Madness in London Town
Age of Cthulhu Vol. II: Madness in London Town is the second scenario to be released by Goodman Games for Call of Cthulhu, the RPG of Lovecraftian horror published by Chaosium, Inc. It follows the first scenario, Death in Luxor, set in the same shared world of the late 1920s. Possessing the same high production standards, Madness in London Town comes with five pre-generated investigators, excellent maps and handouts, and a fairly straightforward adventure that can be played through in no more than two sessions of play. As the title suggests, the adventure takes place in London, where the investigators are invited to attend a gala at the British Museum by an old friend. Unfortunately, he is dead before the end of the first act…
Mechanically, Madness in London Town is a better scenario for Call of Cthulhu than its forebear, primarily because it includes the necessary NPC stats and Sanity losses. Yet beyond that, Madness in London Town is outclassed on most counts. Its plot, of a friend’s death putting the investigators on the track of a cult of black druids racing to summon a Great Old One on the right date, is linear in structure and superficial in nature, assumes that the investigators are American and will come armed, lacks the historicity of Death in Luxor, and lacks the sort of historical (not to say geographical) detail and accuracy that many Call of Cthulhu devotees appreciate. The unfortunate truth is that this an adventure set in England written by a non-native, and it shows. Age of Cthulhu Vol. II: Madness in London Town works best as a pulpy, brawns-over-brains adventure, but a Keeper will have to work very hard to make it fit the Classic mode and style of Call of Cthulhu.
To begin with, this is a review of a scenario. There will be spoilers.
Madness in London Town opens with the player characters invited by an old friend, Doctor Vernon Whitlow, to attend a gala dinner at the British Museum. Arriving in something of a hurry, the characters barely have an opportunity to speak to the other guests before the good doctor enters the room and after a few moments’ raving, slits his own throat. Already forewarned that something is amiss at the museum, the scenario’s pull is the mystery behind Whitlow’s death. Clues found at his flat (one thing that the author does get right, as flat is the term used in the United Kingdom) point back to odd goings on at the British Museum, below which the investigators will have a strange encounter with even stranger cats. Even nastier encounters take place at a waxworks museum (no, not Madame Tussaud’s) and at the chief villain’s country dwelling, before the final showdown on Salisbury Plain at England’s most famous monument, Stonehenge.
The cult concerned is a revived ancient order of black druids, using the henge to summon their lord and mistress, Shub-Niggurath. Putting aside the fact that the use of the monument and the druidic faith in this way could be found offensive by some, the plot and cult are both very sketchily detailed. There is very little to either, and apart from the investigative dog work, there is very little for the more scholarly investigator to do throughout the adventure. That the cult’s efforts can be simply stopped by bashing the chief over the head just seems almost anti-climatic.
This being a Goodman Games book, where Madness in London Town does shine is in the quality of its handouts and its maps. It is a pity no map of England could have been provided, as this would have given the adventure a sense of scale and place (or at least shown the distance between its primary locations), and the map of London does feel jumbled. The scenario’s NPCs are nicely presented with plenty of detail, and it includes one or nasty little set pieces – most notably in the waxworks museum, surely a nod to the 1953 film House of Wax, starring Vincent Price. Beyond the adventure itself, Madness in London Town offers a new take on the Milk of Shub-Niggurath and a new spell.
At times, the scenario feels rushed as if the author wants to get onto the next scene. He also rushes into the scenario, never quite setting it up, and it will take a careful reading of the first few pages for the Keeper to grasp what is going on. The inclusion of a better summary would have solved this. The history that the scenario is based upon – the disappearance of a legion during the Roman conquest of Britain – is almost irrelevant, whereas in Death of Luxor, the background is very much part of the story.
So, having told you what the adventure is about and given you some hints of its pluses and minuses, allow me to dig a little deeper and address some of the issues that Madness in London Town raises. To that end I will list them as “do’s” and “don’ts,” each highlighting the various issues, before I come to a conclusion. We start with a long “do” before the shorter “do’s” and “don’ts” take us to the finale.
