Quote from: Elliot WilenIf you're talking about doing a review of the rules which is informed by play, vs. doing a review without having played at all, I think the former is preferable.

I disagree. Group A's results may not be reproducable by anyone other than group A. In fact, depending on how group A approaches gaming, their results for any game might be very different than the norm.

To my mind, actual play reviews are liking seeing a movie in a theater and subsequently writing, "The cinematography was good, but the dialog was hard to hear over the audience. So I give this movie two out of four stars."

But what if you're watching it in an empty theater. Or at home. Or what if you're deaf and watching it with the closed captioning on.

Rather than let the parts of the game experience that will change from situation to situation inform the review, I'd rather read—and write—about the elements that won't change.

Seanchai

What I've seen in more than a few AP reviews is a lot of gushing about a game because the group had a lot of fun with it. Of course.... this group presumably plays together a lot and generally has a lot of fun regardless of how good or bad the books are.  You'll see comments about how Player X did this awesome thing (often without needing rules) and everybody agreed it was cool.


Great.


But Player X doesn't come with the game, dude.  Maybe the rules facilitated whatever he did, but ultimately the idea for the cool thing came from the player, and the decision to let it stand/work was in the GM's hand.  I doubt the GM comes with the game either.  So, I can't really replicate that cool thing, no matter what the book says.

Now  A normal review which is backed by having run through it with a group to highlight it... that is a stronger review admittedly than one where the reviewer just read the book.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen[H]it the mechanics too hard and you have an abstract boardgame.

Mind if I sig that? My Nox warning seems out of date now that he's gone away.

One of the things that comes to mind for me is the way some rules pop naturally to mind as you play whereas others are consistently forgotten, and when remembered, feel too much like an afterthought. Often such rules make sense when you read them, but when you go to play, they just consistently amount to dead weight on the game.

Case in point, in a game I am working on we had rules for when characters were "Locked in Combat." They included special consequences for those in locked in melee combat, but they also included penalties versus attacks from 3rd parties. The consequences for the participants who were actually Locked in Combat were easy to remember and played nicely. The consequences for defence against missile and magic were forgotten more times than remembered, and when rememberd, we'd all just kick ourselves for the last 3 times it'd be left out of the equation. Ultimately, those rules, which made perfect sense on paper, got dropped from the game. They were an interesting detail in theory; in practice they were just a pain in the ass.

Quote from: Christmas ApeMind if I sig that?

Not at all.

That's a good point, Brimshack.

I see what Seanchai and Spike are saying, but IMO those are just bad reviews. The key is not to talk about the events of play but instead to discuss how the rules get used in play and what effect they have, if any. And playing is how you find those things out.

I think all things being equal (which they rarely are), a well written actual play review is more valuable than a well written review based on a reading.

That doesn't make reading only reviews valueless, for the vast majority of gaming products a review by someone who is a decent reviewer who has read the game meets my needs.  They can flag the essentials of the product and let me know if it meets my needs.

90% of the stuff that will kill a purchase for me is sufficiently evident that an educated readthrough will catch it, but that extra 10% is valuable if the game is a touch or go decision for me or if I am inclined now to buy it but wouldn't if I knew those problems.

I see Seanchai's issues, but I think a well written review avoids those problems.  I point for example to Dan Davenport's actual play reviews, where he talks quite frankly about how it came up in play and where he is surprised that something was or was not an issue.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe key is not to talk about the events of play but instead to discuss how the rules get used in play and what effect they have, if any. And playing is how you find those things out.

Sure. But whether the review spends time discussing the game play or not, the whole point of a playtest review is that the value judgements about the rules come not from the rules as written but from the rules as played. And, again, that's the element that will probably change from group to group, game to game, experience to experience.

Seanchai

Quote from: HalfjackThe crucial flaws in Spirit of the Century from actual play are usually around the fact that combat takes an inordinate amount of time compared to the rest of play.  

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like that...

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you just read the rules for chess, without having any pieces before you or another player, you would never guess that those few different pieces with their few different moves could lead to so many different games, and that the mastery of it could be something people spend quite literally decades of their lives on.

I would.

QuoteI would say that the main difference between theory and practice in games is personal taste, whether it's passive or active. Just reading an rpg, I'll apply my personal taste to see what's good or not, the personal taste is aplied passively - I'm just reading. But when playing an rpg, I'll apply my personal taste actively, to make the game more like what I like.

Yes, and that is at least as likely to fuck up your objective perspective on a game as it is (as opposed to how you play it) then it is to give you some kind of magical clarity on the subject.l

RPGPundit

The reality is that the people who have a disconnect between how a game reads to them and how it would actually play are those who have not played a lot of games, or a wide variety of games.  If you have enough experience with RPGs, you will be able to see quite clearly the overall way a game will play.  Certainly there are minute details you might pick up in play that you would not have noticed in a read-through, but the idea that you will miss the boat entirely if you don't perform the Sacred Ritual of Actual Play is simply poppycock.

