TheRPGSite

General consensus question here...
 
Should I (or anyone else) put reviews up for old(er) games on this site?
 
I'm debating it myself and I see some pros and cons.
 
Pros: You've been playing them, so you have a good idea what really works and what doesn't. It will inform people what some of us old schoolers are actually talking about. We'd have reviews done.
 
Cons: Out of date image; I don't think theRPGsite wants to be seen as a bunch of old codgers unwilling to try new things. Nobody cares, people have already made their decisions about older games years ago, and won''t read them anyway.
 
 
So, here's the question. Would you want/care if older games were reviewed? If they were, would you read them?

I've weighed in on this one a few times, and even discuss it in an upcoming article at RPG.net on reviewing.

First off, there's a thriving market in older games thanks to eBay and internet chat.  People still buy older editions of D&D, CP2020, and various other games.  For these folk the review is helpful to making a purchasing decision.

Second, some folk read reviews for entertainment.  It generates conversation, makes us think about what we loved about those older games, and results in a generally enjoyable read.

I know the reviews of older games on RPG.net get about as many hits as reviews of newer games, barring "big name" games.  After a new game has been out for a year or two anyway, and all the buzz is dead, there's not a lot of difference between the two reviews.

I think you should go for it.  It helps theRPGsite, generates conversation, and may help out some other gamers who want to learn more about those products!

Edit: Also, growing the review database here is a good thing.  Maybe it will convince folk to expand upon the current setup and make it more useful.

Quote from: KrakaJakShould I (or anyone else) put reviews up for old(er) games on thi-

Yes.  Sorry to interrupt, but yes.

Quote from: KrakaJakPros: You've been playing them, so you have a good idea what really works and what doesn't. It will inform people what some of us old schoolers are actually talking about. We'd have reviews done.
 
Cons: Out of date image; I don't think theRPGsite wants to be seen as a bunch of old codgers unwilling to try new things. Nobody cares, people have already made their decisions about older games years ago, and won''t read them anyway.
 
 
So, here's the question. Would you want/care if older games were reviewed? If they were, would you read them?

Lev Lafayette (who was chased out of here by a bunch of fucking lunatics) has actually started reviewing a lot of old products on RPG.net. He's doing it at an impressive rate (sometimes 3-4 reviews in a single week) and I don't think this has changed the perception people have of RPG.net.

There are a lot of great older products. They deserve a second look, if only so that the average gaming ignoramus who believes 2007 is "the golden age of roleplaying" can reconsider that ridiculous notion.

And FWIW, I think the perception people have of the RPGsite is that members aren't receptive to new ideas and concepts in roleplaying, not necessarly to new games. That perception may have some truth to it but I believe it's an overgeneralisation.

By all means, review old games. Any review is appreciated! :)

Go for it, KrakaJak. Just don't make Lev's... mistakes.

 (http://www.therpgsite.com/node/604)
Ok, I dood it (http://www.therpgsite.com/node/604).
 
Read, react!
 
 
Enjoy?
 
 
 
edit: Added Link

I say do it.  Reviews are always a good thing.  But if you feel guilty, try to review a newer game for every older one you do.

Pete

Quote from: KrakaJakIf they were, would you read them?

YES .

Regards,
David R

Absolutely I would read reviews of older stuff.  AD&D stuff I can totally use with C&C.

As CW said above, anything that enriches the review database is good for me!

Go for it. Just cause it's 'old' doesn't mean people saw it the first time or payed any attention to it when it came out. They might be more receptive to it now.

So wait... Unknown Armies is old school now?

I need a drink.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo wait... Unknown Armies is old school now?

I need a drink.

I -- if -- Krak--

Due, two-thousand fo--

That's not OLD!

It's old enough to be out of Print...

First. Yes. Reviews are always good, whatever the game. Not everybody owns all games, no matter how well known. Besides, sometimes it's more fun to read games you know than games you don't know.

