Old School Renaissance Like a Fucking Boss (system neutral)

Old School Renaissance Like a Fucking Boss (system neutral)

This pdf clocks in at 9 pages, 1 page front cover, 1 page editorial/advertisement, leaving us with 7 pages of content – oh, and it is FREE.

 

Which is also why I’ll diverge from my usual reviewing-template a bit: If you’re interested, check it out. It costs you literally nothing, and isn’t even PWYW.

 

What is this, and why did I tag it as “system neutral” instead of as “OSR”? Well, in short, this can be considered to be Venger’s 37-rule (+rule 0) manifesto for running games, a distilled array of pieces of GM-advice, aesthetics and tricks, and it genuinely is SUEFUL. It is not a book that will blow away veterans, but it is a great little pdf to flip open once in a while to refocus. When you read “Your NPC sucks” as a rule title to make you recall that you shouldn’t get too attached or hog the PC’s spotlight, the impact is immediate and efficient. Keeping the foreshadowing high, running with themes, milking what works and the PC’s idea, retaining of mysteries, etc. – this is not world-shaking, but the collection of these rules is indeed helpful.

 

And it is helpful, as a whole, beyond the confines of the OSR. Sure, rolling just ONCE is not always possible in more rules-heavy games, and abstract combat or getting slain PCs back in? Also not always feasible in a speedy manner. However, letting the player of a slain PC play an NPC for a while? Totally possible. That’s why you have those NPCs stats, right? In short: The vast majority of the rules apply beyond the confines of the OSR and its aesthetics.

 

That being said, there is one instance here I have to poke fun at: The trouble-shooting section for too long combats notes to keep healing, both natural and magical, in check, when ridiculous infinite healing exploits that break the attrition and resource management tenets  is exactly the main issue I’ve had with the last couple of installments of Venger’s Crimson Dragon Slayer systems- Sir, please listen to your own advice, it is sound. 😉

 

That aside, this is a neat little booklet, and it won’t hurt to read it as a refresher, regardless how experienced a GM you are. And for FREE? Heck yeah. 5 stars.

 

You can get this pdf for FREE here!

 

As an aside: Venger’s massive KS-adventure for Cha’alt was upgraded to 128 pages, and will be offset printed by Friesens! The KS only has 27 hours to go as per the writing of this review, so if you want in on one of these strictly limited books, act now! You can find the kickstarter for Fuchsia Malaise here!

 

Enjoying my reviews? Please consider leaving a donation, or joining my patreon here!

Endzeitgeist out.

Comments

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Care for a fun experiment / playtest?

    Let’s do a 5-minute Roll20 or 10 email posts (for each of us) combat scene. You can play a cleric with 2 allies against 5 goblins. I’ll GM. Then we’ll see if the cleric is broken or not.

    Also, thanks for the review and shout-out, hoss!

    • Thilo Graf says:

      Your suggestions for the frame of the playtest make clear that you do not understand, or do not want to understand, the root of the issue.

      The very foundation of the mathematic baselines and narrative tensions underlying any D&D-adjacent game are based on a degree of tactics and resource-attrition to some degree or another.

      Particularly the OSR tradition uses this and considers it to be a virtue and one of the pillars of player skill. Same goes for 5e.

      Your game professes to be based on both for branding, but purposefully flaunts the very central pillar on which this is based.

      As a direct consequence, your infinite healing clerics and, as a consequence, infinite casting wizards are BROKEN because they invalidate the central baseline.

      You *can* call that deliberate and skew encounter-difficulty to make (almost) every encounter hinge on nigh annihilation (see what Cha’alt’s Black Pyramid often does), only to have everyone miraculously regain all resources after the encounter.

      However: Encounters are not tied to time in-game; they make no sense as a metric in-game.
      Doing so invalidates any notion of survival struggle or danger…beyond excessive damage output and save-or-suck.

      That might work for a small one-shot, sure. It wrecks any long-term appeal of your rules-lite games, though…because you don’t ever really are rewarded for doing anything but throwing your best damage at the enemy as fast as possible. Because you either are fine, or you’re dead.

      You’re walking into a dead-end for design and tension, and have been for some time. And I really think that you’re better than that.

      In the long run?
      You can’t erect a system with any degree of longevity on it, because this relegates EVERY single challenge to being just a different coat of paint over the same metrics. Unless the players are super easy to please, this “oh, we almost died to damage/oh, some died to save or suck – oh well, we’re good now!” as the only type of danger to be encountered EVERY ENCOUNTER will turn stale very fast.