The real issue is how much experience you have in being able to read a game.  If someone hasn't got a lot of play experience already, then sure, they may end up thinking that a mechanic will be hard when in fact its just badly written, or they may think something will be straightforward, when in fact its missing huge chunks that would make it unplayable. But someone with sufficient experience in both reading AND playing a wide variety of RPGs will not need to play through a game to know exactly how and why it will suck and/or rock.

RPGPundit

Quote from: zombenI'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like that...

I'm interested on knowing more about this, as I was checking SotC as a possible buy. I like FATE a lot.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe reality is that the people who have a disconnect between how a game reads to them and how it would actually play are those who have not played a lot of games, or a wide variety of games.  If you have enough experience with RPGs, you will be able to see quite clearly the overall way a game will play.  Certainly there are minute details you might pick up in play that you would not have noticed in a read-through, but the idea that you will miss the boat entirely if you don't perform the Sacred Ritual of Actual Play is simply poppycock.

The real issue is how much experience you have in being able to read a game.  If someone hasn't got a lot of play experience already, then sure, they may end up thinking that a mechanic will be hard when in fact its just badly written, or they may think something will be straightforward, when in fact its missing huge chunks that would make it unplayable. But someone with sufficient experience in both reading AND playing a wide variety of RPGs will not need to play through a game to know exactly how and why it will suck and/or rock.

RPGPundit

Generally sure, but it can make a real difference.  Until I ran it I really hadn't guessed how fun Space 1889 would be, and I've run a shitload of systems.

Equally, until I played it I had no idea how much I would hate the bidding mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard.

So yeah, generally you can tell, but sometimes actual play realy does help.  If it wasn't for the fact the Forge goes on about it all the time, I doubt you'd be arguing the point.

Quote from: BalbinusSo yeah, generally you can tell, but sometimes actual play realy does help.  If it wasn't for the fact the Forge goes on about it all the time, I doubt you'd be arguing the point.

I agree with Max here. If Forge does it, it must be WRONG!! Come on, mate.

My own example comes with Vampire: when I read it, I thought it was a wonderful and flexible system. When I ran it, I discovered that the system is awful and needed lots of mending.

Quote from: BalbinusSo yeah, generally you can tell, but sometimes actual play realy does help.  If it wasn't for the fact the Forge goes on about it all the time, I doubt you'd be arguing the point.

I'm a HUGE fan of Actual Play, for its own sake.

I disagree vehemently that only someone who's played a game is allowed to say whether it sucks or not.  That's a cheap trick used by those who are already part of a game's "Choir" insisting that unless someone's ran a campaign with a game they're somehow mentally incapable of judging that said game will be crap.

I mean, I think the Klan sucks too, I didn't have to become a Grand Dragon before I was able to figure that out; one shouldn't have to become a Klansman before saying it.

I can pretty safely say that complex heart surgery would suck ass, I don't think I have to subject to it to say so.

Nor do I have to try a scatological sex fetish to know I wouldn't get off on it.

So why the fuck would I have to subject myself to a multi-game campaign of Spirit of the Century to be able to make the criticisms I was able to see on reading it, based on my extensive pre-existing knowledge of the hundreds of games I've read and the dozens of games I have played?

Its absurd. Its like saying that a guy who has tried out hundreds of graphic design software programs should have to try yet another one to know whether it will be any good or not.
I know enough about pipe tobacco that if you tell me the ingredients of a tobacco mixture (and there are thousands of possible combinations) I could usually tell you right away not just whether I will generally like it or not, but how it will smoke, what the potential pitfalls or great points of it will be, etc.
I think people should smoke pipe tobacco as much as they like, but once you get to a certain level of skill with it you don't NEED to smoke a tobacco to know whether you'll like it or not, whether it'll be any good or not, etc. You'll know because of your prior expertise.
Ditto with RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ImperatorI'm interested on knowing more about this, as I was checking SotC as a possible buy. I like FATE a lot.

Barring combat, the game runs very quickly and smoothly even if there are frequent skill checks.  In fact having a skill check at nearly every player's tuen doesn't interestingly impact the speed or fluidity of play.  But when you hit combat by the book you go to a tactical zoning system and opposed checks track hits on a kind of hit point track that further has to be exceeded three times in order to finish the fight.  There are plenty of fairly obvious ways to speed it up, but it's kind of disappointing that this isn't an optional rule and a system more consistent with the rest of the game already in its place.

Honestly this is a minor blemish on a great game and easily patched, but worth watching out for.