Flagship - The Independent Magazine for Gamers

These guidelines start with the assumption that you’ve been offered a review position as an official reviewer. Start with (4) if not. And they also assume that you’ll send your review by mail: obviously, most material is emailed now!

1 ‑ When you receive the rule book and start‑up for the game you are reviewing, take a good look at them. Is this the type of game that you like to play? For example, if you only like narrative games and this looks like a hack'n'slay RPG, give me (Carol) a ring and say, 'Sorry, this just isn't my type of game'. I won't mind. I'd far rather have to find another reviewer than have the GM come to me six months later saying, 'Why isn't my reviewer sending in any turns?'

Once I've found somebody who does like hack'n'slay RPGs, I'll give you the address and you can post the start‑up onwards.

This won't prejudice your chance of getting another review position in the future; on the contrary, it shows you to be somebody who will only take on something that you're willing to finish.

2 ‑ A normal review position runs to ten free turns. If you feel more than this is necessary as you approach the tenth turn, e.g. to try out an aspect of the game you've not yet encountered, then have a word with the GM and see what he thinks.

3 ‑ A review position is a commitment. The GM is trusting you to write a review of the game; he's invested his time and money in processing the turns. Especially for a small business, the cost of a review position is significant. Also, the GM may hope to plan his future advertising around the appearance of a review. In other words, if you take on a review position, you must finish it and write the review at the end.

If you break your wrist or real world commitments become impossible, then let me know. If I know what is going on, I can probably sort something out. I don't mind. What I object to is having the aforementioned GM phoning me asking why his reviewer has vanished.

Note that if a game is played free with the promise of a review and no review is written, the GM can both legally and reasonably invoice you, the reviewer, for all the turn fees.

Be careful not to use your position to ask for special treatment from the GM, e.g. by implying that it will result in better coverage.

4 ‑ The review itself: 2,000‑2,500 words is probably a good length.

Obviously you can be a bit longer or shorter, but aim around this size.

5 ‑ What should be in the review?

First, a general plea: Don't rehash the rulebook ‑ readers need to know what the game is like to play.

i) You need a brief general description of the game. What's it about? Is it finite/open‑ended? What are its main objectives? Is there a high/low level of diplomacy? Who produces it, what does it cost, what's the turnaround time, etc? This should be brief ‑ you can expand on these points later on if necessary.

ii) The role/position you take. Is there a choice in this respect at start‑up? (If there are sixteen races, it is sufficient to say so, don't describe them all in detail ‑ perhaps just one to give some flavour.) If appropriate, you can say why you decided on your own choice, and may need to consider at some point whether a game with various start‑up choices is well‑balanced. You may cover how far your expectations have been fulfilled, how far you've been surprised by what's happened in ‑‑‑

iii) The main body of the review, which should be concerned with what the game is like to play. What sort of things have you done while playing?

Try to give a real feel for playing; quote turn extracts if relevant. Don't recount everything you've done unless this is a game where strategic development is important: select one particular ar/adventure/encounter to describe in detail. Give your own feelings: what did you like, what didn't you like?

iv) Your dealings with other players are an important part of a game and should be mentioned ‑ just briefly if there's little interaction with other players, in more detail if there's lots. You can probably work this aspect into (iii) if it's a highly interactive game.

v) Tactics: what are good and bad tactics to use in this game? Give a bit of advice to those who will follow you this way.

vi) Conclusions. Give reasons ‑ 'because' is a vital word! Don't just say it's a good game or a bad game, describe its good and bad sides. All games have both, and some readers may like something you don't, e.g. 'I found the lack of interplayer contact disappointing' ‑ remember, a reader may be looking for a low diplomacy game, or 'I felt that the GM would kill my character if I made a single mistake' ‑ some people like to live on a knife edge.

Try to say who you think the game will appeal to, and who will dislike it, e.g. 'This game will appeal to those who like an in‑depth roleplaying game. If you dislike space opera scenarios, then this may not be the game for you.'

Comparisons with similar ideas in other well‑known games are helpful e.g.: 'The game uses turn cards as in "It's a Crime"', but don't make passing mini‑assessments of other games, e.g.: 'This game is so much better than the awful "Lands of Lothario"' ‑ a review of one game isn't really the place to comment on others. (However, we are always interested in comparative features weighing up different games on the same theme ‑ we'll consider one of these if you wish to write one).

Don't be too kind‑hearted. Writing a friendly review of a poor game because the GM is nice is always tempting, but encouraging readers to sign up for a game and then drop out disappointed isn't in anyone's interest. Mention any bad points; if they're outweighed by good points, say so.

6 ‑ Stuck? Can't get started? Think of a significant moment and start from this.

7 ‑ Humour. It isn't a crime to be funny. You aren't trying to write the Beano, but don't feel you have to aim for the style of the Times Educational Supplement either.

8 ‑ Problems. If the game folds or major problems develop, let me know.

9 ‑ We'd be grateful if you could send preliminary comments for Rumours around turn 4. Useful for readers and for the GM, especially if a new game.

10 ‑ When the time comes for the full review, here's a checklist of a few points to think about that sometimes get neglected:

i) Add a few notes on yourself and your game experience and likes: e.g.: Age 25, a baker, played PBM for 4 years, prefer games with human moderation but like almost all sports games.

ii) Enclose some sample turn reports, an order form and (if one exists) a map. Tell the GM you're doing this (protects us from copyright rows!).

We do try to show what sort of material a player should expect and it makes layout much easier if there's two or three samples to choose between. Don't sellotape these into your own writing. Suggest captions.

iii) Glance down the title chapters in the rulebook to see if you've omitted anything vital. We once had a wargame review that forgot to mention combat!

iv) Mention the frequency and regularity of turnaround. Our Euro‑readers especially would like to know if slower games are offered.

11 ‑ In our current financial position, we have to offer an extension of your subscription rather than payment in money; we regret this, as we know that writing a review is hard work.

12 ‑ Post the review to the Flagship editorial address. It helps to give me a ring to make sure it's arrived safely ‑ don't throw away your version until you know it has! Yes, we've had reviews get lost in the post... We welcome email; plain text is best.

Thank you for helping both FLAGSHIP and the hobby. Have fun!

- CAROL MULHOLLAND, for FLAGSHIP -