Hello!
May interest thee:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14259.phtml
G
Impressive that Luke was able to score a 4.0 in the In Play category without the guy playing the game.
That checklist is silly.
There’s another one from the week before last, too.
Also very interesting critiques!
“Les Crane”? I gotta say that’s purdy funny.
edit: The one thing I didn’t agree with was his criticism of the sample missions. If he’d read how a basic mission (session) works, he ought to have realized that ambiguity is necessary for the GM to tailor conflicts/twists in response to the players, not to the mission. You don’t cater to the mission; you cater to the players via mission [hazards].
Good review, overall, I thought.
I know I really look for those “stat level meanings” when I open a game.
Seriously, does anyone look at those? Do they ever mean anything at all? The only times I remember reading those is when they’re hilariously bad. You know, when 3 means a competent professional and 5 a world-renowned expert, yet a 3 gives you only a 50-50 chance of passing an average test and every starting character has at least two 5’s?
The checklist is bizarre. The rest of the review looks pretty reasonable, but that thing is just weird.
EDIT: I checked his other reviews. In every case the book is missing stat level meanings, and in every case he makes excuses for why they’re not necessary for this book. But he still puts it on the checklist.