a good review, nonetheless! Don't let these old fart, industry wanna-be's, and overly self-important bombasts discourage you.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 05:40 AM

Post originally by Creel at 2003-12-06 05:40:37
Converted from Phorums BB System

"There was nothing wrong with this review. A solid piece by an established reviewer."

Frankly Wes, do you have any idea what the hell you're talking about? Go read the review and come back, we'll wait.

As the reviewer clearly stated, this is his first review. As there is an obvious discrepency between his text and numeric ratings, indicating a strong bias, this review is neither "solid" nor by "an established reviewer."

There are some good points and there are some bad points mentioned. The reviewer characterizes the book as a "work in progress." This is an error as the book is the released final version produced by professionals. That it feels like a work in progress, to a fan of GW, is a strong sign that the book is inferior.

A more reasonable 3/3 rating would have been more than generous.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 08:00 AM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 08:00:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

Buzz wrote:
-------------------------------
I don't think so. It's not the roasting that I gave the book, but he definitely seems less than impressed.

Which was my point. Your original citation seemed to equate Hite's opinion with yours, and that's not the case.

On the "zany" issue, frex, Hite says that such things are possible with the new edition, simply not the focus.

He further characterizes some of the writing as "very well-written", with all of it being at least "pretty good" -- and refers to the community rules as a "terrific innovation".

So, no, he doesn't think the book is amazing, but he doesn't think it's a -- what did you call it? -- a waste of money, either.

Now, if you weren't trying to equate Hite's opinion with yours, then I was misreasing you. But that is how it came across to me.

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 08:04 AM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 08:04:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

Why will they disagree with me?

The review said GWd20 wasn't perfect. He gave it a total of 9.

The first poster was aghast, demanding to know what a "perfect" product would get.

I pointed out that a "10" would seem the obvious choice.

I'm not sure why someone who could name a perfect product -- i.e. one deserving a 10 -- would disagree with me on this point.

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 08:09 AM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 08:09:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

There's only a discrepancy between the review and the numbers if you assume that the review prioritizes each positive and negative point equally, and there's no indication that this is the case.

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 08:11 AM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 08:11:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

As I said in another thread: the apparent discrepancy between review and numerical ratings only exists if you assume that the review prioritized his positive and neagitve points equally -- and there's no indication that this is the case, nor any requirement that a reviewer must do so.

The reviewer has made it clear that the positive points pleased him much more than the negative points displeased him -- and the numbers reflect that.

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 08:13 AM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 08:13:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

*blink*

Unless, of course, you were responding to the post above mine...?

Jim D., slightly confused and potentially chagrined

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 09:28 AM

Post originally by eh? speak up! at 2003-12-06 09:28:07
Converted from Phorums BB System

Would you name these many knockoffs of GW out there? I've never seen them. Can't be any of the old-line games (Aftermath!, Metamorphosis: Alpha, etc.) for various reasons. What are the names and publishers of these other GWs?

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 09:29 AM

Post originally by eh? speak up! at 2003-12-06 09:29:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

As long as we're picking over the review, Traveller wasn't space opera. It was hard science fiction. In fact, it still is...

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 09:52 AM

Post originally by jwlandry at 2003-12-06 09:52:11
Converted from Phorums BB System

I've written a lot of reviews. I can't write a review of this because I don't own it, and I'm still undecided about getting it. That's why I'm reading the reviews with interest, and why I want the reviews to be good and filled with detail.

Yes, it is the reviewer's work, and that's why I feel free to criticize it, just as others should feel free to criticize my reviews.

I'll say it again - writing an apologia is fine, but I want it to be a good apologia.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 10:09 AM

Post originally by jwlandry at 2003-12-06 10:09:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

I actually agree with Jim D. about the ratings. He obviously thought the positive outweighed the negative, and the scores reflect that.

I don't question the reviewer's judgements, I just wanted more detail. I didn't really get anything new out of this review - all the points mentioned were covered in Buzz's review as well, even if they do have a different spin there.

I'd encourage the reviewer to write more reviews - this review was better than my first review, for instance.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 10:19 AM

Post originally by C. at 2003-12-06 10:19:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

Uh, in which case the review should focus on the things it gives priority, otherwise it just comes off as irrelevant. It's like saying, "Here is all the @!#$, but trust me, the stuff on our secret menu is really tasty!!"

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 10:42 AM

Post originally by Eryndel at 2003-12-06 10:42:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

You Wrote:
"And one of it's authors even says he avoided the old editions so that they wouldn't mess up his work."

I think you are referring to Ian Keller's comment that he made a point not to look at the new Omega World so as to avoid using that product to bias his ideas. (A good valid trait to avoid plagerism)

Not referencing old editions isn't the same as making sure you don't copy contemporary product.

Werner

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 11:02 AM

Post originally by Eryndel at 2003-12-06 11:02:11
Converted from Phorums BB System

I'd also like to point out that the reviewer gave a 5 to Style, and in his negative point he does not criticize style and raves about in his positive points. Thus, it seems according to the reviewer, the product is deserving a 5 in style.

As to a potential concern about the 4 in substance, Jim has already done a good job pointing out why there doesn't seem to be a discrepency in the reviewers scoring.

(A discrepency between the reviewer's scores and other people's opinion, however, undoubtedly exists.)

Werner

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 11:36 AM

Post originally by Roland at 2003-12-06 11:36:20
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hi Joshua,
while your review told me quite a bit about the specific points you liked or disliked, it didn't tell me (someone who never read anything related to Gamma World) enough about the book itself.

What is the setting like? Or is the book just a D20 toolkit for post-apocalyptic settings?

