Critique of Psion's review of MOZ 1

[Cergorach]

*starts jumping up and down*
Yaj! Yaj!
*points at Orcus*
That's the way to start a debate!
*notices the room full of blank stares*
Erm...
*does his genie impression*
Yaj! Yaj! If Orcus can't do it no one can!
*waves around a little flag*

I do want to address something that I noticed: Psions's reviews are for a general audience. Necro's products (this one in particular) are for niche audiences. That can cause differences of opinion. 1E stuff will bug people who dont want that. Take, for example, the heavy handed intro to the module--the plot to kill Ovar. That is a common 1E principal (sort of like the intro hook to Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or White Plume Mountain). If you arent used to that, it could put you off. Old school guys wouldnt give a second thought to modifying the intro. More modern players expect multiple hooks to be provided. That is a valid comment by Psion. I understand why he dings the module for that.

I was introduced to AD&D when 2E was just released (i'm not THAT ancient ;-), thus i don't know exactly what the 1E feel is. What i do know is that i like the Necro adventures a lot more than the antiques (1E) i have laying around. I don't know if i like the 1E feel, but i do like the Necro feel...

What i generally do not like is the heavy handed approach of 'railroading' the characters/players, my players won't stand for that, and i don't want to run adventures that way. Thus, like others have mentioned, i will have to improvise and be creative. That's all nice and well, 10 years ago when i still was in high school and had all the time in the world, but my time is getting more and more precious to me (geting older, more responsibilities, you know what i mean).

Now i'm pretty sure that i'm not the only one that would appreciate guidelines on running such an adventure. What i'm really wondering is would supplying adventure hooks detract from the adventure or the 1E feel?

As for "rules problems" and "not including rogues" those were design decisions by Rob. He likes the idea of putting players in situations where they dont have the immediate solution at hand. He likes to take them to the outer planes or mess with their normal equipment. It would be the easy and obvious solution to put a rogue in the pregens. NOT including a rogue is another way that Rob requires the PCs to get creative and to take them out of their element. He in fact WANTS the PCs to say "damn, if only we had our thief..." What is wrong with that? Why is there a presumption that the PCs should be handed the most obvious tool to solve their problems? Another reviewer could certainly praise the module for NOT giving the players the obvious tools to solve their problems. Psion chose not to and that is his prerogative as a reviewer.

I love messing with my players, but i generally want there to be a reason for it (sure you can teleport, but only within LOS, the walls seem to be lined with a strange mineral that hinders teleportation through the walls). Also my players already seem to have trouble using the tools they do have, thus removing those tools makes for an even more interesting situation (god, i love being evil ;-) But let's presume that we didn't want to use the pregenerated characters, there wouldn't be a problem, mostly because the thief left his toolkit at home and now has to work with his improvised toolkit made from pieces of wire and Bits & Pieces (tm).

Rob also is not a slave to the rules. He believes (and I strongly agree) that the rules dont dictate play, play dictates the rules. He and I had a long talk about that during the production of the module. I told him "listen, people read Dungeon and buy WotC modules and they expect stuff to have t's crossed and i's dotted when it comes to the rules." He wanted to take some liberties. Who am I to say no to Rob Kuntz? So I do acknowledge that there are things that dont follow the rules. But they arent mistakes. They are design decisions by Rob Kuntz.

Slave no, consistant yes. When an auther decides that the rules need to be 'broken' then he needs to say so when, where and how. My personal choice would also be why, but that's not neccessary. How else are we going to see the difference between badly edited rules content and 'creative' decisions?

Perhaps in the future I should drop a box in the module indicating that is the case, something like: "Author's Design Decisions: In this module you will notice several things that do not exactly comport with existing 3E principles: there is a construct with a Con score, strange spells, a forced intro, no rogue in the pregens. These were intentional design decisions. The author wishes to take the players out of their normal comfort zone and change their way of thinking. The author believes rules should follow play, not the other way around. These changes were done to facilitate that concept. DMs troubled by these changes should feel free to change what they dislike." But then I guess I always figured that was implied. I dont know of a single module I have ever run without changing something. To me, modules are like speed limits--I consider them "suggestions," not binding law. A great example of this is the old "flame resistant mummy" concept. Players got so used to the rules (including the fact that mummies were flamable) that they just hit mummies with fire and fire spells. DMs got creative and created flame resistant mummies. The first module that did so could easily be blasted for "not following the rules."

It's not a bad idea, but it's a bit of wasted space, it doesn't say anything actually. Wouldn't it be better if the designer pointed out the 'creative' design decisions, so that the person that will run the module will know what to look out for?


Just one more question: Who is Rob Kuntz? *runs away giggling*

 

[EricNoah]

I find it odd that someone reads my post with more anger than intended.

I think people, very reasonably, caught this from the other review-related thread...

ENWorld is a snotty little world of mixed up values. It has no consistent policies except to protect its own ass.

And combined it with this from your post above...

I truly wonder Psion has something against Rob Kuntz or Necromancer Games, or perhaps his motivation is innocent and he wants to be an important reviewer?

What's a person to think?

Let's be blunt. What do you think should change? Specifically? And not about this review -- about snotty, ass-covering EN World?

