Reviews you can trust?

[Charles Dunwoody]

I like writing reviews (heck I was crazy enough to review the PHB 4E). In the 3.5 days a few publishers sent me PDFs to review (on rpg.net) and I felt I was careful and detailed in reviewing those products. I've never given a product less than 3/3 but honestly I've never reviewed anything that sucked mechincally so bad that I couldn't use it. If I had ever reviewed Complete Divine, though, I'd likely give it a 2 for mechanics due to the missing rule references.

I got stuck in reviewing, though, because I felt I should playtest more which just is not feasible in many cases. I'm currently undecided on how useful an RPG review can be without a playtest but I'm veering back to thinking a review can still be useful without a playtest if the reviewer reads it carefully.

I'd be curious to know if there what products out there that people want to see review on. I've considered writing reviews on Fantasy Craft (2nd printing), the One Ring, Ashen Stars, Redacted Night's Black Agents, and Airship Pirates to name a few. If I thought reviews were considered really useful I might be motivated to write a few more.

 

[gamerprinter]

I got stuck in reviewing, though, because I felt I should playtest more which just is not feasible in many cases. I'm currently undecided on how useful an RPG review can be without a playtest but I'm veering back to thinking a review can still be useful without a playtest if the reviewer reads it carefully.

As both a freelancer/publisher and as a GM/player, I never expect a review to be based on play-testing, only based on a read through. While a play-test based review is certainly more valuable than a read-through review, as you state it's mostly infeasible.

If you're reviewing a game supplement, which are usually less than 40 pages, a play-test of a character build on a single encounter with your PCs might make it worthy to play-test before reviewing. That's about all you can do, and still have a timely review shortly after product release.

However, if you're reviewing an adventure, I certainly wouldn't expect a reviewer to play-test an entire adventure, which is going to take a month or two (or more) of playing sessions just to run it. And a review posted 3 months after product release has a limited value to both publishers and potential customers.

I generally don't expect play-tested reviews, and also don't feel a review is diminished because it was only based on a read-through. Besides how often is an adventure run verbatim without tweaks to fit your gaming group. If the adventure seems feasible in a read-though, that's good enough.

 

[enrious]

Indeed, that's why some sites let you denote that your review is based upon a read-through or upon actual play.

Either can be useful.

 

[Morrus]

Indeed, that's why some sites let you denote that your review is based upon a read-through or upon actual play.

Some sites? Is there a site out there that doesn't let you denote that?