Quote from: Andy KThat's ok: Pundit was able to get around the length of the book by simply skimming it, so it shouldn't have been a bother for him at all.

-Andy

You know, repeating the same boneheaded ignorant statement over and over again doesn't make what you say any smarter.

The authors know when they sent me the review, they know the amount of time I was reading it; the review speaks for itself, and you're still an idiot.

BTW, of course I encourage everyone to check out other reviews. Plus, if you happen to LIKE the idea of combining the Pulp genre with exploration of the themes that can be extrapolated out of such a setting, and putting more of a focus on that, then Spirit might just be the game for you (especially if you also happen to like Fudge).

Its just, if what you want is a fast "pick-up" game of pure pulp action, this is NOT the game for you, IMO.  The biggest mistake the authors made (mistake, as opposed to ideological design choice) was how they marketed the game.

RPGPundit

I appreciate the review, and I think any sane person can make up his own mind very well based on a healthy dose of Pundit-exegetic skills.
It´s detailed, and very on the spot on what was perceived as good and what was perceived as bad.
Everyone can make up his own mind.
I think it was very low of Andy to whine about the review. There is so much onanistic story centered shit on the internet, I´m happy for a break.

Never forget: Blogs are like newspapers: You don´t have an opinion because you read one specific newsspaper, you read the specific one because you have an opinion.

And thusly the authors made sure the pundit´s bandwidth and audience even knows about that game. I´m truly disappointed on Andy´s lack of understanding [Anglo-American] political traditions. He sounds like a german romantic nanny stater. Yuck!

If there was any problem the PDF, blame me.  I sent him a zipped copy of mine--either the ZIP compression utility I used buggered things up, or the PDF had certain errors that didn't make appear in my own (somewhat antiquated) machine.

    I'm disappointed with Pundit's conclusions, mind you.  But I can see some of his points.  SotC isn't nearly as beer-and-pretzels as Teenagers from Outer Space.  I'd put the system as more on the medium side of light--there are concepts like tagging, borders, zones, etc. for the GM to keep in mind.  However, I've done a couple of solo chargen bits where it took me no more than 10 minutes to create a character (minus the two "guest star" phases) suitably pulpy.  The pulp novel blurb is more a genre detail that can be skipped by just writing down two Aspects about the character's first adventures.  

    Still, I wouldn't accuse him of skimming.  A lot of the references he called out take fairly dedicated reading to ferret out.  He gave an honest review.  Not the one I'd have hoped for. But I asked permission to submit it because the Pundit tended to be a hard man to impress.  

Andrew

No worries at all, I'm quite glad you did submit it.

That also explains the PDF issue, and I'm very happy for that - if the pdf is glitchy, that's a serious problem, and an alternate explanation is welcome.  

As such, while I imagine he has no need for such a thing at this point: rpgpundit if you would like a clean copy, pm me an email address and I'll send a login to the download site your way so you can grab a non-crashing (I hope) version.  I'm unlikely to change much else, but that problem is one I'm more than happy to address.

Anyway, back to ACNW prep, and hopefully some sleep.

-Rob D.

I liked the review, and I thought some of the stuff Pundit mentioned was cool, even if he doesn't.

Also, big kudos to Rob Donoghue and Mr. Fred (whose last name I know not for being polite in the face of a somewhat harsh review.

I do have one question that was not answer din the review: why is it 400+ pages?  What makes up the bulk of the book?

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the term Optimism is defined as THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE PULP GENRE. Which it isn't. Certainly not above "action", which the book EXPLICITLY makes a point of claiming is inferior in importance to the genre compared to optimism.  So the statement itself is a very forceful and defining statement; but if it was just an offhand non-sequiter that didn't affect the rest of the game, that would be quirky but fine.

Hah, and yet "Optimism" as an element really doesn't appear anywhere else in the game but in this extended "foreward".  In other words, it was a quirky non-sequiter. And yet you used that to frame the whole game as some blowhard English Lit game rather than what it is; a game about punching Prussians, flying on biplanes, shooting gangsters with tommyguns and seducing elusive wealthy debutantes.

You say that your reviews will be framed in the mindset of what the designer set out to do. And yet you go out of your way to misrepresent the designer's intentions. Nothing more to be said, really.

QuoteRe: Skimming

Well, you're wrong on both counts. But I really can't imagine that you care, since your only interest appears to be to try to smear me.