Do get your pre-generated investigators right. One of the first things that I do with any scenario for Call of Cthulhu is check its pre-generated investigators – if provided. I do this not just for the benefit of a review, but also out of semi-professional interest, having provided 27 pre-generated investigators for the forthcoming The Complete Masks of Nyarlathotep Companion. So I know how to put an investigator together in terms of the mechanics, how to tie him into the story, and how to use history to make him interesting. As with Death in Luxor before it, Madness in London Town has its own set, and fortunately, the five given are much, much better than those provided in Death in Luxor. They are not as broadly drawn and they are not as absurdly pulpish, being much more like something that a player would create himself. They are still pulpish enough, several having daftly, but not ridiculously, high combat and Dodge skills. That does not mean that any one of the adventure’s quintet is perfect…
Let us examine said investigators from the top, then. First, if you describe an investigator as having dedicated himself to archaeology, actually give him some points in the Archaeology skill – especially if you describe him as having authored two academic papers on the subject with the scenario’s lead NPC. Oh, and learn to spell Archaeology, it really is spelt the correct way in Call of Cthulhu. Second, older characters get extra points to add to their Education attribute. Either these were not added to the Big Game Hunter’s Education or (a) his creator really did roll an Education of 5 – which is impossible (bear with me, but the explanation goes like this: base age of character is Edu+6, so his given Education being 8, his base age is 14, and for each decade after that, an investigator receives +1 Education, so at 50, the Big Game Hunter receives +3; so taking this away from his Education of 8 gives a basic roll of 5, which is impossible on a roll of 3d6+3), or (b) the character really should be 14 years old and a crack shot with an Elephant Gun. My suggestion is that his Education should be 11, not 8, and the extra points should have been assigned to his Dodge skill and some languages beyond the one he learned traveling from one end of the continent to the other. Third, if a character is described as having spent his days racing automobiles (among other activities), why does he not have the Drive (Auto) skill? Plus, if the search for answers to the mysterious nature of said investigator’s parents has led him down many dark roads, why does he have the Cthulhu Mythos skill and not the Occult skill? Then again, why does he have the Mythos skill at all? Fourth, why does an author who follows a solitary life dedicated to intellectual pursuits and her writing need particularly high skills in Dodge and Handgun? Has she been dodging the barbed comments of her critics, and practicing shooting at targets in preparation for her revenge? Fifth and lastly, the average of 12 and 12 is 12, not 13 – Call of Cthulhu is not the sort of game where you give the player characters extra Hit Points…
Don’t make the staff of the British Museum look like idiots. You might not know where lions and tigers can be found in the wild, but the odds are high that the staff of the British Museum does, even in the 1920s. If the staff is setting up an African themed diorama, it is unlikely that they will include a stuffed tiger as part of it, since the tiger is found on another continent altogether. Unless of course, you want everyone viewing the diorama (and indeed reading Madness in London Town) to exclaim, “Tigers! In Africa?”
Do get your geography right. I was not personally aware that during the 1920s that Scotland was in the West Country, specifically, the southern English county of Wiltshire. Then again, as an issue it was probably fixed when the Scotland Act of 1998 was passed and Scottish devolution was allowed, enabling the “glens” of Salisbury Plain to be returned to their rightful place north of the border. The point is that Salisbury Plain is a chalk plateau not known for glens or wooded river valleys, and that could have been ascertained with a modicum of research. Or just looking it up on Wikipedia.
Don’t name one of your NPCs, even if only a minor character, after a historical figure. This is especially important if that historical figure was a leading member of the German Nazi party.
Do get your geography right. The drive via taxi cab from the docks where the investigators disembark from their transatlantic liner to the gala at the British Museum cannot be in any way, shape, or form be described as short. This is even assuming that their transatlantic liner docked in London, which given the fact that as every good Call of Cthulhu player knows, transatlantic liners docked at either Liverpool or Southampton, is highly unlikely because London is primarily a goods port.
