An unhinged review of Baptism of Fire

 For quick reference: when it comes to setting material I would set Oriental adventures at a 5 and most modern shlock as 1. [1]

BoF comes in at a 3 for setting material

Is this an attack on the author? No.  A ridiculous idea to any sane man, I know, but this will be important later.

In point of fact, I happen to like it.  The overall quality I would put at a 5, with the layout being a 4. 

In Specific

When I read through setting material, I like to find those pieces which scream flavor.

The introduction could have been half the length and gotten across the same information, this is due in part to the introduction being repeated, it appears in the first page of the actual book, and again in the introduction section, a minor annoyance.

 In Character Creation 3d6 standard is respectable, but a piece of real interest, in the form of social class presents itself immediately afterward.  Though I like the system provided, I still found it lacking, at least for my purposes.  So I made a table:

Meant to be used with a modified version of the birth rank table(s) from Oriental Adventures:

 The Prior History table is interesting and useful.  Though not especially evocative of the setting, it provides an alternative to the idea of backstory, present in 5e and other modern games, in a much more succinct format.  But, although succinct in comparison to storygame trash which should be ejected from RPGs as a whole, I think the tables present should have been compacted down.  Either that or a reference table, as it is a relatively simple step and should  take up less space.

The name tables are, again, solid, with the same consideration as previous.  The spacing between each entry takes up about half of the page, for a physical print book (and pdf, I know) this seems wasteful to me.

The Royal Houses

The polish noble houses are good.  No space is really wasted here, in fact, because I have a map of the clans of Scotland, there is one thing I find missing here: Their motto.  Maybe it isn't the same in Poland (though I should doubt it) but even providing made-up mottos would add an incredible amount of flavor for relatively little space.  On the Scottish clan map, ten examples:

1. Napier, Lord Napier, motto "Sanstache"
2. Irvine of Drum, motto "Sub sole, sub umbra virens"
3. McKie of Larg, motto "Labora"
4. McBain of Kinchyle, motto "Touch not a catt bot a targe"
5. The Captain of Clan Chattan, motto "Touch not the cat but a glove"
6. The Mackintosh, motto "Touch not the cat bot a glove"
7. Cluny Mackpherson, motto see above
8. Haldane of Gleneagles, motto "Suffer"
9. Macneil of Barra, motto "Buaidh na bas"
10. Turnbull of Bedrule, motto "I saved the king"

 If nothing else can be gleaned from this, its that the Scots apparently had a real cat problem.

 The classes are average, the only real problem being the names.

 A nitpick: 

Why are they called 'holy men' and 'holy warriors' and not 'saints' and 'paladins' respectively? I understand not selecting the term ’cleric,’ the reason is provided in the book, but something more emblematic of the setting could have been chosen.  (Earlier editions of D&D have the term cavalier which could have been used for 'holy warriors'.)  But what should have been used, instead of the horribly generic  ‘holy man’ and ’holy warrior’ is literally just those same words translated to polish.  It is a brain-dead solution, and one which was used for the bard equivalent.  If the answer is just “word too long,” then let me say that ‘skomroszny’ sounds like what New Yorkers get up to on a Friday night. [2] [3]

For Magic, I have a personal dislike for the including of demon summoning rules in my game, but this can be re-flavored easily.  As a whole, the magic system is unique, or at least feels unique, and evokes that cross between Slavic and European ideas which, to me, is essentially what makes up Poland.

The coinage system is less annoying than in Lion & Dragon, and the equipment section is just about standard.  There is included what I would call equipage, which in my own documentation are: Mounts, Mercenaries, Hirelings, Henchmen, Retainers and Trained Animals.  Basically anything making up the retinue of a person not including what a person can carry.  This, together with prices, and appropriately long build times, for strongholds and property, and all of it not just lumped together on some gigantic table- It's almost exactly what I would want in such a section.

