new Sorcerer review

[Solomon]

For anyone who's keeping track, RPGnet has a new, happy review of Sorcerer this morning.

[Ron Edwards]

Yay! Thanks, Lisa, and also to Josh, who provided some insights about the dice mechanics for me.

I'm behind in updating the links on the Sorcerer site, for both reviews and for actual play discussions. I'll try to get to that this weekend.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Perfect RPG.net score (5/5) from a reviewer who averages way below that (i.e. is pretty disccriminating).

Congratulations.

Thanks for the link, Solomon. :-)

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

I just figured out that RPG.net is no longer featuring a mini-forum for reviews, which is why there's no discussion following Lisa's review. This is kind of a pain in the ass for me - such discussions are always sales-boosters. All I've got this time is a snide comment from someone in a thread about the lack of review-forums.

Anyway, so this is to say, any and all discussion of Lisa's review is welcome here.

Best,
Ron

[Solomon]

I just figured out that RPG.net is no longer featuring a mini-forum for reviews, which is why there's no discussion following Lisa's review. This is kind of a pain in the ass for me - such discussions are always sales-boosters. All I've got this time is a snide comment from someone in a thread about the lack of review-forums.

For what it's worth, RPGnet seems to be having technical difficulties with the review forums.

[Brian Leybourne]

I just figured out that RPG.net is no longer featuring a mini-forum for reviews, which is why there's no discussion following Lisa's review. This is kind of a pain in the ass for me - such discussions are always sales-boosters.

... and provided a chance for potential buyers to ask clarifying questions etc, which can only have helped RPG.Net's "buy now" buttons on the review pages, so all in all, RPG.Net removing the mini-forums is very strange.

Brian.

[Brian Leybourne]

It's worth mentioning, Ron, that after the review they have two "buy me" buttons, neither of which are actually for Sorcerer. One is for a game called "Unseelie Sorcerer" and the other is for "Sorcerers of Pan Tang".

You should contact them and correct that, or someone who likes the sound of the game could end up buying the wrong thing.

Brian.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

So, does anyone have any comments about the review itself?

Best,
Ron

[Michael S. Miller]

Well, as one of the folks quoted in said review, I was very pleased to see how much Lisa's opinion of Sorcerer has changed since she played in In Utero at GenCon '02. I spoke with her mere moments after she left the demo and her words to me were, "That game is sick!" I remarked quickly that the system does reward "evil" actions in the short term, but promotes "good" actions in the long term. She said she'd think about it. And she has.

I've read too many threads in this forum to see the game as a newcomer might, so the review reminded me of that perspective. When I think about Sorcerer, I constantly think "The three most important things for a Sorcerer game are: Humanity, Humanity, Humanity" But someone reading just the core book generally doesn't see how Humanity pulls everything together--at least not at first--because most of that stuff is in The Sorcerer's Soul, or scattered around the forum. Lisa refers to the roll-over of Victory Dice to Bonus Dice as the heart of the system, along with its emphasis on role-playing to get those bonuses. Once you figure out how using Humanity as a resolution mechanic meshes in with those, the game becomes a whole new animal.

In short, it was useful to me to be reminded of what Sorcerer looks like from the outside when well considered.

As a side note, rpg.net has also linked to reviews of the White Wolf supplement entitled Sorcerer as if they were the same product. Particularly since that product got such low scores, you might want to see if they can do something about it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Ah, Sorcerer Rorschach strikes again. It's a hell of a game that way.

Best,
Ron

[Solomon]

RPGnet fixed the user comments too late for the most recent Sorcerer review, but then someone snuck in this reference to Sorcerer and Sword (scroll down to "Setting III: Tomb Of The First Emperor").

I don't know if this is the kind fo thing you want to link to, Ron, but at least awareness of the game is leaking out.

[Ron Edwards]

Thanks Solomon,

Not to harp on this too, too much, but the lack of forum discussion for Lisa's review was a serious blow. I usually get at least a dozen orders a day when forum discussions of reviews of my game get going at RPG.net. This time (and it's a first), none. In other words, that policy-blip on their part cost me a hell of a lot of money.

On the positive side, yes, it is nice that people are using Sorcerer & Sword as kind of a baseline reference for play. Eric in particular has been a great supporter of the game and very honest about what he does and doesn't like about it. Reviewers like him and Lisa are gold.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Have you tried asking them to repost all of the reviews from the days when the forum was down?  I would think that they have enough slow days that they could mix those previous reviews back in with the new ones in order to give a forum opportunity.