How to critique a module/book
Brad Thompson
any good?", so I have a question for those who answer them-
What do you look for in a critique of a product?
Here's some food for thought:
Do you want to know about the physical quality of the product?
Is artwork important?
Will poor editing give you fits?
Do you care about the plot, or are you more concerned with stats (in an
adventure)?
Is consistency with existing rules paramount (in a splatbook)?
What about the 'munchkin factor'?
If you think a product is 'tweak friendly', do you want to know that in
advance?
What really ticks you off when you get it home and pull off the shrink-wrap?
-Brad
Beau Yarbrough
"Brad Thompson" <bth...@petrodatasource.com> wrote:
> Do you want to know about the physical quality of the product?
Only if it's remarkable; WWGS' small flavor text books (the Book of
Nod, the Fragile Path) and their Limited Edition rulebooks are
exceptionally nice. Unless something's that good, or so bad it'll fall
apart with normal use, I don't care.
> Is artwork important?
A little.
> Will poor editing give you fits?
Only if it interferes with the ability to use the product as intended.
Otherwise, note that they need copy editors and move on.
> Do you care about the plot, or are you more concerned with stats (in
an
> adventure)?
Both. The plot is the engine to make the game go, but if the stats are
wildly out of synch with the alleged target audience, it's worth
mentioning.
> Is consistency with existing rules paramount (in a splatbook)?
Nope.
> What about the 'munchkin factor'?
So long as that's not all the book is about, it's rarely worth
mentioning. I just got the "Diablo II" supplement and while it could
certainly be abused, it's not something that has little value
otherwise. (Of course, if there's a potential Bladesinger lurking
inside the covers, it might be worth a mention.)
> If you think a product is 'tweak friendly', do you want to know that
in
> advance?
Yep. I'd buy a lot more material if I knew how easy it was to port into
my own campaign.
> What really ticks you off when you get it home and pull off the
shrink-wrap?
When a product seems excessively lightweight and underwritten for the
money. If I'm buying "Kobolds Ate My Baby," I'm cool with it not being
a phonebook of information. But if I'm buying a $20 supplement, I
better feel it's money well-spent.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
J. Hawke
> There are a lot of questions going around about "is
> <insert product here> any good?", so I have a question for
> those who answer them-
>
> What do you look for in a critique of a product?
Note: My answers will generally reflect AD&D-specific products as I don't
buy much else in the roleplaying market right now.
> Here's some food for thought:
>
> Do you want to know about the physical quality of the product?
Absolutely.
I want to know how the book is bound, how the pages are cut, etc. Nothing
annoys me more than paying good money for a book that immediately falls
apart. I paid $40 for the original hardback version of Warhammer 40K when it
first came out.
The binding job on that book was done so poorly that the entire binding
completely disintegrated in less than a week (I didn't even get to finish
reading it). Considering that I'm fanatically carefull with my books and
that I have been known to go into rabid seizures over a kool-aid spill, this
was unexcusable. It actually caused me to never buy another GW book again
and I still haven't to this day. I was in junior high school running a paper
route for my only spare cash at the time and that useless book cost me two
weeks wages. I was not pleased when the store wouldn't let me (or any of my
six friends who bought one and had the same problems) return it as
defective.
> Is artwork important?
I have an unusual take on artwork. Artwork says two things to me:
1. I'm losing valuable informational space for pictures. Is the publisher
trying to make up for lack of content or provide me with more?
2. If the publisher isn't trying to make up for lack of content, is the
artist good enough to justify the amount of space he's taking up?
These say a lot about a game company to me. If I buy a book that has a small
number of extremely well-done illustrations in it, it says to me, "We cared
enough about our product to include some great art by a terrific artist just
to give you a little extra to be happy about".
But too much artwork (or poor artwork in any quantity) has the opposite
effect on me. I don't buy roleplaying books to look at the pictures. A few
good ones is a plus, but I'm paying for the informational content itself.
