Critique of Psion's review of MOZ 1

[FDP Mike]

While Alan can defend himself quite capably, I feel, as someone involved with his reviews, that some further response in Alan's defense is called for here.

I should say first that I will not in any way comment on Maze of Zayene itself, only on Midnight Rider's post.

So I post it here, believing it balances Psion's lack of attnetion to detail in his review of MOZ1. Posting it in the other topic would drown the point in a separate argument.

This really is an unfortunate claim for you to make. According to your "critique" and to Alan's own admission, you have spotted only a single instance of inaccuracy in the review. Alan is in fact one of the most detail oriented reviewers around today: you would know this by looking at his other reviews. To be blunt, Alan's attention to detail has earned him a healthy measure of respect not just with RPG consumers, but with the publishers as well.

What many of your "critiques" amount to is that Alan didn't pay attention to detail in quite the way you seem to understand "detail." Rather, ultimately, your sense of "detail" means effectively glossing over what appear to be specific issues in the product.

No "balance" has been achieved by your "critique."

Unfortunately, this would not be clear to the literal minded computer players of DnD. So, yes, this is a flaw in that it doesn't cater in clarity to those who would not grasp the general situation. Those who would score low on a reading comprehension test would not understand this fact. It used to be that gamers were all able to read. Today the reading level requires that an author be more explicit if writing for a n audience of 100,000. Fortunately, Mr. Kuntz is still writign under the old assumpotion that dome of us can read and think. Elsewise, we'd be paying him for more fluff and less creative content.

At the risk of being overly direct, I find this series of sentences particularly offensive.

In fact, I'm not really sure where to begin with this series of sentences in terms of indicating just how offensive they are.

Your preference for "mystery" simply goes against some of the longest standing wisdom concerning writing, in any genre or field: clarity and accessibility. My, I almost feel that it will take too much effort to explain to you why what you've written is so, so problematic . . . .

Well, I'll just get to the point, then. Putting yourself on some pedestal of greater, more acute, more insightful reading skills will simply not endear you to many people out there. Literalness and clarity are truly two different aspects of writing -- you should try to be clear on this detail. Moreover, delivering blanket judgements on the overall reading capabilities of gamers just puts you on incredibly shaky ground. I cannot abide attitudes such as yours: they are elitist, prejudiced, and ideologically suspect in the worst way.

I don't care who you are, if what you write is not clear and accessible, then you have not done your job as a writer. Writing is about communication, not obfuscation.

However, all of this is covered under the section you must not have read and understood. It might have been written more explicitly, but again, Psion must not have understood it as so many others have.

[. . .]

Psion, if the author can fogive your lack of reading skill, perhaps you can forgive the author's D20 mistakes?

Well, Alan may not say something about this, but I will. Once more, Midnight Rider, you are being rather offensive.

Who are these "so many others"? Pray, do tell.

Before you start criticising someone for his "lack of reading skill," make sure that you are not also guilty of the same fault. Yet let's not say that we're talking about a lack of skill here, shall we? Rather, let's say that we're talking about an instance in which you happen to disagree with Alan because he didn't write the review that you wanted him to?

Why have you not posted before this? Have you thus agreed with all of Alan's previous reviews? Why such a need to defend this particular product over all the others that Alan has reviewed in the past year and more? As Morrus has asked elsewhere, who are you? What's your investment in this?

Let me give you a tip. If you really want to critique a piece, insulting the original author's intelligence and/or "reading skill" will ultimately get you nowhere. Try sticking to the text at hand, and offer specific counter-arguments and suggestions from a more objective, distanced perspective. If you find fault with Alan's review, fine -- just don't go telling him he can't read.

But after reading all of Psion's review, and all of the module, I find that 90% of his points are simply mistaken [....]

This is in fact a completely erroneous statement on your part. You found only a single actual mistake, which Alan has admitted -- but for which he also provided further clarification.

Again, you have not established any sort of balance here, ultimately because your version of "mistakes" is really just about a disagreement perhaps in the way a module should be written.

