Isle is the antithesis of Vornheim on the usability scale.

Quote from: RPGPundit;745509Oh, its on, bitch.

:popcorn:

The rebuttal is polite and reasonable (Even though "the reviewer just doesn't get it" is a bit tacky), and even most of the review is pretty good.

But you'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to write this:

Quote from: RPGPunditIf I had to hazard a guess, if I didn't know better I would say "Isle of the Unknown" was written as insult propaganda; some anti-OSR fanatic from the Forge, writing a grotesque stereotype of how he imagines sandbox settings should work based on the dumbest prejudices of the most idiotic D&D games that were almost never run but exist more in the minds of those who hate that kind of game; and was then stunned to find that for some utterly inexplicable reason, James Raggi wanted to publish it.

I mean seriously, what the fuck has this McKinney guy have on Raggi?! What level of incriminating pictures does he possibly have that would compel Raggi to sell this drivel, and at such a high production value?

I mean LotFP has produced a few stinkers, a few dull books, and a few masterpieces, as well as one of the best OSR rule-sets in the business. But never anything like this before. There are meth-heads on street-corners with no gaming experience who could improv a better setting than this.

...and then get upset about that rebuttal.

I get that the Pundit character is obsessed with his imaginary war, but that doesn't add anything, and looks purely there in an attempt to start a fight.

It is my understanding that the Pundit is a dependable and honest reviewer, and also someone who isn't afraid to absolutely trash the stuff he dislikes. Since he only reviews hardcopy material that people send him, and doesn't really offer unsolicited reviews, companies send him stuff at their own risk (so to speak).

I do think he's more vitriolic than I'd like to be on a negative review. I've recently picked up an OSR book that I've disliked so much that I want to review it -- it's definitely stirred a reaction from me -- but I'm struggling with finding the objectivity in both outlook and language to write a straight, honest review. I reckon that it's harder to write a negative review than a positive one, but stuff like this:

Quote from: RPGPundit;745162If I had to hazard a guess, if I didn't know better I would say "Isle of the Unknown" was written as insult propaganda; some anti-OSR fanatic from the Forge, writing a grotesque stereotype of how he imagines sandbox settings should work based on the dumbest prejudices of the most idiotic D&D games that were almost never run but exist more in the minds of those who hate that kind of game; and was then stunned to find that for some utterly inexplicable reason, James Raggi wanted to publish it.

I mean seriously, what the fuck has this McKinney guy have on Raggi?! What level of incriminating pictures does he possibly have that would compel Raggi to sell this drivel, and at such a high production value?

Or this:

Quote from: RPGPundit;745162There are meth-heads on street-corners with no gaming experience who could improv a better setting than this.

Feels really uncalled for.

Though he does go out of his way to compliment the physical presentation of the book.

Geoffrey's response, on the other hand, actually feels fairly sedate. His one mistake IMO was starting a thread over at another board (where registration is closed) instead of dropping over here and replying directly to the review thread.

Quote from: RPGPundit;745509And whining about it on the ODD boards, and amusingly trying to claim that I'm not a "real" old-school gamer but one of those newfangled "1980s" 2e type that must like Dragonlance and the 2e Forgotten Realms.

That's not what he said at all. What he said was:

Quote from: geoffrey over at the Original D&D Discussion boardsMy impression is that RPGPundit does not like the 1970s-style presentation of fantasy wilderness. He seems to prefer the later style that really came into its own with Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms products. Quite a few D&Ders, upon looking at early Wilderlands products, basically ask, "What the devil is this? It's...worthless." They like for most of the connecting and imagining to have been done for them. Personally, I don't care for that sort of thing. I like sketchy, terse encounters with little or no commentary. (It's funny that Isle of the Unknown is actually wordier than Bledsaw.) For example, my favorite city product is Albert Rakowski's Towers of Krshal.

Notice how Geoff lumps DL and FR together (2e is not mentioned). While FR 2e material in general really did take its cue from DL's IP-building linear storywank, FR 1e fits firmly with what James Malizewski (yeah, I know, but bear with me for a second here) called "Silver Age D&D" -- an era of D&D that concerned itself with consistent and lifelike world emulation, as opposed to "Golden Age D&D" when the wolf did lay down with the giant fiery-eyed wingless parrot and novelty trumped consistency every time.

I think that's the one interesting debate to be had from this debacle. The OSR is a big tent and it's pretty clear that people under its generous embrace have significant differences in taste. I think Geoff's comment is not entirely devoid of cogency (Pundit's gone on record as a FR 1e fan, though I sure as hell wouldn't lump it together with DL) and I'm spinning off the "ages of D&D" thing in a thread of its own.