The simple reaction roll has been fleshed out into a sort of more detailed mechanic for social interaction.  Though all details aside from the basic 2d6 roll are all presented as examples, not as hard and fast points which must always be used, which I do like.  Actually quite clever.

Morale rules are included.  There is no relation, but they are vaguely similar to the rules I use.

Page 143, second to last paragraph, has the typo of "wind." being repeated, shocking, I know.  Solid, albeit basic, travel rules, regardless.

Combat

For combat, 6 second rounds are used.  This is sh- bad.  It may not particularly matter to some, but I much prefer the abstraction of 1 minute rounds.  As it stands the idea of 6 second rounds reminds me of 5e/3e/modern D&D.  Being a modern mechanic, or at least a modern adoption of a mechanic, may not be the only argument for the use of 6 second round, but most other arguments have something to do with realism.  Get back to me when loading, aiming and firing a winch-loaded arbalest (heavy crossbow) eight times in 6 seconds comes anywhere within the realm of reality. [4]  Either way, I would like to see an actually good reason to use 6 second rounds.

The encounter distance is whack, so I'm going to provide my own, copied from a comment I left on another blog:

 For encounter distance I use logarithmic with a d4: 

1: 1ft(party surprised), 

2: 10ft(both surprised), 

3: 100ft(neither surprised, parley/combat ensues), 

4: 1000ft. (party at option to either avoid encounter or surprise)
Except for dragons, where 1: 100ft, 2: 1000ft, 3: 2 miles, 4: 20 miles
(Using Roman Miles, technically)

 Individual initiative is used, which I have no objection towards.  Actions, including attacks, are majorly standard, although the fighter's ability to attack multiple weak creatures makes him unable to move, in my eyes this renders the ability quite useless.  The kind of critical hits used here I just find annoying.  On the rare occasion that a critical hit happens, one of a number of different sub-tables must be referenced, interrupting the flow of combat for possibly nothing.  Yay.

Moving on to death and death-like symptoms, a modified form of negative hp is used here and- boring.  "There is no coming back from the dead," yeah well just kill the characters if they lose all their health, make the setting -hic- mean something, "at -5 health can only be saved by magic" sounds like resurrection/revival to me -hic-, pathet-

...

 Oh, sorry, I think I blacked out for a second there, oh well.

Various diseases are presented, the black plague is so certain to kill that I would change it to a % chance of survival equal to the character's CON score. I would guess the odds to be about the same.  The others are at least more interesting.

Experience... this hurts.  Frankly, I think the experience system used here is perfectly fine, and that it does, indeed, better fit the setting and style of play desired.  My problem exists in the line of logic in use here, some quotes:

"Characters of the Knightly class and above would be gravely dishonored by looting bodies for a few measly coins," and "So, a system of experience points that innately encourages characters to try to pick up every last copper piece"(emphasis added for both).  Is this supposed to critique AD&D? Because this isn't how the game ever was played (afaik), or even how it should be played. (Or, for that matter, how I play my own modified game.)  If the characters are looting commoners for coins, they aren't playing correctly, and they will quickly find this out by the mere fact that they won't get anywhere. [5]

I don't actually think it is trying to be a critique of AD&D, but rather it is a critique of such a system of experience being used in a "medieval authentic" setting.  Because, in this setting, there are no piles of gold, except those of monarchs, and the characters in such a world as this 1: would never dare, 2: do not have the power to raid these hoards.  This means that yes, in such a setting, there would only ever be "a few measly coins."  My problem is that the argumentation is not presented correctly, because when I read it, it feels like an attack on AD&D, but it isn't, it's just presented poorly.  Layout, man.

 Sweet, sweet treasure tables.  The magic items are one of the highlights of the book, as they provide a whole lot of flavor and are just generally cool.

 The second highest concentration of setting specific flavor, I would have to say, is in the monsters section, with some of those wonderfully disturbing creatures of Slavic folklore.

