There are basically two ways to write a humorous RPG sourcebook. One way is to write playable material that is potentially funny and let other gamers use it. In doing so, other gamers create their own humor. Rifter Issue #9 1/2 is an example of this type. The second way is to let the material be unplayable but funny to read as if it were a parody of an RPG sourcebook. An example of the second type would be the adventure Little Sheep on the Borderlands which appeared in the back of Dork Tower. I'm not certain type The Book of Oafish Might was trying to be...
Most of the materials here were mildly amuzing but ridiculous enough to be unplayable. One article, however, was very useful. Jan Willem's Beastiary (Quite Contrary) was excellent. The beasts featured, although listed with stats for D&D 3, are perfect for a game of Changeling. They would also fit great into some of the BESM settings and certain HackMaster campaigns. I intend to use the Orcish Rugby Player, Office Gnome, and Forum Troll. The Skeleton Clown is ready for use right now, and Cara Mitten's picture of this ghastly fool is great. I hope that Ms. Willem develops these ideas into a full product.
Also included is an excert from Roland Wick's novella. The work is entitled _King Alfred and the Knights of the Tetrahedron. I enjoyed this as a short story, but I think it would be too much of a good thing as a novella. This King Arthur spoof tries way too hard to be funny by reaching for every possible joke. Some sentences have three or four jokes in them. That's just too intense for my taste. Ms. Wick should have focused on the good jokes more and let the bad jokes go.
As free products go, the Book of Oafish Might is a definate keeper. I would have been willing to pay for just Beastiary article.<br><br>
<b>LIKED</b>: It has an attractive cover page, although I'm not sure what is happening in it. Jan Willem's article is great, and it features a Troglodyte Rock Group! They're demi-human bards, but much more fun than the canon demi-human bards from AD&D kits. <br><br><b>DISLIKED</b>: Most of the material just wasn't funny and should have been left on the proverbial editting room floor.<br><br><b>QUALITY</b>: Very Good<br><br><b>VALUE</b>: Satisfied<br>
[4 of 5 Stars!]