A new way to review

[theHugeOgre]

I am a huge ogre who has taken to writing reviews of d20 fantasy material when I am not defending my home from would-be heroes. That said, I am contemplating a standardized method for reviews and an overhaul of the review point system. Below is a VERY rough draft for my intended system. I would like to hear opinions and suggestions for this system either here or in private .

Construction: 1-10. Normal score 5. Modified up by having a more durable construction method, better quality paper, full color printing, etc. For pdfs the construction system would be based on whether multiple views were included (such as printing / on screen, or full color vs b&w).

Artwork: 1-10. Normal score 5. Modified up by having extra art, art of exceptional quality, or art that particularly enhances the overall book. Modified down by having inappropriate or really bad art.

Layout: 1-10. Normal score of 5. Reduced for overt chaos in the layout. Increased by high-quality ascetic layout. This measures the overall eye appeal of the book. Does the book look choppy and pieced together, or does it flow and look well? Is the text dense or too large? Are the margins oversized? Is there too much art in the book? This is an issue of aesthetics and highly subjective.

Spelling & Grammar: 1-10. Normal score of 10. Reduced one point for each misspelled word or confusing sentence. Perhaps a sliding scale 1,2,4,8,16 for misspelled words (since these always seem to creep in). Measured in 32 page increments and averaged over the entire book.

Content: 1-20. Normal score of 10. Reduced by redoing material done by another publisher without adding anything substantive to the topic. Increased by releasing new and original material. The bulk of the evaluation, this number reflects the overall affect of the book and the content its offering. This is the creamy portion of the offering.

Game Mechanics: 1-20. Normal score of 10. A number based on the amount of new game mechanics offered. Modified up by utilizing conventional game mechanics and having material mesh well with existing game content. Modified down by having strange or unbalanced game mechanics. This is the crunchy part of the offering.

Portability: 1-10. A number based on how easy it is to pull material from this sourcebook and insert it into another campaign. Normal score of 10. Modified down by being tied heavily into a setting in such a way as to be difficult to use the material on its own.

OGL / d20 license compliance: 1-10. Normal score of 8. Modified down by failure to adhere to the license requirements. Modified up by exceptionally clear designation of OGC.

Anyway, that is my first draft of the system. Please let me know your thoughts.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So where would the use of say maps go? Artwork?

I like the list and in a lot of ways its similiar to what I use internally.

Your layout section doesn't seem to cover the dreaded issue of whitespace either. I've seen some books, both print and pdf, where the layout master seems to think that 1 to 2 inch margins all around is a good thing.

 

[theHugeOgre]

Yes, I think that maps should go under artwork. As for the dreaded whitespace (which I have seen my fair share of), I intended that to fall into the "layout" section under the question "are the margins oversized?" of course, I am even more perturbed by large margins filled with frivolous art... that wastes space, sucks up ink (for pdfs) AND prevents me from writing in the margins.

 

[trancejeremy]

Is portability all that important?

While it's nice, I think whether or not it matters really depends on the aim fo the book.

Take Slaine for instance, which I'm working on a review for right now. Much of it is really tied into the setting, but that's really not a bad thing, since the end result is a d20 game that fits the setting really well.

Also, construction can be somewhat subjective. Unless you have several copies of the book, you don't really have a huge sample size in most cases to judge whether or not there's a binding issue. I mean, a couple of books I have have the spines falling off, but I seem to be in the minority.

(Though some companies just use really really cheap printing.)

 

[d20Dwarf]

I agree with trancejeremy in that non-portability should be considered a good thing when the product is tied to a campaign setting.

For instance, Midnight: Against the Shadow is a FAR more useful product to Midnight players because we included things like covenant items, power nexuses, and heroic paths. I would think that portability would actually be a negative in this case, not a positive, since we would have had to ignore all of the unique aspects of the setting to make it universally applicable.

