I think this is the part that gets me. I think I’d like to see a few examples of which games the Owlbear group flawed and weak. That would let me know pretty quickly whether I would put any stock into the opionions of this site.

ME

I share your misgivings with people who have conversations in public and expect them to be treated as private. Security through obscurity doesn’t work. But to me, the implications of that really just run counter to where a lot of us seem to be taking them. I mean, from one angle you could be read as saying, “Hey, this is the Age of Google, so keep quiet so we can be protected.” When to me, it makes a lot more sense to say, “Hey, this is the Age of Google, so your contributions to culture aren’t protected, ever, whether a given person is loud or not. The only cure for free speech is more of it.”

I also have to say, I don’t see how any of this affects new gamers entering the hobby any more than a debate in Cahiers du Cinema affects whether I go to see The Simpsons Movie this weekend or not. If some esoteric critiques on blogs are currently louder on Google than an accessible and welcoming voice, the problem is the lack of that accessible voice, not that we are critiquing each other’s work in the meantime. (That accessible voice is a much more important endeavor, of course - hey, come help us! - but a little inside-baseball is unharmful IMO.)

Judge my fun anytime, man. (But understand its context first!)

I think it is probably time for us all to take a deep breath here, myself included. (Not least because our comment-moderation system seems to have eaten a couple people’s comments and I don’t want anyone to take that personally. Computers, man. Whatcha gonna do.)

I believe what I’m reacting to is the initial (and perhaps only initial) tone of Owlbear. Perhaps prejudging to be fair, but 1st impressions count. I call ‘em the way I see ‘em. As the very least, brevity is the soul of wit, and the initial post / mission statement was a bit long winded at the very least. To paraphrase the site, professional authors would be best able to judge - so I did.

I’ll also note, for purposes of constructive criticism, that comments like “If you haven’t got the balls to get reviewed negatively” and “choppin’ with the sword of truth cut both ways, and apply to Owlbear, OgreCave, and any public endeavors (my own soundly included). The critics and supporters need to be open to valid criticism of their own efforts.

In short, if you put out a public website that catches people with, say, an elitist air, expect to get called on it, and have the balls to take it (that is what you’re asking of others after all). You directed your audience there (with great gusto), people went, they came back with feedback and impressions - the common theme of which was the tone of the post - and you haven’t been exactly accepting of those impressions. Whose insecurity is showing there, eh? You want others to be open to criticism - be open to it yourself.

On hopefully a more positive note, any buzz is good buzz, and you’ve done an admirable job with stirring up some attention for Owlbear. Let’s see what they come up with.

My sincere hope is that it will be a respectful, honest, two-way discussion. I’m all for critiquing product. I’m not in favor of judging people’s fun. But if you’re going to judge my fun, buddy, then you better be open to my judging your fun. If you’re not, then we’re talking elitism and hypocrisy - and those, my friend, are something we need less of in gaming, not more.

Now, I didn’t make that context clear when I linked them, so really this whole discussion is my fault. But the assumptions that have showed up to replace it have been… interesting. And some of them, particularly the insecure ones, make me a little crazy.

As for RPGnet, well, their reviews have actually gotten better lately, but the ‘Style’ and ‘Substance’ thing is still an affront to reason, even more so than number ratings on reviews of other art forms.

And we’re still leaving aside the issue of criticism, not in Chris’s sense of critique but in the sense of writing about games that tells us something about games in general, rather than just serving as a buyer’s guide. I’d like to see more of that, because I’d like to see gaming become less of a clubhouse culture and more of a resource for everyone. This doesn’t mean that the wrecking balls are waiting outside the clubhouse; it does mean that your fun is gonna get judged now and again. Which is fine in my view, because that means that, over time, all of our fun is going to get better.

I think that is where I finally need to chime in an agree 100%. I am all in favor of designers collaborating. Some of the best games ever to appear in our hobby were collaborations. That said, if your site is aimed about people who develop games…you aren’t reviewing anymore, you are critiquing. I know that is some serious semantics, but valid ones IMHO. I read reviews in order to make a purchase choice. Reviews are geared to give me information on a game mainly towards that end.

If you are designing a site to discuss mechanics, rules theory, etc…I don’t see it operating in a similar vein. I expect it to be, well, critical…for one designer to help another through a process.

I personally don’t go to as many gaming sites as I once did. That may be somewhat of a surprise, especially considering I do two gaming podcasts and all…but what it has come down to for me personally is this: I work pretty hard to be a general gaming evangelist… what really gets my panties in a twist more than anything is when I see people telling other people their version of fun isn’t right, or as good as their fun. Makes me wanna get a real job again. Seems like this site might be guilty of that very issue. Sadly, I don’t think I am going to go look and find out….

This is why I made the statements that I feel — fairly, I think — are getting sneered at in the lines you’re quoting from Owlbear (I very explicitly shared that I was leery of taking dollars out of friends’ pockets, among others).

But going beyond even that, the folks here are right. The way this is being phrased and presented is very much couched in we-know-better-and-you-don’t language, which is yet another way I think these folks aren’t being aware of the market-place into which they’re shouting their critiques. I’m upset about it, the same way I’m upset about the brand-blindness I think, say, Ron Edwards practiced earlier this year when he took a big crap on games like Mortal Coil and Shock. (Luckily, Mortal Coil was doing well enough that it appears not to have been affected; Shock, I don’t know — I haven’t been watching the numbers closely — but its already coming out with a new edition, just a year after its original release, effectively rendering all those original 1.0 copies inert.)

Ultimately, I think the small press/indie scene needs to get more aware of how it chooses to craft its messages to the world, in the Age of Google. Opinions aren’t private, or even quiet any more. They’re loud as hell, and they reflect on the topic of the opinion as well as the speaker. If — as others above have suggested — the industry needs help by getting more people into the hobby, we cannot help it by placing ourselves as authorities, by speaking as if we are above others. We get there by reaching out to new gamers from the same level, by saying “you and I are brothers and sisters; we are of a kind; we are peers.” I don’t feel like these activities with Owlbear (or the threads on story-games) are doing that in the least, which is why in the end I am not much a supporter of them (and why I am choosing to continue on my path of minimized interaction with story-games — though I am grateful that they’ve at least seemingly quarantined this effort over to a blog separate from story-games).

Also, was the cheap shot at other review sites really necessary? Kind of proved the elitism point being made here to be honest.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for thoughtful, well-written game reviews - especially if they’re produced at a consistent quality level. However, there was nothing in the initial post to indicate that would be the case - instead, I got a bit of ego, some “long-windedness” and the traditional “Forge-style” angst over the state of mainstream gaming. Just my impression, your mileage may vary (though I would point out that with this many responses, all saying the same basic thing, one might begin to wonder…).