Bullgrit
Adventurer
That's odd. I saw the link to my review right after I submitted it. That's why I was flabbergasted that at least two people failed to see it, right there, half an inch below the quoted text.
Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit
Reviewing the older versions of D&D
- Thread starter Deuce Traveler
- Start date
Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Reviews of old adventures can be very interesting... provided that they are playtest reviews. I don't really have much use for reviews from someone who hasn't used the module in actual play.
Bullgrit
Adventurer
Regarding B1, I've played a PC in it and run it as a DM, several times.
But I disagree with the need to playtest an adventure before reviewing it. For one, the play experience will differ depending on the players (and DM, of course). The skill and experience level of the DM and Players can seriously skew the play experience. It can differ a great deal from the way it was written, and that's not fair to the adventure and author.
For instance, take G1, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief -- the way it is written, it is fairly obvious that the author expected the PCs to use stealth through the complex while most of the giants were in the party. But many PC groups made a frontal assault on the giants gathered in the one room. If the group TPKed in that assault, it isn't the module's or the author's fault, and it shouldn't be reviewed based on that experience. "This module is bad because the third encounter of the dungeon is a sure total party kill."
Plus the play experience of a published adventure will vary depending on the PCs' abilities and powers and items. It is not fair to the module and author to base a review on how a particular group played the adventure.
Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit
But I disagree with the need to playtest an adventure before reviewing it. For one, the play experience will differ depending on the players (and DM, of course). The skill and experience level of the DM and Players can seriously skew the play experience. It can differ a great deal from the way it was written, and that's not fair to the adventure and author.
For instance, take G1, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief -- the way it is written, it is fairly obvious that the author expected the PCs to use stealth through the complex while most of the giants were in the party. But many PC groups made a frontal assault on the giants gathered in the one room. If the group TPKed in that assault, it isn't the module's or the author's fault, and it shouldn't be reviewed based on that experience. "This module is bad because the third encounter of the dungeon is a sure total party kill."
Plus the play experience of a published adventure will vary depending on the PCs' abilities and powers and items. It is not fair to the module and author to base a review on how a particular group played the adventure.
Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
You missed my point. I'm not saying that a single instance of a given module being played will yield all relevant information. I'm stating that at least one instance is however necessary to get a good feel for a product such as an adventure. RPG are meant to be played not to be read.
Bullgrit - the problem is that the text of the link (Total Bullgrit) makes it look more like a sig line type of thing than the link to the review. I actually clicked on it, though, and when I did I got to your home page, not directly to the module as the link works now. Don't know why; it certainly works now.
Deuce Traveler
Adventurer
Nikosandros said:
I believe that's a fair criticism. To be honest, I haven't played or DMed the adventure but merely sought an additional excuse to go back and start collecting old classic modules to read. Oh, and my part of the review is up.
Bullgrit
Adventurer
Well, Total Bullgrit (linked as a sig at the bottom of all my posts) is my personal Web site---it has some D&D stuff there, including this review. But it is not the link I was giving or pointing to, and it still takes you to the same place it always has (not the review).
I don't understand where all this confusion is coming from. I mean, I've gone back through this thread and clicked on each of the links I've given, and I get right to exactly where my post says the link goes. Sorry for causing so much confusion.
Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit
I posted a review as well.
http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?&do=product&productid=202075
http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?&do=product&productid=202075
Bullgrit
Adventurer
I got your point, and I still disagree over the need to play test an adventure to review it.
Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit
Similar Threads
