|
Post by kaemaril on Dec 17, 2009 3:33:14 GMT
Just a heads-up :
For those of you who are rpg.net members, it seems there's a DWAITAS review in the queue scheduled for this Friday.
|
|
THE \/ince
2nd Incarnation
THE OTHER
Cloister this!
Posts: 66
|
Post by THE \/ince on Dec 17, 2009 21:58:04 GMT
Can't wait to read it. I really like RPG.net's reviews, and have found them to be informative and accurate.
Will have to remember to check it out tomorrow.
Thanks.
THE \/ince
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Dec 18, 2009 13:53:46 GMT
Hullo, folks, For those who are interested, the rpg.net review of the game is up this morning... www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14631.phtmlI wouldn't say that the review is a positive review of the game, but the reviewer does make a few interesting observations about the game that I thought were spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Null and Void on Dec 18, 2009 14:18:48 GMT
Its a rather curious review, in that he talks a great deal about the ease of the system, and its good points, and general lack of bad ones, and then goes on to say 'experienced gamers' won't like it and won't buy it.
I'd have to disagree. At least of the experienced gamers I know, there is some great enthusiasm for the game!
Eh... to each their own, I guess
|
|
Trevellian
2nd Incarnation
The Sound of Drums
Posts: 30
|
Post by Trevellian on Dec 18, 2009 14:48:18 GMT
I'd have to disagree. At least of the experienced gamers I know, there is some great enthusiasm for the game! Seconded - most of the folks on this board are seasoned gamers. He's correct in that if you're after a heavy rules crunch game, this isn't for you (go buy Eclipse Phase). But being an experienced gamer doesn't mean you need crunch all the time - I've found myself drawn more towards less crunchy, story-focused systems over the years. As for the core books not having much background info in them, that's far from unusual - many a core rulebook has scant setting detail and leaves that for the sourcebooks. At least with DWAITAS there's already a wealth of background info available out there, as opposed to non-licensed games in the same situation.
|
|
|
Post by lomythica on Dec 18, 2009 15:59:37 GMT
As for the core books not having much background info in them, that's far from unusual - many a core rulebook has scant setting detail and leaves that for the sourcebooks. At least with DWAITAS there's already a wealth of background info available out there, as opposed to non-licensed games in the same situation. Exactly. Show me the DnD sourcebook with lots of setting info in the PH and DMG. I do guess that he was expecting more pages for the price tag. Of course, I got it for 38, so that's more akin a single DnD sourcebook price; but with SO MUCH BETTER visual appeal! Even at 60, that's a PH and DMG, so I'm not sure what's really expected. Any sourcebook offering even a reasonable amount of WHO cannon would probably cost upwards of $100 by itself. I think the plan of offering additional optional addons (Like the UNIT sourcebook), and adding portions of classic cannon in with them makes so much more sense than making cannon sourcebooks for those that might want to go back. The important part is making products that can appeal to both fans of the classic, AND the new series. As far as the system being light, I agree with what's been said on the forum before. It is rules light, but that's by no means 'weak'. The rules are simple, yet elegant. Enough to arbitrate, but not too much to get in the way and bog down the game. Concerning the angle on combat and battle, I found DWAITAS to be very refreshing. I get so tired of the hack n slash campaigns, but have found that systems that have strong battle systems set the tone toward battle. DWAITAS provides a strong mechanical offering to make non combat methods of resolving combat an option. Even, a good option! In my opinion, DWAITAS simply evens the playing field between combat options and non combat options. Because combat is the primary form of conflict resolution that is promoted in most game systems, it makes it seem that DWAITAS is focused on non-combat, when in fact, all it is doing (as i see it) is balancing things out. After learning GURPS so that I could have a meta system to use for RPGs, I found that I am NOT into rules heavy systems. Now I look for the lightest rules sets to accomplish the flavor of game or genre I am looking to play. DWAITAS does that great!