      Infinite healing powering infinite spellcasting has, AUTOMATICALLY, this long-term effect.

      • Your contention that “I don’t understand” or my game “flaunts the very central pillar” smacks of badwrongfun. Rather than what I’d call macro-tension that might be better suited to the long haul of a extensive campaign, my focus is micro-tension; certainly better suited to one-shots and shorter campaigns. You sacrifice one for the other. That means in order to fulfill the one, you neglect the other. Sure, some try to have it both ways, but we both know that’s not easy to find, let alone maintain.

        Essentially, you’re treating combat like some kind of gritty and desperate sport, but still a sport. All things must be in alignment or balanced, uphill and against the current, so combat turns into a long-game of pick-your-poison suffering and resource management masturbation.

        Crimson Dragon Slayer D20 treats combat as war, but a potentially winnable war focused on the immediate, the here and now. I have no interest in incentivizing the 5-minute workday or making certain classes suck because the rules treat them as one-hit wonders… but awesome after level 5.

        I’ve allowed everyone to have a valuable role, a seat at the proverbial table, regarding combat. That’s one of my favorite things about the OSR. It’s not so rooted in old school play-styles from decades past that it can’t innovate depending on the creator’s design goals.

        There are some things that just don’t work for me regarding early D&D, that’s why I came up with my own thing. If I merely wanted to play the game as it was played back in 1980, I would just play B/X and call it a day. Your acting like my personal revelation is nothing aside from the madness of delusion.

        Falling into the same tired mistakes, the design dead-ends and cul-de-sacs of our predecessors doesn’t help us pursue those strange new avenues necessary to birth RPGs catering to those looking for something different. Not inherently better or worse… just different.

        My “ultimate RPG” is going to be subjective, it has to be, or else RPG designers are chasing the “standard gamer audience” dragon of mainstream utilitarianism. Other designers are welcome to it, but I don’t want that.

        VS

        • Thilo Graf says:

          Okay, there seems to be a cognitive blockage going on.

          I stated that you either don’t understand it (A), or don’t want to understand it (B). This is demonstrably true, as evidenced by your response.

          Neither did I make any contention pertaining “badwrongfun”, as you imply. Please do not put words in my mouth.

          Your argument runs, that the only alternative to infinite resources, all the time, is the 5-minute workday and a constant form of gritty resource attrition, as evidenced by the following statements. “All things must be in alignment or balanced, uphill and against the current, so combat turns into a long-game of pick-your-poison suffering and resource management masturbation. I have no interest in incentivizing the 5-minute workday or making certain classes suck because the rules treat them as one-hit wonders… but awesome after level 5.”

          That is a demonstrably false dichotomy, and a mischaracterization of pretty much any D&D-adjacent game ranging from 0e to 5e or PFRPG.

          If anything, it is YOU who implies that this playstyle is a form of “badwrongfun”, probably as a form of pushback, also evidenced by the emotionally-loaded terms you’re using.

          If any form of resource management is automatically “suffering and resource management masturbation. “, then, from 0e to 5e, ALL of these systems are guilty of that.
          I don’t think the RPG-playing public or designers would agree with you that there is no fun there, or that any form of resource-management automatically results from gritty wars of attrition where the PCs emerge from a dungeon only by the skin of their teeth.
          You don’t even have to explain the math behind any system to show the fallacy here; it runs contrary to the experience of pretty much every RPG-player.

          I wholeheartedly agree, just for posterity’s sake, that the 5-minute workday is horrible.
          However, you conflate the 5-minute workday with being an inevitable consequence of the design of the games requiring any form of resource management.
          This is also demonstrably false.

          The 5-minute workday results from the combination of three factors:
          1) Badly-designed adventures that only account for one solution of a problem, and require that the PCs apply it. OR that did not properly calculate their math/challenges. Either way, bad design.
          2) Players abusing the phenomenon of “novaing” (throw maximum capabilities (highest level spells, best 1/day or 1/long rest abilities) at encounter, annihilate it, rest, rinse and repeat), most commonly as a result of experiencing 1); Alternatively, it might result from a lack of planning and player skill.
          3) GMs letting the players get away with the like, often in direct violation of the random encounter rules, in-game logic, etc.; again, this is the consequence of 2), which is the consequence of 1).

