Dear Paper Mayhem:

I am writing in response to the review of Entertainment Plus' Adventurer's Guild in issue #45. The nature of the article made me unhappy, and I was dismayed by it's shamelessly hostile attitude toward Adventurer's Guild.

I do not with this to be a standard "you trashed my favorite game and who do you think you are" letter. I really enjoy Paper Mayhem, and especially like the Gameline and PBM Activity Corner features, just as they are. I also subscribe to Flagship, and PM better meets my interests as a North American PBM gamer (what good do ads of a great game in Bristol, England do me?). I discovered all but one (Crusade) of the commercial PBM games I'm playing directly through Paper Mayhem, having learned about PM from your ad in Computer Gaming World. PM is in my opinion the best source of information on PBM games, especially new ones, and has opened up a great new hobby for me.

I also realize Mark Macagnone's views do not necessarily reflect those of Paper Mayhem. Mark Macagnone seems to be a veteran PBM gamer, and is apparently well able to play and evaluate a PBM game. He had the opportunity to review AG himself and did so as he saw fit. But my experiences and opinions regarding AG differ drastically, and I would like the opportunity to make them known, or at least say something in AG's defense.

Mark Macagnone's review was the shortest I can remember reading in Paper Mayhem - the shortest article I can remember seeing, in fact. It's as if he wanted to put as little time into the review as possible; maybe a result of his detestation of AG itself. I have no doubt whatsoever after reading the article that he not only did not like Adventurer's Guild, he disliked it intensely and actively. His character Shadowspawn's parting words on the Adventurer's Guild reflect the same spirit: Shadowspawn commended one other character while berating all the others. Mark Macagnone is clearly unimpressed by any aspect of AG, game or players! The review was harsh, seemed rushed, and (to me, an established AG player) failed to describe Adventurer's Guild accurately.

I mentioned in the above paragraph that the review seemed rushed. Mark Macagnone spent the first 3 paragraphs detailing specific objections to AG, flew through the character set-up procedure, talked briefly about combat strategy, complained about random events occuring in the game, advised other PBMers not to play, and then grudgingly listed Entertainment Plus' address at the end. He stopped nowhere to explain aspects of the game in detail, nowhere did he spend more than four paragraphs, short ones at that, on any subject, and all of this occurred in about one full page of text. I am less convinced that the article evaluated AG than it voiced Mark Macagnone's opinion of it.

In contrast, Jim Arnold's articlee on Takamo II was 2 pages, Gerri Macagnone's article on Karrus was about 2 full pages, and Oren C. Webster's article on Death And Sorrow was a page and a half. These articles seemd to just describe a game and aspects thereof; all Mark Macagnone could muster were criticisms: "You have to... This doesn't leave you much to work with... so what else is new... THIS is the exact same thing you get with DUELMASTERS...", to list but a few.

Mark Macagnone's objections to Adventurer's Guild pervaded the entire review. Once in the whole article did he have a positive thing to say; "Nice Touch", two words about player-defined comments during combat.

I am not really sure what aspect of the game evoked such hostility. Was it the price, which he thought was was too high (although you get 7 fights for Duelmaster's 5?) Or the fact that AG was not what he expected (what did he expect?), or that the games isn't "done" yet (it is continually being developed and refined)? I could respond to every one of his criticisms, most all of them positively, but what would be the point? He didn't seem to like anything about AG, and that's that.

As far as calling AG a Duelmaster clone as Mark did, I must disagree. I play Duelmasters too, and there are significant differences. Duelmasters is geared towards team play and performance, AG on the individual. Duelmasters allows only partial control on gladiator set-ups; in AG the character set-up is absolutely under the players control. The strategy mail-in sheets from each game look and act nothing like each other; and each game has a different feel. If Mark Macagnone really wants to see a Duelmasters clone, Blood Pit fits the mold much more closely - combat orders resemble those of Duelmasters down to the activity level designation, the part of the body covered during a particular minute, and team play.

The main difference between AG and Duelmasters is AG's emphasis on the individual. Who cares in AG if Rudolph the Red of Santa's Reindeer wants to make friends with Natasha Nogood of Rocky's Rangers?

The team is important in Duelmasters, all 5 characters of whoever's current. But in AG, the player concentrates on his one character and becomes him while playing. AG lends itself to real role-playing much easier than Duelmasters does. Mark Macagnone does not seem to understand this; perhaps it's not what he's looking for in a PBM game.

I am a bit naive about such things, but I believe that a review of something, be it a book, movie, computer game, or PBM game should be as neutral as possible, and let the medium speak for itself. Mark Macagnone's disdain for AG clearly did not allow him to do this. Nearly every comment he made was negative, and he suggested outright to the entire readership of Paper Mayhem that AG is a waste of money! That is a very strong statement.

Entertainment Plus is trying to run an expansive, open ended game that is constantly growing, with an eye toward real role playing by mail. It's real strengths are not the game play, which Mark Macagnone begrudgingly described, but in the interpersonal relationships the game allows (and encourages) because of it's emphasis on the individual character. Mark Macagnone did not even infer this in his article; nor even that there was a message board in AG. This may be because he was an outsider in the game, there just long enough to get material for his review and get out again as fast as possible since it left a very, very bad taste in his mouth.

I feel that AG is much better than Mark Macagnone's review allows for. His review was scathing and hostile. Would it be possible for you to AG another chance with a more impartial observer?

Thank you, Mark Riedel