There have been a few times when I actually have bought a product based on
the artwork alone, but it was always artwork by a very famous person and in
a reasonably balanced amount -- so I knew that the product must be good if
the company was willing to pay for the best. They don't throw away money on
good artists if they don't think they can make it back on the product
itself. Likewise, good artists won't take commissions on garbage. It isn't
good for their careers.
> Will poor editing give you fits?
Absolutely. If no one bothered to spellcheck and grammer check a book before
it went out, I'm going to be unhappy. A few mistakes are acceptable. Lots
are not. If someone makes mistakes in a usenet post, it's no big deal. I
didn't have to read it and it isn't costing me anything to do so. But I
don't pay good money for roleplaying products so that I can springboard a
second career as a proofreader! ;)
> Do you care about the plot, or are you more concerned
> with stats (in an adventure)?
Plot. A lame adventure with bad art won't get a second glance from me
regardless of what's in it stat-wise. I already own the Monster Manual. I am
perfectly capable of looking up the monsters in that book or the rules in
the other two books. That's why I bought them.
Use the extra space in the module for new informational content that I do
not already own.
> Is consistency with existing rules paramount (in a splatbook)?
I don't have much of a preference here but, if the rule is new and didn't
come out of a core rule book, the module needs to make plain note of the
fact that it uses optional rules on the cover so that I am well aware of
this beforehand. I don't want to have to completely redesign and rewrite
something that I paid $10 - $20 for because the cover doesn't say that it
requires BookX that will cost me additional money to obtain or that has been
out of print longer than the module has been available
(*cough*returntothetombofhorrors*cough*).
> What about the 'munchkin factor'?
I think this term really depends on the current campaign and the power level
involved there as well as who's DMing and who's playing.
Some things that I would consider blatantly "munchkin" might fit in
perfectly well with someone else's campaign. As a situational example, I
just played a dwarf character in a friends campaign that I consider to be
the most "munchkin" character that I have ever seen. However, the lethality
factor of this campaign was so high that the character in question died a
violent death shortly after his creation. He wasn't a "munchkin" by any
sense of the word in that context. He was a "wimp" in that world, but he
could have conquered mine.
That one's pretty subjective and situational. "Munckin" depends on who you
ask.
> If you think a product is 'tweak friendly', do you want to know
> that in advance?
"If you build it, they will tweak..." ;)
Seriously, I've found most of the things I bought "tweak friendly". It's
just a bad habit of mine. If you mean "do you want to know if this is a
'choose your own adventure'", it might be nice, but I can go either way on
this one.
> What really ticks you off when you get it home and pull off the
> shrink-wrap?
When someone spills his kool-aid all over it. ;)
Seriously, though, nothing ticks me off more than the current AD&D trend of
not publishing character level on the outside of the module. I want to know
what level range of characters the product was written for *before* I take
it home. This should be obviously and plainly marked. I'm actually going to
stop buying things that don't say this because I'm tired of buying something
that I can't use for months or years on end without re-writing the whole
thing.
Hope that answers your questions. :)
Ian R Malcomson
>Do you want to know about the physical quality of the product?
Considering some of the best RPG supplements ever released were tatty
little typed affairs, with no more binding quality than a couple of
staples, it is more the quality of the content I go for than its
physical quality.
>Is artwork important?
Fairly. Artwork is a good way to break text chunks up into sizeable
pieces (I often remember page references by the artwork that appears on
or near the information I'm looking for), and it also helps to define
the flavour of the subject the product covers. Too much artwork,
however, does tend to make me believe I've paid less for information,
more for a Tate Gallery catalogue.
>Will poor editing give you fits?
Definitely. Poor editing can often render a piece of text difficult to
follow, especially if that is coupled with poor choice in font and page
layout decisions (which are, to a certain extent, still within the realm
of the editor). Take Highlander Design's 3rd Edition Chivalry & Sorcery
rulebook. While I like the system, the poor editing (the ad the book
carries upon its final page proclaims: "If your local store doesn't
carry our products: TELL 'EM TOO"), and the truly awful choices made in
font usage and layout style make the work very difficult to use as a
reference. If you have to read a passage more than once to understand
it, there is something wrong.
