In light of Ishmayl's thread, I thought this might be a good discussion.
Essentially, what turns you on/off to reviewing a setting. Do you not like reviewing settings that make heavy use of links to other sites? Do ones with massive blocks of text in the thread turn you off? Do you like ones with heavy use of IC quotes, or do you find that irritating? What about ones that use almost no tags, and just are large blocks of text? Do you like settings that use traditional fantasy elements, or would you rather see Gralthin over Elves? Etc.
Also, what would make you want to review more? Is there anything an individual poster of a setting could do to encourage your interest?
I have my own thoughts, but I'll share those after I hear what you guys think.
It really, really depends. Both on my mood and what the content is.
What I like is very clearly defined organization. This, then this, then this. What I don't like is having to constantly figure out where the author wants me to shift gears as he rambles through the setting. For example, if you're going to detail a city, please don't start with the city, then do a guild or two, define the mayor, another guild, then do a map. Give me a description of the city and the guilds that are in there, and give the guilds their own description post.
I also, oddly enough, don't enjoy huge stories and blocks of text. If I've got to scroll down to get through the ic block, I'll more than likely skip it. It's odd, becuase my entire history in my setting is made up of ic blocks, though I've tried to keep them short.
spoiler. blocks. cannot. be. overstated. It keeps the thread clean and neat, and lets you 'block out' whatever you're not reading. Which helps quite a bit when you're trying to wade through for a reveiw.
Use double enters two seperate paragraphs. Why do people not understand this? Two enters seperates a paragraph online! One enter between paragraphs makes the entire thing look like a giant block of text with no entrance. It's scary.
That said, I like seeing portions of a world. I skip around a lot when I'm looking at settings; with small settings I see what the person has posted, but with large ones I'm just everywhere sporadically. I was looking over Urbis (Jurgen Hubert's mondo-setting), and I would go from page 5 to page 120 to page 40 of the pdf like nobody's business. Sometimes I'd just open it randomly.
If you want reviews, post specific things and ask for guidance on certain areas. That seems topnotch.
Oh man, I could write a small novel about this subject, I think. It's been on my mind on-and-off for a little over a year, and I used to have long AIM conversations with ElDo about it (back when I still had AIM, I guess.) This is an important subject to consider because it is a two-way street-- understand why people do and don't read and review things, and you'll understand ways to make your own work more accessible to others (and increase the amount of response you get.)
There's a multi-step process at work, I think. Writers can do some wonderful things to make their work interesting, unique, and memorable, but none of that means a darn thing unless people read it. We all know about certain writers whose work is very good, but ends up underappreciated because something about its presentation makes people not want to invest the time and energy it takes to read it.
So. A well-presented world (like any creative work) needs to:
1.) get me to read it
2.) get me to care about itThat's the tough trick, in a nutshell.
ReadingI read things for a variety of reasons. Often, something catches my eye for some reason, or I notice that it's new and short enough to read quickly. Sometimes, I just read whenever I am bored. As a general rule, I (like many people) am more likely to read short passages than long ones, so people with large settings (like my own) need to take care to present their work in ways that make it more manageable to the reader. That's just the way it is, it seems.
I think that longer settings can benefit if their authors take their cues from other media. Organize your information the way it's organized in successful published works-- color when possible, pretty illustrations to draw and keep the eye on the page, and a logical system of organization (and navigation!) to make it easy to parse the information in intuitive and useful ways. For examples, I like to point out the Eberron setting book (which is visually quite good-looking and very browsable), and Wikipedia (which makes it easy to navigate freely between diverse topics, and to follow links for more information on particular ideas.) Simply barfing up a setting into one big page full of text (which I do all the time, silly crayon!) is really not good enough.
CaringThis is all about having original ideas. This does not mean that everything you write about has to be cut whole-cloth from totally unique fabric (not many people do that, anyway!) But you really do need to put a unique spin on your ideas, or they will not be interesting. If I feel like I'm just reading the same clichés I've read countless times before, I'm not going to be compelled to keep going. (And really, it only takes a little kink here and there to put a fresh face on the old clichés with which we're all familiar. So in answer to your specific question,
QuoteDo you like settings that use traditional fantasy elements, or would you rather see Gralthin over Elves? Etc.
