Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merova" data-source="post: 1155722" data-attributes="member: 2505">Valid CritiqueHi all!Alan, you give a fine example of subjective bias. I assume that you're referring to Wayne Tonje's review at the Gaming Report, which gives the mod a nearly perfect rating, BTW. He make the valid point that the scenario is designed specifically for the AU setting, limiting its utility beyond this specific game. Yes, this is an obvious point, but one that can bear repeating in a descriptive review; if you like the sound of this plot but don't play AU, you'll need to do extensive reworking because every NPC is tailored to the system. This is a fair point to make when helping consumers wisely spend their money.Compare this review to Bruce Boughner's review at d20 Mag Rack. Bruce's excessive fawning over this product is tedious to me. If I just took his advice, I'd be rushing to my FLGS this instant to buy MEG's best product yet!! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />Needless to say, I found the GR review to be better overall. YMMV, and obviously does. This illustrates he situation; we are both correct in our appraisals. Heck, what would somebody like Matt Colville from RPGnet say about these non-playtest reviews? (This is a rhetorical question.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />However, the point here isn't to &quot;quality control&quot; our information sources. We can decide for ourselves if a review has utility.Thanks for reading.---Merova</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merova, post: 1155722, member: 2505"] [b]Valid Critique[/b] Hi all! Alan, you give a fine example of subjective bias. I assume that you're referring to Wayne Tonje's review at the Gaming Report, which gives the mod a nearly perfect rating, BTW. He make the valid point that the scenario is designed specifically for the [b]AU[/b] setting, limiting its utility beyond this specific game. Yes, this is an obvious point, but one that can bear repeating in a descriptive review; if you like the sound of this plot but don't play [b]AU[/b], you'll need to do extensive reworking because every NPC is tailored to the system. This is a fair point to make when helping consumers wisely spend their money. Compare this review to Bruce Boughner's review at d20 Mag Rack. Bruce's excessive fawning over this product is tedious to me. If I just took his advice, I'd be rushing to my FLGS this instant to buy MEG's best product yet!! :rolleyes: Needless to say, I found the GR review to be better overall. YMMV, and obviously does. This illustrates he situation; we are both correct in our appraisals. Heck, what would somebody like Matt Colville from RPGnet say about these non-playtest reviews? (This is a rhetorical question.) ;) However, the point here isn't to "quality control" our information sources. We can decide for ourselves if a review has utility. Thanks for reading. ---Merova [/QUOTE]

Verification