Alan knows what he's talking about. If you'd read his other reviews, then you would know this. Please refrain from making inaccurate claims yourself.

[. . .] and I truly wonder Psion has something against Rob Kuntz or Necromancer Games, or perhaps his motivation is innocent and he wants to be an important reviewer?

This is just trolling.

Do you have some particular connection to Rob Kuntz and Necromancer Games that we should know about? I wonder how Clark & Co. would feel about your current actions?

Alan does not have to "want" to be an important reviewer: he already is -- and this, once more, by the consensus of gamers and publishers alike.

Do refrain from personal attacks and misleading information and rumour mongering, please.

You know, this really comes out of left field, and I'm likely expending way too much energy on a fruitless response . . . but, Midnight Rider, you're just doing all of us a disservice.

Come back when you can give a real critique of a review, and next time leave out the insults and insinuations.

 

[RangerWickett]

Yes folks. Now is a good time to calm down and drop the argument. Both sides have stated their cases, and few new arguments are likely to come up to help either side. Rather than rehashing what has already been said, and potentially leading to hurt feelings (I've already seen a few people on this thread insulting the original poster, who I think was just doing what he thought of as his duty as a gamer, albeit a not-fully informed one), how about we just admit that we had a misunderstanding, that no review is ever perfect, and that hopefully we can have disagreements without nameslinging.

Now, get back to talking about fun gaming stuff.

 

[Orcus]

[oops, double post! This one deleted]

 

[Orcus]

Hi everyone!

Just thought I'd drop a few words here. I hope things have cooled down a bit.

First off, I have no problem with Psion's review. Frankly, if every reviewer did their homework and was as detial oriented as Psion I would be happy.

I am saddened that this thread got so "testy." Perhaps people didnt intend the tone their posts conveyed. Hopefully, the tone came from passion, not true anger.

I do want to address something that I noticed: Psions's reviews are for a general audience. Necro's products (this one in particular) are for niche audiences. That can cause differences of opinion. 1E stuff will bug people who dont want that. Take, for example, the heavy handed intro to the module--the plot to kill Ovar. That is a common 1E principal (sort of like the intro hook to Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or White Plume Mountain). If you arent used to that, it could put you off. Old school guys wouldnt give a second thought to modifying the intro. More modern players expect multiple hooks to be provided. That is a valid comment by Psion. I understand why he dings the module for that.

As for "rules problems" and "not including rogues" those were design decisions by Rob. He likes the idea of putting players in situations where they dont have the immediate solution at hand. He likes to take them to the outer planes or mess with their normal equipment. It would be the easy and obvious solution to put a rogue in the pregens. NOT including a rogue is another way that Rob requires the PCs to get creative and to take them out of their element. He in fact WANTS the PCs to say "damn, if only we had our thief..." What is wrong with that? Why is there a presumption that the PCs should be handed the most obvious tool to solve their problems? Another reviewer could certainly praise the module for NOT giving the players the obvious tools to solve their problems. Psion chose not to and that is his prerogative as a reviewer.

Rob also is not a slave to the rules. He believes (and I strongly agree) that the rules dont dictate play, play dictates the rules. He and I had a long talk about that during the production of the module. I told him "listen, people read Dungeon and buy WotC modules and they expect stuff to have t's crossed and i's dotted when it comes to the rules." He wanted to take some liberties. Who am I to say no to Rob Kuntz? So I do acknowledge that there are things that dont follow the rules. But they arent mistakes. They are design decisions by Rob Kuntz.

Perhaps in the future I should drop a box in the module indicating that is the case, something like: "Author's Design Decisions: In this module you will notice several things that do not exactly comport with existing 3E principles: there is a construct with a Con score, strange spells, a forced intro, no rogue in the pregens. These were intentional design decisions. The author wishes to take the players out of their normal comfort zone and change their way of thinking. The author believes rules should follow play, not the other way around. These changes were done to facilitate that concept. DMs troubled by these changes should feel free to change what they dislike." But then I guess I always figured that was implied. I dont know of a single module I have ever run without changing something. To me, modules are like speed limits--I consider them "suggestions," not binding law. A great example of this is the old "flame resistant mummy" concept. Players got so used to the rules (including the fact that mummies were flamable) that they just hit mummies with fire and fire spells. DMs got creative and created flame resistant mummies. The first module that did so could easily be blasted for "not following the rules."