          So, the issue here is not resource management, but bad adventure design and what results from it.

          None of these factors are automatically intrinsic to the design of the system in which the phenomenon of the 5-min-work-day occurs.

          I can very well argue that MUs are not well-designed in most OSR-games and facilitate this issue, because they don’t have sufficient means to contribute much at low levels. This, however, is not an issue with various hacks, newer games, capable GMs, etc. It’s an issue that plenty of designers have successfully circumvented.

          In short: There is no need to construct a false opposition between micro- and macrotensions, which is a great way of thinking about excitement in games!

          Regarding CDSD20:

          -CDSD20 delimits wizards/MUs, allowing them to cast infinite spells, with the only limitation being that they take damage.
          -Clerics have infinite healing, which, in combination with the former rule, results in infinite spellcasting capabilities for wizards.
          -This happens without granting non-wizards any other means to meaningfully contribute to the combat section of the game; it also makes the cleric’s best move to act as a healing battery.

          The result of infinite healing, and spells being thus infinite as well, is that Hit Points cease mattering much.

          They ONLY can matter as much as your cleric buddy can’t heal you up faster than you take damage.

          The only viable, reasonable consequence of this, is an arms-race between PCs and monsters, a focus on who can inflict more damage in combat.

          There is no reason whatsoever for the wizard to NOT fling their best battle-spell right in the face of any opposition, and to keep spamming it.
          Because there is no incentive for NOT doing so. Infinite spells! Same goes for every single adversary capable of casting anything.

          Hit as fast as you can, and annihilate every opposition. The best means to do so, by far, is spells. A fighter can hit one target; a wizard can hit a regiment. That’s why there are limits imposed on spellcasting.

          That’s not something you can dispute. It is the direct, logical consequence, not of “what is fun” or “how you play”, but of the result of the very design of the CDSD20-system.

          Why? After combat, damage ceases to matter in any form, as it’s always the full reset of capabilities for everyone.

          Hit and run tactics, throwing minions at foes, traps, diseases, poisons, treks through the wasteland, hunger, thirst, fungal parasites and everything like that cease to matter, because there is no limit to what the PCs can dish out, or to what they can recover from in a given day.

          Hazards, dangers, etc. only matter if they inflict enough damage to instantly kill you, or if they eclipse consistently the ability to instantly heal them (out-DPS the foe), or if they are save or die.

          Because neither Hit Points, nor spells, matter beyond the ability to annihilate all opposition thoroughly and refresh.

          Ironically, this makes CDSD20 mechanically behave more like the engine of a MMORPG or a story-game (not judging – I do enjoy those as a change of pace as well!) more than like a game based on any edition of D&D.

          If you play Cha’alt RAW by the CDSD20-rules you propose, it will work for brief bouts, one-shots, mini-campaigns. It won’t hold up for prolonged games, because the type of tensions elicited will remain the same, because the system gets in the way.

          The current design of the system not only limits your available narrative means to generate macrotensions, but also the microtensions you can evoke. Because there are only two types of microtensions there:

          -Tension due to being afraid of being out-DPR’d: “Damn, if this keeps up, I’ll die in two rounds!”
          -Tension due to having to roll a save-or-suck roll: “Damn, I’ll die if I botch.”

          And that is why CDSD20, in its current iteration, is a dead-end for narratives, which are your strongest suit, and why Cha’alt is good not due to the system, but in spite of it. Heck, on some level, you KNOW this; you are using non-CDSD20-rules time and again throughout Cha’alt.

          If you do not wish to diversify the tensions your work can offer, that is, of course, your prerogative. But you can’t really build on what you have here, not without completely redesigning the whole class paradigm, and changing the in-game assumptions and logic of the game.

          Cheers!

          • Now that this is all coming to a head, does anyone here want to weigh in? I believe Thilo was both using personal attacks and gas-lighting to “win” his argument.

            I clearly remember being taken a-back and disgusted by how this thread degenerated. But I’d like to get a 2nd and even 3rd opinion. Thoughts?

          • Thilo Graf says:

            I genuinely means this in the spirit I type this:

            Point me to a personal attack I made. I genuinely can’t see one.

          • As you wish…

            “I stated that you either don’t understand it (A), or don’t want to understand it (B). This is demonstrably true, as evidenced by your response.”

            Here, you’re not attacking my argument, you’re attacking me. Either my capacity for understanding what we’re talking about in the first place or some kind of willful ignorance / intellectual dishonesty.

