Book of the Righteous Dethroned!

[Mark]

Thanks Charles! I'm glad you allowed me to ask some tough questions and responded so candidly. Like Psion, I am not one who enjoys posts that cast aspersions and imply insulting motivations (though I am at a loss as to what sort of "coercion" he is mentioning). Much better, IMO, to simply ask the questions and get the answers, thus putting those demons to rest.

Naturally, I felt a bit safer than some others might have felt in the asking, in that we've had plenty of friendly email exchanges in the past. Hopefully all of this will settle at least some of the issues that seem to have cropped up as far as the questioning of your character is concerned.

Personally, while I did not have all of the details in the answers to the questions I asked, I had no doubts about your character and was simply tired of all the pussy-footing and bear-baiting that was taking place.

Nevertheless, good to see you around and to know you are well!

 

[CRGreathouse]

For starters "unbiased" reviews don't throw around personally loaded terms like "despised" & "hated".

These terms both appear once:

"I despised their take on alignment, I hated their strongly good-slanted pantheon, I found their gods to be as flat as Greyhawk gods or FR gods"

You see, this is a major issue for me. The product would have been much more useable for me -- and, in my opinion, a better product overall -- was it not for their take on alignment. To put it another way, I would have rated the product better if not for this issue alone; flagging it with strong words is key for people who don't see this as a flaw to put less subjective weight in my review.

The good-slanted pantheon is just the 'tip of the iceberg' here; the interpretation is everywhere. For example, a LG god has three distinct worshipping factions: one NG, one LG, and one LN. Each is the perfect stereotype of their alignment (which restricts creativity, IMO and IMX). There's no overlap between factions. All NG clerics must act one way.

This is how it works for all of the factions of all of the gods. It's also how the prestige classes, et al, work.

My primary problem with your review lays in the fact that most of your criticism stems from what you wanted the product to be rather than what it actually is. It is a solid generic example of a fantasy pantheon. That wasn't what you wanted and you blasted the book for it.

I didn't find it to be particularly solid (creativity and prestige class balance come to mind), nor particularly generic (alignment is the major offender here, in factions, cults, general slant, and so forth).

I would have enjoyed a generic pantheon greatly, presuming a reasonable degree of creativity. I did not find the BotR to be an exemplar of this.

You cite balance issues with the Holy Warrior using the Eagles of Urian as your example. Are all or even most of the various Holy Warrior templates similarly front loaded or did you choose the worst offender to bolster your argument?

I found many to be unbalanced/frontloaded, and I chose what I felt was the worst example to point out in my review. Weak classes never break the game, but powerful ones can.

I found your argument that a lack of evil gods makes for an unplayable game world to be a stretch...at best. Fantasy literature is rife with similar cosmologies. A pantheon of (mostly) good gods paired with evil in the form of demons, devils & fallen celestial beings is no less playable than more common "god for every niche" D&Disms.

It is certainly possible to play in such a world, but it is much less generic and (IMX) generally requires more work on the DM's part.

As mentioned above, this is just a part of the greater problem for me, not the crux of my issues with the book.

Outside of the possibily valid critique on the mechanics of the Holy Warrior your review is essentially a laundry list of what the book doesn't do rather than what it does.

That is not the basis of a sound review.

What, in particular, would you like to see in my review? I'd be willing to add more to it, if I thought I left something important out.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Thanks Charles! I'm glad you allowed me to ask some tough questions and responded so candidly. Like Psion, I am not one who enjoys posts that cast aspersions and imply insulting motivations (though I am at a loss as to what sort of "coercion" he is mentioning). Much better, IMO, to simply ask the questions and get the answers, thus putting those demons to rest.

Naturally, I felt a bit safer than some others might have felt in the asking, in that we've had plenty of friendly email exchanges in the past. Hopefully all of this will settle at least some of the issues that seem to have cropped up as far as the questioning of your character is concerned.

Personally, while I did not have all of the details in the answers to the questions I asked, I had no doubts about your character and was simply tired of all the pussy-footing and bear-baiting that was taking place.

I have always prefered to take issues directly, rather than 'beating around the bush', so to say. I appreciate your questions.

Nevertheless, good to see you around and to know you are well!

I am well, at least as well as one could be expected to be.

