Recently there's been this claim that people don't criticize RPGs openly or honestly enough around here. And then there was some talk about how to be nice about it. Screw that. This is the thread where I am going to give a ton of criticism out about all kinds of RPGs that folks might think are sacred cows, or never get criticism or something.

I'm going to shoot for about a couple a day, and I can't possibly get too in depth. So I'll stick to the most obvious criticisms. Note that each critique should be viewed this way. Like, "Mike thinks this is the worst of the problems with the game, but he probably could come up with a ton more if he took the time to do so."

You see RPGs aren't just imperfect, they're all totally messed up. If/when I say that a RPG is "Good" or that I like it, I mean precisely that it's just less screwed up than others. As I hope I'll demonstrate.

Mike

Dogs in the Vinyard

I hope this doesn't sound like "praising with faint damnation," but I'm not the most experienced with DitV. I don't even think I own a copy. And that's because my biggest criticism of the game is...

Mormon Cowboys? Thehell? Sorry, just a bit too post-modernly specific. And if the mechanics have been ported to so many other genres, it makes me think that the setting in question is really not all that specifically supported by the rules in question. And, if that's the case, I can only wonder if Vincent had reallly identified the genre his rules spoke to, if they wouldn't have been a lot better?

Oh, and "Say Yes or Roll the Dice?" Fuck that. I say no all the time, without rolling the dice, and I'm right to do so. At the very minimum it's gotta be "Talk about it or roll the dice." Player tyranny is just as possible as GM tyranny. They don't need protection, they need to be appropriately empowered to have fun.

Yeah, I know that this is probably actually Vincent's intent. But it's not how the phrase comes off, is it...

Mike

P.S. Any responses to these critiques that are to become discussions should get their own thread. This is going to be crowded enough in here as it is.

Go, Mike, go!

Thank you Mr Sugarbaker. But somebody has to beat up first edition, so that it's not only Ralph that's getting abused.

I take no credit for the Revised Edition, you see. All Ralph's doing...

Mike

Dust Devils

Note that I don't think I've played the revised version, I think that this is from the first edition rules. I could be wrong about that, however.

For a very simple game, it has too many mechanics that do really the same things, increase effectiveness. Why not just have one method?

And why call it a Poker mechanic when it seems to be more like a Gin Rummy mechanic or something. I mean, the idea of using a Poker mechanic in a Western game is to give the Western feel, right? So... if it's not Poker... haven't you really voided that concept?

In point of fact I've designed Poker resolution mechanics that do not vary from Poker at all (the difference is what you bet). I felt betrayed!

And... the rest of the mechanics just don't gel. Mostly because the devil mechanic really doesn't insert itself with enough assertiveness. Even when the player has it dialed up to high. And this is what's supposed to drive the rest of the cycle in theory. In practice it feels very jumbled up in play.

Mike

P.S. people might start posting that they've seen me make these criticisms before. That's because I often have. Because, get it, we do criticize each other a lot.

Oh and Hero Quest... that fricken game.

HQ quite simply cannot decide what it wants to be. All of my tons of successful play all hinges on some very specific readings that I've brought to the rules. Greg says, "yeah, we meant that too! That's a fine way to play!"

Too bad it took me about three-hundred thousand words before I could get it right. Quite seriously. Consider this essay in light of it being a potential criticism: http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_heresies.html

That essay is me basically saying, "Damnit, I wish that the rules explicitly said all of this stuff like I'm interpreting it, instead of having to have had to have discovered the damn interpretation."

Oh, but then the game wouldn't have been for everybody... cripes.

Mike

This thread is the best critique of Mike Holmes ever.

nm, miswhispered.

Posted By: Brand_RobinsYea... but is that a criticism of Polaris, or of us?

If it's a criticism of us, and it's a criticism on that scale, it's misplaced criticism.

Posted By: Andy
Has anyone played the full version of Polaris, which requires at least 13-20 sessions in order for a character to naturally trigger the endgame, rather than jumping ahead, forcing the endgame, or just dipping their toe in in 1-3 sessions?

