Wow, I'm afraid I have to take issue with numerous points in the review, and hope I don't distract from its main arc (with which I also disagree, but more on that in a moment):
A) Homelessness most certainly DID exist in the 1920s, in San Francisco, and in not insignificant numbers. Vagrancy was both an ongoing problem during that time, but it also had an element of lifestyle choice as well, an element that, while not vanished from modern American life, is much diminished. It was not uncommon for my grandfather and his companions to "jump trains" or "strike out west" for a time between leaving public school (usually at sixteen or seventeen) and settling down. The hobo life came to some men by choice, far more than we see today. Poverty also caused more homelessness in America than it does today.
B) In light of that historic oversight on the part of the reviewer, I'm not quite certain how the fact that human traficking continues to exist today is not relevant to a scenario in which human traficking of the 1920s was an issue.
C) "Not liking" Masks is certainly a player's perogative, but any reviewer of CoC who can so easily dismiss it (with the later softened, if somewhat condescending, take notwithstanding) probably doesn't find much to enjoy in the vast majority of published CoC materials.
Most important, however, I respectfully protest Mr. McLennan's objection to the historical materials found in Secrets of San Francisco.
There are many ways to play CoC, but the "Secrets" series of books is specifically designed for the large core of Keepers who absolutely depend on a certain level of historicity for their 1920s scenarios. They have players who constantly question whether or not something did (in history) or could (nonanachronistically) happen, given the setting. They want real street names, real landmarks, real archaeology blended with their dose of Mythos.
Yet, the reviewer objects to these very things as somehow detracting (or wasting space) from the Mythos.
I couldn't disagree more. In my opinon, the Mythos is exactly what needs less illumination. The Mythos is a seed that is planted in the core rules, watered by certain adventure scenarios, but wholly and totally "grown" in the mind of the Keeper. The Mythos that I run has a critical, extra layer that has never appeared in print, but has grown in my mind. Most Keepers I know have their own variant. Some bend toward a more "X-files-style" mytharc, others are hardcore Lovecraft "canon" guys, others go for pulpy action, others for the gothic fasttrack to hell. This is significant. The Mythos isn't like "Greyhawk" or "Krynn" - a cosmic worldview set in certain game parameters - the Mythos is a shared, yet individualized nightmare borne of Chaosium, but fostered by each Keeper (and her/his players) individually. The Mythos is dark, unknowable and insanity causing. Having a guidebook to its innerworkings a la TSR's old Manual of the Planes would be a grave mistake.
Needless to say, I view Secrets of San Francisco much differently: I love it as resource, I like most of the adventures, and I appreciate the "horror travelogue" element. It isn't a perfect book, but, with all due respect, I hold it in much higher esteem than either Logan9a or the reviewer.
Just my two cents. And I expect my change back from that.
Joined: Jul 23, 2004 Posts: 1064 Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject:
QuentinTheTroll wrote:
C) "Not liking" Masks is certainly a player's perogative, but any reviewer of CoC who can so easily dismiss it (with the later softened, if somewhat condescending, take notwithstanding) probably doesn't find much to enjoy in the vast majority of published CoC materials.
Are you sure you want to make that generalization? Masks is not in my top 20 CoC scenarios/adventures/modules. (Note, I didn't dislike it, it just reads better than it has played *for me*.)
And what a bad review it is. He spends a few paragraphs with his witless monologue, thinks Cairo and Bermuda Triangle were Secrets books, criticizes them based on hearsay (since he couldn't be bothered to read them). He's wrong about the appearances of the creature in Our Lady of Darkness. He couldn't be bothered to read all the way through the adventures, much less play them to see how they actually ran.
He could have actually written a shorter, more useful review, but then we'd miss the chance for his deathless snark.
To spare others:
- He doesn't like the discussion of real-world San Francisco
- He thinks there were a few interesting scenario seeds
- He only completely likes one of the adventures, and parts of two others
- His summary: "It's aggressively average, and while the adventures are nice, the entire book is just a little too weak to make for an unreserved recommendation."
Wow, I'm afraid I have to take issue with numerous points in the review, and hope I don't distract from its main arc (with which I also disagree, but more on that in a moment):
A) Homelessness most certainly DID exist in the 1920s, in San Francisco, and in not insignificant numbers. Vagrancy was both an ongoing problem during that time, but it also had an element of lifestyle choice as well, an element that, while not vanished from modern American life, is much diminished.
But there's a difference between the lifestyle choice of hobos and the army of schizophrenics that got dumped on the street by the deinstitutionalization that occurred in the 1960's and 1970's. The scenario is written as if it's about the modern-day homeless population, and yet the homeless that you're talking about were homeless by choice.
The entire scenario's premise is "Maybe insane people are actually seeing something real." But the homeless that you talk about weren't insane - they were poor or were doing so by choice.
Quote:
B) In light of that historic oversight on the part of the reviewer, I'm not quite certain how the fact that human traficking continues to exist today is not relevant to a scenario in which human traficking of the 1920s was an issue.
In other words, you're not going to make it go away. This is a situation exactly akin to the drug war; even if the investigators bust one human slaver, another will take his place.
