[RPG]: Secrets of San Francisco, reviewed by Darren MacLennan (3/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13184.phtml

Darren MacLennan's 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.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Dan Davenport]

Fantastic review, Darren. I especially appreciate the detail on the included adventures, complete with the spoilers. I always prefer to know what I'm getting, and players don't have any business reading a review of a GM supplement anyway.

[Eurhetemec]

To be honest, whilst the criticism of this book may be valid, I do tend to wonder why you bought it at all? Assuming you did, rather than being given a review copy.

You don't want to know about San Fransisco's:

History
Geography
Culture
Personalities
Occult world
Crime
Quirks

Or really anything at all about San Fran. You only want to know about Mythos monsters and the like, in an almost context-free way. This seems bizarre to me, when you're buying a city-book. Personally, when I buy a city-book, I want to see how the unique character of that city interacts with the mythology of the game I'm buying it for, but I don't just want to know about particular Mythos stuff in a slight context - Otherwise it necessitates me buying a normal guidebook to the city as well, unless I want to just make it up, which in my experience is a recipe for disaster with well-travelled and well-read players. If I wanted to "just make it up", I'd make up my own city.

As for your whole "Well investigators shouldn't stop crime or be interested in anything but the Mythos!" schtick, I think that's pretty questionable and possibly a unique viewpoint. In most of the Mythos novels, crime and depravity are the signs of the Mythos at work in human society, or at least tend to accompany it.

I'd also question your apparently unresearched by no-less-certain-for-it assertion that San Fran didn't have a homelessness problem in the 1920s. I'd be very surprised if that was true, given the amount of social upheaval, literal earthquakes, and so on, in that region.

I always have sympathy for criticism of city books, because I'm a Londoner, and when Americans, or out-dated non-Londoner Brits try and write about the place, it's often hysterically inaccurate or stereotypical (don't even get me started!). From what you're saying, though, this seems like a well-researched and thorough portrait of San Fran in the 1920s, albeit with rather less actual Mythos action that one might prefer.

[Darren MacLennan]

Originally Posted by Eurhetemec

To be honest, whilst the criticism of this book may be valid, I do tend to wonder why you bought it at all? Assuming you did, rather than being given a review copy.

You don't want to know about San Fransisco's:

History
Geography
Culture
Personalities
Occult world
Crime
Quirks

Only as they relate to the Mythos. Dunwich was chock full of campaign hooks, weird happenings, interesting NPCs and had a major Mythos monster at its end; ditto Arkham, Kingsport, Innsmouth. Like, show me the Mythos aspects of San Francisco, and leave the dry stuff to Lonely Planet.

You only want to know about Mythos monsters and the like, in an almost context-free way.

No; in context of San Francisco.

unless I want to just make it up, which in my experience is a recipe for disaster with well-travelled and well-read players. If I wanted to "just make it up", I'd make up my own city.

I always do. As soon as your characters hit the ground, they're interacting with things that don't exist in the real world; if your players are bitching you out because they're meeting at two streets that don't meet together, they're playing Geography Nitpicking: The Gamefuckening, not Call of Cthulhu.

As for your whole "Well investigators shouldn't stop crime or be interested in anything but the Mythos!" schtick, I think that's pretty questionable and possibly a unique viewpoint. In most of the Mythos novels, crime and depravity are the signs of the Mythos at work in human society, or at least tend to accompany it.

Depravity, yes, but I've never seen crime as indicative of having anything to do with the Mythos. On top of that, solving the problem of women being shipped into slavery is one that we can't solve now, much less in the 1920's. It's easier to kill a Mythos monster than it is to turn a man's heart away from vice.

I'd also question your apparently unresearched by no-less-certain-for-it assertion that San Fran didn't have a homelessness problem in the 1920s. I'd be very surprised if that was true, given the amount of social upheaval, literal earthquakes, and so on, in that region.

The circumstances that lead to San Francisco being a bastion for homelessness today have been well-established. In the 1920's, it was a lot easier to commit somebody, a lot easier for authorities to beat up the local homeless in order to encourage them to move on their way. The homeless culture was focused mostly around hobos, who had their own thing going.

It's possible that San Francisco had a huge homeless problem back then, but I can't imagine where I'd go to find the appropriate research.

I always have sympathy for criticism of city books, because I'm a Londoner, and when Americans, or out-dated non-Londoner Brits try and write about the place, it's often hysterically inaccurate or stereotypical (don't even get me started!). From what you're saying, though, this seems like a well-researched and thorough portrait of San Fran in the 1920s, albeit with rather less actual Mythos action that one might prefer.

To be sure, it is quite well researched. If you're looking to play a historical campaign in 1920's San Francisco, it's not bad.

Here's what I would have liked included:

- Tips on how to integrate historical personages into your games. What do they really know? What do they want to know? Who will they hire to do it? We can read about Emperor Norton online until our heads explode. And seriously, the Winchester House has appeared in so many novels and supplements and comics that it's a wonder that it hasn't collapsed from overuse.