Don’t, and this is more of an aesthetic issue, provide thumbnails of your scenario’s NPCs that are clichés and so enable the audience (that is, the players) to identify which one of them is the bad guy at a single glance. It might well be that my partner is particularly perceptive, but she was able to identify the villain of the piece just by looking at the thumbnails.
Do get your geography right. Soho is not in Bloomsbury.
Don’t assume that the investigators (pre-generated or not) will be armed. Many of the pieces of artwork do, showing an investigator holding a handgun of some kind. The England of the 1920s is not an armed England, and pistols are uncommon compared to shotguns and rifles. Further English Customs take a dim view of Americans attempting to enter the country armed for bear, and not just because bears have been extinct in England for centuries.
Do get your geography right. And do check your maps. Like most European cities, London was not built by design, but rather evolved and is not laid out on grid pattern. The term “city block” is not English.
It should be pointed out that the scenario ends with a note about historical accuracy. Here the author states that although he has taken pains to utilize real locations, businesses, societies, and historical events, the adventure is not meant to present a wholly accurate representation of England during the 1920s and that details have been changed to aid the adventure plot or facilitate play. This rather misses the point of Call of Cthulhu, a very, very historical game, played by many not only for its fine elements of Lovecraftian horror, but also for its history. Further, I would suggest that this is very much the cause of so many of the scenario’s “do’s” and “don’ts.”
The other cause is the lack of experience that Goodman Games has with writing for Call of Cthulhu. Not just upon the part of the author, but also upon the part of the editor, who should have been able to spot and correct the “do’s” and “don’ts” listed above. Worse still, if you go back to the review of Death in Luxor, there is a note at its end from its author suggesting that I look at a preview of the publisher’s next release (which, of course, is this scenario). I did not see such a preview, but if I had, I would certainly have raised all of the issues above, and no doubt some of them would have been corrected. I want to make clear that my tentacular dissection of Madness in London Town is due my wanting the scenario to be better, not an unhappy response to not seeing that preview. My tentacular dissection, though, is certainly the reason why this review will not be quoted on the Goodman Games website.
Long has the roleplayer of these fair isles, by which I mean, the British Isles, suffered at the hands of authors from the colonies. If you are English, Irish, or Scottish, then the likelihood is that you will have read one or more supplements written about your country by Americans containing groan-worthy – if not highly laughable – facts about your country. The unfortunate fact is that Age of Cthulhu Vol. II: Madness in London Town is just one more addition to that list of supplements.
September 8th, 2009 at 22:11
Very nicely done. Saved me from another disappointing purchase. When will they ever learn ?
Chick
September 14th, 2009 at 00:35
Publisher here. This reviewer clearly has a chip on his shoulder about something. “Do get your geography right” – yes indeed, good advice to an author who has lived in both England and Scotland. On what basis does the reviewer draw this conclusion regarding incorrect geography? Ah, yes, the use of the word “glen.” Dear readers, please “review this review” and think carefully about the basis of its conclusions: from a chip on his shoulder about being British, or Scottish, or something, the reviewer has drawn many conclusions completely irrelevant to the product. And of course he hasn’t actually played it. When was the last time a movie reviewer based his opinions on the script alone? For another perspective, grounded in actual game play, please direct your browser here: http://rpg.geekdo.com/thread/434099
September 14th, 2009 at 20:13
“You might not know where lions and tigers can be found in the wild, but the odds are high that the staff of the British Museum does, even in the 1920s.”
Only in Kenya!
September 14th, 2009 at 20:38
Classic review. The *worst* game for this is “Captain Park’s Imaginary Polar Expedition”. It made so many awful mistakes I rated it 1/10 on the BoardGameGeek.
September 14th, 2009 at 22:23
Good review, I was wondering how the new third party CoC adventures were. Bad form on the publisher for complaining, spend more time editing and less blogging/commenting/twittering perhaps.
