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

[trancejeremy]

I think there is some truth to this review - after all, there is a good reason most of us don't play the original D&D anymore (or if we ever did). (There really is a big jump from the original D&D to the 1st edition AD&D stuff). However, I think it's far more mean spirited than it needed to be.

Would you trash a C64 for not having very good 3D graphics or support for broadband internet? Or an atari 2600 for not being able to play DVDs? Or a Model T for not having power windows.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Would you trash a C64 for not having very good 3D graphics or support for broadband internet? Or an atari 2600 for not being able to play DVDs? Or a Model T for not having power windows.

This is a good point. But playing Devil's Advocate, I'd use M.U.L.E. as a counter example of a great C64 game that would still have great gameplay even by today's standards even though the graphics would be considered very poor and there is no internet support.

 

[Crothian]

Personally, I think myou have to take into considerion what the game was like and how things have changeds. If I wanted I could start writing reviews and pick all the big publishers, but just trash some of their early works that do not live up to todays standards. But to do that would not be fair, there has to be an understanding on when and why the product came out. And that needs to be explained in the review.

 

[grodog]

Personally, I think myou have to take into considerion what the game was like and how things have changeds. If I wanted I could start writing reviews and pick all the big publishers, but just trash some of their early works that do not live up to todays standards. But to do that would not be fair, there has to be an understanding on when and why the product came out. And that needs to be explained in the review.

OTOH, many early works have not only stood the test of time, but they still beat today's products: check out the top 30 adventures published in Dungeon 112 and then calculate the percentage of them that were written after 1974, 1979, then 1984, then 1990, then 2000....

 

[Turjan]

There might also be a reason why Dave Arneson didn't write much RPG stuff anymore .

The first sentence "People commonly see D&D as cancerous growth..." is definitely uncalled for. I also don't see the attacks against the historical play style as valid points. Nevertheless, there's probably nobody who will dish out a 5/5 review for this product.

 

[Ranes]

Personally, I think you have to take into consideration what the game was like and how things have changed.

(Apologies for the unsolicited edit.)

Right. What the review lacks - and what would have given it some merit - was a sense of perspective or context. One of the respondents on RPGnet made this point very well. As it stands, I think the review is pointless. I'm no OD&D fan. I think the early D&D publications are woefully inadequate, by today's standards. But you have to consider it as a product of its time. Even by those standards, it can be criticised but the review does not apply those standards.

I don't think it's a satirical review, either. If the author meant it as such, he should have exercised some wit. Obviously, he did not.

 

[Crothian]

OTOH, many early works have not only stood the test of time, but they still beat today's products: check out the top 30 adventures published in Dungeon 112 and then calculate the percentage of them that were written after 1974, 1979, then 1984, then 1990, then 2000....

well, if we used todays standard for layout and production value, the need for having a more story based adventure that allows PCs more freedom and not railroad, and the preference for less dungeon based adventures I imagine that list would change drastically. Not that I have seen the list, mind you.

 

[amethal]

I'd normally refuse to publicise or promote any review which started with the words "People commonly see x as y" because its usually at best an unfortunate generalisation and at worst a blatant lie.

[If I was to do it, I'd either say "People commonly see D&D as something they know little or nothing about" or (with the likely audience at RPGnet in mind) "People commonly see D&D as a ground breaking game. Its latest edition has its supporters and detractors but continues to perform very strongly in the RPG market".]

However, the good thing about this review is that it sets out the reviewer's agenda in the very first sentence. There's no danger of falling for subtle propaganda here.

With that in mind, its actually an interesting and informative review. Treat it like any other review, and rely on your audience to be intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

To be fair, maybe you should add an explanatory paragraph (if that's possible) to explain its a review of a 30 year old product so is of limited relevance, and has no relation to the recently published d20 supplement of the same name.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Tell me again why people even GO to rpg.net. Let's talk about a cancer if ever...well, you get my point. :\

 

[Crothian]

Tell me again why people even GO to rpg.net. Let's talk about a cancer if ever...well, you get my point. :\

1) They have really good discusion at times about the latest non d20 books.

2) And to learn how great Exalted is.