Another point of critique: You leave the spaces out of many links. That's annyoing and I don't see any good reason for it.
Archus said:
I actually want to pair the rule summary down to the barest minimum to give an idea what it all means and generate interest in the product. I don't want to hurt EN Publishing or Ryan in any way.
It wasn't clear, which route you are going to take. But I suggest, putting a full-fledged review on the server for those interested in more information after the primer would be a bigger incentive to buy the system.
Just despiration for some ideas on conversion and trying to support the product.
Despiration? Do you mean desperation or inspiration? If the latter, I don't think, you'll find many ideas, which are neither from the core rules nor included in EoMR - but I haven't compared both products in that detail. And for the support - why don't you buy another product from Ryan Nock like Spike Chains and mention, that you bought it because EoMR? IMO, you'll get more for your money in that case.
BTW, what is the purpose of the wiki-server? There are some other topics on it, too.
Ryan:
One word to the updates of EoMR material in Lycaian Arcana: Please make it a seperate PDF and then a big update of EoMR-PDF itself. I don't like to have things cluttered along several books and to remember, that this spell list isn't correct anymore. The big update should address some issues, Arthur Reyes mentioned. I mark the important points with boldcase, even so a lot of my answers disagree with Arthur's opinion, so you have to look a bit closer, if you are the addressed one or Arthur or both of you (although it is a bit unfair to make this post, because Arthur can't defend himself).
Arthur Reyes said:
I really like the ideas in this product. I would have given it a better rating, but found the editing and writing to not be very good. I wrote this intro after I wrote my critique, and I feel like I've been a little harsh. In a way, I am, because I make the same mistakes I perceive the author making, and in a sense, I'm being my own worse critic. Enough apology, whatever you get from my comments, I do recommend the product. It is worth my money. Get this product if you want something other than the traditional D&D spell system.
Simply put, this is a d20 port of the very popular magic system from Ars Magica, but it took a really long time for me to understand the system.
I know, that it isn't true, because it evolved out of a mixture of psionics and domains, but others may have the wrong impression.
Arthur Reyes said:
Was it the lack of bookmarks in an electronic product?
Was it the poor editing?
Yes, and Yes. I won't say much about bookmarks except to say I feel they are very important. It's an electronic format, expect your customers to use it on their computer.
Editing
I judged editing by how quickly I grasped the same game concept that was presented in two game systems. I was already passingly familiar with Ars Magica; I read it once; but suddenly felt there was a huge learning curve to understand EoM.
I think the problems the author faced is that the ideas in the text are very divergent from core d20, and the author wished the ideas to be as accessible as the those found in the Player's Handbook.
There is a huge learning curve and it should be addressed - both of having an appendix with full "Apprentice's Friends" for the quick start and using the explanation detailed below for explaining the actual idea behind the rules.
Arthur Reyes said:
What follows are thick, convoluted sentences, and ideas that are mired by verbose expression. There are organization errors which also make the text difficult to grasp.
Ars Magica got to the point when it came to describing spells, EoM doesn't. EoM takes too long explaining concepts that are unchanged from core d20 products, and never succinctly explains its own mechanic.
That is partly false - I believe, that a book, which replaces an entire subsystem, should include everything, which is in the corresponding core rule book. Partly because of convenience, partly because of having a true replacement. For example, I don't want to use the PH, because in Arcana Unearthed has been something forgotten to be included.
Arthur Reyes said:
I'm going to restate the entire system in a few sentences, because I like it so much.
Spells are like sentences: Verb + Noun.
EoM has 11 magical verbs, such as Evoke, Charm, Compel.
EoM has 3 magical nouns, Alignment, Creature, Element. The nouns are subdivided into specific alignment types (Good), creatures (Trolls), and elements (Ice).
Mages learn spell lists. A spell list is 1 verb + 1 noun, like Evoke Fire, or Charm Dragon. Mages cast spells by manipulating their spell lists to produce a magical effect.
A simple spell is one spell list + enhancements.
A complex spell is a two or more spell lists + enhancements.
To cast a spell, select your spell list, then enhancements, then spend magic points to determines how potent the spell is.
This only a starting point - for a new review in German I've based my explanation on these lines and the outcome is better.
Arthur Reyes said:
A summary like this, at the beginning of Chapter 2, would have gone a long way to concisely delivering information to the reader. It would have also reduced redundancy throughout the begining of the chapter. Furthermore, it would have followed a logical progression of delivering ideas. Simple summary, Simple Explanation, Detailed Information. As already stated, too much text was wasted on terminology that was unchanged from core d20. The author was quick to gloss over concepts like Magic Points, because the concept wound be, "familiar to anyone who has played computer RPGs.", but I find it interesting that the author of a traditional pen & paper RPG supplement would assume familiarity of MP from CRPGs, but not core gaming concepts from a game system he is writing about.
I've looked over the section, but I don't see, what is missing regarding the MP explanation. The other point has been addressed already.
Arthur Reyes said:
<Now that I think about it, "spell list" is a redundant terminology for spell, and it doesn't need to be in the text at all to explain the system. If you replaced "spell list", with spell, you could easily shave off 1/4 the explanatory text. The author is subconsciously aware of this, because chapter 3 is titled Spells, when in actuality it is devoted to Spell Lists.>
Once the basics of spellcasting was written, you could have explained signature spells:
There is an third type of spell called a signature spell. Signature spells can be cast more quickly than simple or complex spells. A signature spell is a specific formula. The formula's spell lists, enhancements, and magic points are fixed, and cannot be changed.
Comes to the above mentioned explanations of the basic system.
Arthur Reyes said:
Take this sentence for example.
"Each spell list has multiple ways in which it can be cast, and you only choose the way you want to use it when you actually cast the spell; you don’t have to prepare spells in advance."
The above sentence is a summary of what a spell is, not a spell list. It comes three pages after the introduction to Chapter 2, when you should be presenting the actual mechanics of spell casting, yet it incorrectly appears in the introduction of the subtopic, Spell list.
Really? A spell list isn't a spell like the 3.0
Symbol, which allows to choose, what kind of symbol is used. It is a set of possibilities, which is "templated" through the effect type. A full step more abstract than a normal spell.
Arthur Reyes said:
Why is table 2.1 on page 18, when you are trying to explain the basics of spellcasting.
Why not? Except of three paragraphs everything covered on this table is explained before the table is shown.
Arthur Reyes said:
Page 21 has an orphaned paragraph in the second column under the illustration.
Rules for regaining Magic Points are repeated, verbatim, in two places in the same chapter.
That's true. On page 17 and page 21. Both places are understandable, but one has to go - and I prefer in this case page 17, because it is on page 21 more suitable.