Waitaminute, you go out of your way to smear all sorts of shit on your blog and in your own forum, and now it's all "Oh my, I'm being smeared!"

Grow a pair, seriously. Nothing worse than someone who can't take what they dish out.

QuoteSo far every single person who's game I've reviewed, including the authors of Spirit of the Century, have stated they were satisfied with the level of detail and attention that I gave to their game. None of them complained that I was dishonest or unfair, and none of them claimed I didn't read the product.

Not publicly, no. You're totally correct. Rob and Fred's responses were totally professional and straightforward. Polite, even.

QuoteShit, what's up with you Andy? Driving you up the wall that my reviews are considered valuable and appreciated enough that I get lots of PDFs? No one banging down your door to offer you stuff to review?

Not at all. The review was entertaining. Factually innacurate and based on a blinding agenda, sorta like if Bill O'Reily reviewed the Clinton memoirs or something, but otherwise entertaining.

And sorry, no, I'm not in the review game anymore. To do a review based on more than just a glance at a product I have to devote more time than I'm willing to (time better spent, well, gaming). I stopped at writing a little over a dozen reviews for RPGNet.  I got offered far more free product from major publishers than I had time to review critically, so I had to stop. I didn't want to, say, just pick out three random things out of the game and make my "review" focus on those.

QuoteApparently, there's plenty of people out there that appreciate someone who will give a thurough and elaborate review on a very popular blog, that they're willing to risk that the reviewer might honestly find fault with the product in his opinion.

Wow, delusions of grandeur sound really fun. Do they bottle that feeling, because I want to enjoy whatever feeling you get as you write that sort of thing. "Very popular blog" sounds a lot like when we say, "Very special boy."

QuoteI do love reading stuff like this; I can just imagine the veins in your neck bulging with impotent frustration as you write this shit to try to smear me in a vain desperate hope that people will buy your snakeoil and stop reading me.

No, that sounds like you dilligently dropping... well, whatever it is you do during the day... to run to your site to trade shots like your reputation depended on it.  Again, it's sad when one can't take what one gives out.

And I'm not at all about people "stopping" from reading you. I know you like to think so when you make your declarations like, "RPGNet admins are all out to thwart me" and all. I never said I wanted people to stop reading your blog, as retarded at times as the stuff you write is.

Your blog, for all its damnable stuffyness, is entertaining. It's funny.

"Funny Monkey Make Poo!"

I wouldn't want to stop people watching it for the life of me. In fact, I fucking regularly refer people to it.

-Andy

Quote from: joewolzI liked the review, and I thought some of the stuff Pundit mentioned was cool, even if he doesn't.

Also, big kudos to Rob Donoghue and Mr. Fred (whose last name I know not for being polite in the face of a somewhat harsh review.

I do have one question that was not answer din the review: why is it 400+ pages?  What makes up the bulk of the book?

Well, they do go into a LOT of detail on things like skills and stunts (as in big lists of them), and they also have a very large GM advice type section, including a built-in scenario.

So the size of the game doesn't really mean the rules themselves are complex, they aren't (just standard level Fudge-complexity with the Fate Points); its just that their details on the mechanics as well as the setting are elaborate.

RPGPundit

Hi.

I'd just like to make a comment concerning the Social Conflict rules in SotC.

I think I understand RPGPundit's take on mechanics in place of role-playing.  

Basically, a lot of games that have combat systems can easily turn into a "I roll a 12 to hit"... "I do 8 points of damage"...  "The orc provokes an Attack of Opportunity"... etc...

Making combat a boring lifeless event.  RPGPundit seems to fear that mechanics applied to social interaction will do the same thing to role-playing.  Turning interaction with NPC's into "I roll a 12 to impress"... "I do 8 points of Intimidation"... etc...

I think this fear doesn't have to be true.  Role-playing should always be the driving factor of any game mechanic.  Combat is the side of the coin that usually suffers in this respect.  

A warrior shouldn't be rolling to hit, he should be attempting an upward thrust with the intention to unbalance his opponent.  A combatant shouldn't drop his opponent to negative hit points, he should let a little smirk fall on his lips as his blade punctures his braggart foe.

In SotC, you role-play your physical attacks and determine what happened in the same way you role-play your social interactions and determine what happened.

