RPG.net Review of (the original) Blackmoor: Fair, Unfair, or Satire?

[Zenodotus of Ephesus]

RPG.net Review of (the original) Blackmoor

People commonly see D&D as a cancerous growth of more or less incompatible rules, badly written and centered around the hack'n'slash idea of killing people and stealing their stuff. I always thought . . .

Style: 1 (Unintelligible)
Substance: 1 (I Wasted My Money)

Is this meant to be a fair review? Unfair? A satirical piece (and, if so, should it be placed among the reviews)?

 

[EricNoah]

I've heard this sentiment expressed by some folks, so it's nothing new. I believe these are the same people who regularly use hyperbolic language ("that concept makes me violently ill" or "this rule enrages me") on Internet message boards to get their point across.

 

[Zenodotus of Ephesus]

It's the first time I felt I might need to make an editorial decision as the Newshound in charge of listing the RPG.net Reviews (along with EN World Store items, EN World Articles, and EN World Staff and Fan Reviews) on the EN World front page.

If it is a bit of satire, I'm not sure if it is fair to the new Blackmoor product (and its serious reviews) if this is listed as a serious review where it might be mistaken for legitimate.

If this is a purposefully unfair review of the original product (meant to deflate the Jeremy Reaban (Style: 4 / Substance: 5) review of the new 2005 product), I wonder if I am just playing into someone's hands by spreading the link as if it were a legitimate review.

I guess I am looking for some feedback from EN Worlders, while trying to be as upfront about the circumstances and nature of the review, before I add it to the front page for tomorrow's news items about RPG.net Reviews. If I post this link as if it is a regular review, am I being duped or possibly doing someone's dirty work?

Thanks and I hope that clarifies what I am seeking.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Contact the author.

 

[Zenodotus of Ephesus]

Contact the author.

Would that be of any help, do you think? If it is satire and if the RPG.net authorities have already sanctioned it as satire (by posting it as if it were a regular review), I doubt I would get a straight response from the author or from those in charge of RPG.net. And I'm not sure I would blame them. Would you let the cat out of the bag on your own humorous bit (especially this early in the game)? I think maybe they've given me, by just posting the review the way they have, as much as I will be able to get from them and in the only context I can expect.

 

[EricNoah]

I wouldn't post it as "news" at all -- it's a review for an ancient product. I would only worry about current products if I had to make the choice, whether the review was positive or not.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I thought it was a fair review for an older product. The 1/1 meant that if the product were to be released today, that's what he would give it.

But the fact that it was released 30 years ago, when Dave would have had to type the thing himself (make a mistake on a typewriter? Do it all over again!) should have at least been acknowledged in the author's tone. Which it didn't seem to be.

edit: to clairify: I think the rating was fair, but the tone of the review was not.

 

[grodog]

I think the review's fairly spot-on: Blackmoor was the most-poorly written OD&D supplement (if you're looking for something worse, check out Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign from Judges Guild, which didn't benefit from TSR authors rewriting and editing of the content), and the rules were less than inspiring. Its highlights were Steve Marsh's aquatic monsters (including the then-new saughin) and that's about it (although TotF was fun to demolish, whether it had a plot with NPC motivations or not).

diaglo, what are your thoughts on Blackmoor?

 

[Psion]

I guess I am looking for some feedback from EN Worlders, while trying to be as upfront about the circumstances and nature of the review, before I add it to the front page for tomorrow's news items about RPG.net Reviews.

Well, if it was a review on ENWorld, I would have deleted it as so much froth.

Edit: Okay, maybe not. Grodog's comments made me actually go look at it. The starting tone is pretty bitter, but it sounds like he is trying to look at it with a critical eye vice just frothing. (Shrug.)

 

[trancejeremy]

If this is a purposefully unfair review of the original product (meant to deflate the Jeremy Reaban (Style: 4 / Substance: 5) review of the new 2005 product), I wonder if I am just playing into someone's hands by spreading the link as if it were a legitimate review.

I don't think so, because my review was not of the new Blackmoor, but the Blackmoor adventure "The Redwood Scar"