*two hands go up in the back*

Hmmmm...

-Andy

Heh, good point! I love playing Polaris when I do get a chance, but it's hard to budget the time to play on a consistent basis. I think its distributed authority and negotiation model is awesome and would love to see it used in a game structured to be more short-game-friendly.

I think Mike's points about Sorcerer have a lot to do with why I never really got into it. In some ways Sorcerer feels like a link in an offshoot process because it is clearly going in the direction of a story game but retains a lot of trad characteristics. Birthing pains, if you will. This obviously is not to say that it can't be fun or that it doesn't have interesting ideas, but I personally found it more an item of historical and intellectual interest than something I would play.

My big beef with MLwM was that it didn't provide much for player involvement. The basic structure is like one of those sessions where the GM takes each player aside for a one-on-one scene at a time, resulting in an overworked GM and players who are bored three-fourths of the time. An adversarial model where the players could create each other's difficulties would have put a whole lot of zest in the game. Or a more cooperative model, where the players play each other's connections. Again, this was a transitional aspect in the design that I don't think helped the gameplay.

Posted By: AndySo that you're not hanging out here by yourself:

Who here has played Polaris?

*a couple hundred hands go up*

I have too! I I played two games of it! One was a single session, the other a four-parter. Both were memorable.

Has anyone played the full version of Polaris, which requires at least 13-20 sessions in order for a character to naturally trigger the endgame, rather than jumping ahead, forcing the endgame, or just dipping their toe in in 1-3 sessions?

*two hands go up in the back*

Hmmmm...

-Andy

I got to the endgame in one night.

You don't have to make only one experience roll per scene. You can roll MANY experience dice for any given scene.

Now...go play!

Mike, which games do you like? Because that's good criticism, too.

Graham

Judd that's sorta cheating for these purposes, no?

What Andy is basically saying is that, as designed to run for 14 sessions or whatever, nobody plays that way. Or very rarely. He's infering that there's a reason for this. Yes, you can shorten the game to get to endgame, sure. But is that what the game suggests, or Ben intended?

Mike

Posted By: Mike HolmesOh, and "Say Yes or Roll the Dice?" Fuck that. I say no all the time, without rolling the dice, and I'm right to do so. At the very minimum it's gotta be "Talk about it or roll the dice." Player tyranny is just as possible as GM tyranny. They don't need protection, they need to be appropriately empowered to have fun.

Right now, I want to hug you.

Mike, question.

Critiques like these...what do you view as the purpose of them? For this thread is it just to demonstrate that insiders can and do say harsh things about other insiders' games?

Because, while I'm not the designer of any of the games you critiqued...if I was...I'd find the critique highly not useful. As a consumer, assuming I knew you for the god of actual play that you are, I might find these useful as mini-reviews...maybe.

But if the goal is to help raise the design/production bar by giving fellow designers hard-to-hear feedback...I don't think I'd be moved/helped by criticism in this format.

Just checking what the function of this thread is.

Posted By: Ryan MacklinI'm not alone.

Ditto.

My turn, then (recycled from recent musings on my LJ).

Nine Worlds:

Last fall, Tony Dowler ran a Nine Worlds game at the local club. I really, really enjoyed the game. I thumbed through the book, and found it to be attractive. I already owned Dust Devils ("Revenged" edition) from the same author, which I had enjoyed reading, so I put Nine Worlds on my Christmas list and my husband got me a copy. I've been reading it on and off, when I have a few minutes. Here's the thing: if I had read the book first, I would probably not have formed a good opinion of it.

On the plus side, it's a pretty, well presented book with good layout, good fonts, and art that varies from technically good but not very evocative, to very good and very inspiring. On the minus side, the writing is not very tight, it's wordy, it has way, way too much setting chronology (28 pages on the war between the Titans and the Eternals -- 28! I just don't bloody care, give me the final score!), the system is "weird" (meaning very unlike most games out there), and it uses a lot of jargon. In play, none of this was a problem: the newbie players got used pretty easily to the jargon because we only needed a small portion of it, the system actually worked well despite being unusual, and the GM boiled down the metaplot to a handy-dandy relationship map. I had fun, and the game felt completely different from the impression mere reading provides me.

