Robert Dale reviewed Wizards for White Dwarf #57, giving the book a rating of 6 out of 10 overall.[3] After giving poor ratings to Elves, Dwarves, and Dark Folk, he commented that "Fortunately for my blood pressure, Wizards is a much better book. It suffers from the same appalling presentation (anybody who produces an Arthurian adventure and talks about the 'Seige Perlious' should be bastinadoed to death), but succeeds almost in spite of itself."[3] He comments how "I have not come across a more effective translation of literature into FRP, and I actually enjoyed reading some of the scenarios which, generally speaking, captured the atmosphere of the novels they drew from. The stories are well thought-out (especially Gilgamesh( have reasonably objectives and credible characterisations. I did take exception to the hybrid Dark Age and Chivalric background to the Arthurian adventure, for the justification of the action was inconsistent with the plot. Accepting this however, The Pillar of Clinschor plays well enough."[3] Dale went on to say, "I retain mixed feelings about Wizards on the grounds that though there is material in the book for several evenings play, there will be problems integrating the differing scenarios into any long-term campaign (unless of course they have the same setting), and the book therefore lacks unity Wizards succeeds on its own terms, to some extent, despite the presentation, but it is of limited value otherwise."[3]
.png)