[RPG]: Metal, Magic, and Lore, Basic Player's Rulebook, reviewed by Stu2000 (5/4)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13423.phtml

Stuart Anderson's Summary:

The MML Basic Player's Book provides an excellent foundation for a realistic and detailed fantasy role-playing system.

Go to the full review for more information.

[smascrns]

Hum, I was not able to make up my mind: Is this a RuneQuest heartbreaker? It reads like one with its percentile skills system but there was not enough info to decide. Yes or no?

And by the way, "This [the absence of an index] is the hot new thing to complain about with game books" is far from being new or hot. It has been a staple in many reviews for many years.

[Stu2000]

You could look at it as a RuneQuest heartbreaker, with a little RoleMaster thrown in, and some of the magical emphasis excised. It's a lot smoother, in my opinion, than either of those games, but players of those games will find much that is familiar.

If there were more variety of material, or if the material was presented in a less modular fashion, I might feel the lack of an index more acutely. I usually like to have them as well. It just didn't bother me as much with this product.

[trechriron]

I personally did not think the review offered much information about the game. It was very high level and didn't earmark why this RPG deserved such high marks.

In this saturated market of More Systems Than One Human Could Possibly Play, I think it's important to outline why this game is different or perhaps why it's similar but better. What makes this game unique?

Percentile mechanics are not new. No talents or feats or special traits? Why would someone play this game instead of Dungeons & Dragons?

In summary, MML is a detailed, realistic-feeling fantasy role-playing game that will offer a rich, engaging challenge to players that want to feel like they are actually living, surviving, and trying to thrive in a tough, unforgiving fantasy world.

This is one example of many unsupported remarks in the review. How is it realistic? How does it make the challenges rich and engaging?

Another beef: I imagine something could be mentioned of how the game plays. I don't need 10 paragraphs mind you, but one statement of how it worked at the table in a "play test review" would be spiffy IMHO.

Also, this review seems to be offered by a super-fan and/or friend of the publisher. Frankly, that is awesome. Fan support of games (of this nature) is something that fuels our hobby. However, I think people can "swallow" these kinds of reviews better if a) you state that up front and b) you focus on what/why/how this game is important to you as the fan.

Just my two cents...

[capnzapp]

Hi, before I read any rpg-net review of a new classic fantasy rpg I've never heard about anywhere else (despite being fairly well versed in the industry), but yet still gets a near-perfect score, I first would like a meta-review of the the review itself: Is this one of those all-too-common thinly disguised advertisements with just enough knocked off a perfect 5/5 score to pretend the reviewer is presenting an objective nuanced review, but in reality is just an overlong "buy this now" sentence giving no real insights into the workings of the game and certainly doesn't mention any real flaws? Because with those characteristics, chances are it is, unfortunately.

[Stu2000]

I will totally cop to the fact that I am a fan of the game, and I wanted to get some discussion started because I haven't seen much around. But I'm not the publisher or the author and I don't simply want to goob on it, so let's see if I can be more specific.

The reason I think MML has a niche in the admittedly overcrowded fantasy game market is because it finds a sweet spot between detail and playability. It is not the first game that's ever done that. There's almost nothing here that's brand new. I run a very similar game using RuneQuest, reducing the power of magic, and moving the setting to more of a vanilla D&D setting. Or I could run RoleMaster, and drop some of the extended damage rules and magic rules I think are superfluous. I could run Hero or GURPS wth the combat dialed up, the magic dialed down, and the gonzo factor of the world reduced to almost nothing. I have played those games and had a great time. No problems with those games or D&D or Riddle of Steel, or anything else.

But MML plays just the way I like to play, straight out of the book. No adjustments. There are no "fancy" mechanics. I mean any designed to shape the story or add any layer of subtext to the game. This is a little old-fashioned, I think, but refreshing. To me, it's a feature, not a flaw. I've always wanted a fantasy game could facilitate campaigns that felt more like old Traveller than like most fantasy games. More of a "thriving in a fantastic, unusual life" than "the heroic quest."

