Funny Email From a Publisher re. Reviews

BTW, has anyone done a search for the other Simon who reviewed this product so badly?

The closest review I've found for it along these lines was the review at the d20 magazine rack, which concludes with:

"This book has some useful information, but I wouldn’t pay full price unless you really wanted it. Wait for a clearance or shop for it online if you can. "

But which also completely defends the cover, and rates it a 3.6 out of 5 (hardly a bad review).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Actually Jason, Steve and I were just talking about that.

"Simon Collins", "SC", "Steve Creech" -- see a pattern?

And the last sentence in Steve's review are *kinda* like what AP suggested, but *BADLY* butchered.

Steve gave a wonderful review and his words were far from out of place. If AP can't accept that review, they need to quit reading reviews of their products period -- no matter the source.
 

Just so the review isn't taken out of context, and since I suspect I am the person Marcelo believes unjustly did them wrong, here is the text of the entire review I did.

Black Flag: Piracy in the Caribbean
Welcome to The Critic's Corner. This review is for Black Flag: Piracy in the Caribbean by Avalanche Press. This is a 64-page supplement that uses historical material and references to give players a high seas flavor that is designed to be more historically accurate than other d20 seafaring books available. It retails for $16.95.

The first three chapters give a historical accounting of life in 18th century Caribbean waters. From discussions of the economy of gold and silver, to the cultural issues of slavery, to the prevalent attitudes towards religion, you get a fairly reasonable understanding of what really went on during this time (and it certainly wasn’t Errol Flynn style swashbuckling). A basic course in sailing and shipboard life is also covered fairly effectively.

Much ado has been made about Avalanche’s choice of covers for this particular book. While they are consistent with their presentation style (primarily fantasy women with exposed skin), this particular cover does symbolize the historical elements of the period. Fact: High leather boots were worn by some ship captains. Fact: Sailors often wore their clothes until they were nothing more than rags since they did tend to own only a single set of clothes. Fact: Sailors often wore few clothes when sailing on the open seas, preferring to go shirtless and barefoot. Fact: The choice of weapons was indeed musket pistol and rapier. Fact: Although extremely rare, there are records of women becoming pirates, even captains, and were sometimes more bloodthirsty than their male counterparts. When all of this information is considered, the controversial cover should be seen in a new light. However, I do agree with one criticism; I sincerely doubt the female pirate captains of the 18th century were a size 2 with 36-38D’s who wore four-inch heels. Perhaps growing up admiring the fantasy art of Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo, Michael Whelan, and others give me a jaded perspective, but I’ve never really felt that this particular style of art was ever intentionally meant to be offensive to women. Rather, it stems from the fantasy and science fiction stories of the 30’s through the 60’s that ingrained the images of the damsel in distress or the Amazon warrior who could wage war better than any man. The art emphasizes the “fantasy” aspect of the story. As a final word on this subject, I have to wonder if there would be as much criticism and outcry if the model on the cover of Black Flags were male instead.

The last three chapters (4-6) delve into the fantasy gaming aspects and mechanics. All of the information in these chapters has been declared Open Content and present a more realistic slant to seafaring. For starters, the only acceptable standard character class from the Player’s Handbook is the rogue. New classes that fill the voids are: Merchant, Noble, Priest, Sailor, and Soldier (who are treated like fighters). In addition, Class Templates have been developed to add more flavor to your character. These are: Escaped Slave, Carpenter, Cook, and Officer. Four new prestige classes round thing s out with Captain, Cardinal, Navigator, and Physician.

The ever-tricky question of alignment is redefined for this setting. Avalanche’s first suggestion is to drop it all together. Having said that, their second suggestion is to keep it but remember that character class and profession are not tied to alignment. It’s the character’s actions that determine what his alignment may be. Nine new feats, three new skills and a revised equipment list finish out everything needed to create a character for this setting.

The final chapter addresses new rules for the period setting. Rules on grievous body harm, gangrene, firearms, cannons, and ship AC/damage resistance are laid out. While this chapter is by far the weakest in the book, it does have a new method of adding flair and swashbuckling (ala Hollywood pirate movies) to the setting through a system called panache. Every character gains the panache ability at first level and builds this up as they progress in levels. Attempts at performing a wild stunt use panache to determine its success. All in all, rather interesting.

In conclusion, Black Flag: Piracy in the Caribbean is a decent resource if you are running a very low or no magic campaign and want to add a naval flavor. However, you will need an additional sourcebook for naval ship rules since they are pretty much non-existent here. This book has some useful information, but I wouldn’t pay full price unless you really wanted it. Wait for a clearance or shop for it online if you can.

