[Eponymous]

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

I don't know why you even mentioned it, but this game in no way seems to have any connection to the HBO series "Deadwood", which is about human drama in the Old West.

Yes this game is not actually the Deadwood rpg. However IMHO it has much of the same ethos, just IMO. I also wanted a catchy tag line, so I settled on that. Equally I could have said it was Unforgiven the rpg.

The game is really, very much about human drama. The systems for Edge, Threat and Intox etc all make interpersonal relationships that little bit more interesting in play. For these reasons I characterised it as a Deadwood-esque game. Yes it has fantasy elements but they should be secondary. The game, itself takes this position. The fantasy elements should be present but lurking in the night. A bit like the feeling of "Lost” the TV show, if you will, in that regard.

Neither HBO or the show Deadwood endorsed the rpg in anyway, no. It's just the feel I got from the property.

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

I not a Deadlands Heartbreaker with a long skill list..

CSR is not as ..."whimsical"(I mean Bruce Campbell did the preface to the revised edition. He is a recognised slapstick actor) as Deadlands. Sure, you can play in other “modes” but Deadlands has its cheese. That works well too because it contrasts with the horror. Deadlands is probably Wild West Splatter Punk. CSR is attempts to be more, … Survivor Horror I believe.

I ran (GM'ed) Deadlands for two years, weekly (love the game still) and much of the "shtick and chutzpah" of that game is not a part of CSR.
CSR, at its heart - as part of its deliberate design (not my opinion – set out in the introduction) - is a serious game, for hard core "old school" gamers (i.e. not everyone). Dare I say it, people who play Rifts and Rolemaster/Spacemaster and Arftermath: as well as old AD&D or Hackmaster, are likely to feel most immediately at home with the mechanical aspects, IMHO (one of my players belongs to this group of people and he was right at home). For others (including me) it will take us some time (and may never happen).

When I fist got the game home, I had "buyers remorse", until I started really reading it and appreciating the background and system. I think it could be improved, yes. But what is there is good. It wasn’t until I played it and saw all the pieces come together that I started to like the game.

When we played one of our players characters, a Shootist, was getting shown up by a Gambler working in the town for the local Baron (the Barons dude "Cal" was selling the towns orphans into slavery via the Baron, only he was not waiting for the families to pass on "natural like", he was poisoning the towns folk etc) So to get over being shown up, the Shootist PC got a drunk on, went whoring (his vice) then hunted down the Gamblers henchmen and stated raining lead (cause now he had bonuses or less impairment at any rate). The tone of this activity was very different from that of my Deadlands games. What was brought to pass, I contribute, to the systems around Edge, Intox and Threat, all of which, while not complicated in paly, do require lots of explanation. (for which the game should be purchased IMO should you want this fine level of detail).

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

Thanks for writing, but I had a few problems with the review

Fine by me. Could you please point me to some of your own reviews so that I may better learn the craft of reviewing and writing? I do honestly want to improve my attempts.

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

It was condescending in the way that Imagine and other games are with comments like: "Be warned you will need to leave your RPG prejudices behind."

I was not attempting to be condescending . I don’t know how asking people to be open minded is actually patronizing or displaying a superior attitude?I thought it was commonly agreed; by civil minded people, that open mindedness was a positive personal quality? Again not meaning to be condescending.

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

This is shocking, when you mention games like Dogs in the Vineyard and Dust Devils, somehow assuming that because CSR is bigger and has more skills that it is a better game.

In what way shocking? Could you explain please?

BTW They are both good games, in genre, but the rules are not for everyone IMHO. CSR takes are more mainstream, less freeform style. It is an old school approach and therefore could be more accessible to gamers familiar with D&D or more structured similar games.

I don’t believe I made the comparison of CSR=Bigger therefore it is better then DitV or DustDevils. I will say that for my group CSR is more playable right of the bat and has potentially, longer play value (for my own group that is)

I have played both DitV and Dust Devils. Both need a little more work on the mechanics (as does CSR BTW). I personally did not find them as satisfying as I had hoped. Both are a little too "free-form style" for my taste/preference. In Dust Devils I had trouble handling a a shootout, and damage seem unconnected to what had occurred. my group and I had an easier time with both in CSR.

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

yet it doesn't seem to even come with much of a background

The background is extensive, however the [I]detail[I] needed to plan a campaign is in the GM book. So while I can run games straight out of this book, to tap into the setting at a deep level I would need the higher definition (GM book). The setting detail I linked to is only a small teaser. The book appropriately expounds on everything mentioned. Yes it could be better, this is a first release from a new Indie company, they are learning. What there is (and there is lots of it) is capable and shows promise.

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

I found the tone of voice to be overly-familiar, you might want a little bit of distance in the review, I felt like I was being ambushed by a raving fanboy at a gaming store. The writing style was fragmented, informal, and there were typos and misspellings.

Duly noted. I was trying to be entertaining. Clearly, I missed the mark with you. Cant please all the people all the time etc.

I'm not being employed to do this or paid in any way, this is just hobby time for me and I bashed out as good a copy of text I think that merits. I whacked it up here to share with other enthusiasts.
I'm not looking for a job as a writer or in the rpg industry and have not airs in that regard. Just a Joe with an opinion. While these are called reviews they are more IMHO simply an impressions of the game from some ones POV. If you expected better, buy a Dragon mag or whatever.

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

Lastly, you mentioned the playtest but we got very little info at all, other than combat was not as deadly as you believe.

IMHO the review was getting too long. I may well do a round by round combat review here in the forums (mostly done but quite long), should I get asked by enough folks. The game play was quick and efficient and the games mechanics did everything you would expect or claimed they could.
Let me know what you would like specifically. I'll try to put more detail here. If you would like it, others may too.

Originally Posted by Old Scratch

This game with its percentage roll under system and classes and levels seems to be about 15 years behind the development curve. I think I'll pass.

You can pass and that’s fine.

On the subject of the roll under mechanic; Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies, and many other games use this mechanic and yes, it has been in long time use. Does it make it bad. No. I would think that it argues for its effectiveness.

Personally, I prefer different mechanics (love Fireborn and Secret of Zir’An at the mo’ ). Anything that makes the game playable and fun is fine by me. The fun of any game, IMO is in the playing. The mechanics for CSR facilitate play. Could it be more successful, probably, does it have a fun story to tell? Definitely! Is it as flawed as you believe? From my experience no, quite the contrary. CSR is adequate (in every way) to the task it is to be put.

RPG design is a high horse we all love to get up on but this game is successful both, as a game and an enjoyable read for the most part. It is a bit wordy In paces and needs some editing That I can deny. The current Free-form vs Structured arguments that a propagating in the rpg community is in deed the exact prejudice I want people to leave at the door. This game does work and has a fun background. Yes its derivative and needs more/better art, lay-out and presentation. I believe that its worth trying out if you like this type of stuff. Find a demo session and have a go.

I’m not trying to sell the book particularly. I just want to let people know there is a fun option for a campaign out there they maybe didn’t know about. I want to give such a person, information that will let them make a, somewhat informed, purchasing decision should they be so inclined. This is important to me.Why? I live in Australia and the cost of gaming product here is $50.00 + US on average.