But reading it? I would never have got past the wordiness if I'd read before I played it. It's hard to say things like that because I really like Matt and I greatly enjoyed playing the game. But this beautiful little book needs to be ruthlessly trimmed by a professional editor.

Posted By: Mike HolmesBut the scene-framing rules... that's all Paul's fault? Only three types of scene?

I blame what came later. When I designed My Life with Master my play style was characterized by fluid scenes involving multiple player characters, a natural enjoyment of roleplay and dialogue without any particular hurry to use the resolution mechanics, and no particular concern for equitible apportionment of screen time. To my great frustration, it has subsequently become characterized by formalized stakes-setting, abrupt usage of resolution mechanics, and narration at the expense of roleplay. My Life with Master doesn't have three types of scenes. It has an infinite variety of types of scenes on top of five formulas for conflict resolution.

Oh, and by the way, fuck this thread. Because what this community needs is a status game of can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees criticism?

Posted By: EldirThe basic structure is like one of those sessions where the GM takes each player aside for a one-on-one scene at a time, resulting in an overworked GM and players who are bored three-fourths of the time.

The forest that's absent from Mike's "open and honest" criticisms of Sorcerer, Dogs In the Vineyard, and My Life with Master is the way the rules provoke great game by manipulating the social landscape of play. The great part of Sorcerer isn't the dice mechanics. It's the way a GM acting as a demon on behalf of its interests, and Humanity loss and gain rolls treats the player character as a meaningful protagonist and the player as the author. The players aren't bored playing My Life with Master because of what the game knows about creating dramatic interest: when the players have a shared hand in creating an antagonist that represents a personal threat to all of their characters, there is no boredom when another character is in the spotlight. Everyone watches every scene from the edge of their seat.

Screw you all for taking me away from Friday for this bullshit.

Paul

Hey Paul,

Chill. Seriously. Don't like the thread? Tough shit. Take a nap and get over it. It's all legitimate and friendly criticism so far. Please stop pissing on it.

Posted By: John HarperDude, just because you call it an obvious problem doesn't make it so.

Truth.

NO ONE IS ON CRAZY PILLS, GOD DAMMIT.

Not me. Not you.

We have thoughts and opinions and we can discuss them with respect and understanding, right? This isn't a fucking contest.

Jesus fuck.

Posted By: John HarperNO ONE IS ON CRAZY PILLS, GOD DAMMIT.

Take a moment and chill, man.

Posted By: John HarperWe have thoughts and opinions and we can discuss them with respect and understanding, right?

With that response, I question that.

Posted By: Josh Bonobo RobyThat you haven't noticed the problems, or you don't think they're problems, doesn't mean they don't drive me up the wall!

Yes! Agreed 100%. Your opinion matters, Josh. I don't know how else to say it, and I'm surprised I have to. That thing where you think you're the only one and you think you're going crazy and you're unsure what to think and say? That's insecurity. Everyone has it sometimes. It's okay! We can talk about it and not crap on each other. We can respect someone's view even if that person is all alone and not one else thinks it, too. We can hear negative things and not hate ourselves and cry. Really.

Posted By: Ryan MacklinIt's really easy to feel like everyone is taking crazy pills around you and they can't (or are choosing not to) see the glaringly obvious problems.

Emphasis mine. I'm not saying anyone is taking crazy pills. I'm saying, to drop the loaded language, that until last weekend I felt like I should drop this community because no one in it shares my values, and by stating said values that are counter to the vocal peeps here -- including you, John -- that all I would accomplish is getting flamed and and being dejected from our little club. So, I've kept my mouth shut about why, for instance, I think Play Unsafe is the worst book to come out of our "scene."

Edit: please note the two most important words in that last sentence: "I think"

Posted By: ValamirFor this thread is it just to demonstrate that insiders can and do say harsh things about other insiders' games?

That is what I smell.

