Publishers and Reviews

[MThibault]

The publication I write reviews for is a print quarterly, devoted mainly to fantasy literature, but with a nice sized section for game reviews. I get a small stack of review copies in the mail every 3 months or so, as do the other 3 or 4 regular reviewers, but we are asked to only write 2 or 3 reviews each. (And being in print our editor cannot make exceptions for number or length of reviews, there are only so many pages to work with.)

By necessity the reviews will see publication no sooner than 3 months after the freebies are received by the company (and usually closer to 6) -- if your product isn't going to be on the shelves in 6 months, or if it is a timely publication that will lose its relevance in half a year, we can't review it.

Then, given the limited space, I really don't feel the need to write reviews for products that I don't like or I don't think are well done. Why take the publicity away from what I feel are the better products? So it might look to the reader as if I like almost everything I read, that is not the case, I just don't have the luxury of writing about things that I don't like.

Believe me, if I were able to review everything I would have lots of opportunity to apply the harsher adjectives in my vocabulary.

One final point, I don't write for publishers or necessarily even for hard-core gamers. My audience is a casual gaming group at best -- they buy the magazine for the short fiction (Moorcock, DeLint, Richard Parks, et al.) and hopefully stick around for the game reviews. So really, the majority of my readers aren't interested in hearing about elegant adaptations of the d20 mechanics, or the merits of a armor as damage avoidance vs. damage reduction or anything too technical. They want to know if it is an interesting read and fun to play. That's it, that's all. My job is to try to elucidate why I enjoyed reading and playing it and guess what sort of other tastes it will satisfy.

I know that doesn't sound terribly useful to the savvy publishers and players on these boards. But, optimistically, if RPGs truly entered the mainstream with fantasy fiction, these sorts of reviews would be more and more common.

Just my 2 cents of experience.

 

[Psion]

Re: teensy rant

Crothian wrote
I can't imagine what would be on Psions or Simon Collins to be reviewed list.

You ain't just a' whislin' dixie, pal. The ENnies and my recent vacation didn't help matters either. But just to reassure folks that have sent me stuff recently, I'm working on it!

Just to addess the issue of "timely reviews", my general policy is first come-first serve; it's only fair if a publisher sends stuff that you try to review it in a timely fashion. I was almost releived when one of the more prolific publishers decided to stop sending me products -- and not because I didn't like their products, either.

However, it is only wise for publishers that do not have a regular relationship with a reviewer to ask if they will review stuff before sending stuff. here are a variety of reasons for this:

1. Cheap products - some neophyte reviewers may gleefully review anything you send them, but if you have a large load of reviews, it quite simply isn't worth your time to review $4 mini-modules. Even earning minimum wage, you could earn the money to buy the product in less time than it would take to write a fair review (and in some cases, less painfully.) And I earn much, much more than minimum wage.
2. PDFs. Again, this doesn't apply to companies that I have regular relationships with (currently that would be Ambient and Malhavoc in the PDF arena), but generally, electronic products will not get high priority with me. Sorry, guys, I support electronic publishing, but when anyone can send me an electonic product with minimal expense, it becomes easy to get swamped by them. Unless a PDF excites me, chances are that I am not going to pay it much heed. This is especially true of adventures. I feel much more obligation to publishers who get me published products that cost them money to send me a copy.
3. Unfamiliarity with setting or genre: Two companies have sent me products that I do not have the supporting materials for. Sorry guys -- generally I can't do a fair review of these sorts of products. Another good reason to ask first.
4. Distaste for a concept: I have told some publishers to not send me particular lines of products anymore because it is obvious that the line will never appeal to my values, and I just don't feel like pummeling a guy that is against the ropes. More generally, I don't like to review "joke products."
5. Other reasons. There are sometimes reasons due to my relationships in positions in the hobby that I can't review stuff. For example, Osseum sent me a print copy of Wild Spellcraft. I love Wild Spellcraft, it's one of my most used magic sourcebooks. However, due to my relationship with ENWorld, I can't review any natural 20 product. Sorry. Another good reason to ask first.
   [/list=1]

 

[AaronLoeb]

I'm not a publisher, but I do write stuff for one... don't know if my opinion is of interest, Croth, but I'm happy to chime in.

I've been an avid reader and lurker at ENWorld for over a year and I read most of the reviews, particularly of new stuff I'm interested in (like I've been fascinated by the back and forth on the MMII).

