Shortly after I began reviewing for RPGnet in January 2006 I became aware of a distinct difference of opinion over the value of game reviews based on a thorough reading and those based on play experiences. At the time I bristled somewhat at the idea that a dedicated hobbyist would be unable to share worthwhile insights into a game based on a mere reading, and while today I hold a similar view I can say for certain that four years of actively reviewing games that I've played and those that I didn't have a chance to play has taught me that while reading a book will reveal many good and bad qualities, nothing compares to giving a game a spin at the table with a group of friends.

Recent experiences in making certain that the ENnies products I'm working with this year are as playtested as they can be have given me a new found appreciation for how subtle some things can be at the table. Take, for example, my experiences with the current edition of Victoriana. In this game the dice pool system uses black dice to represent difficulty, which are rolled with normal dice and which can subtract successes. Upon reading the mechanic my first thought was that it was needlessly gimmicky and added to what could already be large dice pools to result in a slowdown in play. While it does slow things down ever so slightly, once I got this mechanic to the table I discovered to my joy that everyone was having a great time with it. We had been playing games that used few dice for some time, and adding in more dice – even as a penalty – was inherently fun for the group and produced more excitement centered around the results of particular rolls.

Victoriana is not the only game to benefit from this. I had a decidedly negative view towards Pathfinder as I felt like the changes were far too small to justify much excitement for what I saw as a reprint of 3.5 D&D. Yet once I made characters with the system and really began tinkering with the mechanics, and once my friends showed me the usefulness of some of the mechanical additions, my perspective was much more positive. While I had to acknowledge the history of the game, and while not all of the changes fit with my friends' play style, I could comfortably say that Pathfinder was a good game that built on its predecessor while offering changes that were useful at the gaming table.

In a somewhat different way, I found it to be very difficult to visualize how play would unfold with Warhammer 3rd Edition. A very large portion of the mechanics exist as power cards, character, or group sheets. Getting a feel for this game without playing it proved entirely impossible for me, and only by learning the mechanics while walking through an introductory adventure did I feel like I gained the knowledge needed to be able to criticize the game.

It need not always be a positive experience, either. Weapons of the Gods seemed very enjoyable after a read, and with the large amounts of art, good setting, and fantastic supporting fiction I was excited to play. While the River mechanic was great in play, the book's major flaws became evident as well. Keeping a handle on the magic system of the game was an enormous pain, and a lot of time was spent trying to keep it straight to the detriment of the play at the table. Had I not been forced to understand all of those mechanics and directly engage the product in play I would never have realized how badly the text needed reorganization and clarifying.

This isn't to say that all games require play before good criticism can occur. There have been plenty of products that played exactly as I expected based on reading them. Supplements are the most common, since I already know the system well before reviewing them, but core books with die mechanics very similar to existing games or products that are heavy on setting and presentation but light on mechanics all qualify. However, watching how my friends interact with a setting or concept helps me to appreciate how well it works at the gaming table and for this reason I always prefer playtest reviews when given the option.

As a reviewer one thing to keep in mind is how much play has been done. Be sure to communicate to your audience if you only had time for character creation or a one shot. Clearly, some game mechanics are likely to go unappreciated in a one shot while they may come up frequently in a longer campaign. There's nothing wrong with only a play session or two, in fact it's a common experience for the busy reviewer, but it's also honest to note how much play was actually had.

The next time you have a chance to try up a new game, please consider writing a play review for all of us to read! Play experiences often bring to light issues unforeseen from a simple read through, and it's always exciting to learn about another person's experiences with a game in play.