FFG "Controversy"

Never heard of ICv2 before today.

My take on it is CP should have ignored it like the rest of the Internet, and quietly pulled Bodden's name from the review copies list. If Bodden ever inquired, tell him (in private) "I'll put you back on the list when you finish the WFRP review. kthxbye".

On second thought that's probably not too professional either, but at least it's not airing business in public.

I had no clue ICv2 did reviews.

I think what goaded Christian Peterson was he thought the reviewer had a grudge against FFG for being turned down to work on WHFP. CP probably should've made sure he had the story straight before he wrote the letter.

Still, giving the game to the guy who worked on the 2nd edition is a poor move. It really takes a humble person to recognize if someone has improved something they worked on.

If the review had been labeled an "unboxing" or "hands on" things would be different. A review should talk about how a game plays, not just assuming how it will play based on past experience and looking at the contents.

The Bodden review was a fucking joke, and the only mistake CP made was to make a public accusation, in a professional capacity, while not having his facts straight.

It's big booboo that CP will learn from. As far as his response to the Bodden review I think it was directly fueled by the notion that Bodden had conflicting interests in the matter-- which I'm not certain is too far off base, and if that indeed was the case it was a justifed response-- but unless you have some concrete evidence to back your claim you DO NOT make public accusations. Ever. They always come back and bite the accuser in the ass because of some tidbit of information he got wrong.

My 2 cents.

I think he was in his good right to complain about the review. It was sloppy and much more of a prewiew than anything else.

However, the review was not negative enough to make it seem like an attack on WFRP 3 and thus making a personal attack on the reviewer is uncalled for. I also like when designers and publishers chime in and debate their games, but I think CP misses his mark about the reviewer (but not the review) in this one.

As for "getting his facts straight," maybe. The ICv2 editor's response is nothing more than "Bill said 'No I didn't.'" Bodden is already in a position to have to defend his ego here, so he may just as easily be completely full of shit in that denial.

Maybe, but in his forum post, Peterson says he checked with his editors and found Bodden was right. So, unless CP had a reason to lie about that, and make himself look like a jackass, I'm going to assume Bodden was right.

The obvious bits: I don't see a conflict of interest and CP should have gotten his facts straight.

I'd hardly call the reviewer "unscrupulous"; it's just a really poor opinion piece and shouldn't have been labelled a review. My only criticism of CP is from his FFG website piece where he said the reviewer had obviously not played the game. I think that's unjustified as BB had the game for the whole weekend so it's possible that he did play it. Apart from that, I found it interesting that CP commented on the professionalism of game reviewing, echoing things Michael Barnes has been saying for years.

I got a chance to try the new WHRP. Frank ordered a copy and we ran through the intro adventure. I haven't played it enough to really get to know the system but so far I'm not too happy with it. The stance rating thing is cool (agressive vs conservative) but really didn't change much during combat. Special action cards were ok but kind of limited in a wierd way. There are lots of them but you look through them and they don't seeem to have much variety in the effects.
One other thing was the critical hits. They have changed from devastating swings of fate to niggling game effects that eventually add up to impare you. The whole game feels that way- a gradual wearing down and not large swings of fate that really are memorable.

Again, this is my intial thoughts and I'm willing to give it an extended try to make sure I have a good read on the system.

Steve"RPGer"Avery

I didn't even know about ICv2 until now... that said, I think Christian's response was perfectly fine (except for the mistake, but at least he did apologize for it). I have no problem with designers/publishers commenting on reviews, and if a review is crap, then I have no problem with them saying it.

Negative reviews are fine and sometimes very useful, but when the reviewer gets facts wrong or hasn't even played the game, it makes no sense. I understand Christian perfectly. That's why to me, many times, the comments to a review are just as important (if not more) than the review itself.

I agree the "review" was worthless and it's obvious to me he didn't play the game. I used to see many RPG "reviews" written by people who hadn't played the games. CP's response would have been fine if he had gotten his facts straight.

I'm actually kind of interested in the game giving Avery's impressions. Large swings of luck are fine in a board game, but in an RPG where you may sink many hours into a character I think they do more harm than good.

Oh one other thing- Physical and mental stress. They occur from needing to do something extra so you end up spending them and when you cross your threshold you end up with an insanity or an impairment. Some action cards can inflict stress upon you as can fumbles.

That part was kind of interesting especially since the Zealot gets stronger as he becomes more insane...

Steve"neglibleSanity"Avery

Stephen Avery wrote:

I got a chance to try the new WHRP. Frank ordered a copy and we ran through the intro adventure. I haven't played it enough to really get to know the system but so far I'm not too happy with it. The stance rating thing is cool (agressive vs conservative) but really didn't change much during combat. Special action cards were ok but kind of limited in a wierd way. There are lots of them but you look through them and they don't seeem to have much variety in the effects.
One other thing was the critical hits. They have changed from devastating swings of fate to niggling game effects that eventually add up to impare you. The whole game feels that way- a gradual wearing down and not large swings of fate that really are memorable.

Again, this is my intial thoughts and I'm willing to give it an extended try to make sure I have a good read on the system.

Steve"RPGer"Avery

You call that a review??? THAT'S A HIT PIECE!! Did you or did you not costar with Christian Peterson in a porn film in the late 80s?

Dogmatix got to the heart of it in my opinion. Had Peterson stuck to the core issue with something like, "I read Bodden's article on WHFRP3 and very much look forward to him publishing a review of it next" he would have been on ultra-safe ground and made a solid point. That's an easier call to make on Monday morning of course.

Lessons learned.

S.

That was a pretty stupid review... Even by giving 3/5, he's not even explaining why he gave positive points, or where did the game lose some. Christian had all the rights to be pissed off by this travesty of a review. I am glad to see however that this website is publishing the comments of store owners that show a different light than what you can get from the Internet dark corners oozing with the blood, bile, sweat and tears of rabid fanboys. If I'd base myself on what I read, WHRP3 would be the coming of the antichrist, announcing the end of the RPG and all of mankind.

To clarify this point, Bill Bodden is employed as the sales manager for Green Ronin.

www.greenronin.com/about.php

All points in this thread, except for this, are well taken, thanks for the feedback. As others have mentioned, and as I noted in my secondary note, we don't mind negative reviews, but I have a responsibility to my staff, to our industry, and to WFRP3, to not accept the poor choices made by a professional website, one that consumes news and content from FFG, to misrepresent our products.

cP
FFGw

milhouse46 wrote:

You call that a review??? THAT'S A HIT PIECE!! Did you or did you not costar with Christian Peterson in a porn film in the late 80s?.

In all fairness I must tell you that I have recieved a promotional copy of everything that FFG makes and an unlimited line of credit for future purchases. It think it was actually Ken Bradford who starred in the box office hit "To Kill a Cock n Turd."
It was the first time he sported his trademark beard.

Steve"FreeLoot"Avery

This is a bullshit review. I get why CP is pissed about it and to be honest I'd probably have done it too. And it has nothing to do with the quality of the game--it may not be that great a product, as Avery's first impressions may suggest. It has to do with someone not even playing your fucking game and calling it a review.

But unfortunately, in my experience, it never works to respond to your critics. I wish it did, but it tends to just undermine your case. It has something to do with the general "The Man" vs. "Us" mindset most people have.