Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eponymous
I’m a analytical by trade and actually, I am not, of the opinion that I can truly provide review commentary in the way you have suggested. Just as we have amateur sport and professional sport and all other similar dichotomies, I think we need to account for the new entrant into the market vs the established multinational who has purchased the leading tittle and designers as part of its plan. Based on the back story for the game (CSR), I believe it’s a good property.
|
But you're not reviewing a property, you're reviewing a game. To be more precise, a specific game book.
It's all well and good to state that this is a promising start from a new author within the review - that's relevant information. It's not such a great idea to suggest that the game is better than an equivalent game from a more experienced designer. From the perspective of a gamer looking for a good game (which these reviews are supposed to cater to) that kind of review would be misleading.
Anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eponymous
As I said, I’m less and less impressed with the “high trust low definition” freeform gaming style that is all the rage now. It hasn’t worked for me. I have tried it since Over the Edge. I may be old school. I/we could not sustain a campaign in such a gaming system. We prefer campaign play. CSR looks like it will provide a good framework for that endeavour.
|
Oddly enough I'm seeing a strong movement away from freeform "roll dice, GM decides" games (which I also find unsatisfying) and towards rules-light games that make sure those few rules are robust enough that they apply <i>all the time</i>.
If you're interested then I can recommend
sorcerer as a game that, while it lacks a great <i>number</i> of rules, expects them to apply all the time and does a hell of a lot with them.