It is a Celebrity Roast for popular roleplaying games, by an average joe who is like the Brett Farve of game playing.

We have a thread made in jest at least once every quarter, that's meant to poke fun at our community. We roll out stuff like brain damage, GNS, game discussion, artiste sensibilities and all sorts of stuff to light it up and have a few innocent laughs at no one's expense. Example:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1639

Fun. Unbitter.

I don't see why "the community" can be Roasted, while games Can Not. Well, I mean, I can, I guess, but as long as it's done with a good heart, I don't see a problem with going there every once in a long while.

Posted By: Paul CzegeScrew you all for taking me away from Friday for this bullshit.

Just put it on pause. You don't want to miss the line by the father about why people fight with guns, it's touching stuff. Otherwise, meh. The sequels are actually better.

Back to Sorcerer: Sorcerer, as a game, has provided me with some of the highest awesome highs and some of the lowest "what the fuck happened to this game?" lows, more than any game, in the past 6 years.

I was actually lit on fire by Sorcerer and Sword, where I basically dived headfirst into the community with promises to write a supplement and Change the World.

But Sorcerer: I loved the experience of going to the forums to talk about a session I had for the first time, only to be told vigorously that My Fun Was Wrong (not by Ron, but by Enthusiastic Followers). Couldn't really get to the bottom of why, because no one in the discussion could show me a clear example of what GOOD Fun looked like (hoping that in 2 years a Replay culture will fix that). Later, I started getting it. I ran a fun game of it at Trinoc-Con back in 2002 or so. I described the session, only to be told that my Fun Was Wrong, Again, but even Worse this time!

When I relay this story over a beer and some goodhearted laughs (to me, the story is hilarious, not bitter or whatever), my friends laugh and nod sagely. They've been told loudly by Sorcerer enthusiasts on the Forge that their Fun was Wrong, as well.

-Andy

EDIT: WOAH WOAH OUCH COW CRAP! I was typing this lazily as I thought I'd be the next post after Paul Czege's, but all this flamey stuff got dropped in the center. Sorry, this post from that perspective will look like I'm heaping on gasoline, but I assure you I'm not. This was my reaction to Ralph and Paul, as well as my own Celebrity Roast of Sorcerer.

PS: IIRC, I was the one that ran that game of Dread, Mike! I'm 90% sure: I'm the only one that brought copies, I think, but that morning was really haze because of experiences the night before (What happens at GenCon stays at GenCon...).

So, not mandating an hour chill or anything (good idea Eric! An hour of thought helps you think rationally and not passionately/with anger, etc). But let's continue to be generous in our readings. And treat this thread as a roast, perhaps?

I know Mike. We're not BFFs or anything, but I know his heart is full of love, and not bitter spite. Knowing that makes me chuckle and slap my knee when I read his roast above. If I didn't know him more, I'd be like, "What the fuck is the point of some bitter fuck trolling for Aggro Cred? CLOSED." But he's doing it out of love, and not spite, so let's again be generous.

-Andy

Posted By: ptevisJohn,

If I might intercede for a moment on Ryan's behalf: At OrcCon last weekend, a half-dozen of us suddenly realized we all felt similarly about some topics that we'd never talked about onlinebecause we thought no one else felt that way. I think Ryan's feeling the rush of the New New Honesty.

I think it's worth pointing out there was a cross section of the community there. The group included published designers, unpublished designers, podcasters, people who seem to prefer the GM role and people who just play games. Some of the people wear more than one of these hats.

Posted By: John HarperWe can hear negative things and not hate ourselves and cry. Really.

It's my hope and dream, John.

Posted By: ptevisOo, oo, oo! I got one.

Spirit of the Century. Ten Aspects per character? Ten? I have enough trouble managing the nine Beliefs in my Burning Empires game.

Heh. Irony. The preponderance of aspects is why I feel it works whereas I usually loathe roll-your-own trait style systems. The thickness of traits usually means you always get a chance to bring your character's personality into play and apply your character to the action; the fate points are the real limit. Or, looked at another way, fate points are really the mechanic; aspects are bribery that never lets you forget the character.

