Pyramid #4, thoughts?

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Kromm

So, any thoughts about Pyramid #4/4, Pyramid #4/5, and Pyramid #4/6?

#4/4:

The Social Delver: Utter tripe. Where do you find this nonsense?
Clerics of Ice and of Time and Fate: Useful coverage of more holy-person types. This doesn't demand to be used but will be nice to have around in case it comes up.
Tome Raiders: Rumors, travelers' tales, and the like are staples of fantasy and historical adventure. This is a good treatment for the available length, though it's the kind of thing where I'd love to see something somewhat longer. In particular, I'd love a broader framework for generating rumors, perhaps something along the lines of the history generator I put together some time ago.
A Few From Faeries: Always room for more magical items. No "I must use this now!" but also no "I will never use this!" Good set of variants.
Dungeon Diving: Not entirely certain I'd have an opportunity to use it, but seems reasonable if I ever do.
Your Own Worst Enemy: The major problem here is that at the moment I don't have the right players on hand to run the GURPS ARMY OF DARKNESS adventure this so clearly demands.
Orbs of Power: I don't use RPM, so no comment.
The Alchemists’ Guild: I think this would have benefited from tighter focus or more pages. It's a little historical, a little fantasy, a little generic, and a little specific and ends up not doing any one of those things enough for me.
Burn While Reading: Love, love, love the thick description of the volumes. Not sure about the vagueness about useful information in them. That is, I know that's not the point, but I can't decide at the moment whether it would be a better article if it provided more.
Technomagic Ritual Path Magic Spells: More RPM, so...
I Make My Fate: Well thought out, certainly, but not sure I'm a fan of the concept. That is, I prefer that narrative abilities like fate/impulse/drama points be a feature of the setting used by the players rather than a capability one might or might not specialize in as a character. It's a bit of a "chosen one" trope which has to be really well done to work for me. I like the Weirdness Magnet box.
Random Thought Table: The Noble Prize: Steven can always be counted on for an excellent column. Good investigation of a common trope.

More may follow if time allows.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by SolemnGolem

Supernatural Energy: As an editorial aside, it's gratifying to see how GURPS as a system is scrupulously balanced at its initial design assumptions, such that "back calculating" the separate components of a bundled base advantage like Magery is eminently doable, as proven by this article. Roundabout 3.5 Ed of D&D, me and my friends decided to try to make it a points buy system, attempting to balance the levels and base classes, and that was not a rewarding or fun experience (though it directly led to my entry to GURPS so it ended well for me at least).

Thank you for the review. I have tried to reverse engineer or double check multiple power builds and also find it pleasantly surprising how often different approaches come so close to each other.

[J. Edward Tremlett]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

#4/4:

Burn While Reading: Love, love, love the thick description of the volumes. Not sure about the vagueness about useful information in them. That is, I know that's not the point, but I can't decide at the moment whether it would be a better article if it provided more.

That is totally legit.

The way I see it, If I fleshed it out with systems I'd be presenting only one book, rather than three. And if I focused on one book then there's be a 1/3 chance it wouldn't be worth someone's time ("Hell doesn't exist in my fantasy games," "Too Mythos-y for my tastes.", "I hate elves.")

Plus I admit to being more enamored of presenting the ideas and a broad overview, leaving folks free to adapt that idea to whatever systems they happen to be using. I hear it runs about 50/50 on whether porting system-specific things into a different game is a hindrance to use and/or enjoyment, or really is no big deal.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by J. Edward Tremlett

That is totally legit.

The way I see it, If I fleshed it out with systems I'd be presenting only one book, rather than three. And if I focused on one book then there's be a 1/3 chance it wouldn't be worth someone's time ("Hell doesn't exist in my fantasy games," "Too Mythos-y for my tastes.", "I hate elves.")

Plus I admit to being more enamored of presenting the ideas and a broad overview, leaving folks free to adapt that idea to whatever systems they happen to be using. I hear it runs about 50/50 on whether porting system-specific things into a different game is a hindrance to use and/or enjoyment, or really is no big deal.

I find there's a real dilemma here:

"This is too detailed, I can't use it in my games without un-doing all that work."

"This isn't detailed enough. I can't use it in my games without doing all the work."

"This is only partially detailed. Why didn't the author finish?"

I've heard all three about the same product (usually Hall of Judgment).

[J. Edward Tremlett]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I find there's a real dilemma here:

"This is too detailed, I can't use it in my games without un-doing all that work."

"This isn't detailed enough. I can't use it in my games without doing all the work."

"This is only partially detailed. Why didn't the author finish?"

I've heard all three about the same product (usually Hall of Judgment).

Exactly. So if you're danged no matter what road you take, take the road that works the best for what you want to accomplish and/or brings you the most joy to make. The right audience will find it.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Speaking of reviews... I linked the ones I know about to my reviews.
I usually just describe and try for more an informative and "what is this for?" than a rating style review. Mailanka and I think its Blind Mapmaker do more rating styles, like a book or movie critic. What type do people find more useful?

I used to write movie reviews for a college newspaper. I thought, "Nobody's going to care what some college student thinks about a movie." So I wrote the reviews to help the reader see if they would likely want to see the film.

I got criticized for that--at first. Then, after they got it, I got comments like, "I didn't think I'd want to see this--until I read your review. I went and loved it!" Or, "I hated that movie. I wish I would have read your review first."

So I'd favor "What is this for?"

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

#4/4:

....The Alchemists’ Guild: I think this would have benefited from tighter focus or more pages. It's a little historical, a little fantasy, a little generic, and a little specific and ends up not doing any one of those things enough for me....

Thanks for expressing your opinion! And yes, a little bit of this and a little bit of that is exactly what I intended it to be. If there's a particular area you'd like more information on, let me know and I can probably direct you to some sources!

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I find there's a real dilemma here:

"This is too detailed, I can't use it in my games without un-doing all that work."

"This isn't detailed enough. I can't use it in my games without doing all the work."

"This is only partially detailed. Why didn't the author finish?"

I've heard all three about the same product (usually Hall of Judgment).

That's it!

I've found that, generally speaking, the written pieces I get the most praise for are the same ones I get the most criticism for. As long as people are talking about it....