Do you like ones with heavy use of IC quotes, or do you find that irritating?[/quote]This one really only bothers me when it breaks the fourth wall (as I recently alluded to in somebody's review thread or other, I think.) If you want to give your world a broad overview or a sales pitch, do that in your own voice, as the writer. It rarely makes sense to do that from the point of view of a character, although in-character commentary can be a valuable tool for smaller-scale issues.
Fish do not talk about the ocean, because that's all they know-- they don't have any outside knowledge to compare against. Nobody goes around talking about planet Earth and what a fascinating world it is and how it's full of weird creatures and scheming factions and dangerous adventures, and if they did, we'd call them crazy.
I like a mixed format, with some notes quotes and spoilers. Best if this is done in such a way as makes the setting navigable.
Beyond that, I tend to get bored of stuff I can already do with an existing game or setting. DnD variants I'm not looking at so much for the setting's sake as for the sake of nifty mechanical things.
Infodump about nations and guilds and stuff is... I don't want to say it's a bad thing. It's useful and in fact necessary. It's just one of those things I would prefer spoilerized, as it's not what I'm looking for in the initial reading.
Quote from: JharvissUse double enters two seperate paragraphs. Why do people not understand this? Two enters seperates a paragraph online! One enter between paragraphs makes the entire thing look like a giant block of text with no entrance. It's scary.
or your Gralthin (what are these?)[/quote]
For the record, Gralthin is a made up word just to represent a random homebrewed race.
Part of it has to do with the mood I'm in, though that's not something the writer can control. For example, if I'm not running any RPGs, or working on my own setting much, I'm less likely to want to read settings.
Like LC mentions, I'm more likely to browse short new ideas than well-established settings for a simple reason: most of the time when I get on this site, it's just in my spare time and I've got five or ten minutes to kill. If it would take me an hour to get through the setting, I probably won't, or at least won't for a while.
Also, if I catch a new setting before it has many responses, I'm more likely to read and respond. If it has 30 replies, I tend to think someone has probably given you good feedback and move on to someone else lacking replies.
Some things the writer can do, which have mostly been mentioned:
Break things up (and do so logically). Use bold or whatever for headings. I'd say use spoilers (if using the forum), but only for stuff that's more optional or complex than main issues.
Put breaks between paragraphs and don't use enormous paragraphs to begin with.
If your setting has gotten large enough it really needs a separate discussion and content thread, I'd prefer to see it as a wiki/website, with a discussion thread, rather than having to link back and forth. But this is just my preference, and many actually like separate threads.
A strong intro can do wonders to get me to keep reading, but it has to be concise. If you setting is large, a guide (like LC's "Start Here") can be a boon. I glance at most new settings, but if something doesn't draw me from Word 1, I probably won't look a second time.
Here's a thing:
Quote from: PKAlso, if I catch a new setting before it has many responses, I'm more likely to read and respond. If it has 30 replies, I tend to think someone has probably given you good feedback and move on to someone else lacking replies.
I do this, too, sort of. I do my best to review things with no comments already, because I don't like to see someone post their work and get zero feedback on it.
But I do like to chime in when other people have already had their say, and sometimes I am led to respond to other responses, while I'm responding to the original post information. I think it's pretty awesome when a person's work takes on the kind of life that inspires other, unrelated people to discuss it (or argue about it) amongst themselves, and I think that subconsciously, I am trying to will that into happening.
QuoteBut I do like to chime in when other people have already had their say, and sometimes I am led to respond to other responses, while I'm responding to the original post information. I think it's pretty awesome when a person's work takes on the kind of life that inspires other, unrelated people to discuss it (or argue about it) amongst themselves, and I think that subconsciously, I am trying to will that into happening.
Actually, that's something interesting I've noticed. The dialogue about a setting tends to be two way only - between the creator and the reviewer - very rarely amongst the reviewers. Sometimes a reviewer chimes in on a response the creator made to another reviewer, or quotes another reviewer to reiterate the point, but rarely do reviewers dicuss the setting itself amongst themselves, the way published settings are discussed.