 

[d20Dwarf]

Your metagame-fu is strong, EricNoah.

 

[Orcus]

>*starts jumping up and down*
>Yaj! Yaj!
>*points at Orcus*
>That's the way to start a debate!
>*notices the room full of blank stares*
>Erm...
>*does his genie impression*
>Yaj! Yaj! If Orcus can't do it no one can!
>*waves around a little flag*

I dont really get this but it looks cool.

Clark

 

[omedon]

This is not posted in the conversation about reviews being good or bad. This responds to a large number of inaccuracies found in Psion's review. I would have posted this as a comment to the review, but I could nto find such a button to comment with.

Midnight Rider

If you would like to post a comment in the reviews page you have to register there first. Once you have registered, you have to make sure you log in before you can make a comment or post a review.

I did not have the energy to do anything more than skim over this thread, as it is long and threads like these usually get me excited in a bad way. The last thing I need is more stress.

However, I believe I got the jist of the whole thing and would suggest that you write your own review of the product. I think this would be more effective than crititicizing the reviews of others. If you do decide to write a review of your own, please leave comments about Psion out of it, I don't think that this is in anyway constructive (though you might add a comment to his review, though that might be moot since you have already done so here), as I believe each product should be measured on it's own merits. Instead please point out what you liked about the product, perhaps the mystery revloving around the Knight of Chaos and other such things.

I would be interested to see a different perspective on MoZ as I am sure many others would. People have a variety of tastes and gaming backgrounds, and the more reviews, and reviewers, the better prepared all of us consumers will be.

 

[Lady Dragon]

I will start by saying I like necromancer games I own all of there products and They are among my favorites.

As for The Maze of Zayene I liked it,But then I like that type of adventure where you get straight to the dungeon without fifteen pages of investigation and talking to the townsfolk.

And I'm sure any creative DM worth his salt can think of a different reason to be in the throne room if they don't like the assassination story and you can certainly put in a rouge if you really want to.

As for being rated a 3 by Psion I think it is a fair overall rating.I think 5's need to be among the best adventures Ever published and I would think even Orcus and Mr kuntz would agree that its not that good.

Should it have been given a 4 maybe but then you have to consider that this product is not going to appeal to everyone I imagine some DM like 15 pages of townfolk and mysteries before getting to the dungeon.And giving this module a 4 would have been doing them a disservice I think people who like necromancer games already know this and they will buy the product anyway.

And As a final note I bought Tomb of Absythor yesterday and I think its there best yet but again you get straight to the dugeon just like I like it.

 

[Eosin the Red]

I'm really sorry if I've done any damage to Mr. Kuntz with my posts. But I don't understand how that could be since this is just discussion and argument.

It is sorta like when Jack Chick comes up. His defense of my faith causes more people to be disgusted and turned off by it, than if he had just sat quietly in the corner.

Your attack on Psion (it was not a rebut) falls into that same category. I am sure that the good folks at NG, who have made an effort to be valued members of ENWorld, do not need any more advocates like you. It brings to mind "with friends like these, who needs enemies."

Discussion and debate never address the personal characteristics of the opponent, that is an attack. The logic trap you fell into is really common for inexperienced debaters. When you attack the vehicle of the argument, it appears that you are making "points." Making points is wonderful for Internet egos. No matter how thick you spread it, making a personal attack without addressing a point, doesn't fly, in a real debate that is. I do have doubts that you were interested anything resembling a real debate.

In case you were curious these are the logic errors in your "rebut":
argumentum ad hominem
ad hominem tu quoque
Anonymous Authorities
Style Over Substance
Hasty Generalization
ignoratio elenchi
Straw Man
Composition
Prejudicial Language

The Logic Table of Contents: don't leave home without it.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

 

[Orcus]

Eosin-

What more can I say..."Bump"

With friends like these indeed...

Clark

 

[hong]

The Logic Table of Contents: don't leave home without it.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

I prefer this version:

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/kibo4.txt

 

[Morrus]

Piratecat, what friend of Rob Kuntz do you think I am? I do know several people in the industry who know him.

Well, normally we don't give away alt. IDs. But since you just asked in public - you are Eric Nelson Shook. You were nearly banned from here a while back but left instead. Now you have come back under a fake ID. You have even gone to the lengths of creating a new email address to hide your identity.

As for the responses. All of them were just since they are people's opinions. No need for cooling down. Stack and rack your points! This is an argument!

By that definition, anyone can say anything to like to anyone at any time. Manners and politeness are irrelevant. Well, sorry pal, but that just ain't true in ay world except your little private one.

You've always tried to pass yourself across as intelligent; how can you repeatedly confuse the concepts of "opinion" and "rudeness"? Especially given comments you have made on other threads recently. Eric, honestly, it really isn't difficult; my 5 year old neice understands the difference.

Guess what - despite your claims to the contrary, you are not criticised by moderators for your opinions. Your are criticised for your blatant rudeness. Feel free to run round shouting out otherwise (I know you will) and claiming you really know what's going on inside my head, but please do so on a website other than mine.

I chose this thread to post this in. But these comments refer to ENS's posts as a whole (under both IDs), not just to this one.