|
|
|
Post by Corone on Dec 18, 2009 16:24:08 GMT
I'd have to disagree. At least of the experienced gamers I know, there is some great enthusiasm for the game! Seconded - most of the folks on this board are seasoned gamers. He's correct in that if you're after a heavy rules crunch game, this isn't for you (go buy Eclipse Phase). But being an experienced gamer doesn't mean you need crunch all the time - I've found myself drawn more towards less crunchy, story-focused systems over the years. As for the core books not having much background info in them, that's far from unusual - many a core rulebook has scant setting detail and leaves that for the sourcebooks. At least with DWAITAS there's already a wealth of background info available out there, as opposed to non-licensed games in the same situation. Absolutely! I've been gaming for nearly 20 years and far prefer a rules light, story based system. I really hate the term crunchy, as it implies you are getting more for your money, when overly complicated rules detract from the real game. Mind you, Eclipse Phase is a damn fine piece of work too :-)
|
|
|
Post by Eryx on Dec 18, 2009 16:33:23 GMT
Not a bad review I guess. I will likewise disagree about experienced gamers not picking it up. I've been gaming for over twenty years and I snapped this up knowing that it was going to be a rules light system (I prefer some more solid rules usually).
It is definately designed by feel of it as an introduction to roleplaying, but I say that is a good thing. Get the young folks away from their Warcrack and get them round a table actually interacting!
|
|
|
Post by Kit on Dec 18, 2009 16:35:46 GMT
I wasnt keen on the review.
I think a lot of setting information is unnecessary. I'm glad a lot of space isnt spent on it. I strill cringe at the multi-season episode guide in the FARSCAPE RPG [which took up something like 30 pages]
I like the simplicity of the system. My preferred gaming is Amber Diceless, so I'm all for simple. As for experienced gamers not liking it, I've been gaming since the early-mid-70s.
And, as for it being playtested, we playtested the hell out of the game.
at least he said some nice things about the look of the game and the action order.
|
|
|
Post by allenshock on Dec 18, 2009 16:39:44 GMT
not playtested? Hmph!! So what was I doing all those months, eh?
It wasn't a terrible review, but it seemed to me like he was almost looking for something to dislike...can't be a reviewer if you don't, I suppose.
Oh well, time and sales will tell...but I have a feeling this is going to be Dark Heresy-style huge, myself.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by lomythica on Dec 18, 2009 17:10:26 GMT
In addition on the source info front, the whole concept of the Whoniverse is that you can go to new places you've never been before. How does a game cover all of those possibilities without becoming GURPS?
DWAITAS does a great job giving the GM control to create with limitless possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by CharlieBananas on Dec 18, 2009 17:27:45 GMT
I've been playing RPG's since the late 70's (made my own Blake's 7 game), so I don't think I'm inexperienced, in fact as I get older I seem to like less crunch more and more. ;D
The thing that struck me the most was that I get the impression that the reviewer had already made up his mind that he didn't want to use the system, and was just looking for fluff for his game of choice.
|
|
|
Post by Null and Void on Dec 18, 2009 17:38:19 GMT
I've been playing RPG's since the late 70's (made my own Blake's 7 game), so I don't think I'm inexperienced, in fact as I get older I seem to like less crunch more and more. ;D The thing that struck me the most was that I get the impression that the reviewer had already made up his mind that he didn't want to use the system, and was just looking for fluff for his game of choice. THAT'S What it was that struck me as odd. Thanks! It was his statement about trying to mine its ideas for some other system. No, you're not going to get a lot of that, but... Couldn't you have already mined the 40+ years of history the series has WITHOUT needing a game to do it? As I said, a curious review.
|
|
|
Post by allivingstone on Dec 18, 2009 19:14:52 GMT
I don't yet have my copy of the game (though it's now been sent out by play.com! ), but I know roughly what to expect from the playtests. I thought the review was quite uneven, and the scores seemed odd when compared with the text, but it essentially boiled down to: 'Too much quality and not enough quantity (of rules)'. I got the impression that the reviewer had set ideas about what he likes (and expected the game to be), and was rating the system solely against those preconceptions. I also got the impression that the reviewer equates quantity of rules/crunch with value for money. Therefore marks were lost - despite the reviewer also recognising that the game is specifically designed to be easily accessible to RPG newbies! I would have thought it more relevant to rate the game's substance on the basis of how well it simulates the adventures and setting(s) of Doctor Who. What I would like to see is a toolkit full of sparks for the imagination, that can be used to create characters and situations from the entirety of space and time. Oh yeah, and I (like every experienced/older gamer I know), don't want lots of crunch either. I have to say that I was quite surprised by the rating given for substance, given the actual content of the review. For instance, I'd think that extensive sound advice on how to GM for time travel and non-combat conflict resolution would qualify as 'substance' in this context. Overall I think the quality of the review itself was poor since the scores given did not seem to match well with the content of the text. Or maybe I missed something?