Does it use a system very much like the D20 Modern rules, or is it an OGL product with substantially different rules? (Yes, I've read "rules are really geared towards use with D20 Modern rulebook" but that's a little vague for my taste)

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 12:28 PM

Post originally by Buzz at 2003-12-06 12:28:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

So, no, he doesn't think the book is amazing, but he doesn't think it's a -- what did you call it? -- a waste of money, either.

All I said was that he seemed to share a poor opinion of the book. I don't think that's far off from the content of the review at all.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 12:33 PM

Post originally by Jack Holcomb at 2003-12-06 12:33:25
Converted from Phorums BB System

I wouldn't use the word "knockoff"--a word that should hardly ever be used with reference to any role-playing game. Part of how this hobby works is through borrowing ideas, including both system ideas and setting ideas, from other matter, including both games and sources in the popular culture (movies, books, comics, TV, etc).

On the subject of games LIKE GW:

Tribe 8 sometimes reads like GW as revised by Clive Barker. No mutants, no robots, but the tribes-among-the-ruins thing is similar to GW. Then again, GW got that from SF stories that preceded it, and there's no telling what the actual chain of influence there was.

That's true for Aftermath!, too. I think you discard Aftermath! too quickly. One of the options in Aftermath! was a mutant-infested future some generations after the bomb. It was less wahoo than GW, but it was there, and GW was first.

Speaking of After the Bomb, that popular variant of TMNT shows a LOT of influence from GW; it's at least as wild as GW ever was. RIFTS also bears some striking resemblances to GW.

I can think of two games that look so much like GW that they could be considered very close kin: deadEarth and Darwin's World. The former I haven't heard anything about for several years; I don't know if it's still available, but IIRC there were both electronic and print versions available. The latter is one of the middle range of d20 derivatives, but one of the more successful electronic gaming enterprises. I haven't played it, but I just picked up the hardcover 2nd edition of DW (at the same time I picked up the GW6 Machines and Mutants guide), and I'm impressed. Darwin's World looks like someone read the first two editions of GW and then asked themselves what another twenty years of gradual evolution would have done to the game.

In this regard, DW might actually be more like primal GW than GWs 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been. The idea that kicked off this thread is a weird one, because it presupposes that there is ONE GW that this new edition should be like. The fact is that since the second edition, each edition of GW has made radical changes in the system, the setting, or both. Versions 1, 2, and 4 were very similar to their contemporary D&D mechanics; version 3 used a universal chart, version 5 used Alternity, version 6 uses d20 Modern. It has been serious and it has been wahoo; it has sometimes allowed player mutant plants (versions 3 and 4), and it has usually allowed people to play mutant critters, but not always (as in version 5, unless you bought a particular issue of Dragon); it has sometimes allowed cyborg and/or robot characters (version 3, if you bought Epsilon Cyborgs, and versions 5 and 6), but not always. Version 5 included aliens, and version 3 implied that some sort of alien intelligence was behind some of the more radical tech (black ray pistols).

In short, GW has mutated in odd and new directions with every new edition. The monster list has remained more or less that same, but that's all. So I'm not sure what it means to say that the new edition is not Gamma World; it sure looks like some kind of GW to me.

Jack

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 12:39 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-06 12:39:02
Converted from Phorums BB System

Richard Wells wrote:
-------------------------------
There just seems to be a disconnect between the very positive ratings and the review text indicating a flawed incomplete product with promise. You may well like the GWd20 more than most and give it much higher ratings but 5/5 ratings tend to suggest the game is near the pinnacle of perfection.

The deal is:

The book is not perfect, because it has flaws. If it had come out a few months later, with a larger playtest base, maybe I would have given it a 5/5 rating.

We're reviewing a Players' Handbook. _Any_ review at this stage may well be pre-emptory, as many of the problems that people point out may be fixed with other books in the line.

Besides ... as I asked before, what books would _you_, who are reading this, give a rating of mixed 4s and 5s? And if I liked the book immensely, and have few substantal problems with it (none I cannot work around with a modicum of imagination, on the fly), should I have given it a 1/2 or even a 3/4 rating anyway? Why?

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 12:49 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-06 12:49:20
Converted from Phorums BB System

jwlandry wrote:
-------------------------------
I read this as an apologia, not really a review. It's clear that it's written because the reviewer likes GWd20 and feels like it hasn't gotten a fair shake at rpg.net

There's nothing wrong with that, but give me something to go on here. There is very little specificity in this review - it's mostly general and wishy-washy.

If you are going to write an apologia, you should be very specific and very comprehensive, especially after Buzz's long review.

I figured that anyone interested in a product would read all of the reviews for that product, not just mine. I hardly wanted to merely clone, invert, or otherwise alter anyone else's review. But, in later reviews, if I'm the first one to review a given product, or if previous reviews were lacking in "crunchy detail", though, I will make note of your comments and try to include more specific information.

Everyone has their own writing style; you may not like mine, and if so, I am sorry for that. I am not apologizing for D20 Gamma World, or for my review, except insofar as I may have striven to give an only-slightly-biased review and failed :)

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 01:10 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-06 13:10:20
Converted from Phorums BB System

Roland wrote:
-------------------------------
> Hi Joshua,
> while your review told me quite a bit about the specific points you liked or disliked, it didn't tell me (someone who never read anything related to Gamma World) enough about the book itself.

Hm. Good point.

> What is the setting like? Or is the book just a D20 toolkit for post-apocalyptic settings?

Aside from the Synthetic, Stock Human, and Pure-Strain human "genotypes" or races I mention in my review, characters may also be mutants. One of the good reasons to have D20 Modern is that it uses the Moreaus to model specific mutant animal stocks.