>Do you care about the plot, or are you more concerned with stats (in an
>adventure)?
The plot. An adventure is *nothing* without a plot. Stats are
obviously useful for reference purposes during play, but they are only
of minor concern.
>Is consistency with existing rules paramount (in a splatbook)?
What the Hell is a splatbook?
Any volume produced for a particular game should be consistent with the
existing rules for that game.
>What about the 'munchkin factor'?
Not something I care about, even if I knew how to define it.
>If you think a product is 'tweak friendly', do you want to know that in
>advance?
I have yet to come across a product that isn't "tweak friendly". Any
supplement produced for any game system can be tweaked to meet the
requirements of any other game system, and the same applies for
supplements describing different parts of different worlds. So, I
automatically assume a product is "tweak friendly", whether it says it
is or not.
>What really ticks you off when you get it home and pull off the shrink-wrap?
After reading the advertising lick on the back of the book describing an
epic plotline, a fantastic story, and "the ultimate adventuring
experience", only to find out that it's just another dungeon crawl.
I suppose that's one of my biggest beefs. If a company is going to
advertise a product as being X, it ought to be X, not "X minus the
glossy soundbites we put into the advertising".
--
Ian R Malcomson
"So you thought you'd like to go to the show?
To feel the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow..." - 20 years young
Domicus/Ian R Malcomson Website: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
AWL
> > shrink-wrap?
of
> not publishing character level on the outside of the module. I want to
know
> what level range of characters the product was written for *before* I take
> it home. This should be obviously and plainly marked. I'm actually going
to
> stop buying things that don't say this because I'm tired of buying
something
> that I can't use for months or years on end without re-writing the whole
> thing.
Another minorly irksome thing for me that seems to be a new trend with AD&D
products is not publishing what setting a module or suppliment is for on the
box. I plonked down $30 for Return to the Tomb of Horrors, a supliment
carrying only the core rules logo, and with no mention of a
campaign-specific setting on the box. I take it home and find out it's set
in Greyhawk. Granted, you can re-tool anything, as was mentioned in these
posts, and I plan to anyway, but it would be nice if they would put on the
box which damn setting a supliment is made for.
--
-Andrew
"If they are black magicians, how will you harry them? If they are not,
there is no evil in them. Croms Devils! Let men worship what Gods they
will."
-"Conan the Conquerer"
Andrew Tellez
Brad Thompson wrote:
>
> Do you want to know about the physical quality of the product?
Yes. For boxes and such, what is included, how useful is it, and how
durable is it.
> Is artwork important?
Maps and other pieces of functional artwork are important. Their
accuracy and usefulness is critical.
> Will poor editing give you fits?
Yes. The RPG industry seems to only have four editors, and they get
passed around between companies on a rotating schedule. Sloppy editing
has ruined many products.
For all works, a good table of contents is mandatory. For larger ones,
an accurate and detailed index is mandatory. See White Wolf for poor
tables of contents, and White Wolf and FASA for poor indexing.
> Do you care about the plot, or are you more concerned with stats (in an
> adventure)?
For sourcebooks, I want a detailed description of the current
situation. For adventures, a good plot is appreciated, while a bad plot
is worse than none.
Stats should be complete enough that I don't need to look them up while
using the product.
> Is consistency with existing rules paramount (in a splatbook)?
Yes. This doesn't mean that new rules can't be added, or options for
old rules provided, but the product shouldn't introduce an entirely new
rules concept. The applicability of these rules to the rest of the
ruleset should be addressed. The author should be familiar with similar
rules before writing his own. For example, how many types of berzerker
are there in 2e?
> What about the 'munchkin factor'?
Can you clarify what you mean?
> If you think a product is 'tweak friendly', do you want to know that in
> advance?
Doesn't matter, since I've only run 4 adventures as written.