Second. Yes, I wouldn't say Unknown Armies is old school, but whatever. It's a game I don't own, didn't play, didn't read, so I'm going to read the review.

If you're gonna review Unknown Armies as old school, could you at least have made it the first edition?  I think that was done in 2000.  It'll make us feel at least a little bit better...

UA is most distinctly not old school, that said 1e was just an inferior version of 2e, it's a rare example of a game where the new edition kept all the good bits and just fixed the bad.

Otherwise, we have ebay, no?  Reviews of old games are valuable as many of these games are still extremely playable today and you can actually often still find them.

The thing is, people use the technology metaphor and it's bollocks, there's a much better metaphor from I think John Kim which talks about rpg trends in terms of schools of art, where they may build on what has gone before but there is not so much progress as changing trends and emphases.

Some older games still are great games, I think since we can still get hold of them on ebay or in pdf from places like drivethru they merit reviewing on their own merits as if they were released today.

But UA ain't old school, it merits review by all means but it is still shiny and new IMO.

I thought you meant 80s and, perhaps, early 90s products :)

Yeah, folk are always interested in hearing more about UA!  Thanks for the review!

Quote from: JongWKGo for it, KrakaJak. Just don't make Lev's... mistakes.

Yeah. That's my advice as well.

Quote from: BalbinusBut UA ain't old school, it merits review by all means but it is still shiny and new IMO.

From my perspective, UA is not "old school".

It was created a while ago however. Almost 10 years ago.

If you're a 14 years old gamer, it probably isn't part of your culture. If you aren't lucky enough to live near a LGS worthy of that name, if your gaming network is around your age... it may never have been on your radar.

Heck, the game is even part of the 90s trend toward conspiracy and horror. It precedes Britney Spears, the WTC attacks, Napster, etc... things that many teenagers feel they always lived with.

Because of the turnaround in games and this market, I think it qualifies as old school for many. It also makes me feel rather old :p

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think it qualifies as old school for many. It also makes me feel rather old :p

It sure has that effect on me. Instant geriatrification. The kids nowadays, well I never...

But we're kidding you, KJ--I liked the review. Also, yes, reviews of old games are a very good thing.

Quote from: JongWKGo for it, KrakaJak. Just don't make Lev's... mistakes.

In other words, don't engage in a systematic review of well-known sacred cows. No matter how many caveats you state on how product x was "good for it's time, but seriously dated now", you'll still get upset the creedal fundamantalists.

The only sacred cow is hamburger.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteIn other words, don't engage in a systematic review of well-known sacred cows. No matter how many caveats you state on how product x was "good for it's time, but seriously dated now", you'll still get upset the creedal fundamantalists.

I consider myself not to be someone whose views are easily colored by nostalgia. But I read your recent reviews of the AD&D core books and found them harsh.

I love critical reviews and they certainly were it but I disagreed a lot with some of the views and even more with the ratings.

But nonetheless it's cool that you are doing all these reviews.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI consider myself not to be someone whose views are easily colored by nostalgia. But I read your recent reviews of the AD&D core books and found them harsh.

That's fair enough; there are many core elements of AD&D1e which, imo, are simply clumsy, arbitrary and sometimes just bizarre.

QuoteBut nonetheless it's cool that you are doing all these reviews.

Cheers. That's the most important part, imo.

May I point to the fact, that Lev ignored 30 years of gaming discourse when he wrote the review?

He was not harsh, just dumb.

Quote from: SettembriniMay I point to the fact, that Lev ignored 30 years of gaming discourse when he wrote the review?

Ahh, more blanket assertions without justification. Keep up with the hate Sett, it's quite becoming on you.

QuoteAhh, more blanket assertions without justification. Keep up with the hate Sett, it's quite becoming on you.

That is a well grounded accussation as you would know if you would actually follow gaming discussions.
For your royal lazyness:

QuoteNot one of the considerations Lev brings up is of more than mild importance. Some are pure matters of preference, while others are glitches that might be replaced with modest improvement, but anyone who thinks that these are the things that make or break a role-playing game is still living in the eighties. They're really quite peripheral concerns from a play point of view.

