Post originally by Kobold Lord at 2004-05-18 00:33:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Does the reviewer have any idea of the game he is reviewing? The very first edition of Dungeons & Dragons that he is reviewing came as a boxed set, with books 1-3 in it and a reference sheet."

He just reviewed the first book a few days ago. Think of it as a two-part review that is really long.

"It's not like AD&D, where you can review the Player's Handbook seperately from the Dungeon Master's Guide, and then do a further review on the Monster Manual."

The DMG and MM fail to stand alone in exactly the same sense that the two books being reviewed fail to stand alone. Roughly half of the DMG and MM reviews I have read critically mentioned that they are not adequate if you want to use them without a PHB-equivalent book, so it hardly seems out of line to mention that here, too. It seems that some people *like* using just one book, and to these people requiring multiple books is a disadvantage that they want to know about. The reviewer is simply fulfilling their demand.

"Let me put this simply: It's a boxed set, and the reviewer, in attempting to review each book in the boxed set seperately, has shown that he has absolutely no idea as to how boxed sets work."

Boxed sets are simply packaging. It may or may not be appropriate to review the parts of a boxed set, depending on the contents of each of those parts. While a campaign module probably should not be split, I don't see a real problem here.

"This severely impacts his credibility, to the tune of totally eliminating it."

I hope that was tongue-in-cheek, and I just missed it.

"It's not bizarre. Why would you want to subdue an orc? It's not as if they're going to earn you any money. A subdued dragon has inherently more value than an orc. Besides, if you really wanted to subdue an orc, there's nothing in the rules that says that you can't! This to me seems to be a 3d Edition type of mindset, where everything has to be balanced and politically correct to be acceptable."

Why are dragons such sissies that they instantly submit to some random human who hasn't even technically hurt them just because they declared an intent to subdue? The subdual rules are nutty. Plain and simple. If you like nutty, that's fine, but you can't very well criticize the reviewer for stating the obvious.

"Considering that they came in the same box, this is a no brainer. A box set works like this: you get multiple books in one box, and you use them together. Simple concept, easily grasped. Except the reviewer seems to have missed the concept."

You can use Volume #1 alone, even though there are other books in the same box. Novel concept, huh?

"Not to mention creatureless. Perhaps that's because the books aren't meant to stand alone, but work together? The reviewer seems to forget that in the case of the D&D boxed set he is reviewing, the seperate components are all required to make a cohesive whole. Perhaps that is why they were boxed together?"

Other humans == creatures. Demihumans == creatures. Really, what more do you need? And why is it bad for the reviewer to consider the texts both apart and together? The review in question does target multiple audiences, after all.

I do hope that you were trying to be funny. You weren't, but it is unpleasant to think that you might actually be taking your own words seriously.