User talk:Spazalicious Chaos/The Book of Splendid Performance (3.5e Sourcebook)

Ratings

	Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Much of this is either meaningless, or written by someone who hasn't the faintest idea of what either playtesting or mechanics are. The parts that are grounded in reality seem to have been written by Captain Obvious.

	ThunderGod Cid opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Seconding what MisterSinister said, not really any reason to try to rephrase it. The Free Combat is particularly striking, though, since anything that gives melee characters a shorter end of the stick than they already get is just mean.

TK-Squared dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

So, I was hanging around on the internet today as I normally do and I was informed by some good people that this article existed on this here wiki. Now, as far as I recall from the big fuss that was made back in the day, that this site is all about quality control. Thus, we would like 'quality' articles. So, I would like to happily give me stamp of disapproval to this piece as it does not live up to the standard of quality that is expected of this wiki from its people. This could have something to do with the poorly thought out mechanical changes, the poorly thought out execution of a not necessarily great topic and/or the badly executed implementation of the English language. Maybe one, two or all three of these points have lead me to this conclusion or maybe I'm just a terrible evil person. However you wish to justify my dislike, it won't change the simple fact that this 'sourcebook', if that's really what you want to call it, is flat-out bad and just simply falls flat on its first at the first hurdle. There is a distinct lack of authority in this hodgepodge of articles strewn together to be called a 'sourcebook' and I doubt very much that it does any good at creating anything that could possibly resemble 'immerse storytelling', probably because it's just plain bad. This, as far as I am aware, is a negative impact on storytelling. Now, maybe your first language isn't English. If this is the case, then maybe some leeway can be given on your articles atrocious use of the language. Maybe some help could be offered by those who have more knowledge and expertise with the language. But, I doubt that it is the case. So, BAM DISLIKE.

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	What was said above, so many parts that are bad. I could enumerate them, but I'm not sure I see the point, since earlier constructive criticisms didn't change anything.

	Wildmage dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	I read it, whent away, came back and re-read it, those small helpful advises that are in here are well hidden and often contradicted two other places, I realy tried giving this a chance but im gonna join the mob and say this is belowe our standart.

MisterSinister opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

"The authoritative source for immersive storytelling." No seriously, read that shit again, carefully, and then try to contain the urge to laugh as you peruse this sourcebook. Admittedly, it'll be intermingled with a strong desire to burn out your own eyeballs, but we'll get to that. Calling this book a failure is giving it too much credit. Calling it 'authoritative' is a bit like trying to learn how to read from a chipmunk. Calling it a source for 'immersive storytelling' is as hilarious as it is ridiculous. Words cannot express how 'hate' I want to make this document. Firstly, the writing is simply atrocious. It's impossible to understand in places, requires repeated re-reading, doesn't follow good writing conventions, good rules conventions... heck, good sanity conventions, and makes no good-faith effort to try to do so either. It's organized similarly to an odd sock drawer - it's a pile of random ideas with no proper formatting, no development, and not much of an outcome either. Which brings me to my second point: were any of these changes actually thought through consequentially? All I kept seeing as I read the contents of this monument to insanity were badly-thought-out, badly-implemented changes which often do the very opposite of what the author states and clearly intends. This shows me that there wasn't really a lot of thought put into this work or how it would interact with the rules that already exist, which basically makes me wonder at the intelligence level of the person writing them. Last, but not least, is the simple fact that despite multiple friendly, evidence-supported and well-reasoned counter-arguments to the approach being taken by the author, none of the changes have been taken on board, implemented or heck, even understood by the author, which shows that quality was never a concern of theirs. Hell, April Fools is too good for this shit. Burn it and shithole what remains.