I haven't made a big push to get reviews out there for all the various Swords & Wizardry "products," since there have already been several on the old school boards, but I'd like to get reviews out into the wider world, especially for some of the smaller supplements.

If anyone's interested in doing a review on Swords & Wizardry (core rules), Tomb of the Iron God (intro module), Eldritch Weirdness Book One, or City Encounters, please drop me an email at mythmere at yahoo dot com.

Has anyone done a review of the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming?  I'd love to read it if you have.
Matt

PS - some familiarity with 0e is probably useful for reviewing these, although they are compatible with 1e and 2e as well.

I like the idea behind S&W and mechanically the product is very good, but lacks any aesthetic appeal in either the prose or the presentation.   It's not a fun read like Mazes & Minotaurs.  I fully understand that S&W is supposed to be clay for houserulers to develop and mold in their own way, but I think the current format and writing is too generic to excite people who don't already drink the Old School Kool Aid.  The core rules work great as a skeletal SRD for tinkerers, but I fear non-Old Schoolers are going to miss the point.

My suggestion is to create a "pretty version" as a for-sale version and have the reviewers focus on that one.  

But the cover rocks!  I hope we see much more from that artist.

Are you looking for a playtest review, or a critical discussion of the text?

Quote from: Mythmere;263945Has anyone done a review of the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming?  I'd love to read it if you have.
Matt

I think everyone has uniformly and globally agreed it is awesome, if that's what you mean.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264091Are you looking for a playtest review, or a critical discussion of the text?

Either one.  I don't agree with Spinachcat that modern gamers need whistles and bells to evaluate a game - the community here is probably far more adept and familiar with the theory of gaming than I or most of the old-schoolers are (except Foster, who I think invents rocket-ships in his spare time).

I do think that in order to evaluate it fairly, the reviewer has to be able to perceive that the imprecision and sparsity of the rules is deliberate, and see what the effect of that will be.  As long as the reviewer perceives that (whether or not he thinks it's a stupid goal), I think anyone could do a critical review without a playtest.  A playtest would probably be better, though.

Matt,

There's a few discussion threads I don't know if you've seen or not on your Primer.  Thought you might get some feedback from those:

Story Games

HERO Games

RPGnet

ENWorld

I sent you a PM, Mythmere, don't know if you saw it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;264345I sent you a PM, Mythmere, don't know if you saw it?

RPGPundit

I didn't - in fact, I've only just found where my inbox is after this post.  Sorry!

I've just sent Mythmere a PM to the effect that I'll be glad to review the S&W rules.  Not so private NOW, is it...?

Quote from: Spinachcat;263984I like the idea behind S&W and mechanically the product is very good, but lacks any aesthetic appeal in either the prose or the presentation.   It's not a fun read like Mazes & Minotaurs.  

M&M was a different case,  a kind of running gag as the reader waited to see where the translation of D&D into Classical terms would go next.

While necessarily lacking such a catchy conceit and pretext for in-jokes, S&W has a clear layout, decent art and concise if not masterful prose. Works for me.

I hope to write a playtest review of S&W.  However, thanks to my new job and other commitments, I probably will not have the time to write a proper review until late December or early January.

Very well; non-playtest review of Iron God coming up, and remember, you asked for it.

Quote from: The_Shadow;264487While necessarily lacking such a catchy conceit and pretext for in-jokes, S&W has a clear layout, decent art and concise if not masterful prose. Works for me.

I fully agree...except I rank the cover art as excellent.  The stylized characters screams retro-kool and quite different than any art I have seen used in mainstream RPGs.

Quote from: Mythmere;264253I don't agree with Spinachcat that modern gamers need whistles and bells to evaluate a game

I believe the deliberate sparsity is a double-edged sword.   I much appreciate that you created a bare bones framework for house rulers to build whatever they would like in any direction they choose.   Most everyone who guzzles the Old School Kool-Aid is going to enjoy that.  

But I expect the lack of whistles and bells will be off-putting to the mass of gamers who have never experienced "RPG as a Tinker Toy", especially when presented so austere.   Remember, this is the current hobby where people whine about lack of glossy color pics in $25 books.  It's one thing to use GURPS or HERO to build stuff, it's another thing entirely when you declare everything is optional and malleable.  

That's a pretty big mental leap for most people.   I gamed during the later part of the Old School era and even then most gamers missed the boat on the concept of hobbyist gaming.

Hey Spinachcat, Pete Mullen is the dude who did both covers for the awesome Swords and Wizardry.  I'm not sure if I can make this link work, but here is his website:  http://www.freewebs.com/mullenart/  

Rock on