Castle Zagyg related review at rpg.net

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:56 pm

Here's a link to a Castle Zagyg East Mark Gazeteer review at rpg.net
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13868.phtml

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:15 am

Fie on his style rating. I was going for functional. Pfffthhhppptt!
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:05 am

He probably didn't know that. Not a bad rating overall, however. BTW, is he right about an August instead of July release for Zagyg Upper Works?

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:59 am

tylermo wrote:
He probably didn't know that. Not a bad rating overall, however. BTW, is he right about an August instead of July release for Zagyg Upper Works?

Who knows? July-August somewhere.

Some folks just seem to think that 'style' is all about putting a bunch of useless textures in a given product as watermark and background. Waste of time IMHO. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:11 am

True. Watermarks and backgrounds are not as important as the content. As long as there's some good artwork from that Bradley fellow, and the rest of the gang.

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:17 pm

An OK review I guess, if just a bit odd at times when he brings 4E into his discussion/review.
Hopefully people will see the good aspects of the review and come away interested in buying the Gaz or CZ II box.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:39 pm

Reading it I notice the reviewer, just after indicating his 4e preference, starts to discuss the "problems" of AD&D "humanoid" monsters - and veers into the discusion of how disappointed he is in not having more tactical options.

I'm afraid that particular POV will likely always be contrarion to what EGG intended.

Seriously Trolls, don't worry about the WoW market that will never go for straight-forward, old-school FRPG material. Stick with your intuition and the best spirit of Gary and plenty will respond positively!

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:39 pm

I wasn't overly impressed with the review.

He talks about how Gazetteer isn't much like the old WoG setting (by not having any events of significance), and that it's a little lackluster in that fact.

Then he bemoans the fact that there are too many similarities between it and Gygax's former works (with a comparison to the WoG setting and Keep on the Borderlands), even to the point of him being snarky:

Quote:
Even the title of the adventuring area is similar - "The Mouths of Madness" compared to "The Caves of Chaos"? Yes, I think that's a match!

Yeah, and the 4e references. This is a review of The East Mark Gazetteer. It should be evaluated on its own merits, not compared to Gygax's previous works and certainly not 4th-freaking-Edition.

Sorry, got a little worked up.
I just think the review was a little amateurish in some spots.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:54 pm

I agree. Any review should be done with the book in it's own system and on it's own merit. A small section for use in other systems is O.K. but the whole review should not be for how to use X product for a different system than intended.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

The Highway Man · Post by **The Highway Man** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:07 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
Sorry, got a little worked up.
I just think the review was a little amateurish in some spots.

No worries. I think you're right.

The review is dishonest, in that way. Plus, the whole thing about "significant events" and such basically ignores the setting for what it tries to convey: a sense of authenticity, albeit fantasist in its particulars.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:53 pm

Okay, good. I didn't want to come off too strongly.

I just think it was done in poor taste. How does the fact that someone plays 4E of any significance in a review of The East Mark Gazetteer?

Yeah, and the comparisons to Gary's previous works. A classic case of "damned if you fo, damned if you don't," if you ask me. If it's too close to his established works, then it's just the same stuff Gary put out 30 years ago. If it's too different, then Gary isn't following the same formula that made his early work so memorable and great.

Geesh, judge the Gazetteer on its own merits for goodness sake.

Alright, I better end my post before my blood pressure rises again.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:56 am

Just an example of the base line attitude of that website and why I have never regretted getting banned from there.

In fact, it is very tame for that website and many of its posters. The reviews did tend to be much fairer than many of the posters there.

IS it a fair review? Nope. As others have already pointed out "fair" would be to review it for what it is, rather than what they wanted it to be.

So they would obviously have been happier if this was being done for 4E, and even happier if it wasn't done to Gary's tastes.

So what? This isn't about what he wanted. This is about what Gary's vision was/is about this setting material. Gary sure isn't upset that this guy was unhappy that Gary did this his own way.

If he wasn't interested in seeing Gary's vision of his own creation then he shouldn't have bought it.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:00 am

Treebore wrote:
Just an example of the base line attitude of that website and why I have never regretted getting banned from there.