I read reviews of game products for three reasons: 1, as a consumer; 2, as an author; and 3, as a former critic.

The third one is why I'm replying because I thought it might be interesting to someone, somewhere, sometime (maybe).

I'm really interested to see the language of RPG criticism get off the ground. I think it can't be stated enough (as it was recently by Monte Cook on his site) that while paper & pencil RPGs have been around for a really long time, actual criticism of them has not been. Historically, most publications about our hobby were house organs and only reviewed house products or a scant selection of other products, if they offered reviews at all.

Mass availability of serious reviews of RPG products really seems to be one of the many new wonders of the Internet. As such, it's really cool to watch the form of RPG reviews developing before our very eyes. Here are some things I've noticed that are, I think, unique to RPG reviews:

1) Value per page. I've seen this done in a lot of forms; sometimes actually dividing the retail cost by the number of pages to come up with actual pennies-per-page analysis. It seems vital in an RPG review to analyze how much value you're getting out of the product. In computer games, we would only note this if it were exceptionally poor (e.g. only 5 hours of gameplay for $60). But in computer games, this often is ignored. For instance, Metal Gear Solid was notoriously short, but it got sky high reviews. I can’t imagine a $40 RPG product that’s 120 pages getting sky high reviews even if it were written by <insert your favorite author’s name here>.

2) Text Density. I don't see this in any other type of reviewing. It’s an actual analysis of how jam-packed the layout is! I know my surprise at this will seem positively provincial, since it’s so commonplace. But honestly, I can’t imagine any other printed form being reviewed in this regard – most consumers don’t notice things like font size or typeface (unless it’s truly awful and draws attention). Analysis of these factors seems a requirement for an RPG review. That fascinates me.

3) Raw Facts over Analysis. I've seen numerous comments and posts about reviews to the effect of: "I prefer objective reviews." What's clear is that a lot of people prefer an RPG review with little opinion, comparison to other products, value judgment or anything else that is actually (in my mind) the hallmark of critical analysis. The "best" RPG reviews list the chapters, their contents, and explain whether the art, writing and system work in those chapters is good – in as objective terms as possible. This is unlike most other forms of criticism; for instance, with a videogame, you really have to focus on whether the game is actually fun, a subjective assessment. Film reviews only point out the nuts and bolts of the film (camera work, lighting, number of scenes) if they are exceptionally good or bad (or if the review is for a technical journal). But there is a definite negative response (I think), on most RPG sites, to reviews that blow off going into details about the product and instead dwell on the opinions and reactions of the reviewer to the product.

4) Substance vs. Style. The biggest "feud" in RPG reviewing that I've seen, I think (and not so much on this site), is whether anything that can be called "stylistic" even matters. I often see reviews that say "the art is bad" or "there are tons of typos" get responses of "that doesn't matter; only idiots care about that stuff. Are the rules good?" I think this may be an extension of 3 above. To some extent, rules compliance/balance can be at least sort-of objectively measured. It's clear if a spell is totally out of whack, balance-wise. People, I guess, don't want to hear the reviewer's opinion on totally subjective things. Or, rather, they think stylistic "flourishes" like beautiful art by Brom, is just there to appeal to casual consumers and that such considerations are beneath them. I find this attitude toward reviewing fascinating, and I'm really curious to see how it develops over the coming years. Having been an RPG consumer since the 70s, I'm still so happy to see a book that isn't mimeographed with line drawings done by the author's gaming buddies, that I perceive the industry as having undergone a stylistic explosion. Were I reviewing products, it would be one of the foremost points of my reviews -- it's one of the many ways in which our hobby is growing up, expanding, and furthering the form. I’m not a dummy (or at least, my mom says I’m not ), and yet the art in an RPG book really, really matters to me. I really want to read more analysis of the aesthetics of these books and I am surprised to see people openly disparage aesthetical analysis of RPGs.

Between these four things, it seems that the form of RPG reviews is more completely consumption-oriented than any other form of literary criticism I can think of. It seems more similar to auto or consumer electronics criticism than to film or fiction criticism. It’s not even very similar to criticism of other games (namely electronic); the form is currently dedicated to analyzing value for money rather than more intangible concepts like how entertaining it is.

At least, that’s what I think. Am I crazy? What do you think?

AJL

 

[Crothian]

At least, that’s what I think. Am I crazy? What do you think?