September 14th, 2009 at 23:07
As a Brit, I could not run it. The inaccuracies are so glaring that suspension of disbelief would be impossible to maintain. Focus would unavoidably be drawn to the lack of authenticity and would constantly break and tension that would mount. It’s a pity as the true locations of places can be used to generate exciting and interesting events.
Having said that, if you know nothing about Britain then I can’t see that geography is a problem. Unless you ever came here.
September 15th, 2009 at 02:26
“Bad form” for the publisher to review the reviewer? Ah, the old saying about “dishing it” and “taking it”, or somesuch. Think as you read, my friend; other reviewers have actually played the module and enjoyed it. This reviewer reads, reads, reads, but doesn’t actually play. Free no-prize to the first person to “review the review” and discuss the errors within the review itself!
September 15th, 2009 at 12:32
Joseph Goodman-
I’m appalled at your response to this review. You don’t have to like it, but you know what? You are going to get bad reviews. Deal with it. Don’t throw a hissy fit and seem like a 12 year old. You let it lie, and point out the good reviews when you can and that’s all you can do.
And maybe next time, why not try Google Map’s street view when constructing a module? It works very well for getting geography right in an area you’ve never been.
I’ve had my share of bad reviews. But I don’t take the reviewer task, and I never will. The good reviews will some contradict it, whatever. But not everyone will like something. C’est la via. You can’t force them to like it by bitching and whining and getting your goat up.
I once thought of buying your games. But now I’m not going to. Not because of this review. but rather, because of your reaction to it. I’ve got a few Dungeon Modules you made for 3e- I plan on selling these second hand this weekend. Although I must say- they were overpriced when I bought them.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:33
Wow. I guess while he was read, read, reading, he found some pretty big errors.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:55
Good review. I always look the hardest at negative reviews before purchasing a product. If I don’t think the downsides are enough to prevent me from enjoying something, I’ll buy it. Glaring positive reviews are useless.
Mr. Goodman needs to learn a lesson about PR. If your stated goal is alienating customers, you’re doing a fine job. Seriously, bashing someone’s review is just plain petty and childish. Remember when theRPGPundit blasted Spirit of the Century? Yeah, sales shot up right afterward. You might want to read Fred’s replies to the scathing review as he was a model of professionalism.
September 15th, 2009 at 13:00
I think that geographical, cultural and historical errors have become a trope of Cthulhu scenarios overall to the point where I’d be disappointed if they didn’t exist
I’ve got fond memories of running scenarios which depicted penguins in the North Pole, car chases with the vehicles driving on the right and Chateaux in Scotland.
Does it bother me, a native-born Englishman? Nope.
Heck, I’ve read more than a few scenarios written by Brits who commit similar bloopers when setting them in the USA. Pretty sure I’m guilty that myself.
I’d much rather the writer put together a fun, enjoyable scenario with just the right level of growing horror than spend hours striving for factual accuracy. Minor errors (those that I spot, anyhow) can be easily brushed aside or ignored, and any major ones – and I see no major bloopers here, from what you say – I’m sure any GM worth his salt should be able to fix or find a way to explain the oddity. Don’t like the name of an NPC? Change it. Want the taxi ride to be longer? Make it longer. Object to a passenger liner on the Thames? Perhaps there’s a dock strike at Southampton or a VIP on board.
The bottom line is that nothing in this review tells me what it’s like to run. Sure, there’s errors. I don’t mind that. But what is it like to run? What’s what I’d really like to know.
Just askin’
September 15th, 2009 at 13:02
@Joseph -
Yes it is bad form for a publisher to complain about a review.
If you write / make / publish or produce anything, some people are going to like your product and some people are not. This dislike may be illogical, emotive or just plain stupid and there is nothing you can do about it.
Complaining about a bad review only makes you look bad, especially if you accuse the writer of having a chip on their shoulder.
A more constructive approach would of been a message like:
“I’m sorry you did not like our product. Other reviewers have found it highly entertaining [cite URLs here]. I guess this just shows that you cannot please all the people all of the time.”