> What really ticks you off when you get it home and pull off the shrink-wrap?
First, the shrink wrap. What are they hiding? Why can't I browse the
book before purchase?
Second, finding out that the product has serious logical, factual, or
rules errors. Spelljammer provides numerous examples of rabid
inconsistency in rules, in-game facts, and internal logic.
Third, unexplained stuff for no good reason. Again, Spelljammer
provides some good examples of including bizzare stuff for no good
reason. I'm not sure what the author gets out of this.
Fourth, keeping secrets from the game master. If it's going to be
explained in a later product, fine, just say so. If not, then either
explain it or leave it out.
Fifth, over-reliance on prominent NPCs. This sort of masturbatory
ego-stroking is unnecessary and annoying. Unless there's a good reason
for the prominent NPC to be there, he should be left out.
Henry Link
"Ian R Malcomson" <i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > >Is
consistency with existing rules paramount (in a splatbook)?
>
the term was coined and popularized with White Wolf's Clanbook series.
Examples of splatbooks include Clanbook:Ventrue, Clanbook: Nosferatu,
etc. For D&D the Complete ---'s Handbook is an example. Any book that
focuses on a particular aspect of a game, and glorifies it with extra
rules.
--
"C'mon, August!"
-Henry
Brad Thompson
What about online products? How do these questions apply to those? What
other criteria are important?
The 'Munchkin Factor' would be rules which allow the game to become
unbalanced or are easily exploited. The Bladesinger kit, the 1e Chavelier,
& the Complete Psionicist's Handbook are all examples of things I would
consider to have a high 'Munchking Factor'.
In this context, it would be a set of rules that you as a DM would have to
heavily modify before using, or else throw out entirely, before you could
use the module in your campaing.
-Brad
J. Hawke
> Here are a couple of clarifications:
>
> What about online products? How do these questions apply to those?
As someone who spends about 12 hours a day at the computer for work-related
purposes, I prefer not to buy online or electronic gaming products. When I
do, I want something like the Dragon Archive that is, essentially, still in
a game friendly format. I don't want my gaming supplies to be too modern or
to rely on too many modern conveniences as it kills some of the atmosphere
for me. When playing D&D, I prefer to hand a map to my players that looks
used, discolored and hand drawn, not something that I obviously freshly
whipped up and printed on my computer on a nice, crisp glaringly white piece
of paper. Electronic products generally do not thrill me.
> The 'Munchkin Factor' would be rules which allow the game to become
> unbalanced or are easily exploited. The Bladesinger kit, the 1e
Chavelier,
> & the Complete Psionicist's Handbook are all examples of things I would
> consider to have a high 'Munchking Factor'.
In the hands of a good DM or the proper campaign, nothing is really too far
out of balance. Even a bladesinger has some very glaring weaknesses that
most monsters should be intelligent enough to use against PCs -- wether or
not they know one of them is a Bladesinger.
By the same token, you can easily design a campaign that makes anything
other than the core "no options" rules and the four basic classes look out
of balance. I still maintain that "munchkin" is too generic a term to apply
to even a small portion of the gaming market. You will never find two people
who always agree on what constitutes a "munchkin" at various times.
> In this context, it would be a set of rules that you as a DM would have to
> heavily modify before using, or else throw out entirely, before you could
> use the module in your campaing.
I think it would be nice if everything was clearly labed "for use with
CampaignWorldX" and "for use with a party of levels X - Y" so that you knew
beforehand if you would need to make major adjustments. But, again, I think
everyone does tweaking here and there. I've never met a DM who ran
everything in a module straight from the text.
Danbuter
Mainly only if it is either really good or really poor.
>Is artwork important?
Yes. I like a product to have a decent amount of quality artwork. (I like
fantasy art, so it's a personal preference). But, like someone else said, if
the artwork is just used as filler, then I can get annoyed. I prefer artwork
that relates directly to the text of the page it is on, as well.
>Will poor editing give you fits?