The apocalypse is assumed to have occurred after a long perios of technological innovation, in which humans discover AI, biotech, and nanotech.

The world has largely regressed to a lower level of technology, where the wonders of the "Ancients" are regarded with fear and greed.

Major character activities are likely to include exploring, figuring out Ancient tech, and fighting the mutated monstrosities that populate the wastelands.

As far as a "setting" goes, the book provides several sample communities for characters to adventure from. Think of it like the D&D core rulebooks; you can stick to Greyhawk, or you can ignore the "flavor text" and set it wherever you want. For example; want to play a D20 version of the first Fallout computer game Fallout? Make all mutants take the Monster Mutation, focus the game on Pure-Strain Humans serving their bomb shelter communities, and make firearms relatively easy to come by.

(Someone is bound to point out that there already is a Fallout Pen-and-Paper RPG. Yes, I know, I have it).

> Does it use a system very much like the D20 Modern rules, or is it an OGL product with substantially different rules? (Yes, I've read "rules are really geared towards use with D20 Modern rulebook" but that's a little vague for my taste)

It does use the d20 Modern or the D20 "ancient/fantasy" rules. D20 Gamma World breaks up some D20 Modern skills (like Computer Use and Piloting) into one or more other skills, and adds a few skills and feats. It also adds a D20 conversion for the character classes from 4th ed. Gamma World in the back for those who want to use their D&D books instead; these classes are Enforcer (fighter and gunfighter), Esper (psionic specialist), Examiner (tech specialist), and Scout.

The psionics rules are substantially different, and not everyone's cup of tea. Compared to the high-level Mage campaign I ran for years, tho, this is cake. :)

Does this help?

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 01:17 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-06 13:17:39
Converted from Phorums BB System

Since everyone hereabouts is so exacting, I assumed that if a rating system included two criteria, each rated from 1 to 5, it would be impossible to give a product a rating of "10". You mean that a perfect product would get a rating of 10 overall, the sum of the ratings of the two criteria.

Misunderstanding, is all. :)

Jim DelRosso wrote:
-------------------------------
Why will they disagree with me?

The review said GWd20 wasn't perfect. He gave it a total of 9.

The first poster was aghast, demanding to know what a "perfect" product would get.

I pointed out that a "10" would seem the obvious choice.

I'm not sure why someone who could name a perfect product -- i.e. one deserving a 10 -- would disagree with me on this point.

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 01:37 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-06 13:37:09
Converted from Phorums BB System

eh? speak up! wrote:
-------------------------------
As long as we're picking over the review, Traveller wasn't space opera. It was hard science fiction. In fact, it still is...

And the difference is ... ?

I could be mistaken, I guess. But when I think of hard sci-fi, I don't think of talking dogs and faster-than-light travel across an entire galaxy.

So, if you disagree with these two words, omit the words "space opera" and fill in "space military sci-fi", "hard sci-fi", "softness-challenged space opera", or whatever else suits your fancy. :)

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 01:55 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-06 13:55:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

I wouldn't necessarily call any of these threads inane or repulsive ... yet.

Heck, these threads haven't gotten anywhere near as nasty as the other review; maybe that's just because I have a lower web profile than Bruce Baugh, tho. :)

I tend to think (and it's arguable) that roleplayers are smarter than most Mere Mortals; however, a lot of smart people tend to fall into the trap of being critical and negative all of the time, and consider it a virtue.

I tend to think the negative, critical attitude is great if you're balancing the checkbook, or doing physics homework. However, roleplaying games are a hobby (unless you're a paid game professional), and we're ostensibly doing this to have some harmless fun.

This is, like my review, a broad generalization, and it may only applies to a some people some of the time.

Maybe it would be good mental exercise, tho, for me to do a review of a book that _I_ intensely disliked, to see what I produced, and what the net.community's response was. Wonder how _low_ can I rate a product before there's a backlash? :)

camazotz wrote:
-------------------------------
I concur! I enjoyed your review, felt it was concise and not overly long-winded, as far too many people on RPG.net seem to want. And once again, as I read through the inane and repulsive threads connected to this review, I am reminded of why I haven't been to this site in months.
But a good review, nonetheless! Don't let these old fart, industry wanna-be's, and overly self-important bombasts discourage you.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 02:12 PM

Post originally by Kester Pelagius at 2003-12-06 14:12:35
Converted from Phorums BB System

Greetings,

>>>I have owned many game products that I've been forced to part with over the years. My point is that I'm a Gamma World fan, not that I remember all the rules from all the editions. I was unclear, though.

You disagree with some of what I said; that's fine. No review is going to make everyone happy ... I've been told that the first thing one should do before writing is decide on one's audience. My audience wasn't people who own D20 Gamma World, or who have read it and so made up their own minds. I often read RPG.Net before purchasing a new RPG product, and my audience was those who're undecided.<<<

Target audience? Did you just, without actually using those words, say this was written with a specific demographic (read: target audience) in mind???

*eyespopoutofskullincomicalfashion*

You are aware that, in the above statement, some *might* read that and feel you are pretty much admiting to being a shill writing ad-copy *NOT* a review, right?

If not, well, that is the impression those two paragraphs left here. Some might go so far as to say what you just wrote above is not how a honest review is handled, but rather how ad-copy works. I wont, but I will point the fact out. One reviewer to another.

As for target audience: gamers. How anyone can write a review of a RPG and not know who their audience is. . well. . G-A-M-E-R-S, pure and simple. Two types: Game Masters and players. Least that is who I write my reviews for. Or, more simply, just write the review you would want to read. Don't worry about a "target audience", that's how we tend to end up with reviews that come across as stilted and forced. And smelling like week old tapioca pudding. ;) FYI.

