A game reviewer at Dorkland has some honest critiques that Larry and Bill might want to take a look at when they update the book. Though I think he misunderstood what a Rank is, interpreting it through a D20 lense.
"Once you get into the game you will see that this is definitely a first game by the designers. Some of the concepts could have stood to have better explanations, the use of "levels" in the skills is an example of this. Some skills need levels, while others don't. While there are tables on each of the skill descriptions that tell you the skills level, and what the "rank" of those levels are (much in the same way as classes are often ranked in older editions of games like D&D), since all of the skill scores are converted into percentile ranks it seems a bit puzzling as to why skills need levels (outside of giving a hook to those who are used to more class and level-based games). There is also a couple of steps that go into generating the percentage scores for skills, and it does seem that process could be a bit further streamlined."
"I think that from precedence some of the creatures could have been broken down into greater specificity. The dragon entry, for example, could have been further broken down into various types. I like a lot of monster, and I like unique and interesting monsters that help give players an insight into a games world. The monsters in BareBones, while serviceable, are a bit more generic than what I personally like. The simplicity of creature writeups in the game, however, make it easy enough for a game master to personalize creatures to better fit their world. My main issue, I guess, with generic monsters, is that they do not have a sense of awe that allows players to turn creatures into adversaries rather than just a set of statistics that have to be fought against. This could very easily be something tackled too by the game master in an individual game, but it is something that I would have like to have seen."
BareBones Fantasy RPG is not associated with Skaldcrow Games' Bare Bones Multiverse, despite similar names. Check out Glenn's products by clicking here.
I'm not particularly concerned with either of those qualms. All of the skills provide +10 per level, and some of the skills provide additional bonuses at certain threshold levels (interestingly, Scout, Thief, and Warrior are not among the latter). That seemed fairly straightforward to me. As for the generic nature of the monsters, I prefer that. It's easier to individuate a generic monster than it is to step a highly detailed and localized monster back to something more portable. Modules can go a long way toward showing how monsters can be personalized. (Here I'm thinking about the ghoul in a cage in Maidens of Mordooth--one of the most chilling uses of a ghoul I've seen, and the stat block doesn't change at all from that provided for a more generic group of ghouls elsewhere in the module.)
I remember reading this review when I was on the fence about buying BBF. I remember it standing out from other reviews I had read which did include some criticism of the game. This review felt like the reviewer was disappointed with the game not being designed in a way that made sense to or appealed to them personally. Versus the design being faulty itself. That non-bias turned me off of the review itself. After buying the game and reading it cover to cover, I am glad I didn't listen to the nay saying. I don't think either of the things quoted above are an issue.
I agree. Though I think it speaks to what clarifications may be needed.
When I first read that review I was like "huh? He's totally confused about skill levels and ranks!" And was even going to type a response. But then I read some of his other reviews of other products and realized how critical he is and highly opinionated about how he thinks a game should be made. Re-reading his review through that lens and I realized he gave us a good review.
I have yet to find anyone else who misunderstood the levels/ranks as he did. I felt we were very careful with our terminology, with the use of the word "level" and the word "rank" -- though I can of course imagine someone who reads through it quickly to review it without the intent of playing it and coming from a d20 system background making the assumptions he did.
As for the way creatures were handled, I don't believe we need any further clarifications. The way they were handled was by design.
Oh - and thanks for the kudos by the way regarding the caged ghoul... that was my favorite encounter and the one I use most often during the journey to Maiden's Rest when I run that adventure :-) You'd be amazed how many people just attack... sad really.
I don't see why you need various "types" of dragons. So what if some other game chooses to make 40 different kinds in a desperate attempt to milk money from uncreative GMs. Nearly every fantasy book I've read had green scaled dragons with a fiery breath. Do you really need more than that for awe? And if you do, can you not just change the example dragon to what you want?
A long time ago I was in a discussion with a WoTC designer who said he never bought more than the Monster Manual. He could always tweak what was there for his needs and he could even use the stats as is but give a whole new physical description complete with new manerisms and his players never ever knew his shortcut.
Save the space, give us the examples, and let us run with it. You have a great thing here. Don't weigh it down.
+1 @jasales