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Dec 18, 2009 19:17:31 GMT
This is a not an accurate review.
Apart from the obvious narrative of explaining how things work, contents etc. when the reviewer gets to the meat of evaluating the game, the review falls apart.
I’ll explain why.
His quotes are in italics.
"This is a fairly rules-light system, with a distinct bias in its makeup to reflect the series and also its intent. "
This is a key statement. Here he correctly acknowledges that the game is biased to reflect the series and its intent. This is good. This is the key to understanding the game design. It has been created from the ground up to model the unique genre of Dr Who in every way.
There is no argument that it should be any other way if you understand what the show is about and how it should play as an RPG if its done properly –which it has been.
The reviewer states he realizes this in his opening passage and then continues to contradict this throughout.
"This is a game meant for novice, potentially younger players "
Incorrect: It is written simply for novices to understand but it’s meant for gamers of all experience. He misses to point out there are optional levels of complexity and also any gamemaster worth their salt can elaborate on the rules as they are very open, logical and easily moddable; which is actually the test of a very-well made system.
"…effort was taken to make it highly accessible, as well as inoffensive (the emphasis on mental and social challenges rather than combat, the extensive 'Things to do other than fighting' section, etc.) and dissuades violence. (At least as 'dissuading of violence' as a game can be when it deals with genocidal pepperpots wielding both disintegrators which can vaporize platoons, and suction-cup arms which can crush faces.) "
This contradicts the opening statement. There are no efforts to make it inoffensive to younger players specifically, since the genre and series is as such. Fighting is never a first option in the series.
The reviewer stated in his opening summary: “a distinct bias in its makeup to reflect the series and also its intent.” and here he has just missed his own point.
"Some players might take active, militant offense at the unabashedly anti-violence stance the game takes. "
This is an erroneous statement. Dr Who never was pro-violence or a slugfest, so it’s a moot point he makes. A correct statement would have been:
“Some players who have never seen the show might take active, militant offense at the unabashedly anti-violence stance the game takes.”
"The system is not going to win awards or make gaming history, but there are a number of fascinating things in it that warrent at least a blink from most gamers. "
I strongly disagree. I think this new game system is as important and exciting as Eden’s Cinematic Unisystem. It’s sleek, fast, very expandable and fresh and with a little tweaking according to genre would work really well in any other settings. In my opinion its cutting-edge game design.
"There isn't enough setting information to mine it for use with another system"
This is a telling statement and one which I wager, defines the key grievance of the reviewer: that there's not a lot here for non-Who fans.
"In the final analysis, most experienced gamers can safely (and will) give this game a pass. "
Complete twaddle. As I sit here in front of my shelves which cover virtually every RPG since 1984 I disagree. This is perhaps the most laughable statement of the whole review which is offensively presumptuous. I'm 40+ and have played literally thousands of hours of RPG's since 1984 and his statement doesn't hold for me. I didn't give it pass and I'm 100% happy with it, in fact, overjoyed.
The mistake of superficially trying to emulate 'good reviewing' here is evident: it assumes one must go against the grain of the expected popular response to such an eagerly-awaited game with a faintly negative verdict.
Indeed, incisive uncompromising reviews often deliver an honest appraisal after revealing flaws; but simply stating that “most experienced gamers can safely (and will) give this game a pass” and have the general public accept this without giving any legitimate reason to, as I previously revealed, is horse crap.
Now here is that game review condensed really says:
“I’m not a fan of the show, I don’t understand what the show’s about and I won’t even use this as sourcebook because it’s too expensive and doesn’t explain much of the background if you’ve never seen the show”.
|
|
|
Post by allenshock on Dec 18, 2009 19:57:01 GMT
I admit...I was trying to be charitable to the reviewer. It is obvious on a second read that you have a non-fan here damning the game with faint praise and essentially missing the point.
He's also getting a lot of heat over there for his review (a lot of it coming from some of us)
Allen
|
|
THE \/ince
2nd Incarnation
THE OTHER
Cloister this!