Quote:
C) "Not liking" Masks is certainly a player's perogative, but any reviewer of CoC who can so easily dismiss it (with the later softened, if somewhat condescending, take notwithstanding) probably doesn't find much to enjoy in the vast majority of published CoC materials.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I enjoy the living hell out of Call of Cthulhu, and I wish that they'd have done more, but I thought that Masks of Nyarlathothep was over the top and had too many nasty combats that could wipe parties if you weren't careful - I'm thinking specifically of the shoggoth fight in the rocket pit on Black Dragon Island.
Quote:
Most important, however, I respectfully protest Mr. McLennan's objection to the historical materials found in Secrets of San Francisco.
There are many ways to play CoC, but the "Secrets" series of books is specifically designed for the large core of Keepers who absolutely depend on a certain level of historicity for their 1920s scenarios. They have players who constantly question whether or not something did (in history) or could (nonanachronistically) happen, given the setting. They want real street names, real landmarks, real archaeology blended with their dose of Mythos.
Yet, the reviewer objects to these very things as somehow detracting (or wasting space) from the Mythos.
I couldn't disagree more. In my opinon, the Mythos is exactly what needs less illumination. The Mythos is a seed that is planted in the core rules, watered by certain adventure scenarios, but wholly and totally "grown" in the mind of the Keeper. The Mythos that I run has a critical, extra layer that has never appeared in print, but has grown in my mind. Most Keepers I know have their own variant. Some bend toward a more "X-files-style" mytharc, others are hardcore Lovecraft "canon" guys, others go for pulpy action, others for the gothic fasttrack to hell. This is significant. The Mythos isn't like "Greyhawk" or "Krynn" - a cosmic worldview set in certain game parameters - the Mythos is a shared, yet individualized nightmare borne of Chaosium, but fostered by each Keeper (and her/his players) individually. The Mythos is dark, unknowable and insanity causing. Having a guidebook to its innerworkings a la TSR's old Manual of the Planes would be a grave mistake.
I always found excessive focus on historical detail to detract from horror, because you're more concerned with whether they used zips or buttons on their clothing than you are with what that noise was.
It is nice that you were able to express your disagreement politely, though. I greatly appreciate that.
For the flip side, we have Skaye.
Quote:
And what a bad review it is. He spends a few paragraphs with his witless monologue,
Explaining as to how I'm torn over the current direction of Chaosium's products.
Quote:
thinks Cairo and Bermuda Triangle were Secrets books,
They didn't have the word "Secrets" in front of them, but they were essentially location guidebooks.
Quote:
criticizes them based on hearsay (since he couldn't be bothered to read them).
And you'll note that I mentioned that I hadn't read them, which was the honest truth. Would you be happier if I'd trashed them as if I'd read them?
Quote:
He's wrong about the appearances of the creature in Our Lady of Darkness.
A creature whose appearance is nebulous at best.
Quote:
He couldn't be bothered to read all the way through the adventures, much less play them to see how they actually ran.
I didn't want to drag myself through ten pages of contact-jumping that didn't have any bearing on the central premise of the adventure, and noted it as such.
As for not playing them - well, there's a reason why the review is marked "Capsule Review", and not "Playtest Review". I didn't even have a gaming group when I was writing the review, and the one that I have now is not fond of horror games.
Quote:
He could have actually written a shorter, more useful review,
At which point I'd be hearing about you complain about how I missed all of this really awesome stuff...
Quote:
but then we'd miss the chance for his deathless snark.
There's still time for you to write your own, incidentally.
Seems to me that the chief source of disagreement here is largely a simple matter of taste.
Personally, as a keeper I am very appreciative of historical detail in settings. Here's why: I feel that (for me, at least) an essential element of horror is immersion, and I am more apt to feel immersed and transported in my imagination to a setting that seems detailed and plausible. I agree with Mr. MacLennan that minor details like buttons vs. zippers shouldn't be allowed to detract from the substance of the game, for the players - but that's precisely why I appreciate having historical data in a sourcebook. It means that I as keeper already have this information so that I can present it to my players as part of a living, breathing, and (hopefully) believable setting, and they needn't concern themselves with it. It saves me the chore of researching such things by placing it all in one handy place, and I still have the option of discarding any bits that I don't find useful or complementary to the scenario/campaign.
Your mileage may (and probably does) vary, but that's my 2 cents.
True, I shouldn't have let my dismay at the numerous problems with the review degenerate into personal attacks. For that, I apologize.
Quote:
Explaining as to how I'm torn over the current direction of Chaosium's products.
Yes, but since you don't explain why you liked the old supplements (aside from one reference to a "dry sardonic tone") or why you dislike the new ones, it's just a waste of space.
Quote:
And you'll note that I mentioned that I hadn't read them, which was the honest truth. Would you be happier if I'd trashed them as if I'd read them?
No, I'd rather you not discuss the merits of books you haven't read at all.
Quote:
I didn't want to drag myself through ten pages of contact-jumping that didn't have any bearing on the central premise of the adventure, and noted it as such.
