FATAL Review on RPG.net

[Blake Hutchins]

Not sure where to post this link, but it's a damn funny review, though the subject matter's mere existence probably soils us all as gamers, and says something about an extreme uh, end of design philosophy.  *shudder*

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9222.phtml

Best,

Blake

[Valamir]

Yes, I would say the sheer number of charts, tables, required rolls and stacked attributes in that game speaks to a high embedded level of Player vs. GM mistrust and is likely a backlash against previous dysfunctional experiences...

...wait a minute...what am I saying.

Its FATAL!!

[Thomas Tamblyn]

Meh, wasn't impressed.  I found the game itself funny enough, no review could ever do it justice.

Not to mention that it isn't a review, its a rant.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi guys,

Blake, your uncertainty about where to post it should have tipped you off ...

Folks, with all the love and wonderfulness in the world, please confine your responses to RPG.net threads to RPG.net.

Best,
Ron

[Evan Waters]

Meh, wasn't impressed.  I found the game itself funny enough, no review could ever do it justice.

Not to mention that it isn't a review, its a rant.

I disagree- though it has rant-ish tendencies, it does at its core go into detail about the system and point out what's wrong with it, using examples from the text. It's very well-supported.

Probably wouldn't pass muster here for a number of reasons, but hey, if anyone wants to try to *playtest* this thing, be my guest.

[Ron Edwards]

This thread is closed. Everyone, you are expected to read entire threads before snap-replying based on the first one or two posts.

Best,
ron