Quote from: Benoist;745597Is Isle like this throughout? I mean, I could theoretically run a game on this, why not, but that's a little thin to me. Wilderlands descriptions are already much much better to my taste, and HCC1's are the kind of things that throw my imagination out for a loop, which I like a lot.

I'm on the same page, I think. I don't think IotU is "useless" or "unplayable" and in fact I think I might have a blast running it, or something similar to it, filling in the blanks in my trademark seat-of-the-pants style. I've never read the old Judges Guild stuff beyond a cursory read, but I've had a blast with the Palladium Fantasy city write-ups by JG alumnus Kevin Siembieda, and I've noticed the similarities even on cursory reads.

I also think that it is a credit to Pundit's review that, in spite of a clearly negative review, I was intrigued enough that I considered picking it up, despite my tastes running fairly close to Pundit's on a lot of things.

Besides, kent (of all people!) raises a pretty good point on the ODD thread: just because Geoff took after the JG form doesn't mean he delivered the same quality of content. And while as a GM he's accountable to no one, as a published writer he confers the readership, and especially reviewers, the privilege of judgement. He is more than entitled to what I've found a mostly reasonable rebuttal, but doing it on an other site instead of here feels like a cop-out.

Quote from: Benoist;745597From your review:

Is Isle like this throughout? I mean, I could theoretically run a game on this, why not, but that's a little thin to me. Wilderlands descriptions are already much much better to my taste, and HCC1's are the kind of things that throw my imagination out for a loop, which I like a lot.

I'm one who could definitely run a game using this, though maybe not a long-term game. It seems something my 6 year old would enjoy - he liked Isle of Dread a lot, and he loves the gonzo stuff.

Quote from: D-503;745531I'm not sure you are a real old school gamer, not least as you're generally pretty hostile to the OSR thing.

No I'm not. I'm an OSR author (Arrows of Indra), 66% of the campaigns I'm currently running are OSR games (including LotFP who published Isle, and DCC), and I've consistently given great reviews to countless OSR products.

I'm an OSR fanatic.

I WAS hostile to the "OSR Taliban" who engaged in litmus/purity tests (as indeed this asshole is doing when accusing me of being "an 80s gamer") and played games of "I'm more old'school than you"/"I only run oD&D?"/"oD&D?! You fucking heretic! I run a game based on some scribbles Gary Gygax wrote on a napkin 8 weeks BEFORE publishing 0-edition!"

And of course, the cavalcade of zero-creativity that was the Clonemania period.

But I love new stuff in the OSR, and weird stuff in the OSR; I love LotFP. I love Gonzo. I love absolutely EVERYTHING this book is supposed to be the target market for.  SO the reason I hate this book has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes, as they are all aligned to be predisposed to liking this kind of book; its just that, and I cannot say this often enough, ISLE OF THE UNKNOWN IS A BADLY WRITTEN PRODUCT.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;745582All of the critical reviews, including my own, have been the same. There's nothing going on in Isle. It's devoid of actions and pretexts.

It's the difference between "The room has 3 orcs" and "the room has 3 orcs shooting dice over a fairy strung up nearby."

Isle is WORSE than the "3 orcs" example, because at least orcs are Archetypal. As the GM, you have an instinctive understanding of what you might do with 3 orcs.  There's nothing, on the other hand, to be done with a skunk that has bat-wings, is immune to fire, and can paralyze people with its claw attack.

Quote from: S'mon;745623I'm one who could definitely run a game using this, though maybe not a long-term game. It seems something my 6 year old would enjoy - he liked Isle of Dread a lot, and he loves the gonzo stuff.

Yes, I've already admitted on G+ that Isle of the Unknown may have one additional utility, which is that it might be amusing to the age-7-and-under crowd.

But to compare it to Isle of Dread, which is a REAL sandbox, is not on. Not least of which that, since it was published in 1981, no doubt Mr.Mcrapeypants would consider it "not true Old School".

RPGPundit

RPGPundit, you should seek psychiatric attention.

Organizing this sort of lynching of someone else on the internet over an RPG product, your sadistic enjoyment of the fray you are trying to create, your aggresive and violent language (totally unnesesary for making your legit point), and your megalomaniac remarks, is showing of a deeply fucked up mind. I pity you.

Get help.

Quote from: Benoist;745597From your review:



Is Isle like this throughout? I mean, I could theoretically run a game on this, why not, but that's a little thin to me. Wilderlands descriptions are already much much better to my taste, and HCC1's are the kind of things that throw my imagination out for a loop, which I like a lot.

For me the big test would be how much it costs.  I rather enjoy plundering a collection of weirdness for interesting stuff to use.  This isn't "the publisher failing to write a game," this is "something to inspire my imagination."