AJL

Okay, that was just darn insightful. RPG books, in the long run, get more use then most other mediums. I think this is why people want to know what is in the book, if the rules are solid, etc. People reference the same books over and over for a good period of time. I know I used books like Traps and Treachery and Relics and Rituals once a week for well over a year straight. That kind of commitment to a product is probably unique to the RPG market. Video games will be played until won a few times, but after that they mostly sit on the hard drive. There are a few older titles that I've used in almost every campaign for the past 15 years.

The Value per page I think is more because of the increase in price. I've only rarely encountered this in a review and it'll never be part of one of mine. I prefer quality to quantity.

Text Density I think is another response to the price increase. People are paying more money and feeling like they are getting less. Again this is not something I worry about or really care about.

The Raw Facts is something that really throws me when I first started reading reviews. I do like knowing what is in a book before I buy it. That is a great thing to see chapter-by-chapter analysis. However, I really would like to hear more opinions and in my reviews I'm trying to post more of mine. A review is an opinion on a product.

Style verse Substance is big in films as well. That's a little harder to really pin down and it is interesting to see these in reviews.

Thanks, Aaron.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm writing this as a consumer of RPG products. This has no bearing on my publishing of them.

1) Value per page.
2) Text Density.

I hate wide margins and fat fonts in books I buy. I want as much relavent information is as tight a space as is readable so I don't have to flip through multiple pages to refer to something. If a process takes 3 pages to describe, there should be a half page summary somewhere that will lessen the page turning.

3) Raw Facts over Analysis.

This one I almost agree with you. I would prefer both. Give me raw facts and then tell me what you thought of those facts. Crothian's reviews tend to highlight the good and the bad spells, feats or prestige classes, it is a decent compromise. Especially since you cannot go over every spell in a review.

I would go so far as to say a pure raw facts review is just as useless as a pure opinion review. You need a mix of both so that, as a reader, I can rate the reviewer. When I see a good (well-written) review of a book I've been thinking about buying, I usually "rate" the review by going to the FLGS and reading a prestige class that was glowingly received and another that was disliked so I can see if I have the same opinion about the material. If we disagree, I no longer use that review to sway my purchase.

4) Substance vs. Style.

I've bought mimeographed supplements without a thought to their lack of style. We sort of disagree here. I cannot remember ever being on the brink of buying a book and being swayed to buy it because the artwork was good. I don't pick up my RPG books and flip through them looking at the art. I read comic books but I only buy the ones made by writers I trust.

The opposite is not true. A book with bad artwork I will not get to the point where I'm considering buying it. If there are obvious typoes, especially in a printed product, I put the book down because I've yet to buy a book filled with typoes that was not also full of bad rules interpretations. There are even books that I've not purchased because of the layout. I'm going to spend months with these books, I don't want my eyes watering because the pages are too busy.

Between these four things, it seems that the form of RPG reviews is more completely consumption-oriented than any other form of literary criticism I can think of. It seems more similar to auto or consumer electronics criticism than to film or fiction criticism.

As Crothian replied above, RPGs are functional books. Most literary or film criticism assumes you are going to read or watch the film once, perhaps have 1-2 conversations about it with other viewers and then have it slowly fade out of your consciousness. RPG books are read, disected and rule-lawyered over for years and years. I'm not going to see that typo once and shake my head as I continue past it. I'm going to see a dozen times and when someone asks about the spell it's in I'll even say, it does X, Y, and Z, not to mention they spelled "bundeld" wrong in it. Notice that Autos and consumer electronics are also things that are used over and over again.

Are you crazy? No, you just aren't annoyed when you see the same typo for the dozenth time apparently.

Joe

 

[MThibault]

It seems more similar to auto or consumer electronics criticism than to film or fiction criticism.

Anytime you are writing for an extremely well-informed or dedicated audience, the assumptions change. You start having to play to subcultural norms rather than general norms. For those who are dedicated enough to have a subscription to Dungeon and Dragon and who checks this site daily for possible clarifications or changes in their hobby, well things like balance and rules-elegance are disproportionately important -- at least compared to the general population of gamers.

But when you are writing for a general population of gamers, or just a general audience, you are obliged to point out when a rule has the potential to throw the whole game off kilter but if the mechanics are relatively sound, there's no need to draw attention to them. Heck, most of the readers would have to take a second to parse "mechanics" into "rules" before they continue. Double heck, if the reader were to purchase the product you've reviewed, they would probably never use it in a game anyway, so the readability, presentation and style *is* more important to most gamers. But not to us die hards.