Its in the narration of the activity that provides the excitement.  And this is not limited to "forgey" games.  In my old AD&D group, we would act out our combat actions with broomsticks, describing physically exactly what we are trying to accomplish with an attack.  Our combats were as interesting as role-playing out a tense negotiation.

My point is this: don't use the concept of a unifying mechanic such as SotC to dull down social interaction.  Use it to amp up combat, instead.

edit:  caught a grammar boo-boo.

Quote from: SamarkandStill, I wouldn't accuse him of skimming.  A lot of the references he called out take fairly dedicated reading to ferret out.  He gave an honest review.  Not the one I'd have hoped for. But I asked permission to submit it because the Pundit tended to be a hard man to impress.  

Yeah, I might be at fault for saying he skimmed the work. However, the references he pulled out were basically from the Foreward section (pre-rules) and the GM section (post rules). The huge section on say specific abilities and the like were totally glossed over.

Again, could be that I'm mistaken. But it would be like reading a review of Spycraft or D&D 3.5 that's 4 pages long, but doesn't mention anything specific (good or bad) about, say, skills, feats, or classes. Give anyone any game, and given a solid reading and a few hours you can start to find flaws or cool elements in certain skills, feats, classes, etc. This didn't mention anything like that, so I was naturally suspicious, especially since the same "non-rules game's introductory text" things were brought up a bunch.

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KHah, and yet "Optimism" as an element really doesn't appear anywhere else in the game but in this extended "foreward".  In other words, it was a quirky non-sequiter. And yet you used that to frame the whole game as some blowhard English Lit game rather than what it is; a game about punching Prussians, flying on biplanes, shooting gangsters with tommyguns and seducing elusive wealthy debutantes.

You say that your reviews will be framed in the mindset of what the designer set out to do. And yet you go out of your way to misrepresent the designer's intentions. Nothing more to be said, really.

Nope, it was specifically the intentions of the authors to present the central element of their definition of "pulp" to be "optimism". That was the crucial point in their very description of what pulp is, its the central theme of the whole "Century Club" concept, its the key to the game.  Its not just a game about exploring the Forbidden Mines of Tezetotl; its a game about the themes behind those adventures, and the struggles of the age of modernism with the darker consequences of that age.

QuoteWaitaminute, you go out of your way to smear all sorts of shit on your blog and in your own forum, and now it's all "Oh my, I'm being smeared!"

Grow a pair, seriously. Nothing worse than someone who can't take what they dish out.

Oh; I can take it. I'm not complaining that you're doing it, I'm criticizing your technique. You see, when I bash people, I don't just make shit up; that's smearing, which is what you do, not bashing, which is what I do.
But then, I'm a megalomaniac, rather than having the inferiority complex you so obviously have, coupled with your sad delusions of adequacy.

QuoteNot publicly, no. You're totally correct. Rob and Fred's responses were totally professional and straightforward. Polite, even.

Yes, the have been very professional, publically. And they've expressed gratitude, both publically and privately.
Like, for example, asking me to review another game of theirs. So it might be time for you to stop pretending they're secretly on your side, and back away slowly; you know, to cut your losses.

Everyone else, look for a review of "Don't Rest Your Head" coming soon to the blog. I've been told I will probably "despise" it. We'll see.

QuoteAnd sorry, no, I'm not in the review game anymore. To do a review based on more than just a glance at a product I have to devote more time than I'm willing to (time better spent, well, gaming). I stopped at writing a little over a dozen reviews for RPGNet.  I got offered far more free product from major publishers than I had time to review critically, so I had to stop. I didn't want to, say, just pick out three random things out of the game and make my "review" focus on those.

I'm glad you recognized your own incompetence and lack of commitment, and stepped away. Its unfortunate that you probably won't be able to recognize your incompetence in this argument, and do the same.

QuoteWow, delusions of grandeur sound really fun. Do they bottle that feeling, because I want to enjoy whatever feeling you get as you write that sort of thing. "Very popular blog" sounds a lot like when we say, "Very special boy."

Shine on, pissant. Again, while I advise you run, now; feel free to ignore my advice and continue to look like even more of an idiot.  Hell, maybe you're right: why stop now? You've already made a fool of yourself by trying to start up a crusade against a review that everyone was impressed with but you. Might as well go for the home run of humiliating yourself with stuff like the above by really going out of your way to show just how rhetorically unarmed and unprepared you were to take me on.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, they do go into a LOT of detail on things like skills and stunts (as in big lists of them), and they also have a very large GM advice type section, including a built-in scenario.