Otherwise, nicely done. Comes across as a tad bit too "happy happy joy joy" about D20, but such enthusiam for a system you personally favor isn't a bad thing.

Oh, yeah, "dearth of mutations". Expect questions. ;)

Again, nice review. Neither too expansive or too short. Hope to see more reviews from you in the future.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 03:16 PM

Post originally by James Landry at 2003-12-06 15:16:00
Converted from Phorums BB System

Reading over my statements, I realize that I may have come off as overly negative. I liked the review, and I encourage you to write more reviews. For example, I would like to see a review of Mutants and Machines.

I don't want you to apologize for your review, and I appreciate that you seem willing to take my comments in the spirit they were intended, even if I did not communicate that spirit very well.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 04:42 PM

Post originally by Wes Johnson at 2003-12-06 16:42:12
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don;t have it either. I have yet to read a review to compell me to buy it...or not. I guess if I have the bucks burning a hole in my pocket I might get it given I have been a big fan of the setting...even in it's bad iterations.

Not sure if it is an apologia so much as maybe an upsin to the slaggign review it took some weeks back. And that is okay, there just are games that people will love or hate.

The review itself was a little encapsulating on the aspects the reviewer liked and didn't rather than the product as a whole. That is okay. My preference would be a more drilled dopwn approach, but it told me what someone who like GWd20 likes and doesn't about said product.

My apologies tp imply you had not written any reviews, I meant simply that you should do a review that fits your own qualifiers for quality and maybe we will get something of a better balanced review of GWd20.

Cheers,
Wes

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 04:44 PM

Post originally by Wes Johnson at 2003-12-06 16:44:25
Converted from Phorums BB System

That would be a good basic qualifier for what a review is.

It definitely wasn't a fanboy typing off the back cover of a review and passing it off as a review either. Which is a non-qualifier...

--Wes

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 04:45 PM

Post originally by Wes Johnson at 2003-12-06 16:45:29
Converted from Phorums BB System

It was better than my first half dozen...I have taken the time to read some of my old reviews...shudder...

--Wes

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 04:49 PM

Post originally by Wes Johnson at 2003-12-06 16:49:57
Converted from Phorums BB System

Sometimes there are just reviews that attract more attention then the writer anticipated.:) I have had a few that I thought would be utterly ignored and weren;t. I have had others that I thought would spark something and for whatever reasons didn't. Neither of these things seems a good benchmark on guaging one's own writing.:)

I would not worry about if people like your writing or not. The fact that people are commenting on it suggests it is making them feel something about your review, which is a good thing in general.

Cheers,
Wes

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 05:28 PM

Post originally by Antron at 2003-12-06 17:28:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

You are correct in your summation.

Eryndel wrote:
-------------------------------
You Wrote:
"And one of it's authors even says he avoided the old editions so that they wouldn't mess up his work."

I think you are referring to Ian Keller's comment that he made a point not to look at the new Omega World so as to avoid using that product to bias his ideas. (A good valid trait to avoid plagerism)

Not referencing old editions isn't the same as making sure you don't copy contemporary product.

Werner

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 06:14 PM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 18:14:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

So, you're coming out in favor of less factual information in reviews?

To me, a good review provides enough information for people to reach a decision, as well as telling us the reviewer's opinions. I've read reviews in which the reviewer really disliked a product, but gave me enough info to know I'd enjoy it; I've also read reviews that gave a product glowing praise, but I let me know that I wouldn't like the book at all.

A good review should make these kinds of things possible.

Jim D.

C. wrote:
-------------------------------
Uh, in which case the review should focus on the things it gives priority, otherwise it just comes off as irrelevant. It's like saying, "Here is all the @!#$, but trust me, the stuff on our secret menu is really tasty!!"

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 06:17 PM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 18:17:14
Converted from Phorums BB System

Kester,

I'm really not sure how "I wrote this for folks who haven't read the book yet," equates to, "I am a corporate shill." Can you explain it without ranting?

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 07:14 PM

Post originally by C. at 2003-12-06 19:14:29
Converted from Phorums BB System

Uh, no. When a reviewer concludes his review with shameless praise, I want that to be supported in the text. They should tie together and he should qualify his review with what he tends to prioritize and why he thinks the book meets those priorites. In addition, he should provide the negatives as well, and explain why he gave them less priority in concluding his score.

The reason this is essential is because IT SHOWS THE REVIEWER ACTUALLY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT HE READ. It goes to his credibility as reviewer and gives a basis for empathy. As it stands, I don't trust his positive review, because its not supported by the text. For all I know he really is a fanboy or else somebody who likes to justify each of his purchases to himself.

This review is crap.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 08:57 PM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-06 20:57:25
Converted from Phorums BB System

So, you prioritize the negatives more highly than he did. You seem less likely to buy the book. You looked at the factual evidence presented, and came to a different conclusion.

How, again, does that make this a bad review?

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 09:16 PM

Post originally by Kester Pelagius at 2003-12-06 21:16:47
Converted from Phorums BB System

>>>I'm really not sure how "I wrote this for folks who haven't read the book yet," equates to, "I am a corporate shill." Can you explain it without ranting?<<<

It's overall tone.

Viz. I quoted far more than a sentence fragment. In that sentence fragment *some* might say you closed it with an backhanded accusation that implies much, while saying little, and speaking to the overall friendly tone of a reviewer treating with a fellow reviewer not at all. Grant most wont notice likely anything at all, or if they do just shrug it off without comment.