The Timeline & Gazetteer 

Further down, the book provides a history of Poland, focusing on the royalty and other notable events, and stretching from 966-1058.  I would have liked to have seen more information on the lesser houses, their plotting and scheming, throughout this time.  And if no such historical record exists, then to come up with something, or at least provide some more details on the houses presented in earlier chapters.

 On to the gazetteer: lackluster.  I find the descriptions of the locations provided to be particularly useless in terms of game-use:

What I'm looking for, in terms of the kind of game that this seems to be: The leaders and important people in a given place, what their goals are, who they are allied with etc... if there are any troops either stationed in the area or at the beck and call of the leader, and any other threats or notable forces of impact on the area.

What is given for Krakow: A short history of the city, where the only part useful to me is the name of a castle here, there are also two burial mounds of leaders famous to the area, but I don't care about these.  Population is given at 7500 with demographics.  Krakow is a trade city, and accordingly the other notable locations which this route connects to are given.  The book lists a cathedral, but not the name of the bishop.  The local leader of the city, at the time of the setting, is not given.  The only remarkable detail here is the Trail of Eagle Nests, home of eagle nests and a town controlled by nobles loyal to the current crown of Poland, but who are not indicated in any way to be the ones in charge of Krakow.  Whether I am running a modern game of quest searching, a dungeon crawl, or something similar to Braunstein, this information, aside from one remarkable detail, is unusable.

Wolves Upon the Coast by Luke Gearing, is an incredibly similar game, all things considered, only it is set around the North Sea including the British Isles, though the various countries and geography have been replaced with fantastical analogs.  WUtC provides a demo document which details the island of Ruislip, the entry for the city of Dorbog includes:

The population number, the fact that there is a fortress here, the ruler of the city and his advisor, his relation with the other leading forces of the island, the current state of the city, two persons of interest and the troop disposition of the city, including boats.

In this one entry you are given the leader of the city, who the major powers on the island are and his relation to them, none of which is given in the entry for Krakow. 

After this disappointment, the book has a section detailing the pagan magic, magic items and deities.  More of the same from the earlier sections for the first two points, and I have some, but very little use for the deities.

Appendix I: Random encounters, solid, enough detail to be useful.  Appendix II: Locations of creatures, self-explanatory and they make sense.  Appendix III: City encounters, standard, whatever.  The most interesting part here, to me, is the rumors table, 50 entries of bait for the characters to investigate.  Appendix IV: witch class? which class.  Appendix V: Social encounters, rules for advanced animal handling, gossip and seduction.  Appendix VI: Domain management, the rules regarding peasants are the most immediately useful to me, simply because I don't have any rules of my own regarding the management of tenants.  Appendix VII: Legend and Infamy, rules for gaining the title qualities, the points go very high and most likely no character will ever reach the highest, or even close to it, for that matter.

Almost all character sheets are poorly designed imo, so no comment on that.

One ounce of silver well-spent?

 On a second look through, there is a fair bit which I actually like about the game.  But it fails at achieving one thing, which is the ability to indicate what can be done in the game, what the character is supposed to do in the game, and to make want to do that thing, with my character, in the game.  Oriental Adventures accomplishes this, Baptism of Fire does not.  I am not particularly interested, let alone excited, to play this game, because I have no idea what this game offers differently than, say, OSE.  The parts which should be most flavorful, the royal houses, the timeline, and the gazzeteer were all, in my eyes, deficient.

The Unhinged Part

Now, this is a review, however, not just any review, a blog review, which means that it needs must be at least somewhat unhinged.  I think that the above section is somewhat unhinged, but, more than that, I feel that I should go the extra mile.  An attempt, you could say, to make the jaw of any wandering reader unhinge itself in order to accommodate how far it must drop in reaction.  

Too far? Good start it seems.

The point, at least I should hope, is not to stir up drama, but to point out the stupidity in it, and, hopefully to elucidate why never to partake in such.

