"Ask a serious devotee of the game and they’ll tell you that you haven’t really played until you’ve had a year-long (or longer) campaign where your character goes from low to high level, and until you’ve tried multiple different character options regarding species and class. Then, arguably, you’ve had the true D&D experience."
The restaurant critic Jonathan Gold would only review a restaurant after he had eaten there about a dozen times. Good restaurants have bad nights. Bad restaurants have good nights. Once, twice, three times isn't enough.
Formulating an opinion of a game based solely on a readthrough seems akin to formulating an opinion of a play based solely on the script. Both are bastardized forms of the intended experience. You're there with the majority of the pieces, but things can and do change with the incorporation of a stage.
Though, I do think readthrough reviews of both have their place by way of critiquing prose, layout, general artistic direction, etc. This can still give readers a feel for what they can expect, at least initially, and from there they might be better able to assess if the full experience would be to their liking.
There might be something here as well about the experience of a high school performance of a musical versus its Broadway counterpart, or playing at Matt Colville's, Matt Mercer's, or Brennan Lee Mulligan's table versus at the table of your friend who is just learning to run games.
Each end of the spectrum of experience, though, can be fun and even worthwhile. In many cases, that is determined by the people involved.
The fact that RPGs are very group/GM dependent throws another wrench into the works.
I do think it’s OK to play something once and not want any more of it, though. Games should respect our time - if you play a 3-4 hour session of something and it’s not fun, you don’t have to play any more of it.
Of course, like you said: when someone shares their opinion on a game, they just have to be up front about what experience they have with it!
Thank you for bringing things into context about experiences, reviews, and opinions about ttrpgs. Sadly I don't really have much experience with them. Only really playing D&D 3.5 many years ago for a few years. I have more experience with card games and board games. Truly only a few I have enough experience with to explain what I like or didn't like about the game in a meaningful manner with a deep understanding of the rules and gameplay. I might have opinions of something after playing once, but I am not an expert regarding that game.
Another wizard-level post from Monte Cook. There's a serious topic Monte touches on here hidden in: "Some dude on YouTube..."
The big deal here is that many content creators are striving for relevance in an algorithmically controlled mire. Their incentives (views, potential revenue) are not always aligned with what viewers crave (insight, and how to best spend their time). There's a saying that it's hard to change the mind of someone who's livelihood depends on it not changing, and trying to get your average content churner to become insightful and drop the clickbait titles is not going to happen.
There's a conceit of the system awarding these bozos with more watch time while thoughtful (thoughtful != long) reviewers are left unwatched. I've been training my YouTube algo by telling it to never recommend channels to me that come up in my feed with a clickbait title 🤣
Social media has made it easy to talk about things for the wrong reasons. A lot of people share opinions to get attention, not to understand what they're talking about.
💯% - I think there's a belief people can "make it" by bombast alone, and arguably social media has been one of the worst things to hit society since ... the plague 🤣
It's true; the proof is in the playtest. I've written rules I thought would be fun, but wound up bogging down the game. I've enjoyed games whose rules I didn't love.
I think this is why there need to be more solo rules for RPGs, because there are only so many weekends or free nights we have to get together with friends to game, but we DO have an odd hour every night or two to sit down with a game book. But if there’s no way to play a game solo, the game will likely not be played, or it will only selectively be put into a roster with other more popular games. If you have a niche game, give it a solo option. An oracle die, a deck of cards, an introductory booklet to familiarize yourself with the rules. Call of Cthulhu’s box set has several solo adventures you can play JUST to get the hang of the game. Great for onboarding new players and making the most of our limited game time.
One thing this made me think about is how critique, when it's done well, is really a form of listening. It’s a way of showing respect to the work taking the time to absorb it, think about what it’s trying to say, and reflect on how it succeeds or struggles in doing that. You’re right that shallow commentary has become common, and I think part of that comes from the fact that a lot of people don’t even listen to each other very well anymore. If we can't sit with someone else's ideas in a real conversation without rushing to respond, how can we expect that same person to sit with something as layered and complex as a roleplaying game, and give it the time it deserves?
It makes me wonder why that is. Why is listening so hard lately, even when we care about the topic? Is it impatience? Is it about being seen? Maybe it's that opinions have become tied up with identity, so disagreement feels like a threat instead of just a difference. Whatever the reason, it seems like we're losing something important. Not just in how we talk about games, but in how we talk at all.
