[Old Scratch]

Originally Posted by Eponymous

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.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I realized its not the Deadwood rpg. From what I read in your review, I can't imagine why you would make the comparison in the first place. Deadwood was historically situated, this game is a sci-fi western speculative fiction type thing. I suppose the reason I took you to task is that sometimes a comparison can be more damaging than it is helpful. If someone read only your blurb and then picked up this game thinking it was about a Western, when it was a sci-fi post-apocalyptic setting, I think they would be in for a very rude awakening.

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.

Can you provide esamples of the above for us? And compare them to some of the other Western games out there if possible?

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.

Thanks, this gives a better picture of what CSR is aiming for. However, I still feel that they are two sides of the same coin in some ways.

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).

Alright, thanks for clarifying that. However I have a hard time reconciling a Dead Wood-like Human Drama setting and theme with hard core "old school" game techniques.

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).

Alright, how much of a demand do you think there is for the above gamer to play in a Deadwood like setting? And what does CSR due that Rolemaster's Old West supplement doesn't do? Or that Rifts doesn't do?

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).

Can you give me a general idea of the above? I realize you think I should buy the book and read it, but how do these mechanics embody the Old West feel?

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.

Some of my reviews are flawed as well. But here is my last one, which I think is one of my stronger reviews:

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10986.phtml

...and some earlier ones of varying quality:

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10160.phtml

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3525.html

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3526.html

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_5105.html

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2175.html

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_6954.html

For my reviews that were less well received, check out the following where it is quite clear that I went in with biases and as a result had less successful reviews:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_5308.html

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7334.html

I still stand by those reviews and I think the opinion still holds today, but there was definitely a problem with voice and presentation, things I cited as problematic in your own review.

For reviewers with a more conversational approach which you tried to pull off here, I'd recommend you check out reviews by Darren (great play test examples as well).

For the most polished and professional reviews, check out Shannon Appelcline's reviews which are exceedingly well done.

The last review I commented positively on was this one:

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11383.phtml

Which I think is successful: it describes game play, breaks the game down quickly and smoothly, and gives a good analysis of the game.

The problems I found with your post was the far too casual and conversational tone which presented problems with flow, the typos, and the eagerness in your voice and your seeming hyperbole (in which you did not give supporting evidence to support your statements). Look around and read up on some of the other reviews and note what you like and dislike about each, and I'm sure you'll get some ideas for future reviews.

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?

Because you're making the assumption that they're not open-minded already! We may want to tell our readers they should be open minded, but its not the best idea to actually say so!

I thought it was commonly agreed; by civil minded people, that open mindedness was a positive personal quality? Again not meaning to be condescending.

Again, its good to be open-minded, it's bad to tell others to be open-minded.

In what way shocking? Could you explain please?

I grew up on Rolemaster. What I learned is that sometimes less rules means more character. I've found that a RISUS character I write up in fifteen seconds can have be more telling and evocative than a RM character I rolled up over an hour or two. I'm concept heavy on my characters, less process heavy. This sounds like a process heavy game.

You make what I consider to be a mistake: that more rules provides you with more value, when in truth, a very simple bare-bones system can be just as edifying (and possibly more so) than a game that has dozens of books supporting it.

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)

Sorry, but I felt your statement that: "This makes the purchase of this indie game around $60 in total, which is steep in comparison to other product out there, though arguably you get more with CSR then say DitV or Dust Devils so on that level (which seams a fair way to judge) it’s a superior product,"

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.

Thanks, this is what I needed to hear, your own preferences. Our preferences differ and that's probably a fundamental difference between our perspectives.

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

Try these for a feel:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_5985.html

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2627.html

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9683.phtml

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.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But for me the question is not: "Should someone right a review?" but rather "How can people write a better review?". I found your review to be lacking in playtest information, to be vague at times, and I found the "voice" of the review to be problematic. I'm not being paid either to write reviews OR to respond to your review, but here I am...

The review was not very good in my opinion. Your above post went a long way to addressing some of my concerns and better articulating your position. I consider the dialogue, in the long term, to have been beneficial to the review and to my understanding of the game.

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.

This is often a problem with reviews, we feel we have to do a chapter by chapter or rule by rule analysis, but there are some reviews that sum up the spirit and methods of a game succintly. They're worth hunting down, but I'm sorry I can't provide you with any details, my own reviews tend to be a little on the long side as well.

Thanks for taking the time to review and respond.