Lev's viewpoint does represent a certain sort of 'conventional wisdom' that got enshrined as early as the late seventies as an anti-D&D approach to game design. Since the old Chaosium, Alarums and Excursions, and White Wolf crowds have taken over the game design conventional wisdom, someone could be forgiven for aping their aging platitudes, as Lev does; especially as the new design strains represented by Champions and Ars Magica were all effectively absorbed into this overall 'main line' of RPG design, by way of GURPS and Vampire respectively.

I think anyone who believes the foundational platitudes of this design school in 2007, with the state of role-playing today, is about as credible as a flat earther. Games designed for roleplayers who got disaffected with old D&D are not appealing to anyone except roleplayers who are disaffected with old D&D, plus noise around the edges (the pop culture vectors that brought people into vampire and continue to bring people into D&D 3 here and there, learning to roleplay from friends).

If you believe that roleplaying is fun, and want to design a good system for it that's not D&D, what you've got to do is go back to the place before D&D, and figure out how to create something out of that (informal make believe-games) that doesn't run up against the things you found problematic in D&D or AD&D. Every single thing that Lev mentions, and all the founding principles of the glib conventional wisdom that shapes it, is a weird kind of nervous reaction to things that happen in D&D's shadow. You can't fix things that way, and in fact what happens, pretty consistently for non-roleplayers, is that you fuck them up: first you hit the imaginary hiccup that bothered you in D&D and then you try to smooth it over with fancy math and an 'integrated system' (as if our imagination worked on some simple equation). It doesn't work: it's a proven failure to the degree that anything of this sort is, based on the failure of our hobby and industry to follow up D&D with one single game capable of capturing the public imagination more broadly.

Quote from: SettembriniThat is a well grounded accussation as you would know if you would actually follow gaming discussions.

QuoteNot one of the considerations Lev brings up is of more than mild importance. Some are pure matters of preference, while others are glitches that might be replaced with modest improvement, but anyone who thinks that these are the things that make or break a role-playing game is still living in the eighties. They're really quite peripheral concerns from a play point of view.

It is incorrect from the experience of actual play. My criticism deal with core issues, especially those which are arbritrary.

QuoteLev's viewpoint does represent a certain sort of 'conventional wisdom' that got enshrined as early as the late seventies as an anti-D&D approach to game design. Since the old Chaosium, Alarums and Excursions, and White Wolf crowds have taken over the game design conventional wisdom, someone could be forgiven for aping their aging platitudes, as Lev does; especially as the new design strains represented by Champions and Ars Magica were all effectively absorbed into this overall 'main line' of RPG design, by way of GURPS and Vampire respectively.

Oh, so gaming design did improve!? So all those discussions in A&E, Different Worlds and heck, even in the early issues (<100) of The Dragon did bear fruit?

You can't have it both ways. Either AD&D1e was a systematically solid product that required only "modest improvements" or new game designs and strongly different editions (e.g., D&D 3.x) would be required to update to a more sensible standard.

I think history has already made a decision on the matter.

As you are the most ignorant type of person I´m putting you on ignore. You are actively taking away enjoyment from my internet endeavours.

Let me point out why:

You don´t mean bad, I suppose.

But:

You bring up points, that have been refuted twenty, thirty years ago.
You are ignorant of discourse.
You are pretentious, in a way that isn´t refelecting upon it´s own pretentiousness = no self-criticism.

You are not knowledgable about D&D (as proven time and time again, you didn´t even know what the RC was...), but continue to jump into discussions concerning D&D.

You are polite, but not in a good way. In a PC way, that really enrages me. You are a bigot-leftie that takes pride in being "on the side of reason" when you are actually only on the side of total and ridiculous wrongness.

You are condescending and patronizing to women.