That's where I'm coming from. This game suits that place to a T. If you're not coming from that place, I'm not trying to sell you the game. My high marks are not given to convince you to run out and buy it. They're given because it's a clearly designed, well-written game with good production values. The art is nice, the layout is readable, the binding isn't going to fall apart. Play is smooth, satisfying, and fun. I gave the game the ratings I think it deserves.

Actual play is very clean. To me, that means that during most non-combat roleplay, the system fades to transparency. If you're using a skill, roll a percentile. You may score a critical success or failure, but there's nothing fancier than that. Again, some players are going to find this a throwback, but I enjoyed it. My players, who range from a couple thirteen year old kids to a couple crusty old guys, seemed engaged, and most of the questions they had about playing were about exact defintions of skills. We did not have any questions about whether a skill roll or an attribute roll would be more appropriate in a given situation, but those could come up, I guess.

Combat is elaborate. Again, if you don't like that, it's not the game for you. I drew my group from groups which had been playing RuneQuest, Star Wars Saga, and D&D (3.5), and they unversally found combat to be lethal. The guys who had played RuneQuest were not surprised to discover that taking a debilitating hit in leg could screw up your day. Everyone was surprised to realize how quickly fatigue in this game can eat away at your percentages to fight. If you get tired, and don't have a place to retreat or take cover, you'll be in bad shape.

We had one guy who came late jump into the game with most of his character sheet done, but not initiative. That was a hassle. There are several tables consulted for initiative, and trying to do it during a round is a nuisance. But you can take care of that stuff during character generation, and just adjust as you need to. Players flipping through the book thought there were too many combat charts. But only one is frequently consulted during play--the hit location chart. I put that on the outside of my GM screen, along with the combat flow chart, and descriptions of moves available for unarmed combat. Players seemed comfortable with that.

The RuneQuest players were also less surprised than the D&D players to realize that many of the magical effects and spells take a while to play out, especially with the symbol magic, which seemed most appealing so far. The first source of frustration about the incomplete nature of playing the game with just the player's book was in magic. One of the guys wanted to be a shaman, and there wasn't anything in the book about it. The next was regarding character advancement. I had downloaded the character advancement rules off the company's website, and the group felt universally they were too slow. If the game is going to be hard to survive, then we shold get some props for making it.

So the game is low-tech and kind of a throwback to a different time. If you don't like that, I won't try to sell you on the game. Combat is challenging. Roleplaying rules will not reinforce your scenario, beyond just staying clear of it. Magic is non-epic. Advancement is slow. This is a different kind of challenge than most rpgs, and one that I've had to adjust other rpgs in order to capture. If you don't like that challenge, the game isn't for you. But if you do, this game is appropriate right out of the box. I like it--found it to be unusual, despite the familiarity of the rules. I simply hope others that might like it can find some discussion of it here.

Thanks for the feedback. This is the first one of these I've done. I guess I need to review a game I hate now, so I don't sound like a one-pony shiller.

[trechriron]

Originally Posted by Stu2000

...
Thanks for the feedback. This is the first one of these I've done. I guess I need to review a game I hate now, so I don't sound like a one-pony shiller.

Wow. Well written post.

You don't have to "make-up" for your enthusiastic review. Next time put in the same direct commentary like this post and I will (for one) be more drawn in. This post felt more from the heart and told me WAY more about the game. I understood where you are coming from. It makes more sense to me now.

Thanks for making the additional post. Don't be discouraged. The crowd here at RPG net is a discerning one. There is a disproportionate amount of smart people here. As you peruse the forums you can quickly grasp the wit, hilarious sarcasm, and informed skepticism. It's like meandering the halls of a RPG college for the gifted. I guess I am saying; this can be a tough crowd, not in a bad way, but we aren't push overs either. You might meet 50 people who disdain your game of choice one week and find all of them championing an idea you posted the next. It's not fickle, it's more academic (IMO). We don't say "I HATE this {something}..." as a personal affront. It's just sincere reaction and opinion.

I think you should pick another game you like and do another!

Sincerely,

[Stu2000]

Again, your feedback is appreciated. I was trying to sound a little impersonal in the main text, rather than just imagining a couch full of gamers to whom I was trying to describe the game. I'll try to keep my audience in mind next time.