Review Writing Questions

[Psion]

See, that is where it becomes problematic and even more subjective. My needs for an underwater book are likely to be different than yours and even more different than Crothian's. Everyone's campaign is vastly different.

This has so much truth it hurts.

That's why I think it's important to convey not just what you thought of a book, but why you felt that way. Saying that Seas of Blood is the best seafaring book is not too meaningful unless I say why I feel that way. If you find value in ship templates, a quick mass combat system, overhead deckplans, then you may share my view. But if aquatic races, underwater settings, and 3d deckplans are more your need, then Seafarer's Handbook may fill your needs better.

 

[Mark CMG]

I've mentioned this elsewhere on reviews but it warrants repeating it here, IMO.

Also, it is important to bring your own area of expertise to the table and to the fore if you have one that is appropriate, i.e. if you breed horses and the review is about a sourcebook on horses. Furthermore, don't try to snow your readers if there is an area in which you don't have expertise by googling up a couple of websites, glancing over the contents, and trying to employ a handful of buzzwords to substitute for expertise. Just be honest, and if the best reason why you can give for liking or not liking something is because it reminds you of something you saw once in a movie, that's just fine.

Write from your gut and be true to your personal perspective.

 

[JoeGKushner]

In your specific example about a PrC being overpowered compared to a core PrC, I'd mention which one I think it overpowers and why. For example, I believe that I do this with the Gray Hand Enforcer from the Waterdeep book and one of the Eldritch Knight variants in Eberron that gets everything the Eldritch Knight does, but a d8 hit dice and other abilities.

 

[DaveMage]

See, that is where it becomes problematic and even more subjective. My needs for an underwater book are likely to be different than yours and even more different than Crothian's. Everyone's campaign is vastly different. So where I may appreciate Into the Blue more for its creature diversity and use for coastal areas, you may have a greater need for a book with underwater combat rules such as Seafarer's Handbook. If I recommend the book I like over what your needs are, then you are likely to make a judgment that I don't know what I am talking about.

Absolutely (except your last sentence. ). Which is why if you are doing a review on, say, Into the Blue, you could say something like, "The book has excellent creature diversity and use of coastal areas which I want to insert in my game at the earliest opportunity. [List examples]" However, later on, when you're writing about underwater combat, you could say, "For those interested in underwater combat, I prefered the mechanics in FFG's Seafarer's Handbook because of [x, y, and/or z].)"

And that would be it. Those that want to know more about the Seafarer's Handbook could then check out your review of that product.

Again, I want to emphasize that I think that the comparing should be a part of a review, not the whole of it.

Also, I really want to know if a book inspired the reviewer to actually use the product in their games rather than have it be a great book that simply collects dust on their shelf.

 

[DaveMage]

This has so much truth it hurts.

That's why I think it's important to convey not just what you thought of a book, but why you felt that way. Saying that Seas of Blood is the best seafaring book is not too meaningful unless I say why I feel that way. If you find value in ship templates, a quick mass combat system, overhead deckplans, then you may share my view. But if aquatic races, underwater settings, and 3d deckplans are more your need, then Seafarer's Handbook may fill your needs better.

Exactly. So, I think if you explain *why* you feel the way you do (and don't use emotional, disparaging phrases like, "the ship templates sucked in this book and are much better in this other book,") then I think (hope?) the reader will view your comments as constructive rather than as a slight to the one you didn't choose as your preferred ruleset.

 

[Man-thing]

Doesn't this speak to the dichotomy of reviews:

1) Publisher - I would like a review done to highlight what is in my product (objective) and as a promotion.

2) Gamer - I would like a review that tells me how this can be used in my campaign, what I liked, what I didn't, what could have been done better or is done better in another book.

I think the ultimate goal of the review is different depending on what side of the gaming counter you sit.

 

[DaveMage]

Doesn't this speak to the dichotomy of reviews:

1) Publisher - I would like a review done to highlight what is in my product (objective) and as a promotion.

2) Gamer - I would like a review that tells me how this can be used in my campaign, what I liked, what I didn't, what could have been done better or is done better in another book.

I think the ultimate goal of the review is different depending on what side of the gaming counter you sit.

Could be.

If I'm a publisher sending out free review copies, then I probably don't want to send a free copy to someone that ends up promoting another product. Of course, it does work both ways - the reviewer could praise the product at the expense of others. *shrug*

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Er, yeah, uh, sorry about yammering on in your thread, Goddess.

Like I said, I don't mind. The conversation is actually enlightening.

 

[DaveMage]

I've mentioned this elsewhere on reviews but it warrants repeating it here, IMO.

Write from your gut and be true to your personal perspective.

That's great advice for fiction writing too. And, of course, write what you know.

 

[Vigilance]

But there can also be a happy medium. A reviewer in this case could say that they use things from each book. And if that reviewer says that they like one better, that doesn't mean that other reviewers won't like yours better. I have found that some reviewers are completely opposite of my tastes - and that's fine - I don't follow their recommendations. But for the reviewers who seem to have similar tastes to mine, I want to know what they recommend.

Also, I should clarify and say that while I want this in a review, this is not the *only* thing I want in a review - just a part (although I seem to have spent a ridiculous amount of time harping on this issue).

Well, you have three reviewers, and a writer telling you the same thing. In my experience almost any lengthy mention of another product in a review by way of comparison makes the book being reviewed look really bad.

I think about as far as you should go would be to say "I also reviewed a product with similar goals and the review can be found here [link]".

A review is one place each product should stand alone and be judged on its own merits.

Chuck