FYI: If I thought you were a shill I would have said, bluntly, point blank, that I thought so. I did not. Rather I attempted to point out, based on the *percieved* tone of what I read that, right or wrong, that *perception* could exist. Unnecessarily so. (No need to supply ready flamebait to those who enjoy sparking arguements.)

If I came across as sounding to harsh or abrasive, I can only say that was not my intent. My comments stand, especially about seeing more reviews in future.

Peace.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 09:25 PM

Post originally by Kester Pelagius at 2003-12-06 21:25:56
Converted from Phorums BB System

>>>As I said in another thread: the apparent discrepancy between review and numerical ratings only exists if you assume that the review prioritized his positive and neagitve points equally -- and there's no indication that this is the case, nor any requirement that a reviewer must do so. <<<

I gave JAGS: Have-Not a rating of 3 and 5. So there is some validity in the statement above, however there is also some validity to the view that, based on overal tone, the "sound" and "feel" of what is being said don't seem to mesh with the numerical ratings.

Perhaps this is indicative of a need for a update to the way ratings are handled or. . . Solid rating guidelines?

Comments? Ideas? Sing a verse of Jingle Bells with me? ;)

Peace.

RPGnet Reviews

12-06-2003, 11:57 PM

Post originally by Roland at 2003-12-06 23:57:49
Converted from Phorums BB System

Yes, thanks for your answers. :-)

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 02:09 AM

Post originally by Emanuel Fargus at 2003-12-07 02:09:28
Converted from Phorums BB System

Be serious, anyone can tell this edition of gammaworld was typed up by some sad sack, morbidly obese shut-in who thinks any lame idea he pulls out of his dimpled ass is cool.

This game is a piece of $hit, and I hope Mr. Baugh is ashamed of himself.

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 02:11 AM

Post originally by Valandil at 2003-12-07 02:11:18
Converted from Phorums BB System

And the cretin(s) of shaw cable return!

--Valandil

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 03:35 AM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-07 03:35:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

Wes Johnson wrote:
-------------------------------
Sometimes there are just reviews that attract more attention then the writer anticipated.:) I have had a few that I thought would be utterly ignored and weren;t. I have had others that I thought would spark something and for whatever reasons didn't. Neither of these things seems a good benchmark on guaging one's own writing.:)

I would not worry about if people like your writing or not. The fact that people are commenting on it suggests it is making them feel something about your review, which is a good thing in general.

Cheers,
Wes

I'll take that into consideration. I do have other products that I'm thinking of reviewing -- Machines and Mutants (they renamed the product) among them.

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 03:49 AM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-07 03:49:05
Converted from Phorums BB System

Kester Pelagius wrote:
-------------------------------
>>>As I said in another thread: the apparent discrepancy between review and numerical ratings only exists if you assume that the review prioritized his positive and neagitve points equally -- and there's no indication that this is the case, nor any requirement that a reviewer must do so. <<<

I gave JAGS: Have-Not a rating of 3 and 5. So there is some validity in the statement above, however there is also some validity to the view that, based on overal tone, the "sound" and "feel" of what is being said don't seem to mesh with the numerical ratings.

Perhaps this is indicative of a need for a update to the way ratings are handled or. . . Solid rating guidelines?

Comments? Ideas? Sing a verse of Jingle Bells with me? ;)

Peace.

I could go along with that.

"Style" and "Substance" would seem to refer to both inline artwork, rules, fiction, text-border art, implementation of a licensed engine like d20, Fuzion, etc., etc.. Rules, for example, may be very stylish, in that they encourage a certain "style" of play, but have little substance, i.e. very granular, not that crunchy. Does that mean that the book has little "substance"?

Besides which, as I tried to point out in my review, some of these criteria matter more to me than others. The editorial mistakes, and liberties taken with d20 mechanics, didn't bother me all that much; to some people, those things alone might ruin the product. What mattered more was how the text got me thinking, and how well the art supported the game background. Sure, a lot of the art is "ugly" -- but the book is about mutants fercryinoutloud, hardy survivors in grim times, murderous robots, and weird creatures that want to eat your vehicle's oilpan or battery, and then maybe you too.

Therefore, I would add more things to rate than just two, but that may be just me.

Jingle bells, jingle bells ...

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 04:03 AM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-07 04:03:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

I know you are but what am I?

:)

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 07:19 AM

Post originally by C. at 2003-12-07 07:19:02
Converted from Phorums BB System

No, I looked at the review, then at his concluding score, and thought 'What the hell I'm missing.' I'm less decided than confused and thus inclined to ignore this review. That is why it's bad.

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 09:20 AM

Post originally by Scooter at 2003-12-07 09:20:49
Converted from Phorums BB System

I have to wonder if this is more of an "apple-polishing" counter to Buzz's earlier review, panning the same product.

I imagine that two people can certainly have two different opinions about the same product, but in my own experiance I've never heard anyone complain that Gamma World was "Too goofy"... but then again, I never dealt with 4th ed. I think that it's pretty much a given that when folks think of Gamma World, one of the images that comes to mind is one of a rabbit carrying a machine gun and wearing a bandolier. There are plenty of non-wacky post apocalyptic game backgrounds out there, and I believe that the weirdo-factor is something of an earmark of the Gamma World line, and not a detriment.

I suspect that the ongoing, negative discussion about the product is becuase the vast majority of folks that have picked the product up didn't get something that was up to generally acceped standards of quality. You mention the Page XX syndrome that so many game books have had in the past, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are places across the board that are just internally inconsistant, making it very difficult to make use of many of the rules and information. While you liked the art and margins, I found it to look cluttered, and actually drew away form the appearance of the book, rather than adding to it. I think that I'd prefer to use an old gamma wolrd book for the background, or do as recommended to me a few other places, and make use of Omega world or Darwin's World.

