Sorcerer & Sword: "Eh."
greyorm:
There's a new review of Sorcerer & Sword on RPG.net, though of the "I don't have anything positive to say about this" variety.
I had the distinct feeling the reviewer was suffering from "Clearly Does Not Get It" syndrome in regards to Sorcerer's game play, the purpose of the game's supplements, etc. but as I found the thick paragraphs and odd grammar not quite worth my time to fully wade through, I may have missed some critical argument supporting his assertions or some validity to the manifold niggling criticisms.
(To give you an idea of the tone/attitude of the review, I make out better than Ron: my illos for the book are considered interesting but incompetent, while Les Evans' are called uninteresting but proficient. That is as nice as the review gets.)
James_Nostack:
Shucks, I've been meaning to write a playtest review of Sorcerer & Sword for some time, though I wanted to postpone it until I had another full run under my belt. IME RPG.Net doesn't respond well to factual corrections or merit-based arguments, but they do appreciate positive enthusiasm.
Ron Edwards:
I haven't read this review, and probably won't. There are so many ways a Sorcerer book can get a poor review, and they kind of wear me out after a while.
My take is that there's no percentage in trying to wrangle with reviewers. I guess if someone felt activist about it, he or she could link to Ken Hite's original review, which in my view pretty much says it all. The only really constructive hope I have in an internet environment is to see a lot of reviews - if most have clear and honest content, including criticisms from specific points of view, then the "didn't get it" or "trying to score points" reviews stand out quite obviously.
Without being all big-headed, I am happy with that book. I think it's the best I could have done, and the extraordinary feedback it's received over the years has been great.
Best, Ron
pete_darby:
Sergio uses the Earthsea stories as a reference for S&S tropes. I may be mistaken, but I think he may have also used Tolkien.
The Earthsea stories are many things, most of them wonderful things, but they aren't under my label of sword & sorcery.
The review is about as useful as any review of an rpg that the reviewer hasn't played, and approached with hostility.*
*Note: anyone want to guess why my posting about RPG's and reviewing RPG's has dropped to nearly zero? I'm living in the middle of nowhere, don't like most online play, and I've only just passed my driving test. I'm not damn well playing any more, so I'm not damn well reviewing, or pontificating, until I get to play some more. I'm certainly not going to start reviewing stuff I bought in some fetishistic need to acquire materials around a genre I've got a shaky grasp on in order to somehow demonstrate my superiority to the authors. It's like reviewing porn when you haven't had sex for years and don't clearly remember it, but damn, those people are doing it weird and wrong.
James_Nostack:
Quote
The review is about as useful as any review of an rpg that the reviewer hasn't played, and approached with hostility.
Yes, precisely. I do not understand why people persist in reviewing games they haven't played, especially when they seem to have severe problems with the text's approach to the material. "I hate this sight unseen and I don't want to learn! But trust me when I tell you about it."
I've refrained from reviewing Sorcerer & Sword precisely because I haven't had to use the mechanical tweaks for the sword fights & the otherworld yet. It bugs me that someone else would be so irresponsible, but I guess that's the internet for you.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page