Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltar.Delgado
In this context, "no rules social interaction" may be a slight exaggeration on Venger's part. My personal view is that the 4th edition non-combat roleplaying rules are negligible in their feel, depth, and effectiveness.
|
That's a valid opinion, and even though I don't share it, if the reviewer had said that I wouldn't have picked up on that point. I think what Venger did is a bit more than just a slight exaggeration, and nests somewhere in the regions of hyperbole. Since a review should inform people, hyperbole is not exactly helpful in painting an honest picture if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltar.Delgado
Isn't that a little harsh, lawyer dude? This isn't a courtroom.
|
When Venger overstates a matter it's a slight exaggeration. But only maybe. When I do it I'm being a harsh lawyer dude who forgets his place.
Isn't this measuring with two yard sticks? With the "4e hater" being measured favorably, and his detractors being measured unfairly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltar.Delgado
Why not? Isn't that a perfectly valid option for a review?
|
Uhh... no. No, absolutely not. I'm having serious cognitive dissonance here. I don't even understand how anybody could think otherwise.
Should I now post a negative review about the new World of Darkness, complaining that characters felt bland and too much alike even though I ignored merits? That's just not kosher in my book. That's fine for a topic on the forum to discuss (I realize Venger can't post there), but less so fo a review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltar.Delgado
Suggesting that rpg.net police the reviews to only allow "qualified" reviews or reviewers would eventually lead to bland, colorless, by-the-book regurgitations.
|
I don't suggest that rpg.net does anything. I merely expect the reviewers to meet a certain standard of minimum quality, or be prepared for negative feedback if they don't. That doesn't seem very unreasonable to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltar.Delgado
By the way, Does it count as <i>house ruled </i>if the DM runs the game the way he wishes, not including everything in the core book while adding a few of his own inventions?
|
Yes. Houserules is not a dirty word, it just means that a playing group chooses make alterations to suit their own wishes. In most cases this works out better for all involved.
But blaming a game for something that is directly caused by your own houserules -whether fully or partially - leaves me scratching my head.
But, here's another thing I don't get about the review:
He gives it a 2 for substance. Ok, he thought it wasn't good but at least not total crap. I can get that from the tone of the review as a whole. But he also gives it a 4 for style. Why? The tone of the review certainly doesn't make it sound like it has great style. Does he like the art? Use of whitespace and layout? Use of language? All of the above? Something else? I don't know! Is it because novices can get into the game easily? That's the only remotely positive thing he really mentions, but is that a matter of style (transparency of the rules sounds like a part of the substance to me, not of the quality of the binding or the amount of typos), and is it enough on its own to warrant a 4?
He slaps down some numbers and calls it a day. He's not being exactly helpful.