“Thank you anyway for buying the product and taking the time to do review it. To make up for your disappointment I would be delighted to send you a review copy of our next release.”
This sort of polite, constructive response to reviews will impress potential customers far more anything negative you might want to say, no matter how valid.
September 15th, 2009 at 13:18
I think it’s OK for a publisher to criticise a reviewer, although in this case criticising the reviewer for not playing the game doesn’t make sense because he’s only really commenting on editing mistakes.
September 15th, 2009 at 14:15
Just thought i’d throw in my experience with this module.
I’m currently running this adventure (halfway through), and my group is really enjoying it. I’ve moved date from 1928 to 1939 to fit our campaign, but besides some WWII related politics flooding the news, the module is running well.
Granted, there are some errors that i came across, the geography and a few other things, fortunately I’ve visited the UK a few times and have seen the Salisbury landscape, so i know how to set the scene appropriately. I didn’t find any errors however that stopped me from enjoying the ideas, scenarios, and themes in the adventure.
This brings me to an important point, any GM worth his salt will be able to handle some errors and inaccurate details with his own research and preparation. It would have been convenient to have all the details accurate in the book itself, and in the future, I’m sure they’ll watch closer. Not only that, the GM/Keeper should be able to set the tone of his adventure how he’d like. If you’d like a more “classic-lovecraft” feeling adventure, then you make it that way. Some CoC adventures are more in the pulp genre, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I think this was a good purchase and a decent adventure with a good amount of Character freedom. It actually motivated me to order Death in Luxor as well.
thanks
September 15th, 2009 at 15:22
Even if the reviewer were to say that it’s an excellent scenario, and tremendously fun to play – these inaccuracies would still be there. Some people care more or less about those things though – so they may not be issues to them at all.
To me, Tigers in Africa seems pretty bad. I think it’s a strange mistake to have nobody notice before publishing. [It's true that I've lived there, but I don't think I have a chip on my shoulder about it
]
I could let the geography slide (ship arrives in London etc), but the guns in England part is another important difference from a New England based CoC game.
I’m perfectly fine with Joseph stopping by to challenge the reviewer… why not? Although I’d suggest he should be doing more than just saying “you can’t review it until you’ve played it”… since that has nothing to do with the things the reviewer is point out. He should also avoid attacking the reviewer instead of talking about the product itself.
September 15th, 2009 at 16:06
Actually, I’d say it’s “bad form” when the publisher takes a shot at the reviewer for not playing the adventure, when the reviewer won’t play the adventure because he doesn’t think it’s good enough to play. If I handed someone a hot, steaming mug of raw sewage and they complained that it smelled awful, I wouldn’t abuse them for not taking a swig to see if they’d like the taste.
I’m not from England, and I’m not some Call of Cthulhu detail fascist, but after reading the specific problem points in the above review, both in terms of the characters created, the setting-specific errors, and (to be blunt) Joseph Goodman’s response to the review, I would not purchase this product, and I’d seriously question purchasing any other Goodman Games product in the future.
September 15th, 2009 at 16:25
So the fault is that the reviewer lives in the country the book depicts, notices the geography described is actually emphatically incorrect, but that is flawed because he has a chip on his shoulder about people getting the geography of his country wrong? Because obviously, facts are of no actual import… Do I get my prize?
September 15th, 2009 at 16:58
Good review: clearly presented and delivered, with examples and supporting information aplenty. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, the reviewer has done a yeoman’s work, and I will keep it in mind when next at my local game shop.
As for Mr. Goodman, he would be well-advised to accept the review with grace and charity.
September 15th, 2009 at 18:54
Joseph Goodman directs us to a review that is not glowing. I think his concerns with the initial reviewer’s attitude is warranted, although a bit more critical than I would be. His point is valid: Reviewing the module without playing it is like reviewing a car without driving it.
September 15th, 2009 at 19:37
Mr. Goodman, way to give a less-than-favorable review more attention than it deserves.