Posts: 66
|
Post by THE \/ince on Dec 18, 2009 20:11:27 GMT
Can't wait to read it. I really like RPG.net's reviews, and have found them to be informative and accurate. Will have to remember to check it out tomorrow. Thanks. THE \/ince Move along, nothing to see here... I want to retract that statement. The review is total and utter S**te! He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. THE \/ince
|
|
|
Post by Curufea on Dec 19, 2009 0:44:02 GMT
Obviously, we should post reviews on rpg.net
|
|
|
Post by damocles on Dec 19, 2009 1:14:25 GMT
The review is not that bad but I think the writer misses the whole point of Dr Who and his criticisms of it are actually good features:
1. It's supposed to be light as its for new players and experienced players (like my family) to have a less rules intense game sometimes.
2. A major feature of Dr Who has always been non violent and clever solutions to problems. When violence is used its always with regret or unavoidable. This must be reflected in the game system and it is. It will also lead to more varied encounters than the usual 'smack orc over head with axe'
My family play D and D and they are all Who fans. When I saw how Cubicle 7 was dealing with Dr Who I could not believe my luck, it was ideal for what we wanted. Clearly the designers know their market and have put a lot of thought into it.
As to its cost, that's silly considering what you get. It costs me more to buy the family a Chinese takeaway.
|
|
|
Post by thebrokenone on Dec 19, 2009 2:42:29 GMT
The review is on rpg.net though so its hardly a surprise that its a biased review i dont think they really vet reviews to make sure they're honest and unbiased much these days(if they ever did), best to wait for the next few reviewers to post theres up on the site and to other sites(rpghaven or rpgsite would be good places to look next) in the next couple months(i know of at least 3 other people who plan to post reviews on different forums once they've had chance to read and play the game abit).
Plus the reviewer obviously didnt bother to actually play the game before he finished his review, in fact the way he bitched about the price i doubt he did anything more than check the boxset and contents out at his local rpg store.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Dec 20, 2009 3:40:25 GMT
Hullo, Null and Void, Its a rather curious review, in that he talks a great deal about the ease of the system, and its good points, and general lack of bad ones, and then goes on to say 'experienced gamers' won't like it and won't buy it. I'd have to disagree. At least of the experienced gamers I know, there is some great enthusiasm for the game! Eh... to each their own, I guess I think that part of the problem with that aspect of his review was that it was likely a personal opinion coloured by other stuff going on. I feel that the game will appeal to both experienced and inexperienced gamers or non-experienced folks alike, depending on whether they are DOCTOR WHO fans and whether they will want to try the gaming experience.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Dec 20, 2009 3:44:07 GMT
Hullo, Trevellian, Seconded - most of the folks on this board are seasoned gamers. He's correct in that if you're after a heavy rules crunch game, this isn't for you (go buy Eclipse Phase). But being an experienced gamer doesn't mean you need crunch all the time - I've found myself drawn more towards less crunchy, story-focused systems over the years. While I am the same way in so far as less crunchy, story-focused systems these days, I think that DOCTOR WHO is not really suited (especially in today's gaming climate) to a game with lots of crunch. It doesn't require a "lite" system per se, but one whose rules are flexible enough to cover future developments in the series and that don't get in the way of the style and feel of a DOCTOR WHO game. The new system seems to have struck the right chord and balance, but more importantly, is accessible to both experienced and non-experienced gamers alike. That's what counts.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Dec 20, 2009 3:48:55 GMT
Hullo, Mike, I've been playing RPG's since the late 70's (made my own Blake's 7 game), so I don't think I'm inexperienced, in fact as I get older I seem to like less crunch more and more. ;D Same here. Seems that the older we get as gamers, the less game crunch we want. Another reason I love HEX and DESOLATION so much... The thing that struck me the most was that I get the impression that the reviewer had already made up his mind that he didn't want to use the system, and was just looking for fluff for his game of choice. That was the element that I really didn't like about the review, and to be honest, I suspect that aspect of the reviewer coloured the review in more respects than any of us might want to admit. In a lot of ways, I don't think the reviewer "got" the game.
