Quote:
Originally Posted by fnord3125
You said that if I "assemble" the rules and modifiers for a situation out of those that are listed in the book I'm now "house ruling"
|
Granted, that's what I think.
Quote:
|
which implies that I'm not running/playing the game as I should.
|
No, it does not imply this. House ruling is perfectly ok in my book. I love to house rule. The only way a group of players
should play a game is the way they like because it's their game. The only thing implied is that they are not playing by the book, not that they are playing wrongly.
Quote:
|
The logical conclusion to this is that book needs to tell me what to do in any and all situations.
|
No, not that. What the book should cover is the situations it promises to cover. If it does not, it fails to provide the tools it should deliver to the players. If a book does not promise to deliver high fantasy, it cannot be faulted for not providing rules that cover situations common in high fantasy. But if it promises to cover high fantasy and then it does not provide coverage to it, leaving the tropes of high fantasy to be handled by the players, then the game book is faulty. IMO that's what happens with Sorcerer & Sword on what concerns sword and sorcery. I didn't default the book for not covering sci-fi or even realistic medieval, I think it fails to cover sword and sorcery and my example shows it.
Quote:
|
And the review was a trap from the beginning. I mean, really, breaking down the page count mathematically?
|
I payed for 112 smaller-than-normal-sized pages on sword and sorcery roleplaying, not that much by industry standards. I got a lot less than those 112 pages on sword and sorcery, while being fed a lot of things I didn't ask for, including many perfectly blank pages. When this happens I start to count pages with more detail. A lot more detail. No, the review was not a trap. It was the reviewer that felt trapped by a product that promised something it didn't deliver, while forcing me to buy something I didn't want.
If I go to a restaurant and ask for a vegetarian meal, and next I'm served two thirds of a meal that includes a poorly chosen and very limited choice of vegetables that are not enough to compose a balanced meal, plus several non-vegetarian items, then well, I complain. If I'm reviewing the restaurant, that's something I should tell people reading the review. The same applies in the Sorcerer & Sword case.
Quote:
|
And then to go on and brag about your seminars and papers and how many languages you speak? It really doesn't help you sound any better, more intelligent, or more convincing, I have to break it to you.
|
Bragging? Who was bragging? I was accused repeatedly and by several people of not being able to understand English. Let me insist, repeatedly, several times. I didn't repply to it at first but there came a moment when I had to put the record straight. That's not bragging.
Quote:
|
But I suppose I should thank you, and everyone. Between this thread and the year old (but only recently read by me) commentary threads on Lev Lafayette's reviews of the 1st ed. AD&D books, I'm reminded why I generally stay well away from rpg.net.
|
If you can't read things correctly you've better stay away, yes.