"Ask a serious devotee of the game and they’ll tell you that you haven’t really played until you’ve had a year-long (or longer) campaign where your character goes from low to high level, and until you’ve tried multiple different character options regarding species and class. Then, arguably, you’ve had the true D&D experience."
The restaurant critic Jonathan Gold would only review a restaurant after he had eaten there about a dozen times. Good restaurants have bad nights. Bad restaurants have good nights. Once, twice, three times isn't enough.
Thanks for the consideration, Monte.
Formulating an opinion of a game based solely on a readthrough seems akin to formulating an opinion of a play based solely on the script. Both are bastardized forms of the intended experience. You're there with the majority of the pieces, but things can and do change with the incorporation of a stage.
Though, I do think readthrough reviews of both have their place by way of critiquing prose, layout, general artistic direction, etc. This can still give readers a feel for what they can expect, at least initially, and from there they might be better able to assess if the full experience would be to their liking.
There might be something here as well about the experience of a high school performance of a musical versus its Broadway counterpart, or playing at Matt Colville's, Matt Mercer's, or Brennan Lee Mulligan's table versus at the table of your friend who is just learning to run games.
Each end of the spectrum of experience, though, can be fun and even worthwhile. In many cases, that is determined by the people involved.
The fact that RPGs are very group/GM dependent throws another wrench into the works.
I do think it’s OK to play something once and not want any more of it, though. Games should respect our time - if you play a 3-4 hour session of something and it’s not fun, you don’t have to play any more of it.
Of course, like you said: when someone shares their opinion on a game, they just have to be up front about what experience they have with it!
Thank you for bringing things into context about experiences, reviews, and opinions about ttrpgs. Sadly I don't really have much experience with them. Only really playing D&D 3.5 many years ago for a few years. I have more experience with card games and board games. Truly only a few I have enough experience with to explain what I like or didn't like about the game in a meaningful manner with a deep understanding of the rules and gameplay. I might have opinions of something after playing once, but I am not an expert regarding that game.
Another wizard-level post from Monte Cook. There's a serious topic Monte touches on here hidden in: "Some dude on YouTube..."
The big deal here is that many content creators are striving for relevance in an algorithmically controlled mire. Their incentives (views, potential revenue) are not always aligned with what viewers crave (insight, and how to best spend their time). There's a saying that it's hard to change the mind of someone who's livelihood depends on it not changing, and trying to get your average content churner to become insightful and drop the clickbait titles is not going to happen.
There's a conceit of the system awarding these bozos with more watch time while thoughtful (thoughtful != long) reviewers are left unwatched. I've been training my YouTube algo by telling it to never recommend channels to me that come up in my feed with a clickbait title 🤣
Social media has made it easy to talk about things for the wrong reasons. A lot of people share opinions to get attention, not to understand what they're talking about.
💯% - I think there's a belief people can "make it" by bombast alone, and arguably social media has been one of the worst things to hit society since ... the plague 🤣
It's true; the proof is in the playtest. I've written rules I thought would be fun, but wound up bogging down the game. I've enjoyed games whose rules I didn't love.
I think this is why there need to be more solo rules for RPGs, because there are only so many weekends or free nights we have to get together with friends to game, but we DO have an odd hour every night or two to sit down with a game book. But if there’s no way to play a game solo, the game will likely not be played, or it will only selectively be put into a roster with other more popular games. If you have a niche game, give it a solo option. An oracle die, a deck of cards, an introductory booklet to familiarize yourself with the rules. Call of Cthulhu’s box set has several solo adventures you can play JUST to get the hang of the game. Great for onboarding new players and making the most of our limited game time.
One thing this made me think about is how critique, when it's done well, is really a form of listening. It’s a way of showing respect to the work taking the time to absorb it, think about what it’s trying to say, and reflect on how it succeeds or struggles in doing that. You’re right that shallow commentary has become common, and I think part of that comes from the fact that a lot of people don’t even listen to each other very well anymore. If we can't sit with someone else's ideas in a real conversation without rushing to respond, how can we expect that same person to sit with something as layered and complex as a roleplaying game, and give it the time it deserves?
It makes me wonder why that is. Why is listening so hard lately, even when we care about the topic? Is it impatience? Is it about being seen? Maybe it's that opinions have become tied up with identity, so disagreement feels like a threat instead of just a difference. Whatever the reason, it seems like we're losing something important. Not just in how we talk about games, but in how we talk at all.