I really have trouble understanding how you could rate substance as highly as you did, given the lack of it. (I figure style is more easily personal opinon, but content should be fairly universal.) The flavor text was interesting, but the rules, tables and lack of more congruent thought would cause me to give is a sub-par rating, certainly not the superior one that you chose.

I can't help but think that this was written as a favor to someone, or on behalf of the company in question, because it seems terribly unlikely that anyone without alterior motives could give such a high review to something that is at its best is bland and at its worst, an unusable product.

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 02:55 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-07 14:55:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

I will not say that I didn't think the book deserved more of a fair shake. But that is hardly the only reason I would write a review, and end up answering so many questions about my review.

I have heard people say that GW was too goofy. Most of them were not Gamma World fans, tho. Just like in other media venues, the game line will thrive not based on its ability to attract Gamma World fans -- many of them will gripe about the book, but buy and keep it anyway -- but its ability to attract new fans. If they hear, from detractors of previous editions of Gamma World, that it was silly, they're less likely to invest the bucks.

I don't think a little silliness is a bad thing. My gaming group has some very silly moments no matter what game we're running.

But just as the designers of the new D&D books haven't felt it necessary to give us Giant Space Hamsters, the designers of this version of Gamma World have emphasized the point that, a little silliness aside, this is a post-apocalypse setting. Humanity could very well die out altogether. The goofiness is not altogether gone from the license; look at Mutants and Machines. There are some new critters, like the Cheguin and the Advoids, that are pretty silly. It's just that they're

I really have trouble understanding how you could rate substance as highly as you did, given the lack of it. (I figure style is more easily personal opinon, but content should be fairly universal.) The flavor text was interesting, but the rules, tables and lack of more congruent thought would cause me to give is a sub-par rating, certainly not the superior one that you chose.

I rated the substance the way that I did because all of the "rules problems" that everyone is talking about, I don't see. Sure, there are some editing mistakes. But has anyone who's rehashing these same old arguments actually used the book for anything? Made any characters? Communities? Used the book in play?

I haven't playtested it yet, but I had no problem making a half-dozen NPCs so far. And I see nothing to make me think that, with a modicum of GM creativity, that the book would be unplayable or unenjoyable.

For the record, I originally wrote this review for my GWd20 website, and a friend suggested posting it to RPGNet. I edited the review and did so. I can't help thinking that assuming a positive review of an unpopular product automatically means a person has been shown some kind of special favor by the product's producer is more than a bit paranoid.

If anyone has used the book and _then_ run into serious issues, I'd look with interest on their comments.

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 03:14 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-07 15:14:11
Converted from Phorums BB System

AKH. Hit the 'post button too soon. The post should read:

The goofiness is not altogether gone from the license; look at Mutants and Machines. There are some new critters, like the Cheguin and the Advoids, that are pretty silly. It's just that they're not the focus of the game necessarily.

---
Quote from the post I'm replying to:
> I really have trouble understanding how you could rate substance as highly as you did, given the lack of it. (I figure style is more easily personal opinon, but content should be fairly universal.) The flavor text was interesting, but the rules, tables and lack of more congruent thought would cause me to give is a sub-par rating, certainly not the superior one that you chose.

---
My reply continues ...
I rated the substance the way that I did because ...

Sorry!
:)

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 10:10 PM

Post originally by Wyvern at 2003-12-07 22:10:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

<<You are aware that, in the above statement, some *might* read that and feel you are pretty much admiting to being a shill writing ad-copy *NOT* a review, right?

...Some might go so far as to say what you just wrote above is not how a honest review is handled, but rather how ad-copy works. I wont, but I will point the fact out. One reviewer to another.>>

*I* read his statement, and I didn't get that impression at all. There's nothing wrong with identifying your target audience; in fact, any writing teacher will tell you that's one of the first and most basic steps in writing anything. It may be true for ad-copy, but that doesn't make it untrue for reviews.

<<As for target audience: gamers. How anyone can write a review of a RPG and not know who their audience is. . well. . G-A-M-E-R-S, pure and simple.>>

You're ignoring the fact that gamers are extremely diverse in their tastes. Granted, writing for people who have the exact same tastes as you guarantees that your target audience will be nonexistent, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to narrow down the field a little bit and still write a decent review.

For example, the few reviews I've written have been aimed at a target audience of gamers who like the d20 system. I made no effort to be an apologist for the system to d20-haters, because they weren't my target audience. Therefore, if you can't stand the d20 system, you'll get less out of my reviews. There'd nothing wrong with that, from either my side or yours. It's just that you wouldn't be my target audience.

Likewise, Lisa Padol's review of "Dark Inheritence" was written by someone who's "not a huge fan of the d20 system" and was aimed at a broader audience. If it had been aimed at d20 fans (which would have been a perfectly valid target audience), it would have behooved her to include more details about new additions to the system.

As Jim DelRosso pointed out, the reviewer stated that his target audience was people who hadn't already read the book or formed an opinion of it. That's exactly who reviews are *supposed* to be written for. There's no point in writing a review for people who have already formed an opinion, unless it's intended as an apologetic. I can read reviews of movies I've already seen or games I've already bought and still get something out of them, but if the author is writing *only* for that audience, it's not a review, it's an editorial.

<<Viz. I quoted far more than a sentence fragment. In that sentence fragment *some* might say you closed it with an backhanded accusation that implies much, while saying little, and speaking to the overall friendly tone of a reviewer treating with a fellow reviewer not at all. Grant most wont notice likely anything at all, or if they do just shrug it off without comment.>>

No matter how many times I read this, I can't make heads or tails of what you're talking about.

