About Ratings

Why hello there, I'm some weirdo on the Internet, and this is where I review role-playing games. How do I rate them? Well that answer is as complex as my ratings.

Base Score

Each game is given a score out of 5 in three categories: Character Creation, Mechanics, and Presentation. There scores are added together to get a base score out of 15 points.
The scores in these areas are based on the following guidelines.

• 5: Excellent
• 4: Very Good
• 3: Average/Good
• 2: Below Average
• 1: Poor
• 0: Absent

Modifiers

Games are also scored on three more categories that are less significant or likely to be optional: Setting, Content, and Writing. These categories are scored out of 3 points and provide adjustments to the base score as follows: 3/3 = +1, 2/3 = 0, 1/3 = -1, and 0/3 = -2.
The scores in these areas are based on the following guidelines

• 3: Above Average
• 2: Average
• 1: Below Average
• 0: Significantly Below Average or Absent

Non-Applicable Elements

If one or more elements aren't present, and shouldn't be—e.g. a universal system lacking a setting, or a campaign setting lacking mechanics—overall score is based only on the present elements. The use of modifiers ensures that not requiring commonly optional elements (e.g. Setting and Content) have the same effect on overall score as being average in that area.

Zero Scores

Scores of 0 are only given if an element is effectively absent when it should be present. This can mean that the element is completely absent, or that it is included but of such poor quality as to be functionally useless

Overall Score

A game's base score and modifiers are added together to determine the game's overall score, which hypothetically ranges from -40% to 120%
In general I try to review a game within the context of what it is, holding a 8-page small-press game to the same standards as a several hundred page major publisher title is completely unreasonable and anyone who does it is a bad person.

Review vs Score

In general, I try to be significantly more objective in scores than in my written review. You may notice something having a high score despite a long list of complaints, or a low score despite a rambling review of how much I like it. Basically scores are my attempt to consider the objective quality of things, while the review is based solely on opinion.

Ratings Categories

The six rating criteria and how they are judged are as follows, with a general guideline for each score.

Setting

The world in which the game takes place, is it interesting and is it adequately explained to allow for general gameplay.

• 3/3: Setting provides information beyond the required minimum, and is original and/or interesting.
• 2/3: Setting provides all necessarily information as it related to gameplay. For example, Vampire: The Masquerade doesn't detail much of it's setting, but fully details how Kindred fit into that setting.
• 1/3: Setting does not proved necessary information relative to gameplay, and/or is extremely generic.
• 0/3: Setting is completely absent or only eluded to.
• N/A: Game is set in a preexisting setting which would be known or knowable to players, is intended to be played in any setting, or has no relevant impact on the game.

Character Creation

Primarily judged based on difficulty and available options. Basically, is it fun, and does it allow you to make the character you want to? In general, higher scores will be awarded to systems with novel character creation methods.

• 5/5: Character creation is easily understood and allows for whatever character a player may want to make. Must pass the "bard test," allowing for the creation of a bard-type character outside of a stock bard class.
• 4/5: Character creation is fairly simple and allows for deep customization.
• 3/5: Ease of character creation is relative to overall character depth. An adequate amount of options are provided.
• 2/5: Character creation is overly complicated and/or does not provide sufficient options.
• 1/5: Character creation is complicated to the point of being difficult to understand, creation rules are inconsistent, lacking necessary information, and/or provide extremely minimal options.
• 0/5: Character creation rules are absent despite being necessary for gameplay, no pre-generated characters are provided.
• N/A: Game does not rely on statistically-defined characters—or all characters have identical stats—uses a character creation system from another game, or is intended to be played only with pre-generated characters.

Mechanics

Are the mechanics easy to learn and use, and do they cover all situations that could reasonably be expected to come up. Bonus points may be awarded for mechanics that are particularly novel, even if they don't perform as well.

• 5/5: Mechanics are interesting, easy, and cover all situations that could be reasonably expected to occur. 
• 4/5: Mechanics are interesting, easy, and/or cover all situations that could be reasonably expected to occur. 
• 3/5: Ease of use of mechanics reflects complexity and applicable situations. Basically, the less well-defined mechanics are, the simpler they should be.
• 2/5: Mechanics are overly-complicated, partially broken/incomplete, and/or do not cover all situation that are likely to occur.
• 1/5: Mechanics are heavily broken, unnecessarily complicated, and do not cover most situations that are likely to occur. Some necessary mechanics may be absent
• 0/5: Core mechanics are broken to the point of being unplayable or are absent without any indication of how conflicts are to be resolved.
• N/A: Uses mechanics from another specified system without presenting itself as a complete game, or is intended to be played without a rules-based conflict resolution system.

Content

How much stuff is there? Is there enough stuff? Is there too much?

• 3/3: A large amount of content is provided beyond core rules, most if not all content is relevant.
• 2/3: All content that could be reasonably expected is provided. Things such as equipment, spells, and monsters—if applicable—are provided in sufficient variety relative to overall game complexity.
• 1/3: Content is a bare minimum, options are extremely limited. User may need to create additional content as part of standard gameplay.
• 0/3: No content is provided, nor are any guidelines for creating necessary content.
• N/A: Standard gameplay requires no additional content beyond core rules, or sufficient easily-usable guidelines are provided for generating all necessary content.

Presentation

How the game looks. Is text neatly laid out, are headings and subheading clearly identifiable, are tables and rule summaries provided, is the overall layout aesthetically pleasing? This also covers art, judged on quantity, quality, consistency, and use. Basically,  is there enough art, is it good, does it all go together, and is it used effectively. No preference is given to original art over stock art or color over black and white. Art may be absent if layout and formatting compensate for it.

• 5/5: Layout is stylish and visually interesting. Every aspect of design is intentional, professional, and displays content in the best way possible. All art is well done, stylistically consistent, and used effectively. Everything you would want a picture of has one.
• 4/5: Layout is visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing. Every aspect of design is intentional, and content is presented as to be easily accessible. Most art is well done, stylistically consistent, and used effectively. All unique entities have accompanying illustrations. Alternatively, art is extremely well done and/or is highly thematically or tonally appropriate.
• 3/5: Game is laid out in an aesthetically-pleasing and more or less professional manner. Page and column breaks are intentional, and little-to-no typographical errors are present. Art is fairly well done, adheres to a general stylistic consistency, and is mostly used effectively. Most unique entities have accompanying illustrations.
• 2/5: Game is laid out in a more or less aesthetically-pleasing manner, but is not of professional quality. Most breaks are intentional, and content is intentionally formatted to be usable. Art is of poor quality, inconsistent style, poorly used, and/or does not illustrate important elements.
• 1/5: Only the most basic attention has been paid to formatting--bold text, bulleted lists, poorly-formatted tables, etc--little-to-no attention has been given to typography--page and column breaks, typeface choice, widows, etc--or formatting and layout are intentional but actually look worse than if they weren't. Art is of extremely poor quality, extremely inconsistent, and/or lacks any relevance to where it is used.
• 0/5: No intentional layout or formatting is present beyond basic section headings.
• N/A: If there were no presentation I wouldn't be looking at it.

Writing

Basically, is the information written and laid out in a clear and coherent manner and easy to find when you need it.

• 3/3: All content is well-written, clear, interesting to read, and laid out in a way that makes finding all information easy.
• 2/3: Most content is well-written with only few minor errors, all rules are clearly understandable, most content is laid out where it can be easily found.
• 1/3: Content is poorly written, contains multiple errors, is difficult to understand, and/or is laid out in a counter-intuitive manner.
• 0/3: Writing is so poor as to be incomprehensible.
• N/A: If writing were absent there literally wouldn't be a thing to review.