“And of course he hasn’t actually played it. When was the last time a movie reviewer based his opinions on the script alone?”
Should we take that as you wanting no more read-not-played reviews that gush about your products?
September 15th, 2009 at 20:07
Those are some pretty egregious errors, especially in the apparent disconnect between whoever wrote the scenario and whoever proofed the pre-gens.
‘Actually playing it’ has nothing to do with factual and conceptual problems in the module itself but with the mechanics and scenario construction (pacing, encounter difficulty, etc).
For example: Declaring a module ‘too hard’ without playing it is a red flag in a review – that bears on the actual encounter construction and may or may not pan out in actual play. You can’t really give an accurate gauge of a module’s difficulty or discover problems with pace, tone, or assumed play style without actual play.
On the other hand if a module declares that Boston only has one church then I don’t have to ‘actually play it’ to note that as a glaring inaccuracy in a review. It might not have anything to do with the actual scenario construction or come up in actual play, but the mere fact it’s there sends a message that the author probably can’t be trusted to have gotten other things correct.
September 15th, 2009 at 20:14
I think this review was fair and balanced, and J. Goodman needs to get off his high-hat and accept some people won’t like his stuff no matter how much he cries about it.
Learn to suck it up.
September 15th, 2009 at 20:15
I know you mean well, but you’re not helping matters any, Mr. Goodman.
September 15th, 2009 at 21:44
As stated elsewhere Mr Goodman, the book will be bought by Keepers so they can run it… and if it isn’t a good read, read, read… then the plyers won’t get the chance to play, play, play.
September 15th, 2009 at 21:53
Might I just take this opportunity to point this out again:
http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2009/06/really-funny-comment-on-joe-goodmans.html
September 15th, 2009 at 22:17
End of the day if you put something out there, you have to accept it getting reviews, negative along with positive, you can’t piss and moan every time you get a negative review about your product or you will spend your life time running around fighting your own little battles.
Roll playing is not like a film, and reviewing a scenario is not like reviewing a film, You have to take out the connection to the rules, you can not give a publisher credit for creating a scenario in an already fun game, The only way you can review it is to review how well it is its written, and how easy it is to suspend disbelief.
This scenario is lacking in both respects and Pookie’s review makes it clear that this was nothing more than an oversight, this and other reviews point out glaring mistakes that ruin an otherwise enjoyable scenario,
So next time make sure a scenario is as good as it can be before its released, rather than running around trying to gloss over your mistakes.
September 15th, 2009 at 23:20
Well, publisher, I must admit that your rebuttal of the review didn’t actually take any of his negative views into account. A summary, so the points are unavoidable:
General: The writing was rushed.
Geography: London is not where a Transatlantic liner would dock. London is not built on a grid. The museum is not a short ride from the docks. Scotland is not in Wiltshire. Soho is not in Bloomsbury. Salisbury Plain has few if any glens. Tigers in Africa?
Cast: Don’t make assumptions about country of origin and weaponization. Don’t make the thumbnail pictures so cliched. Why give a character an infamous name. Make their skills match their backgrounds. Generate their statistics honestly or note why you deviated.
Law and Society: People don’t all carry pistols. Customs checks for smugglers.
Say something about what he said, rather than implying superficial ad hominems.
September 16th, 2009 at 00:16
Actually, Joseph, yes, it is generally bad form for one of the people responsible for the creation of a media product to jump up and defend their product when a reviewer doesn’t care for it. This can be overlooked if the reviewer made false statements or showed obvious bias, but I don’t see that here. In fact, the only “falsity” (if you can call it that) that you pointed out was that the reviewer may have misused or misunderstood “glen”. What of the game errors? What of the questionable use of firearms? What of the dozens of other issues, both large and small, that the reviewer pointed out?
While about half of the things in this review are subjective (and of those, I agreed that half were still rather valid, serious issues), the other half are game stat issues that point to a lack of proper oversight or understanding. This is something that should be taken as constructive criticism. And posting a reply that essentially boils down to, “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Come see other (good) reviews on our website please,” is a poor substitute for accepting that some mistakes may have been and working to address them.