What am I talking about?  Well, I stumbled across PrinceofNothing, an actual reviewer, specializing in RPG products, a few months ago.  He had gotten himself into a tiff with RPGPundit, the creator of the product I have reviewed here, and all seemingly over reviewing one of Son-of-the-City's (Pundit) products.  Now, the posts are years old at this point, so I'm sure absolutely everything or absolutely nothing has been resolved.  

Why do I keep asking myself questions? To make points quicker at the expense of aggravating the reader.

I found the whole situation rather amusing as Pundit is a writer of OSR products, and Prince is a supporter of the OSR style of play, as well as organizing the No-Artpunk contest.

The basic point is that both not only fall under the OSR banner, but even considering the varying definitions of the OSR, they seem to have very similar approaches to it.

Yet they are opposed, or were at least in this instance.  Why?  There are many quick and/or obvious answers, but I would propose the reason, or a reason, to be that they both have strong personalities.

Neither of them wanted to cede ground, neither of thought themselves wrong, but this is where it gets weird, in terms of their approaches to D&D, neither are wrong.

So, the origin of opposition originates not out of D&D, which means a different one must be ascribed, and under observation the one most applicable in this case is some personal grievance.

In short, neither debate nor argument but drama.

I hate drama, I think its stupid.  I got fed to **** with it when watching youtube and now I can't stand it.

I don't care who started it, I don't care how it ends, I want it gone.

So, then, why do I bring it up? Because it is stupid.  Neither of the individuals involved are stupid, but rather the kind of interaction that was generated is of the lowest, most pointless quality.  Well, Prince's review was well done, but, as outlined above, D&D and its related facets didn't really factor.

Play silly games win silly prizes.  And here I am playing the game, when we should all be playing

D&D

(Wait... what?)

The Fully Hinged Part

 What is this game trying to go for?  I seem to recall from a video where the author talked about the game that this was supposed to be more traditional in terms of dungeon crawling, though this is half-remembered and I could well be wrong.  If dungeon crawling, I don't see any dungeons.

If Braunstein, there are very few Polish characters detailed in any length holy- if any christian were to use any relic of the church as a weapon he would be excommunicated, small detail book, what the- I just looked through the description of Gniezno and that is just egregious, back to characters- let alone enough characters located in one town/city for a game similar to Braunstein to be run.

If Quest-hopping/point-of-light (as I've heard it called), there is a serious lack of locations of interest.

If medieval Poland Role-playing is the purpose, there isn't enough of a level of detail to do such properly.

  Is this OSR? Yes.  Good mechanics, not enough flavor.

 Final rating 3/5.

 At best above average, at worst a collection of interesting ideas, but nothing striking either way. 

A Consideration

 Should you trust this review?  No.  On one hand, I really want to like this book. On the other, I have heard negative reports in regard to the character of the author, besides, I have a personal dislike for aspects of his character myself, though these being separate from anything gaming related.  Both of these could impact my opinion of the product.  So use your own discretion.

The only sane thing that comes to mind is "Peace and happy gaming," but I think that's somebody else's line, so how about:

Be seeing you.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1](see wotc 2018-present, ToA was the last half-decent offering).

[2] I just checked the book and I’m not that far off, I wonder if its related to the word ‘scum.’

[3]Google translate, not a good source of translations, but my only source of English to Polish translations, returns the word "Kewaler" when I enter Chevalier, but then returns the word "single" when I reverse it, and the word "saint" returns as "swiety."  This all is of import as it indicates that there aren't really any good Polish words to use for these classes, so, a simple fix to the problem of flavor here would be updating the names of the classes: Archer(unchanged), Fighter (or Wojownik), Saint, Chevalier, and the rest the same.

[4] 17th level fighter wielding a heavy crossbow, with the crossbow master feat can fire 8 times in one round if using action surge.

[5]The AD&D DMG experience rules will actually penalize any characters for conduct unbecoming of the class.