Like many other members, I'm more likely to review a setting that is just getting started than to review an established setting. Established settings usually have everything set in stone. If there is some specific element that remains undecided, it should probably get its own thread to ask for input.
Also, I will rarely (if ever) review a setting that uses its own unique game mechanics. A new class or race or two are fine, but if I have to learn a new game system just to figure out what's going on, I'd much rather skip to the next world. I'm here to be inspired by other members' creative use of fantasy tropes in a game-related setting, not by the game itself.
Quote from: Lminous CyaonNobody goes around talking about planet Earth and what a fascinating world it is and how it's full of weird creatures and scheming factions and dangerous adventures, and if they did, we'd call them crazy.
I disagree. People who do this are called anthropologists, and they get paid to do just that.
QuoteI disagree. People who do this are called anthropologists, and they get paid to do just that.
use M&M - it's the closest d20 version of freeform, since you can do pretty much anything[/broken record]. Also, it can be fun to see people use old fantasy tropes, but personally, if you're using old races, I want to see them in a whole new envrionment - give me elves in the wild west, orcs in space*, halflings in the streets of new york, etc. That'll get my attention.
But that's just me.
*Orcs in Space would be a great name for a band.
Quote from: EclipseI agree with you on mechanics. I prefer the familiar if at all - I'll just skim over a races stat block to get to the information about their culture. That's why I use M&M - it's the closest d20 version of freeform, since you can do pretty much anything.
world[/i]. That happens much less often than tinkering with rules.
Quote*Orcs in Space would be a great name for a band.
Or a Mel Brooks movie.
Quote from: Epic MeepoQuote from: Lminous CyaonNobody goes around talking about planet Earth and what a fascinating world it is and how it's full of weird creatures and scheming factions and dangerous adventures, and if they did, we'd call them crazy.
It's true. You have got me there!
Quote from: Epic MeepoThe main thing for me is that a poster doesn't waste time explaining lots of rules. Every group I've ever gamed with has generated heaps and heaps of new rules. I've been there, I've done that. I want to see someone make a clever world. That happens much less often than tinkering with rules.
That makes me sad, given my penchant for writing new systems from the ground up.
Quote from: beejazzThat makes me sad, given my penchant for writing new systems from the ground up.
Well, some people obviously disagree with me. Otherwise, all the new system threads wouldn't receive nearly as much traffic as they always seem to get.
How intersting and altruistic of everyone. I even believe most of it, though I don't belive it the whole story, except for a few of you.
Maybe it is the 'Social Uselfulness' drilled into me back in college, or my urge to be a Centrality Eigenvector, or even all those books on management I read. But I think it comes down to my opinion of this site as a 'Social Network', and there are times I review because I believe people are here to get feedback, not just scribble into a vaccuum. So I try to at least pop into most new threads, especially from new folk, and give some feedback. Call me nuts, but I believe that everytime someone put something up, it is so people might comment on it, not merely to watch the thread toll down, then off, the 'Latest Forum Posts' list.
After give feeback twice to a poster, and they don't reciprocate, or I don't at least see them reviewing other threads, I deign them socially inept and stop going to their threads. Really.
I have learned a lot from some of the people here. I'm just bright enough to know that there are a lot of smart posters here, underneath all the cabbage leaves. So to say that I have not enjoyed many of the better threads, and the interaction and Social network 'radiality' would be ignoring a lot of the reasons I review, and the enjoyment I get out of it. I have fun in the tavern, and I get a little silly...and I post after wine often. CeBeGeia was a riot, and there are some first rate thinkers here that actually have given me pause to go over something twice.
But this site is the very definition of a Social Network. And as such, I do my very best to ignore the conventions and my personal preferences, and try to give the writer some of the feedback they are asking for. Yes, I like fantasy better than Scifi a little, and I enjoy the Superhero stuff. I tend to like more mature games, and grittier ones. But that is immaterial, in that I review because I personally put things up to get reviewed, and I believe everyone else puts things up for the same reasons, to get feedback. It is my responsibility to do my part in the post-feedback loop, and in a bigger picture, reinforce avid, helpful posters with more feedback. That is why I review, to answer the question of the thread topic.