            You started out up-thread similarly…

            “Your suggestions for the frame of the playtest make clear that you do not understand, or do not want to understand, the root of the issue.”

            Decoding that, it sounds like you’re calling me an idiot or a coward. I don’t appreciate either of those comparisons.

            What about this?

            “You’re walking into a dead-end for design and tension, and have been for some time. And I really think that you’re better than that.”

            Oh, did I disappoint you, Dad? WTF was that for, if not to shame me into agreeing with your ideas? Totally unnecessary and hurtful.

            “Neither did I make any contention pertaining “badwrongfun”, as you imply. Please do not put words in my mouth.”

            Here, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I would never do that, and believe you took things to an unnecessarily personal level. “Badwrongfun” was my perception of your criticism.

            “If anything, it is YOU who implies that this playstyle is a form of “badwrongfun”, probably as a form of pushback, also evidenced by the emotionally-loaded terms you’re using.”

            Here, you make it personal again. Since it’s capitalized, “YOU” that was hard to miss. And then you try turning the “badwrongfun” on me again. I was simply making the case that there’s another way of seeing the game and interacting with it from a design point of view. And the cherry on top is you attacking the way I argue, rather than the ideas presented.

          • Thilo Graf says:

            Replied on KS a few hours ago, copy-pasted here:

            You ignore the context here, creating a sort of pastiche, one that does not paint the whole picture. I don’t know if that’s how you perceive/process the discussion, or if that’s intentional.

            To at least address the sentence that you considered so bad, let us take a look at the context:

            1)

            You tried to make a point that a 5-minute playtest will prove that infinite healing is not an issue.

            “Let’s do a 5-minute Roll20 or 10 email posts (for each of us) combat scene. You can play a cleric with 2 allies against 5 goblins. I’ll GM. Then we’ll see if the cleric is broken or not.”

            To which I responded:

            “Your suggestions for the frame of the playtest make clear that you do not understand, or do not want to understand, the root of the issue.”

            Because per definition, a single fight is not the frame to determine the effects of an infinite healing beyond combat issue, and how it wrecks the game. It disregards so many aspects, that listing them wold take forever and be obvious to boot.

            2)

            Your very first sentence of your response then was:

            “Your contention that “I don’t understand” or my game “flaunts the very central pillar” smacks of badwrongfun.”

            Then, you wrote this:

            “Essentially, you’re treating combat like some kind of gritty and desperate sport, but still a sport. All things must be in alignment or balanced, uphill and against the current, so combat turns into a long-game of pick-your-poison suffering and resource management masturbation. ”

            This was a gross missrepresentation of what I wrote, AND of the playstyle of pretty much any D&D-based game. It’s not either-or. I NEVER even suggested what you tried to imply I did.

            Worse, it deliberately misses the point and creates a false dichotomy between “infinite resources + healing” and “suffering and resource-management.”

            This dichotomy IS demonstrably false. See every D&D-adjacent RPG out there.

            Note that you used the term “badwrongfun” to imply that I want to tell you how to play, that my argument “smacked of badwrongfun”; I don’t want to tell you, or anyone, how to play. I don’t care. You then proceeded to call a playstyle “suffering and resource-management”, which is, again, as emotionally loaded as “badwrongfun”, and, ironically, is you implying any form of resource-management being “badwrongfun.” So, if anything, I corrected you trying to gas-light me – and I didn’t even do so in a way that is in any way, shape, or form aggressive or insulting.

            You’re too smart to not know that, which is why I assumed an emotional response based on anger and tried to explain it. I wrote:

            “Okay, there seems to be a cognitive blockage going on. I stated that you either don’t understand it (A), or don’t want to understand it (B). This is demonstrably true, as evidenced by your response.”

            I gave you the benefit of the doubt here, and tried to explain, in depth, how this may have come to be. That’s not gas-lighting, that’s trying to explain your response in a way that allows us to move forward.

            I briefly thought about going through all your responses that way, but I don’t see that being productive for either of us; I just wanted to clarify that one, since you seem to take the most umbrage with it.

            Everyone is free to read the whole exchange, and come to their own conclusions.

            My tone was always civil. I did not attack you even once. I did not gas-light you. I did not wish to attack you, nor was I insulting. Even after your explanations, you being offended and accusing me of gas-lighting you makes no sense to me. I tried, but I genuinely don’t see it. I see you adding whole strings of interpretations to things I wrote, which are not anywhere in the text. They are your added associations, and I have no control over those. They are yours.