<<FYI: If I thought you were a shill I would have said, bluntly, point blank, that I thought so. I did not. Rather I attempted to point out, based on the *percieved* tone of what I read that, right or wrong, that *perception* could exist. Unnecessarily so. (No need to supply ready flamebait to those who enjoy sparking arguements.)

If I came across as sounding to harsh or abrasive, I can only say that was not my intent. My comments stand, especially about seeing more reviews in future.>>

You seem to be confusing the author of the post with the author of the review. They're not the same. As for your tone, making comments like this....

<<Don't worry about a "target audience", that's how we tend to end up with reviews that come across as stilted and forced. And smelling like week old tapioca pudding. ;) FYI.>>

...and then claiming that you meant no offense is at best disingenuous (if you really *did* mean no offense) and at worst, patronizing.

<<Some might go so far as to say what you just wrote above is not how a honest review is handled, but rather how ad-copy works. I wont, but I will point the fact out. One reviewer to another.>>

You may say that you're not really saying what you said because you're only saying that someone else might say it, but you still said it, and it's still offensive.

<<Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. This monster tries to look harmless, but isn't. He says the meanest, most insulting, condescending things, but then ends each attack with a smiley-face icon.
- www.montecook.com/arch_lineos108.html>>

I'd heard that such a creature existed, but this may be the first time I've encountered one myself.

Wyvern

P.S. Notice my clever use of the word "may", thus allowing myself to deny that I'm actually implying that your comments were mean and insulting. ;)

RPGnet Reviews

12-07-2003, 10:22 PM

Post originally by Wyvern at 2003-12-07 22:22:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

<<No, I looked at the review, then at his concluding score, and thought 'What the hell I'm missing.' I'm less decided than confused and thus inclined to ignore this review. That is why it's bad.>>

If you had read this part of the review:

<<I leave it up to the reader to decide whether the positive outweighs the negative, based on the weight they choose to give to each thing I list. I also believe in making concessions in one's arguments; after all, what I see as a positive thing, another may see as a negative.>>

...you might have been less confused.

The negative points that he lists can basically be summed up as follows:

1) There aren't a lot of mutations included in the book.
2) Minor editing errors.
3) The psionics rules are non-standard and leave some things open to interpretation.
4) It's expensive.
5) It's gotten a lot of bad word-of-mouth.

How any of those points, or even all of them together, disqualifies him from saying that it's a meaty book done in an excellent style, is beyond me. For that matter, even if he'd given it a '10', that doesn't imply that it's perfect (you can find flaws in anything, if you look hard enough), just that "It doesn't get much better than this."

Wyvern

RPGnet Reviews

12-08-2003, 12:30 AM

Post originally by Kester Pelagius at 2003-12-08 00:30:50
Converted from Phorums BB System

Howdy Wyvern,

The more I read the more I wish that these forums were the same as those in the main forum area, as my comments probably would have been better sent as a PM. But the forums here are what they are..

Swell and splendiferous.

>>>No matter how many times I read this, I can't make heads or tails of what you're talking about.<<<

It's called "trying to be tactful".

Apparently failing that roll and speaking gibberish in tongues? (As if speaking in plain old tongues wasn't bad enough! ;) )

>>>...and then claiming that you meant no offense is at best disingenuous (if you really *did* mean no offense) and at worst, patronizing.<<<

Or being bluntly honest?

To misquote the Bard: If I think as person is an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcomb, I'll say so!

Some of us can all to easily "read into" static text more than the original writer's intent may have meant. It's hard to tell sometimes, especially when you don't really know a person. Just trying to let everyone know I wont mince words and yadayadayada doesn't really matter. The review was well put together.

>>><<Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. This monster tries to look harmless, but isn't. He says the meanest, most insulting, condescending things, but then ends each attack with a smiley-face icon.
- www.montecook.com/arch_lineos108.html>>

I'd heard that such a creature existed, but this may be the first time I've encountered one myself. <<<

D@mn, can I get some antiseptic for me poor arse, good sir?

My comments weren't writen with malice aforethought, FYI.

>>>P.S. Notice my clever use of the word "may", thus allowing myself to deny that I'm actually implying that your comments were mean and insulting. ;)<<<

*shrug*

Taken as a whole, and going by the responses, I was just trying to be helpful. Roads paved in good intentions, murphy's laws, and all that. :rolleyes:

>>>You're ignoring the fact that gamers are extremely diverse in their tastes. Granted, writing for people who have the exact same tastes as you guarantees that your target audience will be nonexistent, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to narrow down the field a little bit and still write a decent review. <<<

Granted not everyone may think that writing the sort of review that they (in this case *I*) would want to read is a valid approach, but that is what I try to do. Whether the tastes of the reader mesh with mine or not. . . as you say tastes are diverse. I'd just try to write a good review.

Welp it's Monday, so this review will soon be pushed off the front page, and these threads soon forgotten. But hopefully the reviewer wont be. As I've said, good first review.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

RPGnet Reviews

12-08-2003, 07:47 AM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-08 07:47:11
Converted from Phorums BB System

Valandil,

Don't coddle him by even implying the plural.

;-)

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-08-2003, 07:53 AM

Post originally by Jim DelRosso at 2003-12-08 07:53:04
Converted from Phorums BB System

Kester,

Will you at least tell us whether or not you can tell the difference between me and the guy who wrote this review? Because thus far, the answer seems to be either, no," or "yes, now, but I'll be damned if I admit it" -- and that doesn't speak well for ya, bud.

Jim D.

