[RPG]: Empire of Satanis, reviewed by Cynthia Celeste Miller (1/2)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11920.phtml

Cynthia Celeste Miller's Summary:

You play a \"Fiend\" and you compete with other Fiends... and, well, that's about it really. The system is somewhat passable, but nothing else is.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Dan Davenport]

Great review, Cynthia! Very fair-minded and thorough, and I admire the fact that you playtested it <u>three</u> times.

That was a classy move for you to tell the author up front that the review wouldn't be positive and to give him a chance to back out of the deal.

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Originally Posted by Dan Davenport

Great review, Cynthia!

Thanks, Dan.

Very fair-minded and thorough, and I admire the fact that you playtested it <u>three</u> times.

That's my personal playtest policy. I have a really hard time evaluating a game without actually playing/running it. And some games don't shine as one-shots, so I just ensure that I've got all the bases covered by playtesting it three times.

That was a classy move for you to tell the author up front that the review wouldn't be positive and to give him a chance to back out of the deal.

I felt it was the only fair thing to do.

[darrick3909]

well... i appreciate the review, negative or not.

a few things, if i may...

the setting and everything inside it was left vague intentionally. there are plenty of details provided but large gaps between these details. the purpose of this was to force the GM and players to fill in the gaps with their own imagination thus creating a cooperative Satanis Mythos. that's also why no art was included. if you can point to a Fiend and say that's what he definitely looks like, then all other potential visualizations are destroyed. if i could have included 200 full color pages of Buffy, Angel, and other professionally created scifi/fantasy/horror beings, then i would have done that.

the task resolution system or game mechanics for combat and non-combat are different for a reason. because they are different in real life. if you bash someone's skull in real life there are relatively few outcomes whereas if you tried to hack into a computer, write a poem, or ridicule someone, then you have a wide range of possibilities.

so while it may have been more "streamlined" to make combat and non-combat the same, it would have undermined the realism (although realism probably isn't the right word for EoS. perhaps verisimilitude?)

for three seperate playtests i did expect to see more detail from Cynthia about what actually happened, what the characters did, how they felt playing a Fiend, and interacted with the definitely not innovative rules...

who's being very vague now?

and finally... Empire of Satanis is now available in hardcover:
http://www.lulu.com/content/223100

DDD 666
http://www.CultofCthulhu.net

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

the setting and everything inside it was left vague intentionally. there are plenty of details provided but large gaps between these details. the purpose of this was to force the GM and players to fill in the gaps with their own imagination thus creating a cooperative Satanis Mythos. that's also why no art was included.

Well, if that was the case, then why do we need EoS at all?

if i could have included 200 full color pages of Buffy, Angel, and other professionally created scifi/fantasy/horror beings, then i would have done that.

I actually addressed the fact that you obviously didn't have a big budget. In short, I didn't expect EoS to have a big budget look. Heck, even if you had something crudely sketched, I'd have been happy. At least it would've shown effort.

the task resolution system or game mechanics for combat and non-combat are different for a reason. because they are different in real life. if you bash someone's skull in real life there are relatively few outcomes whereas if you tried to hack into a computer, write a poem, or ridicule someone, then you have a wide range of possibilities.

Well, I guess I'll just chalk that up to a difference in what we enjoy in a game.

for three seperate playtests i did expect to see more detail from Cynthia about what actually happened, what the characters did, how they felt playing a Fiend, and interacted with the definitely not innovative rules...

who's being very vague now?

The reason I play the games I review three times isn't to include an "actual play" segment in the review. Rather, it's so that I can say without a doubt that I have tried the product somewhat extensively and thus understand it enough to review it compentantly.

I apologize if you thought otherwise.

[darrick3909]

Well, if that was the case, then why do we need EoS at all?

what?! that's like saying why do we need a menu in a restaurant if we aren't given absoultely everything there is to know about an entre? why hear a song about love if that song doesn't provide us with every detail about a relationship? i think everyone would admit that Satanis provides not only rules but an atmosphere with specific concepts. in my personal opinion, the Satanis Mythos is all the more real and expansive for its haziness.

I actually addressed the fact that you obviously didn't have a big budget. In short, I didn't expect EoS to have a big budget look. Heck, even if you had something crudely sketched, I'd have been happy. At least it would've shown effort.

at the expense of diappointing you with my lack of effort, i didn't want to disfigure my creations by limiting them with crude depictions. what i meant was, the only way i would allow art in EoS is if i had access to "the best of the best" in that genre.