The Critic's Rating: (maximum 5 pts for each category)

Amount of Open Game Content: 3.5
d20 Compliance: 4.0 (Several class abilities should be skills instead)
Originality: 4.5
Playability: 3.0 (Low magic or no magic world)
Value for the dollar: 3.0
Overall Rating: 3.60 (Decent but not outstanding)


As you can see, the "facts" as they are represented in Marcelo's letter of apology do not bear out the facts of the review. Again, assuming I am the one he is referring to...
 

HellHound said:
Hmmm...

As someone who actually LIKES Heavy Metal magazine and the art thereof (which uses the same artists and styles as AP's material), I get tired of the constant bashing of their product covers. I'm 31, married, 2 kids... But this is a "classic" form of art that I enjoy, just not one that was ever before seen in the RPG industry.

But aside from that.


Hey, I wasn't bashing Heavy Metal or Avalanche's choice of cover subject matter. I was comparing the art of Avallanche's covers - the quality of which I think is not-so-hot - unfavorably to those of Heavy Metal, which I generally think are quite well-done.
 

Ghostwind, I read your review (good, but still won't quite get me to grab AP's product). Like I reiterated on previous posts, I think that those women on the cover do NOTHING to enhance the "historical" aspects of such fantasy. There isn't any evidence of them ANYWHERE in the sourcebook itself! It is almost contradictory, if you ask me. (They're not bad, just have no place whatsoever in the product AP is selling.) We are NOT those geeks of the Boris Vallejo era any longer. Besides, his artwork is a lot better.

Had the cover chick been a male pirate instead, it would make a lot more sense. Necessary for something tied to history.

BTW, checked out Nutkinland's wacky AP d20 cover art commentary. Most excellent!
 

Dragongirl said:
Whether the first email was intended for ENWorld or another site changes nothing. They still come off sounding like they are buying reviews and saying that some sites are more cooperative in that. IMO

Yeppers- agreed.


Everything is ok now because they didn't mean ENWorld??


Of course it is. :)
 
Last edited:

Ghostwind said:
Just so the review isn't taken out of context, and since I suspect I am the person Marcelo believes unjustly did them wrong, here is the text of the entire review I did.

Steve, I have to admit I suspected the same. Your review of my book Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves ended with much the same admonition-- don't buy the book unless you find it discounted.

I felt at the time that was a bit over the top, but I just chalked it up as your own particular style of review. Certainly I can concede that some of your readers may appreciate that kind of advice.

Of course I still disagree with your review on its merits. ;)


Wulf
 

Now, please forgive me if I've misinterpreted something, but I always thought the idea of a review is to give an honest opinion. If the reviewer feels the book is not worth the cost, I would expect them to say so.

Don't cry a river, write a better book.
 

AaronLoeb said:

*snip*

Right, but put that quote in this context: as a response to the statement 'DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! GET IT CHEAP!'

A person who actually paid cash money for a book has a very good reason to say, "I paid too darn much for this book." A person who got it for free is being disingenuous (at best) making such a statement.

*snip*

Anyway, I think this was what he was getting at. Just a post for clarification, not meaning to espouse an argument.

Aaron


Aaron,

I have been reading your stuff for a long time, and I appreciate that you are trying to be fair on this matter.

The thing is, I think you are just wrong in this instance.
The two statements seem to indicate that reviewers in general are constrained due to the fact that the item is free.

If true, this is absolutely unacceptable.

Its one thing if the quality of the review is poor (i.e. This sux d00d.) and insults the creator.
Its another if someone asserts that a reviewer is under an obligation to not speak freely because the item was free.


There are several websites I no longer read because they are simply hype machines that don't break things down and expose the glaring flaws.

Thats why I go to usenet and sites like this.
Most official sites no longer have any credibility.
I suspect there is a kind of "scoop blackmail" at work here, an informal but real pressure.

And statements like this serve simply to confirm such morbid suspicions.
 

I respect you all the more for that, Jason, as we discussed his review and I know that it was unsettling for you. However, you sucked in your gut, created LE2, and zipped another free copy his way.

Actually, the Simon review wasn't the unsettling one, the one discussed was the Archer review. Simon's I actually expected, I know he was no fan of LE1 in the original electronic incarnation, and wasn't expecting that much improved of a review from him for the print product.
 

Remove ads

Top