            As an example, you wrote above: “My ideas and argument is invalid because I’m too ignorant or willfully ignorant. And the fact that I responded in the way that I did obviously proves your case. Wow. That’s a straight-up “fuck you” without giving me a chance, Thilo.”

            That is nowhere near anything I wrote. That is all stuff you read into my text. It’s association, not content.

            Everyone is free to read the whole exchange, and come to their own conclusions. The things you read INTO my responses are not my responses.

            You took insult with what I wrote, said that you were “disgusted” by my responses, seeing them as personal attacks.

            You use words like “devastated”, which mean that there’s a direct emotional response going on here. Okay.

            That was not my intention.

            I don’t write a wall of text explaining, in detail, issues with something for the sheer fun of it.

            I did so, because I genuinely believed that this would be helpful for you, not to insult you.

            I’m just sad to see how my good intentions and genuine desire to help and explain have backfired.

            I’m also sad and disappointed on a personal level that you felt hurt enough to air your grievances this way.

            Respectfully,

            Endzeitgeist

          • Thilo Graf says:

            I came into this thread, because you invoked the court of public opinion, rather than continuing the discussion. Because the people have a right to know the whole context of what transpired.

            And you’re continuing to read aggression into my posts, where there is none.
            “Your calling my claim “FALSE” means you’re calling me a liar. ”

            It’s a classic fallacy.
            A) Birds can fly.
            B) Kiwis are birds.
            ->False conclusion: Kiwi birds can fly.

            A) Statements can be false.
            B) Lies are false statements.
            ->False conclusion: All false statements are lies.

            This is not true. I just made a statement about your claim, not about whether or not you’re a liar. In fact, my whole assuming of a “cognitive blockage” that you took so much offense with, was predicated on me assuming that you’re NOT lying. I still continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, because that’s what civil, that’s what one does if one likes a person, or at least doesn’t assume them to be their enemy.

            This is obviously not a courtesy you extend to me. You choose to read insults and aggression into my posts, where there is none. You seem (I don’t know that – it’s just how things look to me!) to have a tendency to think of criticism as attacks on your person. I’m not sure if this is the result of facing persecution or bad experiences, but if you assume the worst, even from people who have defended you and your work in the past, and choose to interpret actions as hostile, you’ll always find a way to do so, and you’ll always find a way to alienate critics, until you’re stuck in an echo chamber, where everyone’s just cheering for whatever you make.

            You felt maligned, okay. I already told you that I did not intend to cause you any sort of pain, much less “devastate” you. I genuinely did not want to cause you distress.

            However, I stand by my reviews, and everything I have written. If you consider me an enemy for voicing criticism, then no matter how much I’ll write, you’ll always find a way to claim that I’m gas-lighting you, to claim that I wish you ill, when my actions have shown, time and again, that this is not the case.

            You wrote:
            “And your constant contention of “infinite healing” is just not accurate, Endzeitgeist. If the cleric dies, no healing. If he’s unconscious, no healing. If he’s too busy, no healing. If the cleric prioritizes some other action instead of healing, no healing. If he’s forced to not provide healing (possession, ultimatum, etc), no healing. If he decides not to (perhaps because of alignment, politics, or personal grievance), no healing. If no one plays a cleric (this has happened multiple times with smaller adventuring parties), then no healing.”

            This is so patently a strawman argument, it just underlines my assertions above that some sort of weird thing is going on. You don’t want to see, or can’t see, the issue. Not due to incompetence (just to make that clear), but because you’ve somehow aligned this particular problem so deeply with your personality, that you just can’t accept the veracity of my observation, which your strawman does nothing to refute. Every reader can use reductio ad absurdum to completely tear your argument apart, but frankly, I’ve already said it all in a previous response, so I’ll just copy-paste it here once more.

            “Regarding CDSD20:

            -CDSD20 delimits wizards/MUs, allowing them to cast infinite spells, with the only limitation being that they take damage.
            -Clerics have infinite healing, which, in combination with the former rule, results in infinite spellcasting capabilities for wizards.
            -This happens without granting non-wizards any other means to meaningfully contribute to the combat section of the game; it also makes the cleric’s best move to act as a healing battery.

            The result of infinite healing, and spells being thus infinite as well, is that Hit Points cease mattering much.