So the size of the game doesn't really mean the rules themselves are complex, they aren't (just standard level Fudge-complexity with the Fate Points); its just that their details on the mechanics as well as the setting are elaborate.

Pundit's got it right, here; the 400 pages is because we provide LOTS of detail and advice and examples.  At Evil Hat, we believe in going very heavy into the explanations -- in part this is a reaction to our feeling that Fudge, in the past, has never gone far enough.

So think of SOTC as a light game (certainly not TFOS-light, as others have mentioned, but light all the same) that then proceeds to spend the bulk of the text talking about how best to use the game for maximum effect.

We have a number of quotes from various reactions to the product on our website, which may help you get an idea of what I'm talking about.  I'd encourage you to read them, if only to get an idea of the game that's not from the mouth of someone who, honestly, would like to sell you a copy of the game.

You'll find it here: http://www.evilhat.com/?spirit

Thanks for keeping the comments on this review alive.  Rob and I will keep an eye on it and answer any questions we manage to spot!

-- Mr. Fred (Hicks)

Quote from: Andy KYeah, I might be at fault for saying he skimmed the work. However, the references he pulled out were basically from the Foreward section (pre-rules) and the GM section (post rules). The huge section on say specific abilities and the like were totally glossed over.

Again, could be that I'm mistaken. But it would be like reading a review of Spycraft or D&D 3.5 that's 4 pages long, but doesn't mention anything specific (good or bad) about, say, skills, feats, or classes. Give anyone any game, and given a solid reading and a few hours you can start to find flaws or cool elements in certain skills, feats, classes, etc. This didn't mention anything like that, so I was naturally suspicious, especially since the same "non-rules game's introductory text" things were brought up a bunch.

-Andy

I had previously reviewed games that ran on Fudge; so my readers were familiar with it. Those who aren't my regular readers would, I presume, also either be familiar with the system or able to go look it up. Since the game's actual mechanics don't really diverge from Fudge in very radical ways, there wasn't a big point in dwelling about it.
Its like when I reviewed Cloak of Steel. I didn't spend a lot of time reviewing the actual system, the system was D20. I only pointed out how it differed from the standard, and whatever innovations were there.
Had the game used its own house system, I would have spent far more time on it, but I presumed that my readers would either already have an idea what "Fudge" was, or be able to easily find out.

There are a few things I despise in the world: Cheaters, liars, or hypocrites. You were accusing me of being these things. If I say I read the book, I read the book.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMight as well go for the home run of humiliating yourself with stuff like the above by really going out of your way to show just how rhetorically unarmed and unprepared you were to take me on.

What's that smell? Smells like "Someone giving themselves too much credit". Might wanna go change your pants before the ladies notice.

Sorry, I don't use "rhetoric", I use logic. It's why I will never be a politician nor a FOX News anchor.

I will never be prepared enough to "take you on"; I simply don't have all the abundant time that you do to devote to writing about games. I simply do not have that resource, and you do, so you will always "win"; there's just no getting around that.

So go ahead and save the world of gaming, seriously I won't fight you: I'm too busy doing other things.

QuoteThere are a few things I despise in the world: Cheaters, liars, or hypocrites. You were accusing me of being these things. If I say I read the book, I read the book.

OK, you read the book. I will hereby retract my claim that you didn't. I made an assumption, and it seems my assumption was wrong.

But you hate hypocrites?

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21483&postcount=116

Dude, if you hate hypocrites, then the self-loathing must be unbearabl... oh wait, nevermind:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21488&postcount=119

Ahh, I see, "Blatent Hypocricy" is just "Rhetorical Dueling". My bad.

...

Yeah, I just don't have the limitless time, or energy that you do to keep it up. I never will, as long as I continue working and being a husband and a gamer. Ain't no way I can win, just don't have the resources.

But don't you dare stop, beacuse as I mentioned above it never ceases to be entertaining.

-Andy

Quote from: RPGPunditEveryone else, look for a review of "Don't Rest Your Head" coming soon to the blog. I've been told I will probably "despise" it. We'll see.

You will.

Quote from: beejazzYou will.

I suspected as much, but if nothing else -- let's be honest here -- it'll raise awareness of the existence of the game.  Positive or negative, that's what a review does!  And since we operate on a zero-dollar advertising budget right now, that's gold.