In fact, it is very tame for that website and many of its posters. The reviews did tend to be much fairer than many of the posters there.

IS it a fair review? Nope. As others have already pointed out "fair" would be to review it for what it is, rather than what they wanted it to be.

So they would obviously have been happier if this was being done for 4E, and even happier if it wasn't done to Gary's tastes.

So what? This isn't about what he wanted. This is about what Gary's vision was/is about this setting material. Gary sure isn't upset that this guy was unhappy that Gary did this his own way.

If he wasn't interested in seeing Gary's vision of his own creation then he shouldn't have bought it.

Indeed, sir, indeed.

Keolander · Post by **Keolander** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:19 am

Yes, I too noticed that the reviewer seemed to be rather stuck on how the product was both NOT 4E and at the same time too similar to Keep on the Borderlands and the World of Greyhawk Boxset. Sadly there are people that will read his review and think its the gospel.
_________________
Lord Lamorek Steelguard, Baron of Calx Mons Montis - The Castles & Crusades Society

Fat Dragon Games · Post by **Fat Dragon Games** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:26 am

Treebore wrote:
If he wasn't interested in seeing Gary's vision of his own creation then he shouldn't have bought it.

Precisely.
_________________
Thomas A. Tullis

Fat Dragon Games
www.fatdragongames.com

Castles & Crusades...more D&D than D&D.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:32 am

Keolander wrote:
Yes, I too noticed that the reviewer seemed to be rather stuck on how the product was both NOT 4E and at the same time too similar to Keep on the Borderlands and the World of Greyhawk Boxset. Sadly there are people that will read his review and think its the gospel.

I'll give that there are similarities to Keep on the borderlands but that isn't a weakness. Hell All modules are similar in some form since there are only so many ways to can an adventure. Similarities are a plus as well since the CZ stuff was spawned from the campaign that created Greyhawk.

What gets me is that the reviewer wanted a 4e product. Does he not know C&C is it's own game and the material is produced for it? Or does he just think gaming begins and ends with D&D?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:11 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
What gets me is that the reviewer wanted a 4e product. Does he not know C&C is it's own game and the material is produced for it? Or does he just think gaming begins and ends with D&D?

Oh, he knows all about who TLG is, what we do, and Gary's involvement.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

The Highway Man · Post by **The Highway Man** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:17 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
What gets me is that the reviewer wanted a 4e product. Does he not know C&C is it's own game and the material is produced for it? Or does he just think gaming begins and ends with D&D?

The latter, I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong: Merric is a nice guy, with some good, strong logical points to offer more often than not, but he's also one of the last guys I would go to for objective assessments relating to D&D.

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:58 am

Sounds like he has played C&C at least, and will probably get back to it when the Upper Works is released. That's more than we could have asked from many 4E players who have no clue about C&C. I don't recall what his overall score was, but it was far from being a 1 for substance and a 1 for style. Didn't bother me too much.

The Highway Man · Post by **The Highway Man** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:47 pm

tylermo wrote:
Sounds like he has played C&C at least, and will probably get back to it when the Upper Works is released. That's more than we could have asked from many 4E players who have no clue about C&C. I don't recall what his overall score was, but it was far from being a 1 for substance and a 1 for style. Didn't bother me too much.

Good point.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:25 pm

I actually don't think this was a particularly bad review at all. The reviewer probably ought not to have compared it to 4e in these volatile times, but it doesn't seem unfairly written to me. According to the posts that followed, Merric has never played C&C, and it looks like he is planning on running Mouths of Madness using either 3e or 4e. He perhaps ought to have been up front about that, but I think people are seeing criticism where there is only opinion.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Deogolf · Post by **Deogolf** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:44 pm

I take all reviews with a grain of salt - one man's gold is another man's sh*t (whatever the saying is)! And that goes for all reviews, not just this one. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's all it is, an opinion. Doesn't matter if it's gaming, music, art, or whatever - too bad some people aren't smart to see around that!
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

sieg · Post by **sieg** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:21 pm

Besides, as several people on this board can attest; I believe anyone reading this review and reads the complaint that its too much like KoTB and/or WoG.....will probably see them as pluses if they're the type to like C&C to begin with.
[Edit after reading the review] I must agree that it was pretty fair. Obviously Merricb was letting his pro3-4X opinions color the review a bit, but I've read far worse bashing of C&C and Zagyg. All in all his biggest gripe with the product seemed to be the cut off from the actual upper works. Which a CK needs to do something to keep his players out of that area if he doesn't have the CZ: Upper Works, right?