- Integrating a really nice cult into San Francisco, one that doesn't exist within its own space but spreads throughout the entire book. Dunwich's model is excellent for this.

- Useful NPCs. The local kid who acts like a guide. The society of dilettantes that's going to summon Daoloth if they keep up their little weekend games. The geomantic configuration that draws its power from the motion of the trolley cars up and down the streets and the people who use it. People that the PCs can meet and interact with, who aren't important because they're historically famous, but because they're important in the game. The ones that we get are pretty pallid.

-Darren MacLennan

[WaitingForAName]

I have to say I found this a disappointing review, even though I didn't read all of it.

It clearly shares much in common with some of Darren's other reviews. I haven't actually read them, but from what I've heard, they really weren't up to snuff either. I think he might have reviewed "Secrets of Spawn of Azathoth", or something with a title like that. The analysis he might have made of its armies of undead ninja could have been really off the mark.

Getting back to the matter at hand, it's clear that too little time was spent in this review on what really interested me - street cars and the Golden Gate Bridge. I know many of you wouldn't care about these topics, but these are particularly dear to my heart. I want to see more coverage of them in the book, and not so much on all that other boring Mythos stuff that other people expect. After all, I'm the audience for this book, right? Nobody uses all that other stuff - at least, nobody who matters.

I should add that the monster in Our Lady of Darkness actually does appear at the end of the novel to get a productive job in an ad agency. I'm not sure, though. I guess I could Google it, or ask someone who knows, or maybe even get up and actually look at the book, but it would interfere with the writing process and possibly cut down on the length of this paragraph. Besides, if we made sure our statements about a book were accurate before critiquing it, we'd never get anywhere.

In conclusion, breasts are funny.

[Darren MacLennan]

Originally Posted by WaitingForAName

I have to say I found this a disappointing review, even though I didn't read all of it.

Not wanting to wade through the convoluted details of an investigation that has not bearing on the central idea of the scenario is not the same as not reading through the entire book, Waiting.

It clearly shares much in common with some of Darren's other reviews. I haven't actually read them, but from what I've heard, they really weren't up to snuff either. I think he might have reviewed "Secrets of Spawn of Azathoth", or something with a title like that. The analysis he might have made of its armies of undead ninja could have been really off the mark.

This is just bizarre. I'm not sure what point you're getting at.

Getting back to the matter at hand, it's clear that too little time was spent in this review on what really interested me - street cars and the Golden Gate Bridge. I know many of you wouldn't care about these topics, but these are particularly dear to my heart. I want to see more coverage of them in the book, and not so much on all that other boring Mythos stuff that other people expect. After all, I'm the audience for this book, right? Nobody uses all that other stuff - at least, nobody who matters.

And at this point, we come to a complaint common to any reviewer: Because he isn't me, he can't tell me that a product is bad. Only I can do that.

Which is cool. In that case, you can stop reading any review ever.

I should add that the monster in Our Lady of Darkness actually does appear at the end of the novel to get a productive job in an ad agency. I'm not sure, though. I guess I could Google it, or ask someone who knows, or maybe even get up and actually look at the book, but it would interfere with the writing process and possibly cut down on the length of this paragraph. Besides, if we made sure our statements about a book were accurate before critiquing it, we'd never get anywhere.

Have you read the book in question? The entire book is a mystery as to whether there's a monster at all, and the climax features the main character wrestling with something that might be a Dutch Wife or the monster itself. When the central point of the book is ambiguity, it's a little difficult to cite chapter and verse.

On top of that, 90% of the reason why I go into such length is because I know that there's nothing nearer and dearer to the heart of a gamer than laser-focused nitpicking. If I omit something - anything - then there's the chance that somebody will pick it up and complain about it.

In conclusion, breasts are funny.

They sure are.

-Darren MacLennan

[WaitingForAName]

Originally Posted by Darren MacLennan

Not wanting to wade through the convoluted details of an investigation that has not bearing on the central idea of the scenario is not the same as not reading through the entire book, Waiting.

Not reading part of the book is the same thing as not reading the entire book, though. Nothing requires you to read the whole book to critique it, just as nothing requires me to read your entire review to critique it.

This is just bizarre. I'm not sure what point you're getting at.

Not only did you bother to pass judgment on books you hadn't read, you didn't even get the titles right. That's a ten-second Google search.

And at this point, we come to a complaint common to any reviewer: Because he isn't me, he can't tell me that a product is bad. Only I can do that.

Which is cool. In that case, you can stop reading any review ever.

That's hardly the case. You're judging the book for X, and, finding Y, asking who could possibly find Y useful. The best thing to say would be that people who read for X will be disappointed, but those who read for Y will like it. If nobody really does like Y, then it won't be an issue. If they do like Y, they can pick it up.

It's fairly standard for reviewers to not take just their personal tastes into factor, but those of the audience. Asking "Who would find this historical data useful?" should never be rhetorical.

