An Open letter to Mark Macagnone from Hugh Bayer, pres. of Entertainment Plus

Upon reading your rather negative review of Adventurer's Guild back in issue #45 I became quite curious as to how the many people who enjoy the game would respond. I thank the players who rose to your attack in issue #46 (a counter-review by Spike Jones and a letter from Mark Riedel); both did a wonderful job of informing the readers about the game of which you wrote "It would not be fair to the gamers out there if I didn't warn them about this game."

Since Spike and Mark brought to light many of the features and aspects of AG which were left out or glossed over in your review, I only wish to point out a few items and ask a question or two.

You wrote "I will live with what I say...", but might you like to reconsider the statement "it (AG) was a Clone, if fact almost an exact copy, of DUELMASTERS by RSI."? In a conversation I had with a RSI representative during GenCon 90 he said quite the opposite. Of course you're still welcome to hold onto your opinion.

A friend of yours (a paying player) was quick to take over your review adventurer when your free review position ran out. You knew when you wrote the review, and doubly so now, that many of the gamers out there enjoy AG. Perhaps you noticed AG was listed in the top ten pbm games of 1990 on page 2 of Paper Mayhem, #45? In light of this, do you feel that you review games with gamers' interests in mind?

You mentioned striking an opponent in combat, then later seeing the opponent without any wounds. Might you have missed a half-troll regenerating wounds, or an elf using the Heal spell? And by the way, does Duelmasters have nine possible adventure races?

Lastly, in the final few paragraphs of your review you "decided to give this game a special test." This included trying out some of the many options that AG offers. I'm glad you got around to experiencing a few more aspects of the game, and I got the distinct feeling that you actually enjoyed the results. By any chance has your opinion of Adventurer's Guild improved at all?

Sincerely,

Hugh Bayer
Entertainment Plus

* the reply *

Dear Dave,

I find myself in an awkard position about my review of The Adventurer's Guild. It seems the people find it amazing that I can write such a review as I did for this particular game. So I felt that I should clear up a few things about why I wrote the review the way I did.

I will give you, the players of the game the step by step reasons for that review.

(1) This particular game only allowed me 6 turns of play for the review position. Yes folks, only 6 turns. I usually play 25 turns in an open ended or to the end of a closed ended game.

(2) I have played Duelmasters and I did feel that this game was a clone of it.

(3) At the time of playing the game, none of the new (?) special opportunities were available.

(4) After the review, I spoke to some players and found that most, if not all, of the "special encounters" were eliminated! WHY?

(5) So, what's the problem?

I was berated by one of my best friends and was told that this review was not up to my usual good standards as far as being objective to the game. He did not object to the negative review but to the way I reviewed it. And I am sure a lot of people who read my reviews find it disturbing that I can go the way I did. But if you look at my other reviews you will find that I do go all out for the reviews.

Because of my reviews I know that there is an influx of new players joining. The same has happened with every game I've reviewed so far. Now don't get me wrong. If I don't like the way the game is, I will review it accordingly. I review for the players, NOT THE GAME MASTERS. I don't get special treatment from any of them. And I drop as soon as I've finish the review. I play the game for two reasons, (1) I enjoy playing and (2) I think I can give the other players and new comers to PBM's a sense of what the games are and how they are played.

As an example I sent out 20 form letters to different companies recently. Out of the 20, 14 responded and I'm now in 10 of these with 4 rejections. Not bad. All of them have given me the chance to play their games to the end (close ended) or up to 25 turns (open ended). All of those that rejected my request wrote explaining why, and expressed that since they already have a review position filled they will put my name in the file for future games. This tells me that I must be doing something right.

When a game master tells me "Hey, if you give my games a good review I'll let you play for free". I tell them where they can put their games (believe me when I tell you that I've had this happen only once so far. I will not tell you who it was but I can say this, They don't exist anymore).

As for Mr. Mark Riedels letter. Maybe you should go back a few Paper Mayhems, to find my very first review on Destiny in the Capsule. It wasn't even half a page long. He makes a point of the fact that my review was too short and because of this my review was bad. Your opinion is your opinion. But I found Mr. Spike Y. Jones' article more interesting to read. And I thank him for giving the game another point of view (and no I was not whining over 5 gold crowns. Even though they are very hard to come by).

I do hate to give bad reviews, but I will stand fast to what I wrote, what ever the results of the reviews are. Who knows, maybe players will flock to the game just to see why I didn't like it!

I hope I didn't offend the Game Master of AG. It's just that I didn't like the game. Not because of the fact that it was an Arena Combat, type game but it was not a good value for the money at $9.50 a turn.

Still, again, I will stand by my review as it is. I do also hope that my next bad review will not cause such a stir. Maybe it will, it's more interesting to see two views on the same game back to back. A thought to ponder. Maybe I'll take up anothers friends idea of reviewing the same game for different points of view. Siskel and Ebert anyone?

On 12-27-90 I received a letter from Hugh Bayer from AG. In it he expressed the fact that... (you can see the whole letter in issue #47 or #48).

"A FRIEND OF YOURS (A PAYING PLAYER) was quick to take over your review adventurer when your free review position ran out"

Yes he did! He and I spoke and wrote quite often and talked a lot about the game. I did give him my character because he did enjoy the game a lot! Maybe I did the right thing by doing this?

Also, if I'm not mistaken, my opponent in the particular game I mentioned was neither elf nor half troll but a human whom I smacked with a long sword. All he said was ouch. No wound appeared.

As for the "many aspects of the game" these were already in the game to use but because of their nature (it involves gold and betting) I could not use them to their full potential". As for changing my mind, sorry but my review stands.

Until the next review...Good Gaming

Mark Macagnone, Reviewer