Rating:3.5
Comments:Overall, this was a pretty good scenario. Of course, since this is the first non-Spiderweb scenario, I don't have a lot to compare it to. However, once I got started, I enjoyed the gameplay. There were a number of decent battles--difficult if you didn't get the jump on the opponent, not to bad if you did. Given that this was a level 1-6 scenario, more complex strategies aren't really an issue for the designer.

There were two reasons I didn't give this a higher rating. The first is that starting isn't necessarily obvious. You have to sleep in the hotel overnight. I slept in the hotel, but at the wrong time, apparently, so I couldn't figure out what to do. Eventually, I read the hints in the FAQ and slept again and things got going. I would have prefered a better set-up that made it clear what the main mission was. Side scenarios are a different story.

The second reason was that there were several instances where I lost control over my characters while some plot-advancing action took place (often accompanied by dreadful graphics). I'd much prefer dialog boxes, a la the original Spiderweb scenarios and Avernum 3 (I didn't play A1 or A2).

Neither of these killed my enjoyment, but with a better start and smoother plot advancement (and less of those graphics), I would have enjoyed this brief scenario.

A bug I haven't seen anyone else mention: In the main town (forget the name),
there is a building that you can break into that has an "official" sitting who
doesnt respond. And although you can go through the "window" to get to his/
her loot, the door acts as if it were a wall. You can't even attempt to pick it.

Anyway, this was thoroughly enjoyable, please keep making more (hopefully
longer, more difficult ones), if only to appease my boredom.

Rating:2.9

Comments:Playable, but very short, and overall feels incomplete. In my opinion it would have required more work.
I didn't see the point in the intro text...? (though interesting)
Disappointed by beginning of the plot (messages like "sleep at the inn...").
Nevertheless this scenario designer shows much talent (combats, scripting uses, lots of custom graphics, ideas...), and i'm sure following scenarios will be go_od.

Rating:2.5

Comments:RoR was really a pretty boring scenario. You just fight undead until you eventually kill the big bads. There wasn't much creativity involved in designing this scenario, and it seems the designer was more concerned with making it the first BoA scenario than making it enjoyable. The plugs in the books for his BoE scenarios and the description of himself were just annoying. Also, I didn't like the way the designer felt we needed to get a dialogue box of a huge picture in many instances.

Rating:2.0

Comments:This Scenario was terrible. To me, it seemed like the guy was trying to force his opinions and ideas on you (The whole deal about post-modernism vs. modernism, and stuff not being purely evil, but everything containing some good.) You meet this one woman who is in trouble with taxes, and it tells you you want to see how she is doing, and have to! Like you are supposed to care about everyone who gets sent to prison because of the Empire's injustice! There was very little storyline: kill a couple of vampires before they destroy a village, in only two dungeons. How TM puts a character of himself in the scenario and mentions how outrageously cool he is, did get a laugh from me, also the two poems when sniffing flowers are also mildly amusing. But that was it. There were, however, no real bugs that I found. Overall the scenario seemed more like a lecture, a strong party could beat it in 10 minutes, and the scenario was more like a mad dash to be able to be called the first Blades of Avernum scenario, than something to be enjoyed. In short the worst scenario, by far, that is currently out. Want laughs, play Cave of No Return. Want some short fun, play Cave of No Return, or Babysitting.

Rating:3.20

Comments:Thanks for a decent scenario, TM.

An intellectual dialogue between opposing moral standpoints is present throughout. This is effected, primarily, through the use of the antagonist (a vampire) being a mouthpiece for one perspective, and an NPC who joins the party (a zombie) standing for the opposition. The party's responses to the various undead polemics are uniform and serve only to allow for further speeches, or indeed the continuance of the scenario. No choice of personal response to the views offered is allowed - nor should it be expected in this case. Clearly, if the author was attempting to offer an environment conducive to personal and individual responses to complicated moral dilemmas, he would have started a philosophy forum.

That said, an interactive environment like BoA does usually offer the opportunity for a limited response - just enough, in a great scenario, to fool the player into believing that they are in control of events. This is not the case here. Also, the standard character-driven plot is discarded; instead, the plot moves purposefully and directly through a series of clichés, simply in order to serve up the two (aforementioned) intellectual arguments, and allow them to develop towards a head on collision at the beginning of the final battle.

As to the resolution - well, the vampire bites the dust, so to speak. A victory for moral ambiguity? Unfortunately not. As soon as the vampire dies (again), the friendly zombie, finding no opposition against which to essay his polemic, falls apart himself.

There's definitely a good point in there somewhere. Though what it had to do with the undead is beyond me. Perhaps resurrecting dead literary concepts (yes, post-modernism is dead, we are in post-new-historicism now, you know) is best left to Literature students with too much time on their hands, and kept away from poor, long-suffering BoA players who have staked one to many vamps in their time.

Technically, of course, this scenario had no real flaws that I noticed. Keep up the good work, TM, and keep trying new things. There's no rule which says you have to make 'em all like Jeff makes 'em.