RPGnet Reviews

12-08-2003, 09:07 AM

Post originally by Kester Pelagius at 2003-12-08 09:07:12
Converted from Phorums BB System

>>>Will you at least tell us whether or not you can tell the difference between me and the guy who wrote this review? Because thus far, the answer seems to be either, no," or "yes, now, but I'll be damned if I admit it" -- and that doesn't speak well for ya, bud. <<<

If the above is amended to:

"If I thought you, he, or anyone else. . "

Will that make you feel better?

One can only block copy from above and paste into a editor. As anyone responding to these threads is likely aware, if you want to be unforgiving of a mis-typed pronoun, eye wandering, or whatever *percieved* slight that is your perogative. As for putting words into my mouth by way of trying to dangle flamebait and jump-start an arguement, not cool.

As the reviewer is not responding to any of this, consider the thread over, done, and closed.

Good day.

RPGnet Reviews

12-08-2003, 11:20 AM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-08 11:20:46
Converted from Phorums BB System

> As the reviewer is not responding to any of this, consider the thread over, done, and closed.

The author reads all responses in these threads, and takes most suggestions under serious consideration. That said ... yes, let's let this thread ... whatever it was intended to be or became ... go. :)

RPGnet Reviews

12-09-2003, 11:37 AM

Post originally by Billy Bob at 2003-12-09 11:37:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

I've got to say that this Emanuel may be a troll but he hammered the nail on the head with this one. I haven't been so let down by a product since that time i bought all those magic beans off of that street person. Mr. Baugh should be ashamed of himself for dumping this steaming pile out into stores. Does he really think gamers are sooooo lame that they are going to waste their time playing something so totally devoid of quality? This is free market capitalism at it's worst!!!!

RPGnet Reviews

12-09-2003, 07:27 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-09 19:27:30
Converted from Phorums BB System

Billy Bob wrote:
-------------------------------
I've got to say that this Emanuel may be a troll but he hammered the nail on the head with this one. I haven't been so let down by a product since that time i bought all those magic beans off of that street person. Mr. Baugh should be ashamed of himself for dumping this steaming pile out into stores. Does he really think gamers are sooooo lame that they are going to waste their time playing something so totally devoid of quality? This is free market capitalism at it's worst!!!!

Altho our campaign beginning won't be for another few weeks (not 'til the current one finishes up), I have been designing a campaign, NPCs, webpage, and helping players create PCs for this *ahem* "steaming pile" (?) and enjoying every minute of it. I also make use of many other roleplaying products which are replete with quality.

Mr. Baugh should not feel ashamed of himself. Mr. Baugh should feel proud of himself and all the other writers on this product line.

_I_ knew well enough to stay clear of the guy with the beans, tho. :)

RPGnet Reviews

12-09-2003, 07:38 PM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-09 19:38:02
Converted from Phorums BB System

By the way, anyone still interested in seeing what kinds of creative things can be done with the D20 Gamma World rules is welcome to view my website at:

<http://www.geocities.com/tormento_khan/d20_gamma_world/gammaworld20.html>

If you have any questions or useful comments about the website, click on the e-mail link on the site and send the e-mail directly to me.

Lame complaints about the D20GW product itself will be gleefully ignored, but thoughtful discussion and creative effort always catch my interest.

RPGnet Reviews

12-10-2003, 07:25 PM

Post originally by Billy Bob at 2003-12-10 19:25:39
Converted from Phorums BB System

I have a sneaking suspicion that Joshua Kubli is none other than that fat sad sack of @!#$: Bruce Baugh himself. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you are running a successful campaign off of Baugh's hopelessly inept and creatively stagnant Gamma World product? Baugh has forever smeared his name by releasing this disgraceful, degenerate pile of feces! Maybe Kubli is one of these new teenage gamers that doesnt know quality if it bit him in the ass! I suggest Mr. Kubli that you stop posting your inane opinions until you grow up and develop a sense of aesthetics. Until then, STFU!!!!!

RPGnet Reviews

12-11-2003, 01:21 AM

Post originally by Joshua Kubli at 2003-12-11 01:21:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

Billy Bob wrote:
-------------------------------
I have a sneaking suspicion that Joshua Kubli is none other than that fat sad sack of @!#$: Bruce Baugh himself.

Nope. DNA testing will prove it. :)

Like I said before, it amazes me that some people are so credulous as to believe that, should anyone express a positive opinion of an unpopular product, they must automatically be a tool of a gaming industry conspiracy or something. *roll eyes*

> Are you seriously trying to tell me that you are running a successful campaign off of Baugh's hopelessly inept and creatively stagnant Gamma World product?

I am seriously not seriously trying to say that at all. Seriously.

I am seriously succeeding in saying that I am in the middle of using this creatively dynamic and beautifully-designed product to create a campaign to run, as soon as the current one I'm running is finished. I've made half-a-dozen NPCs, a city setting, a prestige class, lots of stuff for this D20 Gamma World campaign. It's been fun, and _I_ haven't felt the urge to whine like a whipped dog even once.

> Maybe Kubli is one of these new teenage gamers that doesnt know quality if it bit him in the ass!

Maybe I haven't been a teenager in over a decade. Been playing since I had just become a teenager, tho. The other game products I use on a regular basis are also recognized by many gamers for their high level of quality (D&D v.3.5, BESM D6, Hero v.5).

> I suggest Mr. Kubli that you stop posting your inane opinions

I think my only inane opinion so far is that posts like this are worth responding to.

Your suggestion is on file, but I think you're outvoted as far as whether my "inane opinions" are worth hearing, by several other posters, who needn't even necessarily _agree_ with my opinions.

SO sorry. :)