[RPG]: The Chronicles of Ramlar Core Book, reviewed by Thorn Drumheller (5/4)

[RPGnet Reviews]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12449.phtml

Michael Bunce's Summary:

Chronicles of Ramlar is a new game based on a percentile system that should provide many hours of adventure role-playing enjoyment. It has good and evil, magic, and heroes to do what they do best.

Go to the full review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12449.phtml) for more information.

[ChadDubya]

This game seems to rate well with folks, but looks and sounds amazingly generic. The cover art is very uninspiring, and almost nothing I've heard about the setting or system warrants more than a shoulder shrug.

In the endless sea of fantasy RPGs, how does one this milquetoast jump out?

Can I get a "WTF?".

[Simple Man]

WTF?

;)

[Thomas T]

In the endless sea of fantasy RPGs, how does one this milquetoast jump out?
Who can say. People certainly seem to be jumping out of the wood work to rave about it though.

To the game's credit, there seems to have been a lot of money put into it. The art especially.

[capnzapp]

It happens once in a while - somebody mistaking the serious and informative source of reviews that RPG.net is with some quick-buck money-scam advert portal.

The over-eager style of this "review" (and the one last week) to me only confirms this latest hack is as talentless and derivative as the long row of hopefuls before it...

Next!

[Simple Man]

Pretty strange how both reviewers are 1fers, and how much their reviews look alike:

First review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12432.phtml)
2071 words

Second review, in case your back button doesn't work (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12449.phtml)
1130 words

Both are pretty short, too. I smell something... and it smells like...

Fish. Though I could be mistaken.

[Thomas T]

I doubt they're plants. Ramlar's just a kind of game that isn't terribly popular around here. It makes sense that the people who'd be motivated enough to write a review of it aren't likely to be rpg.net regulars.

I mean sure, for most people around here, yet another "D&D but better" game is going to be considered derivative and unimpressive, but those games always seem to attract a few really entheusiastic fans for whom it gets everything right and (fairly understandably) feel the need to spread the good news.

And the similarities looks just to be because they collaborated over on the Ramlar forums.

[C.W.Richeson]

I don't think I have words for how upsetting I find it that forum members are accusing reviewers of being plants because two positive reviews appeared about a new game within a short time period.

Where there is no evidence to the contrary we should treat people who take the time to contribute to RPG.net with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt. Accusing them of being disingenuous based solely on idle speculation does both them and the community a disservice.

[tmlee15]

Just waiting for accusations of posters like Pietro and yipwyg2 being plants, each having a fairly substantial number of posts :) And Clinton Nixon, who should know better but somehow thought this "D&D/RQ/Rolemaster/Kobold At My Baby clone but better" quite a good game :)

I, for one, just hope it isn't coincidental that those who actually read the game have rather positive impressions, otherwise we'd have to double our infiltration effort to the likes of Imagine or F*T*L :)

[Thorn Drumheller]

I doubt they're plants. Ramlar's just a kind of game that isn't terribly popular around here. It makes sense that the people who'd be motivated enough to write a review of it aren't likely to be rpg.net regulars.

I mean sure, for most people around here, yet another "D&D but better" game is going to be considered derivative and unimpressive, but those games always seem to attract a few really entheusiastic fans for whom it gets everything right and (fairly understandably) feel the need to spread the good news.

And the similarities looks just to be because they collaborated over on the Ramlar forums.

Well,

I don't know the first reviewer. I purposfully didn't read the first review until after I had submitted mine. I didn't say it was better than D&D. I said I would avoid comparisons to other games and systems.

I contacted White Silver on my own because I thought the game looked like something I'd like. I would hit their site occassionally because I knew they had picked up Sovereign Stone. I'd burned out on D&D 3.x and was looking to try something different.

But why am I explaining all this. People are going to believe what they are going to believe. They'll say its a gut instinct or something like that. Truth is very few have taken the time to read this product. It wasn't perfect. I'd hoped I conveyed that in my review. The positive of the game was very good though. As it was my first review I beat myself up all night after I'd sumbitted it telling myself I should've done this or that.

Take it as a beginners fault. But the system and setting was a very entertaining read.

[Thorn Drumheller]

Pretty strange how both reviewers are 1fers, and how much their reviews look alike:

First review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12432.phtml)
2071 words

Second review, in case your back button doesn't work (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12449.phtml)
1130 words

Both are pretty short, too. I smell something... and it smells like...

Fish. Though I could be mistaken.

Well you must be a Nostradamus because you're absolutely correct, NOT.

[ShannonA]

If a review goes out, it generally means we think it's legitimate.

I was a little leery of two high reviews of an unknown game coming out from new reviewers, but contrariwise you haven't seen what it really looks like when a company starts asking their people to write reviews--we end up with half-a-dozen one paragraph reviews;.

[Thomas T]

Well,
(snippage)
You quoted my post, so I assume you're (at least partly) responding to me. I want to make sure there's no misunderstanding:

I wasn't complaining about or criticising your review, or your assessment of the game, at all. I was trying to say that it looked like a genuine review to me, and that there's perfectly valid and innocent reasons for a game to get a couple of good reviews out of the blue from people that aren't rpg.net regulars. I said this in kind of a hamhanded fashion, but that's what I was <i>trying</i> to say.

And the collaboration thing, I've got to admit that that was an assumption. A couple of days ago I was reading the ramlar forums to get a better diea of the game and spotted people talking about submitting reviews to rpg.net. I got the impression (based on the fact that both reviews open with the same product shot in in the same formatting) that people had been helping each other pretty their reviews up.

No offense caused I hope. And I hope I've not dissuaded you from submitting any other reviews in future. More points of view are always good.

[C.W.Richeson]

open with the same product shot

FYI, RPG.net adds in the product shots not the reviewers. Thus if 50 more people add Invictus reviews to the database they'll all have the same product shot as mine in the same place.

[Thomas T]

Well shit. That shows what I know.

Cool feature though.

[Thorn Drumheller]

You quoted my post, so I assume you're (at least partly) responding to me. I want to make sure there's no misunderstanding:

I wasn't complaining about or criticising your review, or your assessment of the game, at all. I was trying to say that it looked like a genuine review to me, and that there's perfectly valid and innocent reasons for a game to get a couple of good reviews out of the blue from people that aren't rpg.net regulars. I said this in kind of a hamhanded fashion, but that's what I was <i>trying</i> to say.

And the collaboration thing, I've got to admit that that was an assumption. A couple of days ago I was reading the ramlar forums to get a better diea of the game and spotted people talking about submitting reviews to rpg.net. I got the impression (based on the fact that both reviews open with the same product shot in in the same formatting) that people had been helping each other pretty their reviews up.

No offense caused I hope. And I hope I've not dissuaded you from submitting any other reviews in future. More points of view are always good.

Nope, not offended at all. I was partly responding to you. I suppose, knowing myself, next time I review a product it'll be a playtest review. On read-through the book was good but like I said combat may take awhile to do.