Edit: Now I realize, this isn't in the spirit of the thread. But I'm just here to say: on the off chance some of you are saying "oh gosh, I better go fix that", I'm saying that in some cases there's voices out here saying "no! Don't!"

Posted By: Paul CzegeScrew you all for taking me away from Friday for this bullshit.

Posted By: Eric ProvostChill. Seriously. Don't like the thread? Tough shit. Take a nap and get over it. It's all legitimate and friendly criticism so far. Please stop pissing on it.

Posted By: John HarperNO ONE IS ON CRAZY PILLS, GOD DAMMIT.

Observation #1:

Yeah, I can really see how public criticism has improved the health of this community. Boy, we're just soaking in how wonderful and constructive this crap is.

So, I am pleased at the vast success of this thread in proving, for me, my entire point from the past few days. This thread has strongly affirmed my message -- of criticism in private first, of mindfully moving criticism to the public venue in a way that manages the context carefully (or, at times, better keeping that criticism private), and of making sure that criticism in public is done in a way that minimizes emotional response out of shame and other bad feelings. This is of course the opposite of Mike's intended message, but hey, that's Hollywood for ya.

Mike, you have all the grace and finesse of a bull in a china shop when it comes to watching out for others' emotions. I don't consider this thread to be good citizenship. I consider it an example to be placed on a pedestal for how good intentions turn to shit on the internet. Bully for you.

Observation #2: A repeater:

Posted By: John HarperNO ONE IS ON CRAZY PILLS, GOD DAMMIT.

There's this skill called "reading charitably". I fail at using it all the time, and I try to learn from those failures.

You have entirely failed at using it this time too, John.

Learn.

Posted By: John HarperI don't know a single game writer who can't take negative feedback.

Honestly? At first blush, I can't. My "meatspace" reaction is to get tense, bitchy, hurt, angry, and acidic. But I've trained myself not to let other people see that. I hide it, hopefully from myself, and *force* myself to listen, *force* myself to realize there's value in there that my emotions won't let me see, *force* myself to say thank you in advance of that. My inner demon wants me to hurt the critiquer back, as viciously as possible. But the skills I've learned, the other part of me I like and want to be, pulls me back from that. It's more work than I care to do a lot of days. But I do the work because I have to, because I recognize that pushing negativity back at negativity only creates a feedback loop that will deafen the discussion.

And honestly, I don't think I'm alone (even if I'm not, my very existence gives the lie to your assertion). I think the community likes to self-congratulate on how good it is at taking criticism, but most criticism fucking hurts. It saps joy. It doesn't make me want to make a better game. It makes me want to take my dice and go home. Only when I get PAST the emotions of it do I start to find the ability to build.

I only take criticism well from people I've established a strong, personal, direct trust relationship with -- and even so, back in the days of Spirit of the Century's development I got so frustrated I yelled at Rob, stalked out of his house, and left the project for something like five months. But I've learned from that.

Anyway, criticism. EVENTUALLY, I find the value in it. I especially find the value in it when it's done direct, personal, and best of all off the fucking internet and in person.

But ON the internet, honestly, most folks who deliver critiques have absolutely no skill for doing it in the way that one human looks after another, even when they think they do. Jason Morningstar talks about the right way to do the criticism is "with love". And I agree with him, that's the right way to do it. But how do you do that when you're doing it in text, in public? For me, "with love" is a mode that can only operate in a personal connection. I don't get that in a public venue.

It's a lot like a situation where I'm standing around with my fly unzipped. I deserve to be told about that -- there's a need for criticism about my wardrobe choice and/or malfunction, there. The right way to handle that, first, is to walk up to me and quietly say, "Uh, Fred... your fly's unzipped." You've watched out for me there but you've also given me the bad news. I can act to correct it. If instead, you go and find the local public address system, flip on the microphone, and announce to the whole convention "FRED YOUR FLY IS UNZIPPED", I'm going to think I need to murder you in your sleep. Same message. One context makes it a positive statement of you caring about me. The other makes you an asshole, and turns the actual value of the message to shit.