PK
September 16th, 2009 at 01:25
I think what prompted Joseph to comment here is that this review is ridiculous. It nitpicks from some of the most inane angles imaginable and, as others have pointed out, tells me nothing about what running the book is actually like. I came into this wondering if this book was worth buying, and all I’ve come away with is the notion that the reviewer is a giant prick that I would definitely never want to sit down with at a gaming table. Kudos to Joseph – I think he has a right to defend his company’s products from dumb shit like this.
September 16th, 2009 at 08:12
I came here only because ENWorld promised a “review of the review”. And I must say you’re showing signs of burnout, Mr Goodman.
You need to accept that in the rpg business, there will always be sticklers for detail, people dedicated to a certain game.
Especially Call of Cthulhu does not lend itself to the Hollywood way of writing adventures, where incorrect details can be buried in cool stuff. And you know it.
September 16th, 2009 at 14:03
Goodman – movie scripts get reviewed all the time, by producers, when they decide whether they’re going to spend the time and money making the movie or not.
That’s the real analogy to an RPG or RPG adventure. Am I going to want to spend the months of time, and goodwill of my players, to run this? When there are a dozen other adventures put out last month to run too? There’s a substantial opportunity cost, and I’d rather spend the next 2 months running something that, upon reading it, seems logical and reasonably error-free.
Many adventures are read and not bought; or bought and read and then not run. Those are valuable events to understand. Your goal should be “conversion” all the way to your adventures being run. By ignoring opinions like this, you’re essentially saying “Just buy it and then shut up, I don’t really care what happens after that.”
Frankly I value a thoughtful ‘reading review’ like this one, which identifies a host of problems, than a ‘play review’ – I’m sure a group *can* have fun with this adventure. Groups have fun playing with a randomly generated dungeon, or off the cuff. A good DM, players that are creating action and interaction – they have fun no matter what. Groups I’ve played in have turned some pretty crap adventures into fun, though we still knew we were playing a crap adventure.
But why do I want to buy an adventure from you to use, if my group has fun doing whatever? The answer should be that it provides additional value and is “more fun” than running a night of random encounters. And since I’m paying for convenience, that I don’t have to spend a lot of time fixing errors in the adventure to make it acceptable.
Your continued insistence on being a rumpplug in public is just going to turn people off who, despite a bad review or two, might take a chance on some new third party Cthulhu modules. Heck, I blogged about the sudden appearance of your company and others’ new Cthulhu stuff positively recently. But this kind of attitude that essentially shows that you are closed to feedback is a warning sign to me that your product quality will not improve, and that you’re not interested in what people who bought your product have to say.
September 16th, 2009 at 17:53
In my own reviews of the Goodman Games Cthulhu Genre products I’ve certainly learned that there are definitely at least two schools of thought as far as how games set in the Cthulhu Mythos are run:
Pulp/ Cinematic- which seems to be the way GG is putting together adventures where there is more of a combat oriented, kick-in-the-door style of play. Sanity loss isn’t much of a concern and tying up the deep niggling details isn’t either.
Creepy/ Investigative- which seems to be the old-school way of CoC where getting in to combat was foolish and most investigations only hinted at what led deeper or if they drove forward in to the darkness, madness most assuredly awaits.
Neither method is inherently “right” or “wrong”. Goodman Games seems to cater towards one style and that is fine.
My review of Death in Luxor actually got pulled [from another site, not Game cryer - ed] because it wasn’t positive. I felt it to be a D&D adventure in a Cthulhu Mythos setting. To be honest, some people play it that way.
The setting of the adventure is important when making decisions on how the adventure will play out. Geography issues aside, Londoners just don’t have the firepower on hand that New Englanders do. I feel this is a reasonable critique.