You are condescending and downright insulting to germans.

You are comparing the holocaust to mysogynism, and feel elevated about it.
All that not with your flags up, but in a passive-aggressive way.

You are spilling poison, you are infesting debate with rotten arguments, that were left at the ideological scrapyard long ago.

You are inviting other people to do the same. You are attacking the ideological foundations of theRPGSite.
But not in a good way, that leads to reflecting discourse. But by wiley and weasely use of refuted poisoned arguments. You force us to wage wars long ago won by people wiser and older than us. You are taking the level of discussion down to that of your incomplete understanding of RPGs.

You are not funny, or rhetorically gifted.

You´re just an asshole in such a way, that there are real world DMs out there, that don´t want to play with you.

You lack any rhetorical balls.

And the last one is along with your ignorance the worst point.

So I wish all those people out there, that they will be spared having you as a player. And I wish this site would be spared your visits too. Alas, I´d even ask you to leave on your own devices. As your ingorance and indolence will prevent that, I´m forced to ignore you, for my own sanity. Let it be known to all that Lev´s arguments are ideological duds, in the past at the present and most likely in the future.

I´ve never been enraged by a posting style more than by yours. To spare us both the uglyness of cross-thread fighting, I´ll be the one who takes action.

You are actively destroying western civilization by ignoring past debates. You are throwing us all back to the seventies. I can´t stand it no longer.

Have a miserable online life, you deserve no better.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteIn other words, don't engage in a systematic review of well-known sacred cows. No matter how many caveats you state on how product x was "good for it's time, but seriously dated now", you'll still get upset the creedal fundamantalists.

No, in other words, don't build your review on abritrary definitions and faulty assumptions regarding the nature of roleplaying games. That's not the stuff of constructive discussion. Critical examination isn't the same as "deconstruction" (a vague term in any case); it works from the common understanding of terms and concepts instead of redefining them to shift the grounds of debate (or, as Settembrini put it, by poisoning the well). "Single unit wargame" and "chess with dice" - these two statements of yours adequately encapsulate what is wrong with your method. I could write car reviews in which my definition excluded General Motors products, but who would take me seriously? Nobody, because today's terminology includes them under that label.

There are other issues as well - the nostalgia argument, the marketing argument, and disregarding all but the strict textual content of the game - which I also consider unproductive in your reviews and the following discussions, as I believe they likewise obstruct reason by serving as a generic "wall" against all contrary points, but that is moving into the realm of my own preferences for debate.

Basically, what you did was annoying, because it seems to me you don't really want to communicate. Or at least the way you constructed your argument is disinviting for that purpose. This strategy worked in a way, because after all, I stopped replying to your posts (and Settembrini put you on his ignore list, which I won't do). It remains a cheap victory, though - from a properly done systematic review, I would have come out "richer", with a deeper understanding of AD&D even if the reviewer didn't agree with my perspective. "A hard look on Dungeons and Dragons" by Ron Edwards was like that, for example. Here, all I've got is a vague sense of dissatisfaction for having wasted my time on no intellectual gain.

Well put.

Although I´d argue that Ron´s essay was flawed on the side of facts (heavily so!), his general idea of contextualizing and reviewing different versions were laudable and made some people think, who weren´t aware of that.

Quote from: SettembriniAs you are the most ignorant type of person I´m putting you on ignore. You are actively taking away enjoyment from my internet endeavours.

Are you finding it hard to admit to being wrong?

QuoteYou bring up points, that have been refuted twenty, thirty years ago.
You are ignorant of discourse.
You are pretentious, in a way that isn´t refelecting upon it´s own pretentiousness = no self-criticism.

Nice set of assertions.

QuoteYou are not knowledgable about D&D (as proven time and time again, you didn´t even know what the RC was...), but continue to jump into discussions concerning D&D.