|
|
|
Post by CharlieBananas on Dec 20, 2009 9:44:19 GMT
Hi John, I've seen the attitude before, "how can I fix system X, because my preferred system is Y", I used to encounter it a lot on the Savage Worlds boards, it's a generic system so I guess that’s to be expected, but it saddens me a little when people are so closed minded that they can't see a great system when it's in front of them. I've even seen it with Hollow Earth Expedition, and that totally twists my noggin as like you HEX is my favourite system and setting, but each to their own. ;D
|
|
Trevellian
2nd Incarnation
The Sound of Drums
Posts: 30
|
Post by Trevellian on Dec 20, 2009 11:53:36 GMT
While I am the same way in so far as less crunchy, story-focused systems these days, I think that DOCTOR WHO is not really suited (especially in today's gaming climate) to a game with lots of crunch. It doesn't require a "lite" system per se, but one whose rules are flexible enough to cover future developments in the series and that don't get in the way of the style and feel of a DOCTOR WHO game. The new system seems to have struck the right chord and balance, but more importantly, is accessible to both experienced and non-experienced gamers alike. That's what counts. Agreed - a flexible system that focuses on replicating the feel of the series is far more appropriate. Detailed mechanics for time travel that would require you to break out the calculator to determine where and when you land hardly seem appropriate for covering "Wibbly Wobbly, Timey Wimey" stuff ;-) I didn't mean to suggest that those who want to play Dr Who with crunchy rules use Eclipse Phase, it's just a crunch-heavy sci-fi game that came to mind. Mind you, I'm not knocking Eclipse Phase either - I've got that game waiting in my stack of Xmas pressies along with DWAITAS :-)
|
|
|
Post by Curufea on Dec 20, 2009 12:34:24 GMT
I've not heard of eclipse before, I'll have to look it up. I find crunchy rules to be interesting reads and kinda quaint.
|
|
Trevellian
2nd Incarnation
The Sound of Drums
Posts: 30
|
Post by Trevellian on Dec 20, 2009 13:36:07 GMT
Here you go: www.eclipsephase.com/"Eclipse Phase is a pen & paper roleplaying game of post-apocalyptic transhuman conspiracy and horror. An "eclipse phase" is the period between when a cell is infected by a virus and when the virus appears within the cell and transforms it. During this period, the cell does not appear to be infected, but it is. Players take part in a cross-faction secret network dubbed Firewall that is dedicated to counteracting "existential risks" — threats to the existence of transhumanity, whether they be biowar plagues, self-replicating nanoswarms, nuclear proliferation, terrorists with WMDs, net-breaking computer attacks, rogue AIs, alien encounters, or anything else that could drive an already decimated transhumanity to extinction."
|
|
|
Post by Alastair on Dec 20, 2009 13:47:59 GMT
I think one mistake some (maybe even a lot of) people are making is the same one they are persecuting the reviewer for, the part where he states that "experienced gamers" will give the game a pass (and other statements like it). He unfairly clumped everyone into a big ball, which I do agree was wrong of him. But those that are quick to point it out in his review are also quick to state similar things in order to contradict the review.
Personally I am of similar (but not exactly the same) opinion as the reviewer. I think that DWAIT&S is far too light on the rules and details and C7 spent time on the visual appeal of the books that could have been better spent on content. Is it a bad system? Ehh, I don't think so. Of course my own opinions on this might change over time, especially once I get to actually play a couple of games. They're not set in stone by any means, just a statement of how I see the system at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Anthony Quested on Dec 20, 2009 15:52:48 GMT
I prefer lighter systems that are not too rules obsessed - role playing rather than rule playing. So both "Time Lord" and now the newer Doctor Who RPG appealled to me as they are supposed to be easy to pick up and play by novices, as well as seasoned gamers. And as it is a major franchise, it would have been foolish of Cubicle 7 NOT to make it beginner friendly! By making it easy to learn, they can reach out to non-gamers; not unlike Time Lord before it. And Doctor Who is about the Doctor defeating the enemies using tactics and skills other than violence, so of course it would be a non-violent RPG! However, the fortcoming UNIT sourcebook will bring an element of violence into it, I suppose. * * * * * With the gamemaster screen, aliens and monsters and now the UNIT sourcebook on their way - shop.cubicle7store.com/epages/es113347.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/es113347_shop/Products/CB71104 - looks like my bank account is going to be raided!
|
|
|
Post by drew on Dec 20, 2009 18:57:15 GMT
RPG Net is FAMOUS for providing biased and generally rude and unpleasant reviews.
Its obvious that he missed the point of the broader skill system, and I found his complaining about the amount of background in the books (what does he expect in a Book based on a TV show) rather immature.
I personally prefer rules-lite systems, they allow for more freedom for both the players and the games master - the new RPG seems to have it right IMHO.
(Edit - I'm with markanthonyquested, 2010 is going to be an expensive year LoL).
|
|