Sammael99 said:
Ain't bothered about post count, just nice to know that the reviews are read, they do take time after all 
I was speaking for myself, I wanted to reach the 1100 post bar. The one you were replying to was the 1099 ones !
Sammael99 said:
Interestingly enough, that's the thing I've had to get beyond. It's very marginal at the end of the day, and the setting is rather serious, just they aim for a humorous tone which sometime works and often doesn't.
With me it doesn't. In fact, I'm especially against comic-relief races, like gungans in Star Wars or Tinker Minoi in Dragonlance, because these things are there just to parasite any attempt at building a credible world. The occasional buffoon, why not, a single NPC is easy to keep in check. But a whole race, it's more difficult to revise or remove; and they are prisoners of their archetype.
I've constated this with goblins and kobolds. They are assumed to be stupid, even if they are as intelligent as humans (mind you, my natural misanthropy would make me consider them stupid for this reason, but that's not the point) with their 10-11 Int score.
Even when explaining that to players, they still assume they'll have only primitive, crude craftwork; primitive, crude language and speach pattern; and simplistic, counter-productive behavior.
Let say I would DM Dragonlance, even if I turn kenders into lightfoot halflings, tinkers into pragmatic engineers that build useful device with reasonnably medievalish technology, and gully dwarves into survivalist scavengers; no matter my efforts, players with a previous knowledge of the world would assume that kenders will pick his pockets by reflexes, even without noticing it themselves; any creation by tinkers will explode in a fiery blast of stinking steam as soon as they'll get within 10 ft. of the device, and gully dwarves that can form a correct 10-word sentence will be considered an anomaly, or lazyness from the DM that don't want to roleplay the character.
Sammael99 said:
Woohoo ! So someone's read them !
I must admit, I'm always curious -- especially of possible comments made by English-speakers about these books. Although I don't use them myself, and don't plan to*; I wish them success and would like to see it well received once translated in English by Eden.
* I prefer to keep my D&D collection in English, because I dislike too much several of the translations I've seen when glancing through the VF (so I prefer to make mine on the fly), the choice is broader, and it makes cross-references straightforward. When "mobility" is translated to "souplesse du serpent", how are you going to use a sourcebook written in French, and using names like "gracilité de l'oppossum albinos", with rulebooks written in English that call the same thing "Lightning Reflexes" ?