As far as reviews go…I *AM* a reviewer, and as such I think it is most important to be as objective, even and balanced in how a product is reviewed. Overall, honestly is KEY. A review isn’t a negotiation, there’s no back and forth or pussy-footing around about it. It is what it is. Like it or not. If you like it, please feel free to paste it everywhere. If you don’t…then please feel free to move along smartly.
Pookie has done a fair job in his assessment. Neither caustic or kiss-ass. Pookie isn’t one to pick a fight either or have reviews of products in order to heap praise or poo on them (We’ve all seen them, fanboi reviews gushing in fanboi glee or hater reviews that no matter what…the product will end up having no redeeming features whatsoever). Pookie treads the honest middle path in his reviews and I respect that a lot.
September 16th, 2009 at 17:57
@Joseph Goodman:
Being thin-skinned is not good for a publisher. You should take Truman’s advice about heat and kitchens to heart.
September 17th, 2009 at 01:06
I think you guys need to give Joe a break. He probably would like to take back some of the tone of his reply and criticism of the criticism. I don’t see anything wrong with a vendor replying to a review, so long as its a disagreement on points and not pointing out mineral spurs growing off of bone joints.
I have been involved in technology reviews before. A lot of tech magazine editors will show an article to a vendor right before they print it. This is just in case the reviewer missed something (an accuracy check). It really does work out well.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:17
In response to your last point Lillian, in most cases I do take the time to post a copy of a review to the publisher concerned. I cannot honestly recall if I did so for Madness in London Town, but I have certainly sent Goodman Games copies of previous reviews. This is done as a courtesy as is informing of where and when the review is published.
Even so, it is rare for a publisher to respond to them in this industry. At least in my experience.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:19
@Lillian
As you call him “Joe”, would I be right in assuming that you know ‘Joe’ personally? It is good of you to defend a friend, but if he is your friend, then you should disclose that in your comment.
Furthermore, if ‘Joe’ really would like to take back some of the tone of his reply, then he can do it right here. I am sure that an honest retraction, followed by a more detailed response to the review, would be well recieved, and would be a start to restoring his image.
@Arclight
Would you care to expand on how the review is ridiculous? As your comment is very much out-of-tone with the majority of comments here, it would be good for you to back them up, rather than simply asserting your opinion.
@Joseph Goodman
Pookie raised a lot of issues with the scenario. He has pointed out where it is better than your previous scenario, and where your previous scenario was better than this. In addition he has given positive criticism, including a list of do’s and don’t’s for you to think about for your next scenario.
Rather than simply attacking the review, wouldn’t it be better for you to acknowledge any legitimate criticism in the review, as well as presenting a **reasoned** rebuttal of the parts that you disagree with.
Disclosure – I have known the reviewer for a couple of weeks through a gaming club. The publisher’s comments have created interest on the club website, which is why I have come here to read the comments.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:04
I wonder why I suddenly feel a lot less inclined to ever buy anything published by Joe Goodman?
September 21st, 2009 at 06:25
wow… I have to agree that this is some really bad form on part of The Publisher (just starting your comment with Publisher here sounds like I’m better than you).
I think reviewing without playing is fair game since there is a process that needs to be met before you sit down and play a game. First you buy the scenario, then you read it and then you play it. This being a consecutive process, if one of the first two fails one won’t play so if a scenario isn’t a good read then there is no point in playing it and having bought it becomes a waste…
October 30th, 2009 at 19:57
There is one thing that is even more annoying than American authors writing the United Kingdom badly, that is British reviewers forgetting Wales. Shame on you.
December 20th, 2009 at 06:16
About annoying geography. I happen to be from the Southern United States. I can relate to living in an area that has historical significance, yet is referenced wrong. We have many Civil War sites through the South, and many from ‘my neck of the woods’ would get irate if you got the geography for the Battle of Shilo mixed up with the Battle of Lookout Mountain. On the rare occasion I run something besides a fantasy game, I always peek at the geography of any of the game I run based on history. Yes some thing can be ignored, but I can see where natives of the British Isles would take offense at what I would call blatant mistakes.