The reason I play the games I review three times isn't to include an "actual play" segment in the review. Rather, it's so that I can say without a doubt that I have tried the product somewhat extensively and thus understand it enough to review it compentantly.

your opinion is based on the facts of what happened in those sessions. however, your opinion is subjective. if we heard just a handful of the objective details of what happened in 'actual play' then the reader could make up his own mind. to you it might have sucked, but those same experiences to another might have been... obscenely glorious? or perhaps you played the game in some unSatanislike manner that no one knows about?

unless you provide something in the way of 'what happened' we are only left with your short summary. and if you only wanted to sum up your personal view of the game (or your three playtesters), you probably didn't need to play it at all. i get the feeling that you pre-judged EoS; and no matter what happened in those three mysterious sessions, you would inevitably arrive at your foregone conclusion.

also, i would have liked to hear what actually happened for my own personal interest in all things Satanisian.

Darrick
http://www.CultofCthulhu.net

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Originally Posted by darrick3909

what?! that's like saying why do we need a menu in a restaurant if we aren't given absoultely everything there is to know about an entre? why hear a song about love if that song doesn't provide us with every detail about a relationship? i think everyone would admit that Satanis provides not only rules but an atmosphere with specific concepts. in my personal opinion, the Satanis Mythos is all the more real and expansive for its haziness.

I'm sorry, but that "haziness" seems like a cop out. All the other attempts to defend the setting being vague or the layout being "garage band" just comes off like excuses.

at the expense of diappointing you with my lack of effort, i didn't want to disfigure my creations by limiting them with crude depictions. what i meant was, the only way i would allow art in EoS is if i had access to "the best of the best" in that genre.

At least with "crude depictions", we'd have some manner of idea what you were trying to get across.

your opinion is based on the facts of what happened in those sessions. however, your opinion is subjective. if we heard just a handful of the objective details of what happened in 'actual play' then the reader could make up his own mind. to you it might have sucked, but those same experiences to another might have been... obscenely glorious?

This was a review... not an Actual Play thread. I may perhaps end up writing it up as an Actual Play and posting it on the forums, but that's beyond the scope of what a review is supposed to be.

or perhaps you played the game in some unSatanislike manner that no one knows about?

UnSatanis-like manner? How could anyone know what the Satanis-like manner is? You did nothing to assist GMs in that area.

unless you provide something in the way of 'what happened' we are only left with your short summary. and if you only wanted to sum up your personal view of the game (or your three playtesters), you probably didn't need to play it at all.

Not true at all. In fact, had I not played it, the "Substance" score would've been a "1", as it didn't read well at all. However, after I ran it, I found that the system worked pretty decently.

i get the feeling that you pre-judged EoS; and no matter what happened in those three mysterious sessions, you would inevitably arrive at your foregone conclusion.

I think that's just your automatic self-defense mechanism saying that.

I had no reason to pre-judge EoS. None at all. In fact, given that I love most things morbid, dark, and vile, I'd have to say that I was pre-dispositioned to love the game. I judged the game on the game itself, not preconceived notions.

also, i would have liked to hear what actually happened for my own personal interest in all things Satanisian.

As I mentioned previously, I'd like to type it all up and post it on the forums. If time permits, I will.

In closing, I'd like to say that I'm no longer going to defend my review. I'm content with its accuracy and I stand by it.

But it's teh most Evil of Evil!

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by tetsujin28

But it's teh most Evil of Evil!

The game or the review?

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by darrick3909

what?! that's like saying why do we need a menu in a restaurant if we aren't given absoultely everything there is to know about an entre? why hear a song about love if that song doesn't provide us with every detail about a relationship? i think everyone would admit that Satanis provides not only rules but an atmosphere with specific concepts. in my personal opinion, the Satanis Mythos is all the more real and expansive for its haziness.

I think a better analogy would be a menu that doesn't list everything the restaurant serves, leaving it up to the patron's imagination.

Or better still, a restaurant that requires the patrons to come back to the kitchen and cook the meals themselves so as to not put artificial limits on the patron's culinary creativity.

unless you provide something in the way of 'what happened' we are only left with your short summary. and if you only wanted to sum up your personal view of the game (or your three playtesters), you probably didn't need to play it at all. i get the feeling that you pre-judged EoS; and no matter what happened in those three mysterious sessions, you would inevitably arrive at your foregone conclusion.

also, i would have liked to hear what actually happened for my own personal interest in all things Satanisian.

Darrick, I think you may be doing your own game a disservice by reacting defensively to a review by a highly respected and unfailingly professional game designer, going so far as to question her integrity as a reviewer. I can understand the natural instinct to defend one's creation, but doing so in an unpleasant manner can turn off potential buyers. (And I say this as someone who's been in the marketing industry in various capacities for 12 years.)