Since you asked...
I enjoy most of the reviews here and elsewhere on the web, including those by Psion, TB, JoeGKushner, and others. What draws me to their reviews are their opinions. Pretty much I skip the "Chapter 1 contains xx, Chapter 2 contains yy, the paper is glossy and the binding is made from processed horse hooves" sections. Frankly, I don't care if the book is printed on quarter-pounder wrappers from McDonald's, and I don't care too much either whether Chapter 1 is about witches or demons or yodeling knights. I'm a fantasy fan - you had me at d20. I'll buy anything for D&D and pretty much RPG's in general. Have been doing it for 25 years now. I know what the book's about from its title. From a review, I just want to know one thing: Bad or Good.
But you know what? I want to know it in a lot of different ways. I want to know why the rules clunk like my aunt's Cordova after a decade in the Portobello carport. I want to know why the art inspires, how chapter 1 foreshadows chapter 5, and just how this book can fire up my campaign like Kingsford lighter on the players' hair.
I'm about to go way, way off-topic here, so anyone requiring a threadjack-free diet needs to step to the little side-window and get the special lunch today. Well, actually, if people object, I'll come back and edit this post and just start a new thread.
Now, what would attract me even more to a review? Let's play Emeril and kick it up a notch. Let's start treating D&D books like serious works of literature and art. I want to see reviews discussing characterization, chiasmus, and chiaroscuro. I want to see writers praised for adumbration and admonished for pedestrianism. I want a reviewer who plays on Twain's review of Fenimore Cooper. I want a reviewer who tempers his words in consideration of Vonnegut's observation about critics attacking hot fudge sundaes while wearing full suits of armor (particularly appropriate!). I want a reviewer who talks about E. Gary Gygax's Keatsian negative capability.
And more than all this, I want writers and artists who actually do all these things.
Sometimes I think we're missing a great chance here. D&D is a supernova of art. It is something new in the art universe. It's a game, and it's number one purpose is fun. But sometimes, because of the (due and proper) emphasis on fun, I think we underestimate it. It can be serious art and still be fun. After all, isn't the number one purpose of any art supposed to be fun? Something that the artist's fellow humans can enjoy, grow with, learn from, play with, think about, share with friends?
Ah well, it's late at night and I'm ranting. I meant what I said at the start - the work of the reviewers here, at rpg.net, and other places is very enjoyable. Thank you guys for doing that work. I don't want to sound negative at all about that. It's good work. I only wanted to point out what I see are some huge untapped potentials for the game.
Perhaps we need a bunch of people to write Aesthetics of D&D essays. Talk about the ideals of the art form, what the ideal supplement book has, how it appears, how it is used, answer questions like, Is suspense a viable tool? is symbolism? Should rule books strive to create emotions in the reader? If so, what sort? Awe? Wonder? Catharsis?
, but Political Correctness aside they're usually very reliable and on the mark
