Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ced1106" data-source="post: 404369" data-attributes="member: 7551">I thought this was absurd too -- until I started reviewing d20 adventures. Actually, I think rpg **systems** are more likely to be reviewed for quality over quantity. But with adventure supplements, I know my audience wants to know how many game sessions worth of stuff they're getting. That's where the "pennies per page" comes in -- though it's hardly the only basis of the review.My thoughts are that since indie publishers have different printers and volumes, they're going to have widely different prices. The consumer doesn't care about that. But he does care about how much play value he's getting, and **part** of play value (for adventures, at least) certainly is quantity.I'd actually go so far as to say computer games **should** have an estimation of how many hours of gameplay they have. My guess is that there's so many hours of gameplay in most computer adventure games, that the average game player doesn't care. This isn't the case for adventures.My guess is that most products we're familiar with being reviewed (ie. mainstream stuff) have their standards worked out. But the d20 field is still young, and discrepancies in what should be a standardized product (I mean, fantasy gaming material **has** been around 30-some years) stand out. Right now, I'm reviewing one of the best dungeon adventures I read, and, I swear, ten years from now I'll need a magnifying glass to see the maps. Most reviewers are fans, and readers are smart enough not to trust the subjective analysis of the reviewer, and experienced enough to draw their conclusions from objective information. (Contrast this to stock investors who can't understand beyond the stock analyst's recommendation.) Furthermore, much of the fun of roleplaying is **not** directly from the material (sorry) but from the GM who uses it, and the players who play it. Movies and video games are seen as entertainment. Roleplaying game materials are seen as "inspiration", "source material", and "time savers". Thus, roleplaying games are less films and videogames than a movie script, or other unfinished product. And GMs, as directors, want to know if the product is right for **them**. No two GMs have the same style of play (some like inspirational source material, I like details), so one reviewer's subjective opinion doesn't matter much to another reader. But GMs who read reviews have played enough to know what content works for them, which, I believe, is why objective material works fine.Mind you, when I read a review, I try to mention what target the product aims at. For example, a NPC sourcebook I'll be reviewing could either have a list of generic NPCs you could drop into an adventure, or colorful PCs that serve as inspirational material.It's weird. It used to be that you **played** RPGs. Now, there are so many esoteric products that you **read** RPGs. And the audience is split between the coffee table readers, and the GMs who don't want the players to even know what sourcebooks they're using. Not to mention the denial / guilt of buying a $40 product that you're not even going to "use" (ie. play).One thought: Besides giving away free product, ask the reviewer for a link to a previously written review, provide a request of what you would like to see in a review, and/or send a link to a review you thought was well-written. Then include **more** free product. Nothing helps more than an unexpected surprise!Cedric.aka. Washu! ^O^</blockquote>

Verification