Its not very common for me to link to rpg.net, especially not ironically or mockingly, but here you go (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15797.phtml). Someone posted a very good and fair review of LoO there, and I thought some people might be interested.
RPGPundit
The tone of the article was a little off-putting. The reviewer seemed poised to trash the book, but then scored it well. The review seemed very "it's great, but..."
Are diceless mechanics really that upsetting to some?
//Panjumanju
I thought the review was very well-constructed, but obviously without reading/playing, I will just have to take Shelby Babb's word for it. That said, he does have a fairly solid track record.
Greek mythology obviously gives a lot of tableau to work with, lots of bickering, plotting and backstabbing. No problems there.
But why use this LoO system, what makes it fun to play?
(I did read the "I don't get Amber" thread, and it did paint some more of the picture for me. I have not read the Zelazny novels.)
As an aside, what did you think of Babb's comment that you had unnecessarily snarked at the original Amber game?
Quote from: Motorskills;622323As an aside, what did you think of Babb's comment that you had unnecessarily snarked at the original Amber game?
He's actually mistaken. You are referring to this, right?:
"There are also five other options for character creation given out, including the classic one Amber used (and described as “simplistic and boring” in the text, in a rather needlessly insulting slip up)"
Except he's mistaken. The main character creation system of LoO is the one most like the "classic one Amber used", whereas the one I cut up as "simplistic and boring" was not like the one Amber used, but rather a method where only the points mattered and not the Class/Ranks.
In fact, I'd be extremely grateful if someone were to correct him on that.
RPGPundit
The character creation mistake seemed odd to me. Also:
QuoteIronically, due to the way Classes work it could also mean that the once great Hercules could actually lose strength should any PC overtake the God of Strength's Might Class; likewise, PCs could also see their power drop should another take over one or more of their Ability Classes.
As I understand it, if a PC advances to a rank in might greater then Heracles, Heracles still has the same absolute might, there is just one more person stronger than him now. I don't see how someone could misunderstand that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;623204He's actually mistaken. You are referring to this, right?:
"There are also five other options for character creation given out, including the classic one Amber used (and described as "simplistic and boring" in the text, in a rather needlessly insulting slip up)"
Except he's mistaken. The main character creation system of LoO is the one most like the "classic one Amber used", whereas the one I cut up as "simplistic and boring" was not like the one Amber used, but rather a method where only the points mattered and not the Class/Ranks.
In fact, I'd be extremely grateful if someone were to correct him on that.
RPGPundit
Done (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?672093-RPG-Lords-of-Olympus-reviewed-by-San-Dee-Jota-(3-5)&p=16389171#post16389171)
Quote from: DacholaEtecoon;623398The character creation mistake seemed odd to me. Also:
As I understand it, if a PC advances to a rank in might greater then Heracles, Heracles still has the same absolute might, there is just one more person stronger than him now. I don't see how someone could misunderstand that.
Yes, good point. Your understanding of it is totally correct, and his is again mistaken.
RPGPundit