I dont want to say that you shouldnt critique a review. I dont see anything wrong with that. Reviewers should no more be immune to review of their work then publishers should be immune to reviews. Whats good for the goose...

I dont have a problem with Psion's review at all.

I should point out that I do believe Maze 1 is strengthened when used with Maze 2 and if I had it to do over again I would probably have released 1 and 2 as one combined module.

Psion--thanks for the time you spend on your reviews. I think you do good work. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions without having to be at odds with each other.

Hope this helps!

Clark

 

[Piratecat]

Re: Re: Critique of Psion's review of MOZ 1

This is just trolling.

Do you have some particular connection to Rob Kuntz and Necromancer Games that we should know about? I wonder how Clark & Co. would feel about your current actions?

Ah, yes. Welcome back, Midnight Rider. Folks, Midnight Rider is one of Rob Kuntz's good friends who left the EN Boards in a bit of a huff back on the old boards after some vitriolic Greyhawk threads, making sure that he burned all his bridges behind him. Apparently, he felt the need to return to defend Mr. Kuntz (who I respect, and whom I'm sure doesn't need his friends defending him under false pretenses.)

To the best of my knowledge, his connection to Mr. Kuntz is personal, and not related to Necromancer in any way.

Unfortunately, when one burns bridges, one doesn't usually leave many friends - or sympathizers - behind. As a result, I dare say he's damaging Mr. Kuntz's reputation rather than rescuing it. With friends like these...

Midnight Rider, feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss this. I know you have my email address; we've corresponded before, when you used a different user name.

 

[FDP Mike]

Feelin' bad . . . and, thanks!

To the best of my knowledge, his connection to Mr. Kuntz is personal, and not related to Necromancer in any way.

Unfortunately, when one burns bridges, one doesn't usually leave many friends - or sympathizers - behind. As a result, I dare say he's damaging Mr. Kuntz's reputation rather than rescuing it. With friends like these...

Thanks for stepping in on this matter, Kevin. It's good to know, I suppose.

Also, I should say that I think perhaps I could have held my breath before replying. (Is my Con score high enough, I wonder? That was a pretty long post . . . .)

Thanks to you as well, Clark, for stepping in and addressing the issues. I was in fact suggesting that Mr. Midnight Ranger's actions were potentially more damaging to Kuntz, you, and the product than helpful in any way. Hmm.

I really tried to stick to specific elements of the post, not Alan's review of Zayene nor the product itself.

Well, now that I know what's up with our "friend," I'll remember to sit back and be calmer in the future.

Gah! I gotta go mark essays!

 

[Ywain]

Well, I'm glad tempers have cooled and we can discuss this. Because I think that it does really raise the question as to what consumers (like myself, but mostly others ) want when we purchase a module.

Perhaps in the future I should drop a box in the module indicating that is the case, something like: "Author's Design Decisions: In this module you will notice several things that do not exactly comport with existing 3E principles: there is a construct with a Con score, strange spells, a forced intro, no rogue in the pregens. These were intentional design decisions.

As a DM, I don't really care whether they were intentional or not. The way they interact with my campaign will be exactly the same if they are absent-minded mistakes or visionary genius. If I have someone in my group who plays a sorcerer and loves Teleport, I want to know that this module will be mostly wasted on my group before I put up the money. Or if the module sounds interesting enough, pulling out the train-tracks to railroad the Sorcerer.

If there are vague rules additions/alterations/omissions that I will have to clarify (even to myself, if not my players) it doesn't matter if they are intentional -- I still have to do the work to clarify them (or not, depending on how important I think they are). Again, I can decide based on a good review. An incomplete review will not alert me to the possibilites.