Actually I recently picked up the RC. For the previous three years I only had it as a PDF. My "ignorance" of D&D starts with playing D&D in 1981 in remaining in a campaign for a sometime thereafter, through B1, B2, B3, X1, X2, X3, X4, X5; and of course more than a few times after that.

QuoteYou are polite, but not in a good way. In a PC way, that really enrages me. You are a bigot-leftie that takes pride in being "on the side of reason" when you are actually only on the side of total and ridiculous wrongness.

Keep up with those assertions.

QuoteYou are condescending and patronizing to women.

Because I publically oppose expressions of misogyny.

QuoteYou are condescending and downright insulting to germans.

I'll ask my German partner of the last five years, shall I?

QuoteYou are comparing the holocaust to mysogynism, and feel elevated about it.
All that not with your flags up, but in a passive-aggressive way.

Hatred of women, hatred of Jews. What's the difference? Both are abhorrent.

QuoteYou are inviting other people to do the same. You are attacking the ideological foundations of theRPGSite.

ROFL!

QuoteYou´re just an asshole in such a way, that there are real world DMs out there, that don´t want to play with you.

Oh noes!

QuoteSo I wish all those people out there, that they will be spared having you as a player. And I wish this site would be spared your visits too.

I promise to post twice as much, just for you ;-)

QuoteYou are actively destroying western civilization by ignoring past debates. You are throwing us all back to the seventies. I can´t stand it no longer.

Just kill yourself then. It'll all go away ;-)

Quote from: MelanNo, in other words, don't build your review on abritrary definitions and faulty assumptions regarding the nature of roleplaying games.

I review games on the basis of their capacity to provide gamist challenges, simulation models and narrative construction. I think this is quite reasonable, because that is, in my opinion, is what helps generate interesting and fun play in a game system or scenario. In my experience, people do not like game experiences where the challenges are non-existent or too difficult, where the experience requires too many suspensions of disbelief, or when there is no story to speak of.

Quote"Single unit wargame" and "chess with dice" - these two statements of yours adequately encapsulate what is wrong with your method.

No, those comments are critical of truncuated view of roleplaying. "Chess with dice" and "single unit wargames" are perfectly OK - but they are limited. I have an expansive view which rates highly those texts which provide a multi-layered approach which satisfy different desires in play.

Quote from: KrakaJakSo, here's the question. Would you want/care if older games were reviewed? If they were, would you read them?

Yep, they're useful. I'm not a reviewer myself, but i think the tone of a review is very important. The very nature of the beast means that it's subjective, so avoid posting your thoughts as 'facts'. Reviews replete with 'facts' can be pretty hard going to read and can be far from universal, in many cases. What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

As a German and an ultra-left-wing loony, let me just state here for the record that the fact that I think Lev is a mendacious little internet weasel has nothing to do with either my nationality or my political convictions.

Yeah, that's great.  Who'd like to see a review of TSR's old Conan game?

I'm partial to Indiana Jones, myself. Just crack open the Diana Jones trophy, and review it.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Yeah, that's great.  Who'd like to see a review of TSR's old Conan game?

[Arnold Horschack]Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I would like to hear about the old Conan RPG, Mr. Kotter...[/Arnold Horschack]



TGA

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs a German and an ultra-left-wing loony, let me just state here for the record that the fact that I think Lev is a mendacious little internet weasel has nothing to do with either my nationality or my political convictions.

You only say that because you only look at the pictures. :p

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Yeah, that's great.  Who'd like to see a review of TSR's old Conan game?

Me. All I've heard of it points towards "crapulent", but I heard it has a fun rule about obsession for evil spellcasters, which may be very appropriate for a game set in Hyboria.

Quote from: SettembriniYou are actively destroying western civilization by ignoring past debates. You are throwing us all back to the seventies. I can´t stand it no longer.

Is this an example of this :

QuoteYou lack any rhetorical balls.

:raise:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Yeah, that's great.  Who'd like to see a review of TSR's old Conan game?

me...I don't have it, so I can't review it.

