Im posting this here as it has alot more to do with the content of the various posts in this section than any others, and it seems to be a kind of unofficial review forum so to speak.
Basically the general Idea i get from most of the reviews is that the game is good though the general aspects points are made about seem to be more inclined towards the GMs ability to portray the system across to the players and the NEW factor of the game itself, rahtet than the merits and flaws of the system itself.
By new factor I more the basis when something is new people are generaly more intrested and get enjoyment from it because its new and fresh moreso than other aspects such as quality and the like.
In the 20 odd years I have been playing RPGs, its become obvious that the quality of the GM means alot to how good a system is percieved. A good GM can put a shine on a turd, while a bad one can sully a diamond. This is not just limited to the GM by any means as the players themselves can have an influence on this as well but the GM is typically the largest factor.
What I am curious about is what is the system like taking out the GM factor, meaning GM and player skills/factors aside how does the system/game stand on its own merits/flaws. I hope others are just as curious as well, and any responses are helpful to more than just me.