[Lev Lafayette]

Originally Posted by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara

Have you noticed the excitement among some folks re a possible reissue of Dragon warriors? Or the threads about love for T&T? I disagree with your assessment of this, rather strongly.

I largely think of those games in a similar ilk; the enthusiasm is largely nostalgic - I'm not sure many would suggest that they are the 'cutting edge' of game design. Further, both these games - even more so than AD&D - had excellent support scenarios. The game systems themselves were perhaps not of the best quality.

Anyway, The game sounds something like Swordbearer, particularly in the way that monsters use the same rules as PC's and the way skills are prioritized and PC's can choose the priorities, but with a simpler system (for those who don't know, combat in Swordbearer is...involved.)

From what I remember of Swordbearer combat it became really involved with the use of minatures and movement. This game wasn't like that at all. Swordbearer wasn't a similarlity that came to mind.

Could you describe the different magical fields?

Sure; Arcanum is "true wizardry", the manipulation of magic forces. "Darkness" magic is the stuff of bad guys. "Deepening" magic is the elder magic of dwarves and their like, based on STA rather than mental traits. "Elemental" magic is what is sounds like. "Light" magic is for the good guys. "Psionic" magic is as it sounds. "Wilding" magic is nature's ways.

Originally Posted by The Ent

The game sounds interesting.

That's an accurate summary.

Originally Posted by pspahn

I would have given it a 3 for substance. Lev, I'm curious as to how you assign your ratings. It seems like the game is up front about having "a very clear gamist agenda which is well integrated into the system" as you put it. Does it really rate only a 2 when compared to other rules-light old-school fantasy/dungeon crawl RPGs?

Oh no! Most certainly not. In general for substance ratings, I try to allocate equally across the the implementation of gamist, simulationist and narrativist agendas (yes, that much of the three-fold model is influential to me). Further, I also try to allocate 40% of games to a '3' rating, 20% either-side to a 2 or 4 and 10% to a 1 or 5. It doesn't quite work out that way, but it's the sort of distribute I prefer.

This game, let it be said, is a very good example of its kind. It's just somewhat limited.

Also, it says this was a playtest review. How did it play?

Smoothly, although I'm not going to suggest for a moment it was a long-term involved game. I will play it again however.

Originally Posted by Dan Davenport

Great review, Lev. I appreciate you giving the game a fair shake despite the fact that it wasn't really your thing.

Thanks. I appreciate your comments.

Originally Posted by Michael Desing

Yeah, I definitely consider it a favor for someone he doesn't even know for Lev to have reviewed the game. I wrote to him because I had read some of his previous reviews and his blog, and knew that he was fair, well-read, and respected. I knew going in that this game was probably a bit outside of his taste, and I think he gave a fair review, all things considered. The two star rating smarts a little, but he brings up some valid criticisms (especially the table of contents and index). That one I'll be correcting within the week and I'll be posting a free index PDF on the Mythweaver site.

Hi Michael. Don't feel too bad about the '2' ratings; I'd probably give 1983 "red box" D&D the same, indeed this game is, in many ways, much better (so you can think "Wow, I made something better than D&D", if you like).

To boost the substance rating however, consider some additional "reality tests" for prosiac activity and indeed information about what "Joe Average" the NPC peasant does for a living? Do he go up levels? What in? Also, drop melee as a physical trait because, well, it isn't. You may want to consider splitting DEX into AGI (body) and DEX (hands) and basing melee on MGT instead (or even an average of MGT/DEX).

Add some sort of plot buy-in mechanism for roleplaying. After all, as you say in the Prologue, this is "part community-written novel". Introduce a mechanism in the game system that rewards such participation; at the moment character benefits are limited to "completing tasks and defeating enemies". "Exceptional roleplaying" does contribute to Hero Points, but it's a much lower reward. For example, consider hefty awards for characters who utterly *fail* in their tasks, but do so in a manner that improves the plotline and was damn fine fun for all involved.

For style, apart from the aforementioned index and contents, have another think about the artwork. It's pretty much below average throughout. The occassional piece of amateur-comic art is fine, but for the whole text it doesn't really work. Also, full page borders are nice, center the tables, and consider alternative layout to single column text.