(I bet I killed another one)
I review because I enjoy being critical. I read because I enjoy worlds. I love the CBG.
I will typically review a setting if any of the following apply:
* It is original
* It is less than one page
* It is entertaining
* It matches my personal tastes
I do review (or a least read) big settings, though not all the time, due to the time (and lack of distractions) requirement.
Oh, and I thank the posters above me. Insight into the minds of the reviewers is always nice.
This has been a most fascinating read. It's valuable both as a reviewer and a writer to get a glimpse into the consciousness and thought processes of other members.
To be totally (and perhaps brutally) candid, I review/comment when the setting makes me go "wow", and ignore pretty much anything that elicits a lesser response. There are a few exceptions, but those are ususally so brief that I feel like I'm insultig the creator by posting such perfunctory responses (which means I might qualify as one of Vreeg's "socially inept" posters).
I guess I just find it hard to be inspired by a lot of settings; I hunt through the boards searching for evocative fantasy, but one of my chief requirements for fantasy is that it be unexpected and unusual (strictly speaking, the presence of magic, strange races, anachronistic fusions of technology and the arcane, mysterious precursor races, etc. are irrelevant to that requirement, though my own setting includes all three).
Most settings really don't meet my qualifications, and so I'll often read them but not offer any feedback. This is not to say that they are inherently uninteresting, only that they're headed in a direction that I don't consider "fantastic". I could offer nothing but hollow words, so I offer nothing.
Maybe that makes me an unproductive poster? Believe me, I wish I was more motivated.
EDIT:
As a brief idea on the standard by which I tend to judge fantasy, I consider fantasy in the most general sense to be that which deviates from the common perception of reality in some way. However, many of the comman tropes of so-called fantasy have become so commonplace that I consider them part of the "reality of fantasy". Thus, I look for the things that deviate from both the reality of reality, and the reality of fantasy. A lofty standard? Probably, but no-one's here to please me, and I'm really just here for the company.
I haven't seen a single run-of-the-mill setting on these boards, and that's the honest truth. But it's the very rare setting that I would genuinely call fantastic.
Quote from: SAAs a brief idea on the standard by which I tend to judge fantasy, I consider fantasy in the most general sense to be that which deviates from the common perception of reality in some way. However, many of the comman tropes of so-called fantasy have become so commonplace that I consider them part of the "reality of fantasy". Thus, I look for the things that deviate from both the reality of reality, and the reality of fantasy. A lofty standard? Probably, but no-one's here to please me, and I'm really just here for the company.
those[/i] as well.
To an extent (though not entirely) I think that applies to any manner of fiction (or even the creative process as a whole). Of course, to say that the genre is escapist does not in itself imply that the individual exploration of the fantastic is expressly "escapist".
As somewhat of an aside: I've heard many people say that they "just didn't get science fiction or fantasy", or that they thought it was a silly or substanceless genre. But I'm often quick to point out that fantasy is not separate from other forms of fiction: the pattern and nature of events in most novels and films is patently unreal when you think long and hard about it (which is probably why we don't), and the fantasy genre is but a more focused realm of nonreality.
It's just a matter of degrees.
Actually, I find it about impossible to read through other people's work. This is true of fiction in general, left to my own devices I'd probably stop reading novels at all (my own reading preferences tend towards "dry" things, like economics). My brother on the other hand goes through them like candy, and occasionally tosses one at me to read or talks about a certain book enough to pique my interest. The funny thing is this reluctance is generally short lived once I start reading through something, because most books grab my attention well enough and I'm not very picky. It's just getting started that usually seems to be an insurmountable problem unless I'm driven by something other than pure interest in the material.
For this site, it's the quid pro quo that I would imagine members here expect that's driven me to read some of the other settings. Life has kept me busy and, quite frankly, miserable these days so I haven't had much energy or motivation to read anything at all. I have however read the settings of the people who have responded to mine (though I haven't commented on all of them) in an effort to at least return the favour to the people who directly aided me.