Post originally by Scottenkainen at 2004-05-19 11:46:20
Converted from Phorums BB System

Although Strephon shows a lack of civility at the end, I will address his valid concerns.

>Does the reviewer have any idea of the game he is reviewing?<

Yes. My D&D/AD&D collection is vast, and I've been "playtesting" the system for 22 years.

>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.<

I would prefer to review boxed sets as one item, IF that is the format people are most likely to find the books in. That is not the case with OD&D and hasn't been for years. Unless you want to spend a lot more for a complete boxed set on ebay, buying the booklets individually is the way to go.

You do raise a valid point that, for space considerations, I ignored the reference sheets. They are handy "cheatsheets," replaced in later editions by the advent of the DM's screen.

>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.<

Yes you can. I just did.

>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!<

There is ample precedent for subduing monsters, going back to the original Greyhawk campaign where Robilar (one of the 1st D&D PCs ever) routinely subdued orcs, gargoyles, and dragons to serve him or use simply as living shields. There's nothing bizarre in that; it's imminently practical. What's bizarre is that the official rules apply only to dragons. Sure, there's nothing in the rules that says you can't subdue an orc. But by that same logic, you don't need rules to subdue a dragon.

>This to me seems to be a 3d Edition type of mindset, where everything has to be balanced and politically correct to be acceptable.<

If that is your main concern, I can assure you that I will seldom, if ever, suggest that 3E D&D is better than previous editions -- though I may point out where it diverged, when, and possibly why.

>Not to mention creatureless.<

Although uncommon in D&D, it is not impossible to run a campaign that uses monsters.

>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?<

In my review, I made the case that vols. 2 and 3 are not required, but supplemental to vol. 1. Thus, they would not be required to make a cohesive whole. It is much more likely that they were boxed together because they were easier to sell together than separately at that time. I am only speculating as to that last point, of course, but your opinions seem to be speculative as well. Or have you studied the OD&D books long?

>For an example of how such a review of OD&D should have been conducted, I would recommend taking a look at the review I drafted for the small press game Space Infantry, a game broken up into three books just like Original Dungeons & Dragons (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7507.html).<

I skimmed it just now. It looks like a good review, though I've never seen or played Space Infantry. I don't see how it invalidates the different tact I took with my review, though, and I'm unlikely to use yours as a model in the future.

>The factual errors, the skewed misconceptions, and the author's lack of credibility [snip]<

You never once pointed out a factual error. You used the term "credibility" twice. Credibility for writing reviews? What are your criteria for credibility? Agreeing with you?

~Scott