Have you read the book in question? The entire book is a mystery as to whether there's a monster at all, and the climax features the main character wrestling with something that might be a Dutch Wife or the monster itself. When the central point of the book is ambiguity, it's a little difficult to cite chapter and verse.

Should I point you to Chapter 28? You'll likely find the monster's actions most atypical of a pillow, no matter how large.

I'd also point out that the title of the book, one of the 20th century's most famous horror novels, is not Our Dark Lady, but Our Lady of Darkness. It's given right above the stats in Secrets you are critiquing.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with this book?

On top of that, 90% of the reason why I go into such length is because I know that there's nothing nearer and dearer to the heart of a gamer than laser-focused nitpicking. If I omit something - anything - then there's the chance that somebody will pick it up and complain about it.

Perhaps you should spend less time on completeness and more on ensuring the content is correct? If a reviewer can't even get basic facts right, it raises questions about how accurate his reading of the book really was. In fact, if a reviewer is willing to pass judgment on books he hasn't read, it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether he's read the book he's reviewing.

Now, I can tell you have read the book, and I agree with many of your judgments. (I think it's fairer to judge it as a city book like Cairo, London, or New York rather than a Lovecraft Country book, given their different focuses.) Still, you are seriously undercutting your credibility by making inaccurate and speculative statements, and you should be aware of that.

[Darren MacLennan]

Originally Posted by WaitingForAName

Not reading part of the book is the same thing as not reading the entire book, though.

No, it clearly isn't.

Not only did you bother to pass judgment on books you hadn't read, you didn't even get the titles right. That's a ten-second Google search.

Lacking an editor and copious free time, I'm afraid that mistakes will creep into my reviews.

That's hardly the case. You're judging the book for X, and, finding Y, asking who could possibly find Y useful. The best thing to say would be that people who read for X will be disappointed, but those who read for Y will like it. If nobody really does like Y, then it won't be an issue. If they do like Y, they can pick it up.

And I note that in the review, that I'm not usually fond of these kind of products. Jesus Christ, I drop in disclaimers and you pounce on them as if they're admissions of guilt.

"Coffee may be hot? WHAT KIND OF SHIT ARE YOU TRYING TO PULL, MCDONALDS?"

It's fairly standard for reviewers to not take just their personal tastes into factor, but those of the audience.

Mmm, nah.

Should I point you to Chapter 28? You'll likely find the monster's actions most atypical of a pillow, no matter how large.

I'd also point out that the title of the book, one of the 20th century's most famous horror novels, is not Our Dark Lady, but Our Lady of Darkness. It's given right above the stats in Secrets you are critiquing.[/quote]

Yeah. Thank you for catching that.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with this book?

If I could find the book, then yeah, I would.

Perhaps you should spend less time on completeness and more on ensuring the content is correct? If a reviewer can't even get basic facts right, it raises questions about how accurate his reading of the book really was. In fact, if a reviewer is willing to pass judgment on books he hasn't read, it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether he's read the book he's reviewing.

You can nitpick my reviews until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the basic thrust of the review. You've managed to find two minor errors, and you've decided to extrapolate that into "Well, the review is largely worthless!" Which is fine, but it's also missing the point rather seriously.

We're also having this discussion over here:

http://www.yog-sothoth.com/modules.p...=108680#108680

-Darren MacLennan

[WaitingForAName]

Originally Posted by Darren MacLennan

No, it clearly isn't.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about whether someone can read an entire book while skipping part of it.

Lacking an editor and copious free time, I'm afraid that mistakes will creep into my reviews.

Plenty of people in this world are perfectly capable of writing factually-accurate book reviews without either of those. You have to be willing to spend a few minutes actually looking up material and refraining from commenting on areas where you have no knowledge. It doesn't add much time to the writing process, and it's an important part of it.

You can nitpick my reviews until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the basic thrust of the review. You've managed to find two minor errors, and you've decided to extrapolate that into "Well, the review is largely worthless!" Which is fine, but it's also missing the point rather seriously.

It's not nitpicking to point out that you're making basic factual errors that could be avoided with a minute's fact-checking and indulging in wild speculation about books you actually haven't read. That's simply lazy and irresponsible writing. It will indeed give people who play the game the impression that your review is worthless, because they're certainly not going to trust your ability to read and critique a book after reading what you've said about others.

If you spent a few seconds checking titles and refrained from speculation, you could avoid all this and be more effective at communicating your message.

[Darren MacLennan]

Originally Posted by WaitingForAName

Plenty of people in this world are perfectly capable of writing factually-accurate book reviews without either of those. You have to be willing to spend a few minutes actually looking up material and refraining from commenting on areas where you have no knowledge. It doesn't add much time to the writing process, and it's an important part of it.

I'm past the point of caring at this point. I already went through the "I'm whining about this, even though I'm paid nothing for it and have been told that my opinion isn't necessarily welcome" dance with Seanchai; I can pass on it again, thanks. Your nitpicking has been noted.

-Darren MacLennan