Game Reviews Based on Actual Play

[gorice]

Can we crowdsource a list of TTRPG reviewers who definitely play the games they review? Here's the list so far:

Quinns Quest
Seth Skorkowsky
The Indie Game Reading Club

Any format will do. Written reviews, podcasts, youtube, whatever you've got.

 

[MGibster]

Seth Skorkowsky only reviews games after having played them more often than not as the GM. He generally does a good job of telling you the good parts of a game, the bad parts, and offers tips on how you can improve the experience.

https://www.youtube.com/@SSkorkowsky

 

[Reynard]

It's a pet peeve of mine that most reviews of RPGs I see online read more like book reviews than game reviews. In fact, most reviews don't seem to be based on actual play* experience at all.

Book reviews of RPG products have their place, but I think you need to actually play a new system to really understand it. Personally, I struggle to find reviews based on actual play when I'm trying to decide whether or not to try a game, and it's endlessly frustrating.

With that said: can we crowdsource a list of reviewers who definitely play the games they review? I'll start with one:

Quinns Quest




*By this, I mean actual actual play, not 'actual play'. And now, I'm suffering semantic satiation with the word 'actual'. Actual. Actual.

I feel similarly, and what folks on this board have always pointed out is that YouTubers are looking for clicks and that really only happens when something is launched. So we get these page throughs and occasional "deep dives." I have often longed for the TTRPG equivalent of Mortismal Gaming, who reviews video games after 100% completion.

 

[gorice]

I feel similarly, and what folks on this board have always pointed out is that YouTubers are looking for clicks and that really only happens when something is launched. So we get these page throughs and occasional "deep dives." I have often longed for the TTRPG equivalent of Mortismal Gaming, who reviews video games after 100% completion.

For sure, the hype cycle is a big part of the problem.

In case it wasn't clear: I didn't mean to exclude written reviews. In fact, I prefer written reviews!

 

[Distracted DM]

It's a pet peeve of mine that most reviews of RPGs I see online read more like book reviews than game reviews. In fact, most reviews don't seem to be based on actual play* experience at all.

Book reviews of RPG products have their place, but I think you need to actually play a new system to really understand it. Personally, I struggle to find reviews based on actual play when I'm trying to decide whether or not to try a game, and it's endlessly frustrating.

With that said: can we crowdsource a list of reviewers who definitely play the games they review? I'll start with one:

Quinns Quest




*By this, I mean actual actual play, not 'actual play'. And now, I'm suffering semantic satiation with the word 'actual'. Actual. Actual.

Unless you want this thread to become a discussion of why it's difficult for TTRPGs to get a wealth of actual-play reviewers, I'd suggest you edit your post and remove your personal feelings on the matter and just leave the request for said Actual Play reviews up.

 

[payn]

I feel similarly, and what folks on this board have always pointed out is that YouTubers are looking for clicks and that really only happens when something is launched. So we get these page throughs and occasional "deep dives." I have often longed for the TTRPG equivalent of Mortismal Gaming, who reviews video games after 100% completion.

I've found reviews to be pretty good on youtube. As one of those loathers of clickbait, its one of the few things I will dare to watch. I find the incendiary divisive garbage parades it self as news and/or opinions on topics.

That said, I wholeheartedly second Seth Skorkowsky.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

That said, I wholeheartedly second Seth Skorkowsky.

Count me as third. He's the only youtuber I'm 100% sure has actually played everything he reviews.

Ironic that his comment sections are frequently plagued by requests for reviews on more games than any human being could possibly play, and often for things he's explicitly said he's not interested in covering.

Which highlights one problem with having real, practical experience with a game before reviewing it. You simply can't produce all that many reviews compared to someone who just does a quick read-through, and unless you're in on the final stages of the playtest you can't possibly have a proper "I played this" review out as quickly as someone who's using the table of contents and a quick skim for their info. A delayed review with a short campaign behind it is probably going to much better than a hasty one on the week of release, but it will probably be buried in the search engines by the first ones to come out.

 

[gorice]

Unless you want this thread to become a discussion of why it's difficult for TTRPGs to get a wealth of actual-play reviewers, I'd suggest you edit your post and remove your personal feelings on the matter and just leave the request for said Actual Play reviews up.

I didn't realise this was a sensitive issue. I've amended the OP to avoid unnecessary arguments.

FWIW, I understand why things are the way they are, but it's still frustrating.

 

[Distracted DM]

I didn't realise this was a sensitive issue. I've amended the OP to avoid unnecessary arguments.

FWIW, I understand why things are the way they are, but it's still frustrating.

Oh it's not so much sensitive as that folk will come on to explain why it's so rare, and it seems like the actual purpose here is to get recommendations on reviewers- not discuss the why/why not

 

[Joshua Randall]

Paul Beakley of the Indie Game Reading Club

It's incredibly niche (only indie games, and only the ones he feels like writing about), but he plays them all.
Well, I mean, I didn't personally verify his play-time, but I trust him.