Trust is the only way to overcome the intense harmful nature of public internet discussion, if you ask me. And you have to build trust privately, personally, directly before you can take advantage of it in a public venue. Though it CAN be built through certain public persona techniques: there is such a thing as "being a calm, trusted voice" in public. But you've got to work at that, constantly, and you've got to be good at it. Most folks who want the atmosphere of criticism here have not put in the work, and are not good at it.

Exceptions will always exist, often due to an aggregation of the factors I'm talking about. I feel I have a strong personal trust relationship with Paul Tevis, for example, and it rides on the back of the feeling of trust he created in public, in advance, with his podcast and general mode of behavior online. Which helps with the critique he gave of Spirit of the Century above. Paul also has mad skillz in the department of delivering the bad news with a spoonful of honey (he made sure to create a fuller context of the game, in fewer words than Mike used in nearly any of his possibly-grandstanding critiques above). Mad. Skillz.

And at the end of the day, most of the rest of you just don't have those same advantages.

And if you're getting your dander up about this message, stop for a second, and think: how much of that is because I'm delivering the bad news about the community in public, on the internet?

Sure, it was a cheap and easy thing to do. Posting to the internet's one of the lowest effort activities there is.

But it probably wasn't the best.

Folks like to talk about how the rush to publish is bad for the scene. I think the rush to critique in public is just as bad.

Slow the fuck down already. Take it in stages. Connect to the developers directly, first; hash out the problems. Build confidence on both sides of the interaction that the critiques have merit, and have been thought through enough to be WORTH public consumption. THEN move on to taking it public.

But rushing to get that crap out the door? That's just mental diarrhea, folks.

Posted By: iagoAnd at the end of the day, most of the rest of you just don't have those same advantages.

We should work on that, then, shouldn't we?

Posted By: iagoFor me, "with love" is a mode that can only operate in a personal connection. I don't get that in a public venue.

That makes undeniable sense as well.

Rest clipped: Yeah, yeah I agree with pretty much all of that.

-Andy

Posted By: Mike HolmesAh, hell, one more: Dread (Because Raf asked me to)

And I appreciate it! Nice critique. Thanks.

I wrote a game called Dread. It was received well by some, and badly by others. There have been two fairly negative reviews. One of them was posted by you, Mike, just now (and let me point out that I'm only referring to the new edition of Dread, since the old edition was, like, six years ago, and most people thought that it was pretty iffy at best). Anyhow -- DOZENS of people have played my game.

I also wrote this one video game, a few years back. It was played by a FUCKLOAD of people. Like, maybe half a million?

It was reviewed all over the place. Some of the reviews were good. And I put their quotes on my resume.

Some of those reviews were bad. And there was much vitriol, and scorn, and contempt, and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Some of the critics were pretty fucking brutal. They hated the AI. They hated the interface. And some of them really hated the story and dialogue. Which I wrote.

But, I drank a fucking beer and I started work on my next game. Why? Because there's no point to doing anything else. You listen to the good, and it makes you happy. You listen to the bad, and you make a list of things that you can do to improve the quality of your work in the future. But you sure as hell don't get angry or sad. And if you start to feel pissed off, you hit the gym or you listen to some good music or you watch Predator on DVD or whatever.

I don't get emotional about it, because there's no percentage in it. I used to. When I was in college, and some creative writing professor would spill red ink all over a short story that I wrote, I'd get frustrated. Then I realized, either it's good or it's not. Feelings won't change anything.

There's this scene in this episode of The Wire where this one sociopath says to his victim: "You want it to be one way. But it's the other way."

And that sums it up for me. No matter how much we talk over the issue, at the end of the day, if you put a creation on the street with a price tag on it, some will find that it was worthwhile, and others will be disappointed. Name the best movie you ever saw. Someone out there hates it. Name the worst movie you ever saw. Then do some googling and you'll find a fan page.

There is no way to avoid criticism when a creative work is made available for purchase or consumption. You might decide not to criticize someone's game. But other people will, and you might not like what they have to say.