Yes. If they can't spellcheck I tend to get annoyed. It's a bit of a pet peeve.
>Do you care about the plot, or are you more concerned with stats (in an
>adventure)?
The plot is the most important part to me.
>Is consistency with existing rules paramount (in a splatbook)?
Yes. I hate when they try to do something that obviously contradicts the rules.
>What about the 'munchkin factor'?
Unfortunately, it's unavoidable. Way too many authors think "More magic makes a
better adventure".
>If you think a product is 'tweak friendly', do you want to know that in
>advance?
Anything can be tweaked, if you want to use it.
>What really ticks you off when you get it home and pull off the shrink-wrap?
>
When there is not enough product to justify the often very high price.
DAn.....
my AD&D stuff: http://members.aol.com/~danbuter/Page1.html
...a Birthright pbem, new classes, home rules, and monsters
R. Serena Wakefield
<bth...@petrodatasource.com> wrote:
>Here are a couple of clarifications:
>What about online products? How do these questions apply to those? What
>other criteria are important?
I *WILL NOT* read a .PDF file on my computer. I simply don't have
enough memory, and besides I don't play in the computer room or even
always at home. I want something I can take with me wherever I go.
Therefore, anything I buy, I print out. Therefore, I'd like to know
how print friendly the document is ... does it have tons of dark,
irrelevant graphics in it (like the Diablo Fast-Play game) that will
turn the page into a soggy mess? Is there white printing on a light
background that will be hard to read?
In an online product, it's important to keep graphics simple, and
avoid throwing in gratuitious page borders and huge images that will
cause the pages to load slowly (re: High Noon from Pinnacle, it's a
great idea but I wish they'd been a little sparser on the pics).
Because there is no need to "catch the eye" in an online product --
the customer will never even get to see it until they've already
bought it -- there's no need to make it eye-catching. Simple and
readable is much better.
Finally there's the question of storage. I have no way of dealing
with a 30-meg file ... I can't transfer it onto a disk and I'm not
deleting something I paid for, so I end up having to .ZIP it on
spanned disks. This is very inconvenient. I'd rather have each
chapter as a separate .PDF, so I can simply buy a box of disks and
drop one chapter on each disk. This also makes it load faster.
>The 'Munchkin Factor' would be rules which allow the game to become
>unbalanced or are easily exploited. The Bladesinger kit, the 1e Chavelier,
>& the Complete Psionicist's Handbook are all examples of things I would
>consider to have a high 'Munchking Factor'.
>In this context, it would be a set of rules that you as a DM would have to
>heavily modify before using, or else throw out entirely, before you could
>use the module in your campaing.
I heavily modify everything I use in my campaign. ^_^
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
A man born to drown will drown on a desert.
jbs
wrote:
>> > What really ticks you off when you get it home and pull off the
>> > shrink-wrap?
>> Seriously, though, nothing ticks me off more than the current AD&D trend
>of
>> not publishing character level on the outside of the module. I want to
>know
>> what level range of characters the product was written for *before* I take
>> it home. This should be obviously and plainly marked. I'm actually going
>to
>> stop buying things that don't say this because I'm tired of buying
>something
>> that I can't use for months or years on end without re-writing the whole
>> thing.
>
>Another minorly irksome thing for me that seems to be a new trend with AD&D
>products is not publishing what setting a module or suppliment is for on the
>box. I plonked down $30 for Return to the Tomb of Horrors, a supliment
>carrying only the core rules logo, and with no mention of a
>campaign-specific setting on the box. I take it home and find out it's set
>in Greyhawk. Granted, you can re-tool anything, as was mentioned in these
>posts, and I plan to anyway, but it would be nice if they would put on the
>box which damn setting a supliment is made for.
It never occured to you that the original ToH was set in Greyhawk?
jbs
AWL
> It never occured to you that the original ToH was set in Greyhawk?4
I'd never played/run the Tomb of Horrors. One of the selling points is that
it includes a full reproduction of the first module.