Follow-up to FFE's last "900 Words" has been posted

[haiiro]

After following the link on the main page, I came here certain I would find a thread in progress about the new "900 Words" column from FFE's Lester Smith. There wasn't one, so I figured I'd get the ball rolling.

Here's the link: http://www.fastforwardgames.com/900/900_30.htm.

What do you think?

(Note: the big GD thread on Jim Ward's "900 Words" column was very informative and interesting up until the point when it grew too fractious for the boards. I'm not trying to start another rapidly degenerating thread -- just looking for opinions. )

 

[Drawmack]

I think this article is right on the money. While the last article had the air of a bitter designer this one is more an air of I've been there and here is a suggestion for you.

I really like the formula. Tell me what's good and what's bad. Anyone can take the greatest game system in the world and chew on its weak point. On the other hand, anyone can take the worlds worste game and chew on its good points as well. I think that balancing the review goes a long way toward writting an honest review.

 

[Psion]

Here's the link: http://www.fastforwardgames.com/900/900_30.htm.

What do you think?

Overally pretty resonable. I find his "formula" from Space Gamer pretty sensible and not too far from my own philosophy... I always consider what a product has to offer and its weakensses. To the chagrin of some readers (one reader lamented in a thread here I supposedly told him a product "blew chunks" but gave it a 2... well if there was nothing redeeeming about it, I wouldn't have given it a 2... and to date, only one product in the database has earned less than a 2 from me...)

The only point I would take issue with is that he derides reviewers who have never designed anything assuming they can do it better. All too often, THEY CAN.

Sure, there are some design problems that have no easy answers and some reviewers are too quick to gun down something simply because it's "not the way I would have done it." But sometimes the designers (again, especially in the d20 world) goof up extremely basic things, like that a sorcerer's casting stat is charisma and undead don't get a CON score or CON bonuses.

Reviewers aren't perfect, but designers aren't either.

 

[johnsemlak]

The only point I would take issue with is that he derides reviewers who have never designed anything assuming they can do it better. All too often, THEY CAN.

Agreed, Psion.

Saying reviewers who haven't designed a product can't write a review is like saying a movie critic who hasn't directed their own film can't write a good reveiw.

If you take that to it's logical conclusion, then only dead men would write obituaries.

 

[Drawmack]

I don't think he was coming down on reviewers who havn't designed anything. After all that would make him a hypocrit as his first work was a review. I think he was coming down on reviewers, who do not design, saying things like - ''this is not the way I would have done it''.

Personally I agree that reviewers should not make statements like this. It can easily be replaced by something like xxx is a cumbersome mechanic that we had trouble intellectualizing or something similar. You are a reviewer and, except in rare cases, not a designer. I don't care how you would have done it slappy, I want to know if the way they did it works.

 

[Mark]

If you take that to it's logical conclusion, then only dead men would write obituaries.

Your statement gets Two Thumbs Up!

 

[Psion]

I don't think he was coming down on reviewers who havn't designed anything. After all that would make him a hypocrit as his first work was a review. I think he was coming down on reviewers, who do not design, saying things like - ''this is not the way I would have done it''.

That does seem to be what he is saying, and his statement is fairly qualified, inasmuch as it seems to be an assertion of a trend rather than an absolute statement. I'm just pointing out that it is by no means a requirement.

That said, is the trend true? After all, of the 8 or 9 d20 reviewers I know by name and conversation (i.e., staff reviewers of major websites), I don't think any of those that are not published have a tendency to post unilateral reviews, and the one I know of that DOES seem to dwell only on positives or negatives (in this case positives) IS published.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

IMO these articles are sour grapes. Would they have written about thier concerns over the current "trend" in gaming reviews if they were getting glowingly positive reviews of thier own products? I doubt it.

Fast Foreward's products have been some of the worst I've seen. I was very interested in Dungeon World's concept until I found out who was behind it. Still, I gave it a thourough look, and just as I suspected, it was of the same "quality" as thier other products.

The second article looked like a plea to just find SOMETHING good to say about our books, wether it's there or not.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

The second article looked like a plea to just find SOMETHING good to say about our books, wether it's there or not.

My philosophy is that even the worst product has *some* kind of ideas in it that might be lifted for use in your own game. I'm not claiming that justifies the purchase price of any product which doesn't meet the requirements of its specified use, but it's impossible to believe that there is absolutely nothing redeeming about any of FFE's books.

Psion and other have been very even-handed in their reviews, while others have come across as a pack of jackals foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to post another evisceration of a review. It's the latter group which could stand to learn a few things, as this second article claims.

I've never bought an FFE product, for much the same reasons as I suspect many of you have not. But I have looked inside the covers, and I have seen the occasional idea which I found appealing. Just not appealing enough to fork over the purchase price and then do the required re-work to make it useful in my game. That's a long long way from claiming a total lack of value in their products.

Unfortunately for FFE, compounding their rules problems is the fact it has now become 'cool' to bash them in reviews. One hopes rather than becoming further embittered and isolated, that they will instead turn out a product of excellent design, consistent rules applications, and creative genius. That should make everyone happy.

 

[Felon]

Here's the passage that really caught my eye"

This is especially true -- I think -- of reviewers who have never designed anything themselves. Ignorant of the effort it takes to bring an idea to final publication, all too many of them assume that they could do better, and that attitude shows in their writing -- especially on the Web, where flaming is so common. It's the old human failing of putting somebody else down in order to feel better about yourself. But in the end, it's self-destructive. People who fall into this trap never accomplish much themselves.

The attitude towards non-designer reviewers (in other words, mere "fanboys") is quite evidently that of disdain. There are other suitable words with less derisive connotations than "ignorant".

Frankly, why shouldn't a reviewer think he could do better? When I look through, say, The Encyclopedia of Weaponry, and see a weapon like the chakron that has a 17-20 threat range and a x4 crit. damage mulitplier, why shouldn't I think "Wow! I'd never do that!" What vital factors here am I ignorant of exactly? That there are legions of Xena fans out there that the boys in marketing would pressure me into appeasing?

A bad product is a bad product. Contrary to what Lester and Jim both seem to think, a review is not about doing right by the reviewee, about doing right by the reader.

Oh, and I have to wonder what Lester thinks qualifies as "accomplishing much". Because he's got his name on the cover of some minor products in a niche hobby, he thinks he's accomplished something superior to what mere mortals have done in their meaningless lives?