Anyone care to read my 4 page C&C review?

[der_kluge]

Yeah, you're right. I think TLG wanted to distance themselves from (or at the very least avoid suggesting implicit compatibility with) older versions just to play it super safe from a legal standpoint. I believe they've underplayed EGG's involvement so as to not detract from EGG's Legendary Adventures which IIRC, is his preferred RPG system.

That's really the only reason I can come up with for why the Trolls are so low key about C&C's near-seamless meshing w/ EVERY version of the game we all love. I think that's a tremendous selling point that they just don't crow about enough.

Maybe you should write a review. You do seem to have a lot of knowledge of TLG and this product line.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Maybe you should write a review. You do seem to have a lot of knowledge of TLG and this product line.

Agreed. If you had the time, that would be worth the read, IMO.

 

[scadgrad]

Maybe you should write a review. You do seem to have a lot of knowledge of TLG and this product line.

Nah, I'm afraid it would probably come off as me being too much of a fanboy of the game, eventhough I think the PHB is far from perfect. I'd also feel a bit compromised from a standpoint of the NDA and all of that.

At some point I may jump in and do some other reviews, particularly of products that are either overblown or simply overlooked.

 

[Mythmere1]

I posted my comment to the review itself. Basically, I think it makes good points, but as a review I think it misses some of the things a review needs. I don't object to what's said - I have a player with opinions almost identical to der Kluge's and der Kluge does an excellent job of characterizing the way that rules-heavy players will dislike C&C.

I think reviews that clearly state when the reviewer dislikes (or likes) a game are good reviews - that's not bias. I think der Kluge could have expressed his dislike far more fervently than he did and still not have a "biased" review - but not to mention the positive points leads to an incomplete review - and an incomplete review that focuses on the negative is a biased review. So, I think the review does end up being biased - not because of what der Kluge said, but because of what he didn't bring up.

For example, I think a C&C review is incomplete if it doesn't mention lower prep time or at least mention that the game's simplicity can be viewed as a positive by some people. Lower prep time probably isn't a big deal to der Kluge as a player, but it's an almost universal comment from people who GM the game. I think a review has to mention both sides, even if the conclusion is absolutely to one side or the other. Otherwise it fails as a review.

For what it is, though, it's good. Like Scadgrad says, it reflects considerable effort and thought. I think it's an excellent summary of one side of the C&C debate. Not a good review because I think it misses some vital elements of a "review," but an excellent essay.

EDIT: on the point about how it bridges editions, it would be a violation of the OGL for TLG to make a statement about compatibility with the D&D trademark.

 

[Grazzt]

Yep, forgot to mention that. That probably is one of C&C's greatest strengths is that materials from prior editions can be adapted quickly, which in turn gives new life to older products.

Yep- and one of the one offs I ran was Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh. Pretty much ran it as is without even changing/touching/converting anything at all. Worked fine.

 

[Vigilance]

I posted my comment to the review itself. Basically, I think it makes good points, but as a review I think it misses some of the things a review needs. I don't object to what's said - I have a player with opinions almost identical to der Kluge's and der Kluge does an excellent job of characterizing the way that rules-heavy players will dislike C&C.

I think reviews that clearly state when the reviewer dislikes (or likes) a game are good reviews - that's not bias. I think der Kluge could have expressed his dislike far more fervently than he did and still not have a "biased" review - but not to mention the positive points leads to an incomplete review - and an incomplete review that focuses on the negative is a biased review. So, I think the review does end up being biased - not because of what der Kluge said, but because of what he didn't bring up.

For example, I think a C&C review is incomplete if it doesn't mention lower prep time or at least mention that the game's simplicity can be viewed as a positive by some people. Lower prep time probably isn't a big deal to der Kluge as a player, but it's an almost universal comment from people who GM the game. I think a review has to mention both sides, even if the conclusion is absolutely to one side or the other. Otherwise it fails as a review.

For what it is, though, it's good. Like Scadgrad says, it reflects considerable effort and thought. I think it's an excellent summary of one side of the C&C debate. Not a good review because I think it misses some vital elements of a "review," but an excellent essay.

EDIT: on the point about how it bridges editions, it would be a violation of the OGL for TLG to make a statement about compatibility with the D&D trademark.

Here's a concept. He didn't care for the game.

A reviewer is not obligated to bring up good qualities of a book if they aren't important to him, just to satisfy the game's proponents that he's not being "biased".

All reviews are a study in bias. That's what an editorial is. Its your bias. Your opinion. The only obligation a reviewer has is to be fair, and it looks like he was.

Chuck

 

[Mythmere1]

Here's a concept. He didn't care for the game.

A reviewer is not obligated to bring up good qualities of a book if they aren't important to him, just to satisfy the game's proponents that he's not being "biased".

All reviews are a study in bias. That's what an editorial is. Its your bias. Your opinion. The only obligation a reviewer has is to be fair, and it looks like he was.

Chuck

Jeez, "Here's a concept..." :\
[/sarcasm on]Yeah, I missed that...[/sarcasm off]

 

[Mythmere1]

Here's a concept. He didn't care for the game.

A reviewer is not obligated to bring up good qualities of a book if they aren't important to him, just to satisfy the game's proponents that he's not being "biased".

All reviews are a study in bias. That's what an editorial is. Its your bias. Your opinion. The only obligation a reviewer has is to be fair, and it looks like he was.

Chuck

Let me address the content of this post - I've addressed the trolling attitude already. A reviewer has no responsibility at all to the proponents of the game. He does have a responsibility to the potential buyer of the game - to address the merits and flaws of a product, and draw a conclusion. Der Kluge addressed flaws very well and fairly - as I said, I have a player with similar opinions. As such, it's an excellent essay, or editorial, or what have you. It needs some discussion of positive aspects in order to be a review - not positive aspects in the sense of the reviewer's conclusion, but positive aspects in the sense of what a potential buyer with different attitudes about gaming might see as positive aspects.

Here's a quote from the "Reviewer Guidelines" for ENworld: "Try to find something good in the product. Even the worst product I have seen had something of value in it."

This indicates what ENworld sees as the purpose of a review - to present a full picture of the product, then give your opinion. My point is that there's not really a full picture of the product in this review. It's an excellent editorial, though.

A lot of this SHOULD be in a review of C&C - it's not for everyone. But to be done right, such a review should also mention what the potential positives are.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Wow, I've never seen Chuck so snarky. Bad day, Chuck??

 

[Kanegrundar]

Potential positives are subjective. Sure, less set up time is a plus, but it's not so much of a plus it if didn't fit what the reviewer was looking for. (Just as an example.) Some products that may be loved by some could very well be totally hated by others, and the review will reflect that.

Kane