 

[Jakar]

I disagree I do not think his review is tainted and of less use to others. I think his review is worthless because of obviously how anal he runs his campaign. To not be able to find a single spell, domain, magic item, anything in a book of 320 pages shows that the problem lies with him and his campaign and not with the product.

I really find this a little rough. I have a heap of books that I have just used nothing out of. Does this make me anal?

Do you have to use something out of all the books you own in your own campaign?

I had better put in some thing from that potato cook-book I own then

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I really find this a little rough. I have a heap of books that I have just used nothing out of. Does this make me anal?

Do you have to use something out of all the books you own in your own campaign?

I had better put in some thing from that potato cook-book I own then

No it does not make you anal. It does make it completely unfair though if you give them reviews where you blast the product because it does not fit into your own personal campaign.

 

[HellHound]

What I'm getting from this thread:

The user base wants reviewers to judge a book on how well it does what it is supposed to do, not how it appeals to the reviewer in question, but only for certain books.

No such stink gets raised when a review gets posted about a book that isn't so dear to the hearts of many.

Charles didn't like BOTR, and didn't find it useful for his campaign. Live with it.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Good for you, CRGreathouse. I was not particularly impressed with Book of the Righteous either, and I doubt any of it will see the light of day in my campaign (I am not so anal retentive to believe one should try to work in material from a book one does not care for to satisfy the arbitrary sense of "fairness" of a choleric bystander).

 

[Crothian]

No it does not make you anal. It does make it completely unfair though if you give them reviews where you blast the product because it does not fit into your own personal campaign.

But the thing is he's not that wrong. Many people have found that it isn't that useful to their campaigns. This is not the first time we have had people post that, just the first review that said that. A game book that is useful in a game is a fine criteria to judge a product.

 

[Crothian]

What I'm getting from this thread:

The user base wants reviewers to judge a book on how well it does what it is supposed to do, not how it appeals to the reviewer in question, but only for certain books.

I think people are argueing for a the sake of argueing. Few have actually opened the book and tried to site useful examples. It's also funny that people usually say there are too many good revuiews at EN World we don't have enough negative ones; yet when a negative one is posted this happens. :\

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

For what it's worth:

I know 4 people who own(ed) BotR. 2 bought it, enjoyed reading it, and never used it - which does not reflect on the quality of the book, as they are both entirely collectors of game material, rather than users. 1 bought it, was bored silly by it, and traded it for other books, including Armies of the Abyss, and the last enthusiastically embraced it, and uses it often.

Personally, I recognize the quality of the material, and also recognize that it does not fulfill my needs and would not see use, so I've never purchased it.


From there, I'd like to say that I don't see a problem with CR's review. Personally, I like reviews best when they are a mix of objective and subjective.

For mechanics, I like objective analysis spiced with subjective commentary. I want people to analyze mechanics objectively, with concessions to the book's goals. If a feat is objectively unbalanced, this should be noted, but the reviewer must take care to put the rules within the context of the work itself - some books are written to reflect specific styles of play, and an effective review must acknowledge this. Once objective analysis of mechanics is complete, I feel a good review must touch upon the reviewer's subjective opinion of the mechanics - I want to know if the feats, spells and PrCs are "balanced but boring", or "potentially troublesome, but highly flavorful". These things are important to me, both as a gamer reading reviews of other material, and as a writer analyzing the response to my own work.

For fluff, I want the opposite, meaning subjective analysis spiced with objective commentary. Here, I want to know the reviewer's personal response to the material - did it inspire him, or bore him? Was it, in his opinion, well written? At the same time, the reviewer must be careful to also include concessions to "objective" analysis of the fluff's usefulness to gamers as a whole - if he despises fairy tale like material, I want to know that, but I also want to know if he feels the material will appeal to those who do like fairy tales.

A review that covers all these bases is one I recognize as a quality review. Even if the reviewer's conclusions are not ones I agree with, I respect them as well reasoned, well thought out, and correct for them.

As a writer, I'd rather see one well written, negative review of my material than 10 gushingly positive reviews which are empty of solid analysis - the latter are pleasant, and do tell me that people are enjoying my books (and that's both important, and gratifying), but the former gives me real information I can use to improve my skills for the next go round.

Patrick Y.