There is no way to avoid hurt feelings when criticism is applied to a creative endeavor. You might have rhino skin and shrug and drink a beer and start working on your next game. But not everyone is going to react that way.

I don't think there's anything that can be done about it. That may sound like apathy, but I think it's just a statement of fact. There are a lot of people on this site, and there isn't going to be any consensus on an issue such as this. I don't know if you can even convince people to just 'agree to disagree' and drop it.

But I do know this:

I'm not really a story gamer or whatever. My game, as noted, is kind of traditional. I feel like a welcome outsider here. I felt the same way on the Forge. Just hanging out, observing, sipping a brewski in the corner. Everyone's nice to me, I get to hang out here, and occasionally throw in my two cents once in a while.

So.

As far as I can tell, one of the most valuable things that a site like this can provide is a sense of community. That sense is fragile, and must be nurtured. It can easily be undone. It is very easy to respond to someone's post in the heat of the moment. It is very easy to forget that you can just shrug and say fuck it. It is very easy to take offense, and to give in to the need to retaliate in some way.

This shit can go one of two ways; it can serve as the precusor to evolution, in which case you can later dismiss all the rancor as growing pains, or it can serve as the precursor to dissolution, in which case you might interpret all the flaming and bile as red flags.

Now, you might say that I just posted a criticism of this thread. And maybe I feel a little guilty about doing that, because I might have hurt someone's feelings. But I promise you that by the time I get to the bottom of this bottle of Negra Modelo, I'll have forgotten all about that.

Peace.

Posted By: Josh Bonobo RobyTo underscore John's comment -- yeah, Icravecriticism. I mean, it's milk and fucking honey to me, and I love hearing about what other people do with my games or how they react to my texts. I find it fascinating. But that may not be to everybody's taste.

Generally, I do too.

However, more and more, I'm coming to feel that this desire of mine is Admiral Ackbar.*

(* "It's a trap!")

CU

Hi, everybody! You are all my friends. I love you all, seriously.

Did I totally misread your posts, Mike? Because I saw them in the "celebrity roast" mode right away - these are games you know and love are messing with. That was the tone I picked up. I hope that's the case and that a lot of generalized acrimony and drama just spilled over.

This thread hurt my eyes.

I'm on crazy pills.

Keep them coming Mike. They're fun to read.

As an utter aside, I'm astonished people play MLwM and the innocents don't come into play. When I played it they were absolutely integral.

Very well written book actually, really easy to follow, good scene structuring also.

Not much else to add, I was just really surprised by that criticism, whether joking or serious.

Perfect.

I knew you were all smart enough to figure out what's going on here. Note that I still don't like having to have done this thread. And I, perhaps most of all, think that the thread is stupid... or, at least that the need to have the thread is stupid. Paul is right to call this thread bullshit.

Josh Neff, unsurprisingly, figured me out entirely. He knows that what I'm doing here is demonstrating a side of myself that, apparently, some people have not seen. Story Games is a relatively nice and quiet place. I've never felt a real need to do as much criticism here as I did when I was on the Forge. But that's not nearly the same thing as saying that I am some rabid fanboy unable to see flaws in works that I otherwise admire.


Every time I suggest HQ for somebody to use to play, I could add the following disclaimer: HQ is not perfect, not nearly, and you may have to do some substantial interpretation in order for it to work the way that I think works best, or in any coherent way.

And that's the micro version of the disclaimer. To be really accurate, I could go on and on and on about precisely what the potential pitfals are in playing the game.

But I've done that already elsewhere. Do I really have a responsibility to include all of my critiques of every RPG that I've ever written every time I talk about any RPG to avoid coming off as a ravening fanboy? If I over-prescribe HQ just because it's my favorite game (despite it's flaws), doesn't that just speak to my own personal biases, and not a dismissal of other RPGs?


I find it incredulous that folks think that we are unthinking fans. Given how much critique we have done of these RPGs and others. You haven't seen those (much better written than here) critiques? So you assume we all think that every RPG on the "indie" list is perfect?

