Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Reviews: A Modest Proposal
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Butholios" data-source="post: 201222" data-attributes="member: 4500"><p>It occurred to me while reading Psion’s excellent review of the KoK Player’s Guide that the current product rating system (1-2-3-4-5) does not give me meaningful information about a product I may want to buy. I’ll explain.</p><p></p><p>I am not a Kalamar player, but I run a homebrew and I like to pick up setting books to raid for crunchy bits. Because I’m using them for cool new rules and ideas, their handling of the rules is paramount. I tend to throw out most of the setting fluff, and recycle just a few ideas. My guess is I’m not alone: there are probably lots and lots of DMs just as selective and omnivorous as me out there.</p><p></p><p>I was interested in the Player’s Guide but hadn’t been able to look at it yet, so I’ve been looking to reviews to help me decide if the book is worth my money. I’ve agreed with Psion’s reviews in the past, and jumped to his writeup as soon as I saw it. The rating was “good”, a “4”. Then I got to his critiques of the feats and prestige classes, the questionable spells and what sounds like wishy-washy design. For me, suddenly this product dropped to a “1”—I don’t need mediocre rules design. But for Kalamar players, this is a 4: it’s the book you need if you want to play in this setting.</p><p></p><p>Before a bunch of Kalamar players jump all over me, let me also say that I don’t mean to attack that book in particular, and I don’t think it’s a bad book, it’s just not for me. I don’t think the problem is the Player’s Guide itself; I think the problem is the single-axis rating system for all products.</p><p></p><p>Instead of ranking a product as “Good” or “Poor” in our minds, we’re really placing it on a matrix of three variables: quality, utility, and value. Quality in this sense means: How well did the designers execute on the product’s concept? Utility means: How useful is this product for its intended audience (not just for the reviewer)? Value means: how much bang do you get for your buck, in relation to comparable products?</p><p></p><p>Let’s imagine a product that doesn’t handle rules very well, but it’s a core product to a line and is priced well. It might look like this:</p><p>Quality: 2</p><p>Utility: 5</p><p>Value: 4</p><p></p><p>And then imagine a product that is designed and edited to the highest standard, but its subject matter is either so obscure (a mathematical analysis of divination spells) or so useless (96 pages of alternate uses for the Endurance feat) that it’s just not much use to the average D&D player. Assuming its price point is about average, it might look like so:</p><p>Quality: 5</p><p>Utility: 1</p><p>Value: 3</p><p></p><p>And finally imagine a product that’s dirt cheap—it’s photocopied on the school Xerox—but it’s only marginally useful to D&D players (its intended audience) and the rules and editing are only average. It might look like this:</p><p>Quality: 3</p><p>Utility: 2</p><p>Value: 5</p><p></p><p>I realize this system will never actually get implemented—there’s all those legacy reviews to worry about, and you'd probably need to at least tweak the existing code, plus change the back end to store and search on the additional data—but a guy can dream, can’t he?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Butholios, post: 201222, member: 4500"] It occurred to me while reading Psion’s excellent review of the KoK Player’s Guide that the current product rating system (1-2-3-4-5) does not give me meaningful information about a product I may want to buy. I’ll explain. I am not a Kalamar player, but I run a homebrew and I like to pick up setting books to raid for crunchy bits. Because I’m using them for cool new rules and ideas, their handling of the rules is paramount. I tend to throw out most of the setting fluff, and recycle just a few ideas. My guess is I’m not alone: there are probably lots and lots of DMs just as selective and omnivorous as me out there. I was interested in the Player’s Guide but hadn’t been able to look at it yet, so I’ve been looking to reviews to help me decide if the book is worth my money. I’ve agreed with Psion’s reviews in the past, and jumped to his writeup as soon as I saw it. The rating was “good”, a “4”. Then I got to his critiques of the feats and prestige classes, the questionable spells and what sounds like wishy-washy design. For me, suddenly this product dropped to a “1”—I don’t need mediocre rules design. But for Kalamar players, this is a 4: it’s the book you need if you want to play in this setting. Before a bunch of Kalamar players jump all over me, let me also say that I don’t mean to attack that book in particular, and I don’t think it’s a bad book, it’s just not for me. I don’t think the problem is the Player’s Guide itself; I think the problem is the single-axis rating system for all products. Instead of ranking a product as “Good” or “Poor” in our minds, we’re really placing it on a matrix of three variables: quality, utility, and value. Quality in this sense means: How well did the designers execute on the product’s concept? Utility means: How useful is this product for its intended audience (not just for the reviewer)? Value means: how much bang do you get for your buck, in relation to comparable products? Let’s imagine a product that doesn’t handle rules very well, but it’s a core product to a line and is priced well. It might look like this: Quality: 2 Utility: 5 Value: 4 And then imagine a product that is designed and edited to the highest standard, but its subject matter is either so obscure (a mathematical analysis of divination spells) or so useless (96 pages of alternate uses for the Endurance feat) that it’s just not much use to the average D&D player. Assuming its price point is about average, it might look like so: Quality: 5 Utility: 1 Value: 3 And finally imagine a product that’s dirt cheap—it’s photocopied on the school Xerox—but it’s only marginally useful to D&D players (its intended audience) and the rules and editing are only average. It might look like this: Quality: 3 Utility: 2 Value: 5 I realize this system will never actually get implemented—there’s all those legacy reviews to worry about, and you'd probably need to at least tweak the existing code, plus change the back end to store and search on the additional data—but a guy can dream, can’t he? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Reviews: A Modest Proposal
Top