I don't WANT a "ready to run" world.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;745604It seems like a bunch of disconnected crap rolled on hidden random tables.  There's nothing that ties everything together to make it seem like a place, and the critters are laughable mashups of random animals.  It's like a bunch of wizards created the place high on a cocktail of cocaine and LSD.

So, just like original D&D, then, where you could encounter Tharks in one hex and Tyrannosaurs in the next.

Quote from: The Butcher;745617It is my understanding that the Pundit is a dependable and honest reviewer, and also someone who isn't afraid to absolutely trash the stuff he dislikes. Since he only reviews hardcopy material that people send him, and doesn't really offer unsolicited reviews, companies send him stuff at their own risk (so to speak).

Certainly how I see it. I've sent him copies of all of my games so far (at least I'm pretty sure I sent AR, can't recall right now), and I basically see it as a fire-and-forget crapshoot, but I respect him as a reviewer to just give his honest opinion, and that's exactly what he's done each time so far.

QuoteI do think he's more vitriolic than I'd like to be on a negative review. I've recently picked up an OSR book that I've disliked so much that I want to review it -- it's definitely stirred a reaction from me -- but I'm struggling with finding the objectivity in both outlook and language to write a straight, honest review. I reckon that it's harder to write a negative review than a positive one, but stuff like this:

'Objective reviews' are a myth, and chasing them is the route of dry recitations of chapter contents and bullet points. It's the reason most RPG reviews just plain suck.

Quote from: J Arcane;745672'Objective reviews' are a myth, and chasing them is the route of dry recitations of chapter contents and bullet points. It's the reason most RPG reviews just plain suck.

Speaking as a consumer, I'd rather my reviews be informative run-downs than opinion pieces. I'm not entirely opposed to opinion, Pundit's are informative and opinionated, I just think they suffer from his macho posturing, swearing and the need to make everything a [strike]a new front in an ideological war[/strike] a pissing match about elfgames. But as I said, they're informative, and the Pundit's tastes in gaming usually run close to my own.

My reviews, I think, have their share of opinion, but my #1 priority as a reviewer is letting people know what's in the book, with value judgements coming second.

Quote from: J Arcane;745672'Objective reviews' are a myth, and chasing them is the route of dry recitations of chapter contents and bullet points. It's the reason most RPG reviews just plain suck.

True that. Once you get past matters of objective quality, there's a hefty amount of subjective opinion to any review, and an honest reviewer should wear their biases on their sleeve rather than trying to kid themselves that they can suppress them. A decent review will demonstrate enough of the reviewer's particular slant that I can decide which of the reviewer's conclusions I will pay attention to and which I will take with a grain of salt and the Pundit's reviews consistently do that.

Quote from: J Arcane;745672'Objective reviews' are a myth, and chasing them is the route of dry recitations of chapter contents and bullet points. It's the reason most RPG reviews just plain suck.

You're not wrong, but between the extremes of "Here is the table of contents, it is good because it is nice" and "I think this product is part of a CONSPIRACY!!! and the author must have blackmailed someone to get it published" is plenty of room to give a comprehensive view of the product, who it might be for, and whether or not the author fits in that group

Most RPG reviews suck because most writers are shit, and few people have been taught how to provide constructive feedback. User reviews also tend to be crap in general, because only people with strong opinions will bother writing them, or they'll just check the 0 or 10 buttons based on fanboyism and call it good (Video game reviews are even worse for that).

Quote from: Old Geezer;745671For me the big test would be how much it costs.  I rather enjoy plundering a collection of weirdness for interesting stuff to use.  This isn't "the publisher failing to write a game," this is "something to inspire my imagination."

I don't WANT a "ready to run" world.

True, but when the product is quite this random I'd rather the author just give me the source tables so I can go to town with them myself rather than trying to sell me a product indistinguishable from a series of die rolls. As mentioned in the OD&D forum thread, the time when products that you could generate automatically with a decent spreadsheet program were good value died when the home computer became ubiquitous.

The closure and locking of that thread had a similar resonant "CLICK" as did the closing and locking of the Numenera thread on RPG.net* was shut immediately after one of the authors** posted in said thread.

People on a forum say a, b, and c about a thing written and the person writing it.  Thread crashes onward, out of control.  When the accused shows up to discuss it...BAM thread locked - "for the good of the community".



...

*=the Identity Politicians and Social Justice Warriors decided Monte Cook Hates Women because Numenera had a biomechanical succubus in it.

**=who was a woman, who helped design the game which kinda put paid to the "b-b-b-but ~*patriarchy*~!" narrative the fucksticks who moderate and post at rpg.net were marching around chanting