Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arcane Runes Press" data-source="post: 1730234" data-attributes="member: 402">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.</blockquote>

Verification