I was quite pleased with my BoVD, as a DM that is. The corrupted creature template is my new friend. The arch devils aren't cool enough to be unique beings but as CR 20-30 monsters quite resonalble. I fully plan on using Jubilex's stats as some sort of Epic ooze and the poor old Demon Prince of Gnolls is much more respectable when there's 4 of them.
OK I'm REALLY curious..how come no Staff reviews of BoVD?
- Thread starter JeffB
- Start date
I'm not sure I understand this policy. It would seem to encourage skating that conflict of interest line which is always a problem in reviewing -- "Well, if ya give me the book, I'll bump ya to the front of the review line. Whaddya say? <Wink> <Wink>" "Dunno, depends on what sort of review we are talking about. People who give products 5/5 get on our 'favored reviewers list' and get first crack at the books we send out. Whaddya think? <Wink> <Wink>"
I'd rather see a policy where reviewers tried to review "major" books first. Obviously, the BoVD was one of those books when it came out (though perhaps it isn't now?)
Last edited:
John Crichton
First Post
Other industry's reviewers don't do that all the time so why should it have to happen here? There are a few major film releases that come out that don't get a sniff from some very reputable movie reviewers. The EN Staff should be no different, especially since I understand they don't get any real money from it. They are somewhat compensated but if someone (take any of the big 3 here for example) is willing to do what they do for what they get back, I say let them review under whatever criteria they wish.Gizzard said:
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Gizzard said:
Well then, I'm looking forward to you sending out the 'major' books to the staff reviewers so that we can review them for you.
If you think that Psion or Simon or I are 'biased' on our reviews... well, you must not be reading 'em too much. In my reviews (all swag product), I've given out the following:
5 Star Rating: 4 products
4 Star Rating: 30 products
3 Star Rating: 16 products
2 Star Rating: 3 product
Now perhaps I'm more stingy with my 5 star ratings than the other two but I doubt we'll see too many people go, "Man, Nyambe got 4 stars? It sucked, it shoud only get 2!" Heck, some products, that everyone seems to love like Everyone Else by Ambient got 4 stars by a lot of people but I just couldn't dig it that much. Same thing with Wrath & Rage. It was okay but.... Fury in the Wasteland and Heroes of High Favor Half Orcs were much better in many aspects.
So to recap, I'm glad you felt the need to come out with your opinion. I try to review products in a timely and fair fashion. Your concerns are valid, but you'd have to start pointing out some very specific things for me to ponder least I think your talking out of your bottom.
JGK
Last edited:
Psion
Adventurer
Gizzard said:
You are making a big (and borderline insulting) assumption. If a company does poorly, I wouldn't be compelled to get any more of their products, now would I?
If you spend money sending me a product, providing a review in a timely manner is the least I can do. I explicitly don't promise good ratings for reviews just because of gratis products. That would be a conflict of interest.
I do occasionally review products I buy for myself if I think the release is significant and the product is not getting enough press or I feel the existing press is misleading. For example, I put up a review of Monster's Handbook because I feel it is a great book that nobody else had review, and I put up a less glowing CoC d20 review because I felt that the hype over it ignored some weaknesses in the product.
In the case of BoVD, I think the hype is fairly accurate. I do find that the book does have some useful and interesting material, but some of it offensive, low-brow, and uninspired. It's a fairly good book, but a little pricey for the size.
Last edited:
GameWyrd
Explorer
It's pretty simple.
- If a publisher is kind enough to give you a book to review then you have to review it.
- If you buy a book yourself then you don't have to review it.
- If you only have time, sanity points, slave labour enough to review one book then you review the one book you have to review.
If I buy three books and a review copy comes in then that review copy gets bumped straight to the top of the list.
It's been busy in recent weeks. The BoVD does well enough as the starting marker for the long pre-crimbo publishing rush. The BoVD isn't a very good book to review either. Personal tastes come into every RPG purchase and the BoVD magnifies that drastically. We have people yawning at it and we have people who think WotC went too far.
- If a publisher is kind enough to give you a book to review then you have to review it.
- If you buy a book yourself then you don't have to review it.
- If you only have time, sanity points, slave labour enough to review one book then you review the one book you have to review.
If I buy three books and a review copy comes in then that review copy gets bumped straight to the top of the list.
It's been busy in recent weeks. The BoVD does well enough as the starting marker for the long pre-crimbo publishing rush. The BoVD isn't a very good book to review either. Personal tastes come into every RPG purchase and the BoVD magnifies that drastically. We have people yawning at it and we have people who think WotC went too far.
Last edited:
Hrm. OK, I thought about explictly saying in my original message "Of course, I dont think any of the ENWorld Reviewers have fallen prey to this problem", but I figured it would be sorta redundant. Perhaps I should have spelled it out. Hopefully neither of you took my general comment to be a personal attack.
On the other hand, I worked in another hobby related industry for many a year and saw how reviews are bought and sold. Seldom is it as flagrant as the dialogue I posted, but more often the currency is free swag, invitations to industry events or access to "exclusive" interviews. The quid-pro-quo is "You review our products favorably and we'll secure your place on the gravy train."
Now, as far as the "free stuff = timely review" policy that you all suggested; heres my problem: from a Marketing perspective, its hard to say what is worse, no review or a bad review. (Like they say, "Theres no such thing as bad publicity".) So is the flip side ("no free stuff = maybe no review") a policy that gives the appearance of conflict of interest? I think it does (though apparently my opinion there is controversial. ;-)
Anyway, I'll state it clearly this time: I dont accuse Psion or JGK of being bought by the publishers in any way, shape or form. I was just surprised to see the "free stuff" policy explicitly stated as if it were a good thing.
Guilt Puppy
First Post
Gizzard said:
It is a good thing. Staff reviewers have a job to do -- review products. If they have to buy all the products themselves, suddenly it becomes an expensive endeavor -- and then we get less reviews, and the value of that service decreases. Further, if they buy and review all products, (or all "major" products, but that's an iffy definition), there's no incentive for publishers to send copies -- so, in exchange for their intelligent, careful, and thorough reviews, the reviewers are left with a hefty cost of supplements and such.
If sending a copy ensures a timely review, however, then there's incentive for the publishers, and the reviewer doesn't get penalized. Honestly, I can't say I'd expect anyone to review a product they bought -- I sure haven't, I don't expect everyone who bought a PHB to write a thorough and detailed review. But someone who was given a free copy, with the express intent that they review it, has a responsibility to give it a thoughtful, timely review, and I do expect it from them.
