Quote from: Jason Coplen on March 10, 2023, 01:37:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM

Quote from: rhialto on March 09, 2023, 04:08:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 03:59:00 PM
The real discussion should be about the reviewers, the game is just the catalyst, the 5e players that MIGHT play it are irrelevant.

IMHO the discussion should be centered around the practices on reviewing RPGs.

I think this is true only in the cases where no freely available version is offered, to review oneself. Anyone else's opinion in such cases where a free version is available is...inconsequential? Irrelevant? So, in the case of Shadowdark: if someone is not availing themselves of the quickstart, and only relying on others' opinions, that's their choice, and no one else should care. Maybe a separate thread on reviewers is warranted.

For instance, getting a free copy (when no one else is getting it) of the whole printed book is common practice. Should it be? Wouldn't buying the book be more impartial?

I don't know, but I do know buying your own copy is an investment. Maybe you'd think more of the game, or less in the case it blew goats nuts. Then you'd feel cheated out of x dollars.

Someone mentioned (here I think) a reviewer that buys the books with money he gets from his supporters, that's one way to solve it.

IF I was dedicated to doing reviews I wouldn't feel cheated from X Dollars by buying a product I didn't like, it generates content and negative content drives more clicks than positive content.

Quote from: SHARK on March 09, 2023, 04:18:08 PM


What do you think should be the standard for RPG reviews? Or is there no "one standard"? To whit, many people, whether creators, designers, or gamers themselves all have different standards, different policies, and oftentimes, entirely different expectations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I don't know that there is one standard but I like to see people disclose business or personal relationships in reviews, and mention if there was any comp supplied (I've had a review where I sent PDFs and they even labeled it sponsored content, which I think is fair, but just specifying if a comp was given and in what format is probably useful). I would also say when reviewers explain their review criteria that is good (and it can also be handy if they give the style of gaming they come from or explain what biases in terms of system and setting they might have)

At the same time, a lot of this is just someone informally giving their thoughts on a blog or something so I think you have to take it case by case (the more seriously one presents themselves as a reviewer, the more I would expect higher standards).

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 09, 2023, 07:36:05 PM
If you have any kind of tie to a person who was involved in the creation of the thing you are reviewing, you recuse yourself. You DO NOT review it. End of. You say you won't review it because of a conflict of interest. You disclose that conflict of interest and then move on. It doesn't matter if the product is good or bad. You have a bias in favour the people who made the product. That alone should be a breach of trust. The one and only exception would be receiving a product for free to review. But that should be a matter of course as a reviewer and not a privilege granted only to those the product maker likes.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 10, 2023, 01:56:21 PM
I don't know that there is one standard but I like to see people disclose business or personal relationships in reviews, and mention if there was any comp supplied (I've had a review where I sent PDFs and they even labeled it sponsored content, which I think is fair, but just specifying if a comp was given and in what format is probably useful). I would also say when reviewers explain their review criteria that is good (and it can also be handy if they give the style of gaming they come from or explain what biases in terms of system and setting they might have)

At the same time, a lot of this is just someone informally giving their thoughts on a blog or something so I think you have to take it case by case (the more seriously one presents themselves as a reviewer, the more I would expect higher standards).

Yeah. I think King Tyranno is treating RPG reviews as something weighty and serious like a court case, when it's more often an off-the-cuff thoughts on a product. This is especially because RPGs are a huge time investment that reviewers often don't have time to actually play through a game book. So it's really just a look-through, and the important part is the description more than the assessment.

I think disclaimer for bias is fine. I generally assume that a reviewer hasn't played through the product. If they have, that should be mentioned. For example, here's Pundit's disclaimer for his review of Raiders of R'lyeh.

QuoteI'll repeat what I said in the previous review: I was a major consultant on this game, and so it has some of my own work in it. I was (well) paid to consult, but I do not make any money from sales of the product now.  I obviously have a favorable bias about Raiders due to my involvement with it, and I wanted to make that transparent; but I do think I'll still be able to be fair and accurate about the content.

http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2018/04/rpgpundit-reviews-raiders-of-rlyeh_25.html

He's quite clear about it, and I think it's fine.

I think reviews should contain these elements.

First should be the cost of the product in terms of cash and time investment to get use out of it.
Eg: a 32 page booklet will be cheaper and quicker to learn than a 320 page omnibus. Is the product lore heavy, crunchy or compatible with existing games?
Art quality and feel along with genre should also be discussed. This might need to be first. In addition to genre, playstyle or target audience would be nice to know. ( OSR, modern, something else) I wouldn't bother with reading a review of Thirsty Sword Lesbians even if the tile was more ambiguous like LofFP.
The build quality, editing and layout also need to be touched on. I think those are the bare bones of a review that would be useful.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 10, 2023, 01:48:46 PM

Someone mentioned (here I think) a reviewer that buys the books with money he gets from his supporters, that's one way to solve it.

I would wonder as a potential supporter where I actually get value for my money over just buying the book myself, reading through it, and uploading my own review.

The reviewer would need to be regularly reviewing products I'm interested in, and not reviewing too many products I wouldn't buy anyway, with a fairly low support tier for that to pay off.

The key for me is disclosure and transparency. Like I said elsewhere, just give me the facts. I am smart enough to factor it in or out.

Personally, if I did reviews on a YouTube channel and a friend of mine created something, I would tell everybody about the relationship, and purposefully call it a preview instead of a review.