Hey, if your company and this author have a style that has a following, great! Diversity is the strength of this hobby. Advertise the strengths of your own diversity -- but without the bitter edge of the above quotation.

But, that being said, I don't think that it is bad form for a review to award lower marks to a product that requires more DM work than others, or that requires a certain style of play (railroading, freeform rules, etc.). One can only safely assume that everyone is useing the d20 rules because they want to do so, and diverging from those rules (too much) is generally a weakness not a strength. Also, I would assume that readers of the review know what their own quirks are and will judge the conclusions of the review accordingly.

Ywain.

 

[Orcus]

Ywain-

I agree with you completely, except for this part:

"Advertise the strengths of your own diversity -- but without the bitter edge of the above quotation."

I didnt intend a bitter edge. I was seriously proposing including that info in upcoming modules where it is relevant. If the wording was flip and gave a bitter edge it was only because I am composing as I type. I'm not bitter about it at all.

As for Midnight Rider, he is not affiliated to Necro in any way. In fact I have no idea who he is (though I have a guess based on Piratecat's comment). So his views are certainly not those of NG. But then again, I wasnt on the debate team either...

Clark

 

[Ywain]

That's cool. Glad it wasn't intended to be bitter. One of the things I like about 3e is that for the most part the assumptions are pushed out into the spotlight. (The definition of a "Standard Magic Campaign" through wealth charts and magic item pricing is a fine example.) When the assumptions are up front and in the open, then individual DMs can take them, leave them, or alter them in an informed way.

Actually, I was writing off the top of my head as well and overstated my position somewhat. There are some cases where I need to know if an unusual circumstance is a mistake or intentional. If I saw that construct with the constitution score and high BAB, I might have "fixed" it and the encounter would be easier than intended (and if I noticed this before it came out in play, I would then have to go back and erase my alterations and feel at least a little frustrated.)

But usually it is more useful to know the assumptions than just have a blanket statement that it is intentionally unusual. I want to know why it is intentionally unusual, I guess.

i.e. "Spot DC36 to notice the teleporting effect. Aspect X of this adventure won't be as much fun if you allow spot checks to sense the teleporting effects so you might want to disallow them completely in these circumstances."

New or inexperienced DMs are given two sensible options (one core, one not) and they can decide between the two. Experienced DMs do what they want anyway, but some of them want the core rules -- or just want that PC who has put two feats and 10 skill points into maxing out Spot (Alertness and Skill Focus) to have an slim opportunity to do something with it that no other PC in the party can. Or whatver. One less thing to think about if the designer takes it into account first, then suggests that an alternative method might be more suitable in this situation.

Anyhoo, I'm still typing off the top of my head so I should quit. I'm sure you've thought about all this already.

 

[Midnight Rider]

I enjoyed posting this metareview. We should have more discussion, not less.

I'm happy to see NG posting. Orcus does a great job. And no, I'm not affiliated with NG, Orcus or Rob Kuntz in any way. If my posts were to also bring Mr. Kuntz to respond, I would be even more satisfied. I don't see him posting here.

Piratecat, what friend of Rob Kuntz do you think I am? I do know several people in the industry who know him.

I'm really sorry if I've done any damage to Mr. Kuntz with my posts. But I don't understand how that could be since this is just discussion and argument. Like, if I disagree with someone's review of Tolkein, how could I be damaging Tolkein???? I don't get that idea.

As for the responses. All of them were just since they are people's opinions. No need for cooling down. Stack and rack your points! This is an argument! Occasionally, someone qualified, like Orcus, will make some cool points. THat is why discussion and argument work.

I find it odd that someone reads my post with more anger than intended. Orcus gets this stick pointed at him too, but then disclaims he's angry, and all is well. Like I say, I love to argue when I have a different view! Ever listen to Hannity and Colms or just about any Talk Radio channel?

I don't like threads where the pages pile up and the points become rarified and distorted by time, so I won't respond to anyone's further retorts. I'll read them though! So, as O'Reilly on Fox News would say, I'll give you the last point!