It's the same problem I have with d20zines weighing Open Content in its final rating, which results in all of Wizards' stuff having lower marks than 3rd party publishers. I don't think it's useful in a review, although it may be noted as a point of interest as long as it doesn't reflect the review score.

 

[The Sigil]

It's the same problem I have with d20zines weighing Open Content in its final rating, which results in all of Wizards' stuff having lower marks than 3rd party publishers. I don't think it's useful in a review, although it may be noted as a point of interest as long as it doesn't reflect the review score.

I happen to disagree on this point. I think it is useful in a review as it helps build an awareness of the ramifications of the Open Game License - i.e., what you legally CAN have on your fansite (use the OGL) and what you may have only so long as the publisher continues to turn a blind eye.

I also think it's useful to incorporate into the review for other publishers for potential re-use value.

Finally, IIRC, the Open Game Content score is not weighted in the final grade, which is used to determine the number of stars in d20zines reviews here.

I think that provided a reviewer has separated his assessment of OGC from other aspects of the review, it is a wholly appropriate thing to include in the review... even if it DOES affect the final score. Different reviewers will have different priorities, and if OGC is one of them, well, it's one of them and there isn't much that can (or should) be done about it. Over time, people begin to see which reviewers' views of products most closely resemble their own, and "trust" a reviewer on that basis.

And I have of late made several purchasing decisions (or rather, decided NOT to purchase stuff) because of OGC designations. I haven't bought a WotC product, for example, in quite some time... I think the last one I bought was probably the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook... or maybe the MM2. I do know I have deliberately chosen not to buy Savage Species, the Fiend Folio, the Arms & Equipment Guide, and so forth due to the OGC designation (none). I won't purchase a bad product just because it has a lot of OGC - but I will refuse to purchase a good product because it DOESN'T have a lot of OGC (or has an obfuscated designation).

Yes, I am only one consumer, but OGC does play a role in my purchasing decisions, so I for one am glad to see it included in reviews.

--The Sigil

 

[Erik Mona]

I can't imagine that most gamers care about OGL compliance. It's important to publishers and perhaps enthusiasts who closely follow the hobby, but it's meaningless to most gamers, who care more about whether monsters and rules are balanced than whether or not another company can use the same critter in an adventure three years from now.

--Erik Mona

 

[The Sigil]

I can't imagine that most gamers care about OGL compliance. It's important to publishers and perhaps enthusiasts who closely follow the hobby, but it's meaningless to most gamers, who care more about whether monsters and rules are balanced than whether or not another company can use the same critter in an adventure three years from now.

If it's an argument you're looking for, you won't find one here. I am under no delusions about what the casual gamer thinks about the OGL (he flat-out doesn't).

However, the other reason I like to see OGL/OGC factored in is that in some small way, it puts out an incentive for WotC to play by the same rules everyone else does. I mean, WotC, by virtue of being able to make the rules - and not having to abide by the rules themselves, DOES play on a slightly unbalanced playing field.

Yes, I am grateful that WotC brought us the OGL.

But I'm not going to get upset at anyone that says, "hey, WotC, please play by the rules you yourselves set, too."

--The Sigil

 

[Grinning Loony]

Can we send you PDFs for review? Yahoo mail doesn't accept attachments greater than 2 MB. Do you have an alternate address?

-Luke

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I also of the 'Rating OGC is a Good Thing' school. Open game content was a big reason why I bought Tome of Horrors rather than certain other monster books. (The section on 'how to use thes monsters in your products' section was a very useful addition to a book already brimming with function. The Honking Big Guides by Mongoose* are also on my list for that reason.

I do however feel that rating maps with art might be a small mistake, a good looking map is not necessarily the same as a functional map. I have encountered enough maps that were good looking but unintellegible to err on the side of usefulness. (It is very nice when they are both though.)

The Auld Grump
*Yes I know that they are called the Ultimate Guides, but HBG is how I think of them. Also refering to something as the ultimate guide volume one strikes me as oxymoronic somehow...