He'd have HATED Dark Chateau then... with that !@#$ 15 headed Pyrohydra!
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:55 am

Ah, Merric. Yes. That does say a lot on its own, which is not a bad thing, but expected all the same. I'd say it has its good points and other areas where it is not wholly accurate, but that is fine - reviews tend to not have the facts. They are, after all, interpretations and opinion.

Post by **Fiffergrund** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:33 pm

I started reading the thread, and halfway through learned the reviewer was Merricb.

That says it all, folks. How this guy is a respected reviewer is beyond me.

While other folks are being far more diplomatic, I have a history with him, as do many others. On 3rdEdition.org, on DF, and on RPG.net. I'm not going to sugarcoat this. He's the very definition of a WOTC fanboy.

Take EVERYTHING he says with a grain of salt. The guy is incapable of intellectual honesty when it comes to RPGs. He's also incapable of having a truly civil discussion.

He's one of those types that puts on a show of being tolerant but runs to the mods when he doesn't like negative response to his snarky commentary. I can't count how many flamewars he started on DF with his posting behavior.

My observation of his writings/opinions over the years shows me that he's someone who hated AD&D as it was and loves WOTC-produced D&D precisely because it's not the D&D of yore. He'll say that he loves and plays all editions, but that's just to get him over the threshold of credibility. Over time, he can't help but leak his disdain for older rulesets and what some might call "Gygaxian" style of play.

Naturally, he probably isn't the best source of objective information regarding products, such as C&C and CZ, that use the design paradigm that he holds in such disregard.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:19 am

Merric...that explains everything. And for those keeping score that is the other darkside of this hobby. Merric is just as bad as the Ubergrogs that can't accpet that gaming moved on after the 70's.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:46 am

Hmm.. an interesting development took my notice today, and was spurred by some of the discussion here - went back to ENWORLD and poked around some.

One particular thread caught my eye - a poll thread on what game and/or combination of systems enworlders would be playing now that 4e was out and had been evaluated. One of the poll answers was basically C&C or other "D&D like OGL games."

The numbers are pretty split up, with 4e, 3.0/3.5 and Pathfinder really carving up the responses, but 24 answered the choice that was esentially C&C, and of the 122 posts about 10 percent mentioned C&C favorably (ok so one was me). The more important note was -

not a word of negativity against C&C... and this is enworld after all. Unlike some years past, when I or someone else might mention C&C someone would almost immediately jump down our throats and blast the system, and in poll threads C&C would rarely if ever offer C&C as an alternative.

So, what do I make of this? Ok, it's just anecdotal and my gut feeling, but it seems to me that this is extremely good news - that C&C is starting to broaden out in terms of exposure and response, and is even making headway in some previously not-so-friendly places.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:48 am

Give me a day - I can repair that.

Buttmonkey · Post by **Buttmonkey** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:03 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Some folks just seem to think that 'style' is all about putting a bunch of useless textures in a given product as watermark and background. Waste of time IMHO. ^_^

I despise watermarking and background art (I'm assuming this refers to artsy banners running down the sides of the page or similar extraneous graphics). They clutter up the page and make it more difficult to read.

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:26 pm

Finding out it was MerricB was enough for me to toss the so-called "review" into the virtual discards bin. He is one extreme of the fandom scale, while the Ubergrogs, aka the Quasi-religious Zealots of the Holy Church of Ayedeeendee sat on the other side like grumpy old men because gaming evolved and they didn't.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Troll Lord Games

Castle Zagyg related review at rpg.net

Castle Zagyg related review at rpg.net

Re: Castle Zagyg related review at rpg.net