Quote:
As for not playing them - well, there's a reason why the review is marked "Capsule Review", and not "Playtest Review". I didn't even have a gaming group when I was writing the review, and the one that I have now is not fond of horror games.
Objection withdrawn, on the playtest front. I'll note that one of those annoying contacts shows up later in the scenario, which I'd think would be important. I still think you need to read all of a book before reviewing it.
Quote:
At which point I'd be hearing about you complain about how I missed all of this really awesome stuff...
No, I would have been happy that you actually wrote a review which demonstrated that you'd read the whole book and which addressed that book, not books you haven't read.
Quote:
There's still time for you to write your own, incidentally.
Duly noted - once I get it back from my friend in Novato, perhaps I shall.
True, I shouldn't have let my dismay at the numerous problems with the review degenerate into personal attacks. For that, I apologize.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Yes, but since you don't explain why you liked the old supplements (aside from one reference to a "dry sardonic tone") or why you dislike the new ones, it's just a waste of space.
Here's the problem: I'm not in college anymore. It took me approximately two months to write that review, because I would start it, get some work done, and then have something else that required my attention pop up. If I go into detail on everything that you want to see, then the review gets even longer, and the people who don't care about what I liked about the old scenarios complain too - or, even better, start getting on my case about that instead.
Quote:
No, I'd rather you not discuss the merits of books you haven't read at all.
You keep taking the ten pages that I didn't read - or skimmed through, to be honest - and then blowing it up into the entire book. If I take a bite of cake, did I eat the entire cake? If I order a burger from McDonalds, did I eat out the entire store?
Quote:
Duly noted - once I get it back from my friend in Novato, perhaps I shall.
That would be excellent. If you could post it to rpg.net, that would also be excellent. (Just because the place needs reviews.)
Maybe it is a bit off to criticize SoSF for providing SF background rather than Mythos ideas. After all, what else is city sourcebook, as opposed to an adventure scenario, supposed to provide? I had no clear idea of the Bay Area before reading SoSF, and I find it helpful to have such a rpg-focused summary. With regard to Mythos links, SoSF even fares better that SoNY, which ignored two of HPL's stories set in NYC even while mentioning them in the bibliography. Yet SoNY had a more thorough coverage of areas - in SoSF, I missed a district-by-district description of SF itself, including a map of the city. (So I guess what I'm saying is that other Secrets books should follow SoNY for real-world detail/coverage and structure, SoSF for Mythos inclusions).
An example of "just the Mythos stuff" might be the SF chapter in Day of the Beast/Fungi from Yuggoth. It only gives the Cthulhoid activities in the city relevant to the plot, assuming that a Keeper will be familiar with SF already. Thus, SoSF is helpful in rounding out the gaps in DotB.
BTW Darren, I can't recall seeing a review of yours that gave an overall positive verdict; the product is always mostly bad, with some redeeming aspects possible. Maybe I've overlooked some of your reviews, or you think that reviewing to praise good stuff isn't as important as reviewing to warn against bad stuff, but I just noticed. Is there a pattern?
And what a bad review it is. He spends a few paragraphs with his witless monologue, thinks Cairo and Bermuda Triangle were Secrets books, criticizes them based on hearsay (since he couldn't be bothered to read them). He's wrong about the appearances of the creature in Our Lady of Darkness. He couldn't be bothered to read all the way through the adventures, much less play them to see how they actually ran.
He could have actually written a shorter, more useful review, but then we'd miss the chance for his deathless snark.
To spare others:
- He doesn't like the discussion of real-world San Francisco
- He thinks there were a few interesting scenario seeds
- He only completely likes one of the adventures, and parts of two others
- His summary: "It's aggressively average, and while the adventures are nice, the entire book is just a little too weak to make for an unreserved recommendation."
Definitely not the book I read and reviewed. Secrets of San Francisco has its problems, though they are not major ones, but it is nowhere near as bad as the reviewer makes out. It certainly tells me the kind of information I need to know about the city and some adventures there.
Personally, I would have ditched an adventure or two and replaced them with something better. I would have provided more information on Chinatown and some guidance on playing Chinese investigators.
Surprisingly, I do agree with everything the reviewer has to say, but not as applied to Secrets of San Francisco, rather have it applied to Secrets of New York. _________________ --
Pookie (pwca@blueyonder.co.uk) "Squeak damn you Squeak!!!"
See http://rlyehreviews.blogspot.com/ for reviews & http://www.chorazin.org.uk/pookie/ for GURPS: Jorune etc
"Home again, home again, Yiggety Yig...
Goo-ood evening, Quetzalcoatl."
Personally I fail to see a point of a Secrets book without some historically accurate background material. I don't have a benefit of having experienced SF in the 20s so I'll have to rely on somebody else's word. Either I have to do the research myself or I just take it from the Secrets book.
I find that tie-ins with real historic locations, personalities or events - something the players can recognise - greatly enhance the game experience and assists maintaining that suspension of disbelief.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can syndicate our news using an RSS/XML feed via backend.php, and our forum posts via backendforums.php
Logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Comments are the responsibility of their posters.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