Something like pages per dollar is a subcultural norm that seems nonsensical to others. I mean, saying that Ulysses gets top marks because it is huge sounds like you are damning with faint praise, but it is an honest standard in the subculture. Perhaps this is rooted in the competition between fantasy literature (nary a thin book in the lot) and RPGs for the same entertainment dollar. This sort of standard makes a certain amount of sense in a compendium of crunchy bits -- all monsters, all spells, all feats, etc. -- but even then filler is still filler.

Interesting observations, indeed.

 

[Voadam]

I think the price per page entered reviews with the opening of the d20 license causing a lot of people to jump into publishing. the vairety of new people working at a different scale from WotC and White Wolf meant that people were figuring things out and it took a while for standards on length to price ratios to stabilize. For a while people could look at their books and say "Hey these two are the same length but $5 different in price," or "the same price but 64 pages different, hey, that's like a whole extra book!" Throw in the new market of pdfs and you have variations again with most starting at $5 because that is the minimum of an order at rpgnow.com.

This seemed more prevalent in reviews months ago and now I tend to only see "This is a good price compared to other similar length books" type of comments.

I do like knowing how much a product is for budgetary purposes and so I include that right up front in my reviews as well as page length and what medium the book is.

 

[Paradigm]

We read reviews of our product. It is mostly an excersize in frustration, despite the fact that we get overwhelmingly favorable reviews, the same points are hammered home in every review, sometimes in defiance of what the product is. I notice this trend in review for all publishers as well.

The Hero Builder's Guidebook for D&D gets a great deal of complaint because the reviewer didn't find it useful. The book is aimed at beginning D&D players, the guy that's been playing for 10 years doesn't need it, but the guy that's been playing 10 weeks sure could take some good advise from it.

The other frustrating thing, is that the elements we find important are sometimes secondary or even unimportant to the reviewer. So the strength of the product based upon our priorities is dismissed. I see that with other publishers also.

 

[MThibault]

BTW, I think it was Monte Cook who pointed out that WotC market research showed that the average game product that is purched is never actually used in a game. All of those issues related to years of re-use are only important to a very small number of consumers.

Is the book entertaining and engaging on the first read? That is a more imporant question for most consumers. Although, perhaps, many of us (I include myself) don't want to admit that this is really more important for most gaming products -- it just struck me rather pointedly that I've been buying second edition books at garage sales all summer, and I never intend to play second edition again.

Cheers.

 

[AaronLoeb]

Are you crazy? No, you just aren't annoyed when you see the same typo for the dozenth time apparently.

Joe

Thanks for the reply, Joe!

One thing I do want to clarify -- I didn't mean my post as a broad indictment of RPG reviews or a complaint about the state of them. I honestly meant it more as an observation. Seeing a typo a dozen times does bother me; bad layout does bother me. I understand why all of these things are included in reviews AND I find them useful as a consumer.

I meant the post as a collection of observations, ala "reviews of RPGs are very different from the way other games and similar products are reviewed, I think. Here's how."

The one area where I did mean to slip into actual "I take issue with this" is the general tone of "style just doesn't matter; only idiots care about art in their game books" posts, which I see more often on other sites. I think art and style matter a lot, and I like to hear about it in reviews from a subjective, analytic perspective.

Anyway, the point made by both of you is a very good one: these are functional works, and therefore require review of their functionality, thus the key differences.

But I'm left with these questions: is there room for purely subjective reviewing ("I had fun reading this, and I thought this was pretty, and you will too if you like X, Y and Z")?; is there some part to game books beyond their functionality that is currently being ignored in reviews?; and even if there is room for subjective reviews and even if there is some part of these books being ignored, does anyone want to read reviews like that?

I actually don't ask these questions with answers in mind. I really don't know what I think about this -- beyond knowing that I don't think art and production quality should be ignored as insignificant in reviews. They are not as important as the quality of the system work, but they are important.

The whole thing has me thinking of the musical 1776 (which I just saw again two days ago, so it's in my head), where Ben Franklin says, "We've spawned a new race here, Mr. Dickenson. Rougher, simpler, more enterprising, more violent, less refined. We're a new nationality; we deserve a new nation." When I think "review" I think of a whole critical language spawned from literature and film. Maybe RPGs really don't need that language; maybe we hobbyists don't even WANT that language. Maybe we deserve a new language.

AJL