Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dan Davenport
I thank you for emphasizing the heavy-handed social commentary, which I'd heard is an issue with this game. Sounds like a definite turn-off for me, although the setting in general sounds potentially interesting.
|
Is it social commentary? Is the book making a statement to the effect that these social values were good or bad, or simply presenting them to give something for the characters to rebel against?
I find it annoying that so many people assume a setting featuring a society with strong values is making some kind of social commentary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigJackBrass
The assumption that players will want to "fight the system" does bar a number of very interesting possible adventures and campaign styles, although as others have mentioned this is so easily adjusted as to be a fairly small problem.
|
But most if not all of the greatest RPG characters are iconclasts. In some way they're fighting the system. It's like saying the same thing for D&D because it makes the assumption that players will want to "fight the monsters", or Sorcerer because it makes the assumption that players will want to explore "the price of power".
Here's a game which's setting gives the characters a strong reason to act, and that appears to be the primary thing it is criticized for.
For me, Fuzion is the deal-breaker. While it's a fine system, I would never use it to run a game of this genre as it doesn't evoke the proper mood. Space: 1889, Castle Falkenstein (a game ironically created by the company responsible for Fuzion), and even Call of Cthulhu all have much less distracting (due to simplicity?) systems for this kind of thing, but that's entirely a matter of taste.
And great first review Thanaeon.