Pen and Paper review PFRPG
- Thread starter mach1.9pants
- Start date
Aus_Snow
First Post
Huh. I ain't the world's greatest Realms fan, but. . . I consider that high praise, fwiw.
Looking forward to seeing the great hefty beastie. More to the point, to having it taking pride of place next to the (even heftier!) core book, and other greats of the d20 family.
I am feeling optimistic, OK?
jmucchiello
Hero
This is really hurting my brain. What is an RPG spoiler for a core rulebook? I could understand a spoiler for an adventure or the DM section of a campaign setting. But for a core rulebook? How the heck can it be a spoiler?
mach1.9pants
Hero
There is also a (IMO terrible fan boy rant of a..) review here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdBv_9Eiq-o]YouTube - Game Geeks #112 Pathfinder Roleplaying Game[/ame] by 'Game Geeks' FWIW. If you can call it a review ++rolleyes++, does show off the nice art though
Aus_Snow
First Post
Uh, actually, the guy who basically is Game Geeks is well known to be 'like that' (i.e., pretty much positive, vast majority of the time) with every RPG he reviews. There might have been a grand total of *one* exception to this, IIRC. Maybe even two. But if you check out his other reviews (of anything from White Wolf games to indie games to yeah, Pathfinder) it's all on the plus side.
I believe it is, or was, even a stated policy of the guy's. Nick, I think his name is? Anyway, there you go.
edit --- oops, no, it's Kurt. Sorry, dude.
Last edited:
mach1.9pants
Hero
Ah, OK. Still not to my taste though!
I would say he shouldn't call his, ahem, 'works' reviews. Even if it like the bile he poured out about 4E (I went back and looked for a laugh) it is not a review.
'Gushes?'
'Over-enthusiastic opinons?'
'Personal outpourings?'
I dunno, but not reviews
I would say he shouldn't call his, ahem, 'works' reviews. Even if it like the bile he poured out about 4E (I went back and looked for a laugh) it is not a review.
'Gushes?'
'Over-enthusiastic opinons?'
'Personal outpourings?'
I dunno, but not reviews
Aus_Snow
First Post
Fair enough. I've watched a few of his reviews, and got something out of a few of those. There are some RPG reviewers who do similarly (almost always) positive-skewed reviews, generally in text form, and at least one or two of them are fairly high-profile. Oh well, either way.
I don't know him personally, so it's no skin off my nose. There will be plenty of other reviews after (and maybe during?) GenCon, I'm sure. Not all of them like this one, I'd wager.
I don't know him personally, so it's no skin off my nose. There will be plenty of other reviews after (and maybe during?) GenCon, I'm sure. Not all of them like this one, I'd wager.
kitsune9
Adventurer
Spoilers would be tell me about all the changes in the book, what mechanics got changed from Beta to final, and so on.
Happy Gaming!
I think it's pretty clear the Game Geeks guy is a "Hey, here's my first impressions about this thing" type of presenter. I didn't see anything in any of his RPG reviews that indicated he actually played them before discussing them. He skims them, shows off some of the art, and then gives you an opinion that's so specific it was clearly formed before he cracked the spine.
So kind of like getting stopped in the game store by some dude who wants to talk to you about this cool new thing he just picked up, only over YouTube, so you can at least just close the window if you're not interested.
So kind of like getting stopped in the game store by some dude who wants to talk to you about this cool new thing he just picked up, only over YouTube, so you can at least just close the window if you're not interested.
Fifth Element
Legend
That would be a spoiler if you considered finding out the changes to be the point of the book. I think most people consider the point of the book to be to use it to game.
They're not plot twists, they're game mechanics. Is your enjoyment of them affected by already knowing about them?
Similar Threads