            They ONLY can matter as much as your cleric buddy can’t heal you up faster than you take damage.

            The only viable, reasonable consequence of this, is an arms-race between PCs and monsters, a focus on who can inflict more damage in combat.

            There is no reason whatsoever for the wizard to NOT fling their best battle-spell right in the face of any opposition, and to keep spamming it.
            Because there is no incentive for NOT doing so. Infinite spells! Same goes for every single adversary capable of casting anything.

            Hit as fast as you can, and annihilate every opposition. The best means to do so, by far, is spells. A fighter can hit one target; a wizard can hit a regiment. That’s why there are limits imposed on spellcasting.

            That’s not something you can dispute. It is the direct, logical consequence, not of “what is fun” or “how you play”, but of the result of the very design of the CDSD20-system.

            Why? After combat, damage ceases to matter in any form, as it’s always the full reset of capabilities for everyone.

            Hit and run tactics, throwing minions at foes, traps, diseases, poisons, treks through the wasteland, hunger, thirst, fungal parasites and everything like that cease to matter, because there is no limit to what the PCs can dish out, or to what they can recover from in a given day.

            Hazards, dangers, etc. only matter if they inflict enough damage to instantly kill you, or if they eclipse consistently the ability to instantly heal them (out-DPS the foe), or if they are save or die.

            Because neither Hit Points, nor spells, matter beyond the ability to annihilate all opposition thoroughly and refresh.

            Ironically, this makes CDSD20 mechanically behave more like the engine of a MMORPG or a story-game (not judging – I do enjoy those as a change of pace as well!) more than like a game based on any edition of D&D.

            If you play Cha’alt RAW by the CDSD20-rules you propose, it will work for brief bouts, one-shots, mini-campaigns. It won’t hold up for prolonged games, because the type of tensions elicited will remain the same, because the system gets in the way.

            The current design of the system not only limits your available narrative means to generate macrotensions, but also the microtensions you can evoke. Because there are only two types of microtensions there:

            -Tension due to being afraid of being out-DPR’d: “Damn, if this keeps up, I’ll die in two rounds!”
            -Tension due to having to roll a save-or-suck roll: “Damn, I’ll die* if I botch.”
            *this includes poison, possession, or similar save or suck rolls, just fyi.

            And that is why CDSD20, in its current iteration, is a dead-end for narratives, which are your strongest suit, and why Cha’alt is good not due to the system, but in spite of it. Heck, on some level, you KNOW this; you are using non-CDSD20-rules time and again throughout Cha’alt.

            If you do not wish to diversify the tensions your work can offer, that is, of course, your prerogative. But you can’t really build on what you have here, not without completely redesigning the whole class paradigm, and changing the in-game assumptions and logic of the game.

            Cheers!”

            If anything, I wish you all the best for the future, I genuinely do, but this discussion has already taken up too much of both of our time without being the least bit productive, and we’re at an impasse; I can’t reach you via logic, and you are dead set on assuming the worst from me. I seem to be causing you distress, which is why, as far as I’m concerned, I’ll bow out here. I genuinely hope that you find someone who can phrase criticism in a way that doesn’t trigger you the way I do.

            Take care!

  2. I feel like we’re on different pages to the point where it’s best for me to walk away before things go further down hill.

    However, I will address one of your last points. Cha’alt was purposefully designed for EVERYBODY who uses some version of D&D to run their games. It’s made to be compatible with almost everything, in one way or another. I’m hoping people hack it up and mash it in with Carcosa, Dark Sun, the Purple Islands, Hubris, Ultra-Violet Grasslands, and whatever madness Patrick Stuart has cooked up.

  3. Crimson says:

    The back and forth as seen in the comments above is humorous at best and why I no longer give a shit about the OSR movement. I say play and have fun Thilo and if you don’t have time to do that and have nothing good to say than go write your own material.

    • Thilo Graf says:

      First of all: Thank you for your comment!

      I do disagree regarding the notion “say nothing when you have nothing good to say”; I’m a reviewer, and I try to provide feedback that is generally considered to be both constructive and helpful. The vast majority of people consider my feedback helpful; that’s the spirit I provide it in – I genuinely try to help designers up their game, and most people actually thank me for helping them improve.

      And yeah, I enjoy playing, and I do write my own material.

      That being said, I’m glad you considered the back and forth humorous! That way, at least something good came out of that! 😀

      Cheers and all the best!!
      Thilo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.