Quote from: KrakaJakme...I don't have it, so I can't review it.

Ah, my good pugilistic friend -- I do, and can!  Further, I might!

Ha!  Ha ha!  Ha!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs a German and an ultra-left-wing loony,

I really won't hold that against you. :D

Quotelet me just state here for the record that the fact that I think Lev is a mendacious

It's naughty to use words you don't know the meaning of.

Quote..little internet weasel has nothing to do with either my nationality or my political convictions.

Dude, that's a hedgehog (a NZ one at that), not a weasel.... :D

Why do I fell like a fight from next door has come spilling over onto my lawn?


Lev, David, Sett, pierce, learn to use PM's and/or keep your bickering on topic!


....
so, what should I review next, RIFTS or Demon: the Fallen?

RIFTS PLZKTHX

Quote from: fonkaygarryRIFTS PLZKTHX

OK, but it's not gonna be pretty...

Reviews of older games is a great idea, I think.

Quote from: KrakaJakOK, but it's not gonna be pretty...

Just make sure to review it from the context that it was written!  When a lot of people here were in their teens (I wasn't but only by a couple years) and perhaps a poster or two weren't even born yet. ;) So just get your head squarely in a juvenile place, ignore the character creation, and it'll all seem SUPAR AWESOME!!!! :D

Quote from: fonkaygarryRIFTS PLZKTHX

I insist the review is done in SMS-speak...:p

Quote from: lev_lafayetteIn other words, don't engage in a systematic review of well-known sacred cows. No matter how many caveats you state on how product x was "good for it's time, but seriously dated now", you'll still get upset the creedal fundamantalists.

Wow, way to show your personal bias. :rolleyes:

I couldn't give a shit about the books you reviewed. I've never read them, not once.

The professional critic inside me, though, is still screaming for blood.

Assume that the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" leans towards the exploration of the deep personal relationships between teenage welfare mothers and the fathers of their children. Assume the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" require unfied mechanics, conflict resolution, and focus on a narrative agenda.

Review the game based on these assumptions.

Good luck...

Quote from: blakkieJust make sure to review it from the context that it was written!  When a lot of people here were in their teens (I wasn't but only by a couple years) and perhaps a poster or two weren't even born yet. ;) So just get your head squarely in a juvenile place, ignore the character creation, and it'll all seem SUPAR AWESOME!!!! :D

I actually plan on re-reading it and reviewing it my own personal life's context. I try to keep an open mind as to what it's strengths and weaknesses are rather than whether I like it or not.

Quote from: fonkaygarryRIFTS PLZKTHX

Why not? It's not an elegant game, but at least it is packed with enthusiasm and fun, which, sadly, most games aren't. RIFTS is the game of all caps, explosions and a lot of exclamation marks!

Quote from: MelanNo, in other words, don't build your review on abritrary definitions and faulty assumptions regarding the nature of roleplaying games.

Yeah. Those reviews were disappointingly colloquial.

While there are certainly valid criticisms of AD&D, reviews from very-narrow and idiosyncratic perspectives come off as ignorant.

You see this a lot when people who are very religious or have limited political exposure review movies and complain that a mass-market product didn't fit their narrow and uninformed view of the world... it really limits the value of the review and doesn't reflect well on the reviewer.

That said, reviews of old products are certainly valid and valuable -- I think it's the right idea, but I'd say any viewer should have a broad understanding of the hobby whether reviewing new or old products.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: James J SkachAssume that the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" leans towards the exploration of the deep personal relationships between teenage welfare mothers and the fathers of their children. Assume the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" require unfied mechanics, conflict resolution, and focus on a narrative agenda.

Review the game based on these assumptions.

Good luck...

You could just say "Assume that the people who would like your reviews are vapid fuckwits." ;)

Quote from: KrakaJakI actually plan on re-reading it and reviewing it my own personal life's context. I try to keep an open mind as to what it's strengths and weaknesses are rather than whether I like it or not.

Same thing.