Well, again, that's what's forced this thread. I can't believe that I'm having to "prove" that I'm not a fanboy by regurgitating versions of criticisms that I've posted in other places. Almost every criticism you see from me above is a paraphrase of a much longer criticism I've made of the game in question on the Forge, or somewhere else. In some cases out loud at GenCon speaking to crowds of folks gathered to talk about game design.

As a community we don't just value criticism, it's a part of the entire ethos of the system. You put your game up on a site for folks to see, expecting it to get disected and questioned to the Nth degree. And then you take that feedback, and try to use it to improve the end product. Both pre-playtesting, and then as a result of playtesting, you get this feedback. And then, once the product is out, you wait for actual play posts, and you use the feedback there to assess what you did wrong with the game, so that you can either revise if you so choose, or at least you can avoid making the same mistakes in the next game you design. And so that you can put out some words of advice on how to avoid the pitfals that your game creates.

(Because at some point you have to shoot the engineer, and begin the project - else we'd never see games finished).


So... I've said this before. But, apparently, some people needed to see it for themselves. They weren't going to feel that they could be part of the community until they saw that we weren't "crazy."

Well, let me gently suggest that next time you perhaps go and ask us about our criticisms of some game X. Or, heaven forfend, go look up what we've already written on the subject so that we don't have to write it again.


The worst part of this thread is that, now that I've revealed it's purpose, I'm sure it's going to look like some farce purpetrated in order to hide the "fact" that we really ARE rabid fanboys. The conspiratorial will see disingenuity in this. The Pundit, should he bother, will have a field-day with this.

Well, I hope it's been worth something. That somebody is now convinced of our values. That the point is made. But now that we've gotten this far, I quit.

No, I don't quit with criticism, I quit being forced to convince others of my own integrity. If you want a criticism of a game, here's an idea: ask for it, or start a thread on the subject.

You know, when nobody asks for a criticism, it's just unlikely that there will be one. Why say bad things about a game if nobody is likely to do anything with that feedback? How does that improve anything? Note that I dropped off Fred's list for FATE a while back for two reasons. Largely because despite him not really asking for it, I had dumped a lot of criticism of FATE on that list. And, second, because I finally got it through my thick skull that it tended to really bother Fred.

That doesn't make Fred a bad designer or anything (hardly), it just makes his and my styles somewhat incompatible. I actually completely understand Fred's responses. I don't expect designers to be completely dispassionate about criticism that they get. For my part, for instance, I reacted quite defensively to a lot of the criticism I got from playtesters for Universalis. I think I worked around this eventually, for the most part, but I also think that the game probably suffered somewhat for my arrogance.

I'm far from perfect in these matters as you can see. I'm not holding myself up as some paragon of how to do these things. Perhaps I could be more sensitive, too. Whatever.

The point is not that it's a perfect process, but that it's the process that we hold to be the ideal. That of giving and recieving criticism. More importantly that we are not some cult of personality that all fawn over each others designs uncritically (or, according to the Pundit, just a mutual admiration group set up to promote each other's sales).

Shreyas likes this thread because it is effectively, as Ralph points out, at this late date nothing but iconoclasm in truth. We shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone, Ralph is right. Shreyas, believing that iconoclasm is good for iconoclams' sake, would like to see more of it (and I understand that perspective too, at times). But unfortunately this thread wasn't for Ralph, or for Shreyas... at least not my reasons for having it.

To anyone disillusioned by my work here, well... I am the asshat. Always have been. Somebody has to full that role. I guess it has to be me. I could apollogize, but will that help? Doesn't seem ever to have before.

Mike

Joe, I've been out of circulation for the past couple of months, so don't take this the wrong way:

Which game? Where can I find it? Where would you like me to post a critique?

Note that, while I love to do these, I'm just one guy. I'll get to them if/when I can, and in an order of my choosing... this is not the first request I've had to review something since I've been back. :-)

Meaning that there are other folks who are just as good or better than I at doing this sort of thing, who might be willing.

Mike