Failed promises

[TheAuldGrump]

I've read a WHOLE lot of "What is an RPG" blurbs in my time, and I can't think of one that says "RPGs are a game with a winner and a loser." In fact, I can't think of one that *didn't* say "RPGs aren't a game with a winner and a loser." So when I hear "Midnight can't be beat" it makes me wonder if the person's talking about a computer game or something.

Oh piffle! (I have often wanted to use that line.) What is being discussed, both by me and by the person who was disappinted by Midnight, is the central conflict of the campaign. Much like an RPG set during the Great War has a conflict, and it is the conflict, not the game that is being described as winnable or unwinnable.

The original commentor (I am too lazy to look up his name) feels that the conflict is not able to be won by the faction that the PCs represent, while I feel that it is winnable, but the work of more than one generation. (The line that I was thinking of when contemplating a Midnight campain was 3 or 4 generations, about 60-80 years.)

And you honestly have never heard a player say 'we beat that adventure'? I have. While the DM has not lost the scenario has been beaten.

The Auld Grump

 

[Teflon Billy]

In my experience, writers and designers handle criticism of their work better than internet badasses handle criticism of their complaints.

That's it Upchurch, you're dead!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

No, but:

• " it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! "
• "crappy "
• "The biggest stinker for me"
• "the twin abominations...."
• "I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision...."
• "fills me with dread..."
• "Horrible horrible book."
• "It did, in fact, suck worse than the previews suggested."
• (Product) "was crap."

...and that's just from the first two pages.

Hardly what anyone would call civil.

Generalize much?

None of those fall outside the realm of criticism I would expect from fellow gamers over something I did, voluntarily, with no pay whatsoever, for a fan site or homebrew. In fact, I've heard far, far worse and never thought twice about it. That includes 'in person,' by the way, so this isn't some Internet thing.

For a product someone paid me to write? Or that I published myself?

I would expect nothing less from people who didn't like it! Would I be disappointed to hear it didn't click for them? Sure. Would I be offended? Heck no.

The only problem I have with most of those criticisms (but not most of the complete posts from whence they came) is that they aren't terribly constructive.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...And you honestly have never heard a player say 'we beat that adventure'? I have. While the DM has not lost the scenario has been beaten.

Um...dude...

...I don't believe settings establish villains to be overcome; adventures do that...

 

[d20Dwarf]

And you honestly have never heard a player say 'we beat that adventure'? I have. While the DM has not lost the scenario has been beaten.

Of course. I said earlier adventures are written to be "beaten," while campaign settings are not.

Nowhere in Midnight is the promise of defeating Izrador even hinted at, much less stated as a goal of the product. That's what I'm trying to correct...there is no promise there.

 

[GVDammerung]

Pay close attention: criticism DOES NOT EQUAL insults. They are two different things.

I'll try.

Yes. They are two different things. Differentiating between the two can, however, be problematic.

In the hypothetical I set out, supra, criticism of the writer's unexplained disregard for the canon of Setting X would be difficult to "depersonalize." Any writer, one might imagine, would have the opportunity to aquaint themself with the canon. If they either did not or held it in such low regard that they felt free to disregard it without explaination, any criticism of the writer along such a line will have an inevitable personal component, I think, that will be very hard keep distinct from a percieved "insult."

Criticism and insult are different things but they may "overlap" at times or all but, given the right circumstances - and yet may be legitimate. Calling "insult" at criticism that looks to the writer's responsibility for what they write is a cheap trick.

IMO

 

[GVDammerung]

In my experience, writers and designers handle criticism of their work better than internet badasses handle criticism of their complaints.

We won't name names. Its a two way street. Nobody rides for free.

 

[GMSkarka]

In the hypothetical I set out, supra, criticism of the writer's unexplained disregard for the canon of Setting X would be difficult to "depersonalize." Any writer, one might imagine, would have the opportunity to aquaint themself with the canon. If they either did not or held it in such low regard that they felt free to disregard it without explaination, any criticism of the writer along such a line will have an inevitable personal component, I think, that will be very hard keep distinct from a percieved "insult."

However, at the core of that criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this industry operates. The criticism leveled at the writer is an insult, because he (or she) is being blamed for the decisions of editors, line developers and publishers.

Writers don't make these decisions. They write. Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given.

Besides which, you'd be hard pressed to defend "it's crap" or "YUCK!" or "abomination" as a reasonable criticism.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Of course. I said earlier adventures are written to be "beaten," while campaign settings are not.

Nowhere in Midnight is the promise of defeating Izrador even hinted at, much less stated as a goal of the product. That's what I'm trying to correct...there is no promise there.

Balderdash! That is where a GM comes in! (Sorry, I have been setting up an 1880s campaign lately.) It does not say whether defeating Izador is either possible or impossible, but it does say thet he has been defeated before (which I call a big hint). Call of Cthulhu (which I also like) does say that the situation is hopeless, since Midnight does not, it is not. They have avoided (so far) the mistake that a lot of settings have done, of nailing down the outcome of their central conflict. (Forgotten Realms during the changeover to 2nd ed.)

Don't take Balderdash and Piffle personally, I freely admit that they are hyperbole.

The Auld Grump

 

[d20Dwarf]

Balderdash! That is where a GM comes in! (Sorry, I have been setting up an 1880s campaign lately.) It does not say whether defeating Izador is either possible or impossible, but it does say thet he has been defeated before (which I call a big hint). Call of Cthulhu (which I also like) does say that the situation is hopeless, since Midnight does not, it is not. They have avoided (so far) the mistake that a lot of settings have done, of nailing down the outcome of their central conflict. (Forgotten Realms during the changeover to 2nd ed.)

Don't take Balderdash and Piffle personally, I freely admit that they are hyperbole.

The Auld Grump

I'm not taking anything personally, I'm just not sure you're arguing the same thing I am. I'm saying campaign settings, by their very nature, do not establish winnable scenarios. They are settings, not adventures. You saying that you can create adventures that are winnable doesn't change the nature of a campaign setting.