[The Saucepan Man]

This post is not intended as a personal criticism of either Nogrod or Roa. The points made below are applicable equally to others, I am sure. But some of the comments made by them above are illustrative, I think, of where the current problems may have arisen, at least in part.

I would also note that matters have not been helped by what I consider to be an overreaction to some of the earlier comments made on this thread. There is a responsibility on both sides of this debate to keep things civil and avoid personal comment.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Also having fun is the reason to play, not winning. That I have voiced many times here. I'll be much more satisfied with a great and lost game than with a bad but won one. (That's one of the reasons I disapprove the playing-style of one post/Day. It's quite easy to survive a long time with that style, but is it fun to anyone? It seems more like a calculated style to win, not an effort to actually play)

OK. Two things.

First, what is a great game? What may be a great game for you might be a bad game for someone else. And vice versa. I think that one of the problems that has arisen here is the attempt to define the quality of a game by reference to the way in which either you or others have played. All games are unique. All have particular points of interest. I think that it is best to avoid seeking to lay the blame anywhere (whether on yourself or others) if you personally did not enjoy a game.

Secondly, it may be a language issue, but expressing disapproval of a particular playing style suggests that it is somehow "wrong" or "bad" on an objective basis. Fine if you subjectively dislike a particular playing style, just like Form dislikes Day 1s. We can all have different opinions about that. But there is no "approved" or "unapproved" playing style. All are fine, provided that the minimum commitment requirements are met.

Originally Posted by Roa

Three people chimed in with their opinion of the whole thing, and suddenly we're putting everyone down, and making it un-fun, and being totally unfair.

I see no problem with expressing opinions, provided that they do not stray into the area of personal criticism. That, I think, is where things have gone slightly awry here. I am afraid that your comments about Diamond being unable to take constructive criticism are, I think, an example of this, Roa.

Originally Posted by Roa

Well, you may resent me for saying we didn't do very well this game, but I can be equally resentful for being attacked and accused of being selfish and domineering everytime I try to be helpful about pointing out what went wrong and how we can do better next time.

Again, nothing wrong with discussing differing approaches to Werewolf games and debating the merits of particular tactics or playing styles. But when the tone adopted is akin to a lecture from those who give the impression of “knowing best”, which I think it has to a degree on this thread, then people are bound to react badly. As I have stated elsewhere, the game is supposed to be fun. It is not a piece of work or an examination, in which people require coaching or tutoring, or on which they are to be graded. And, if people prefer to do things differently to you, then that is their right. It should not be a matter of criticism, although it can quite validly be a matter for civil and respectful debate.

Originally Posted by Roa

Well, guess what? We're all busy. Some of more than others. I've stated already that I was exceptionally busy this game. But I made time for it out of respect for you people. Is it really too much to expect a reciprocal?

Yes, I think it is. As I have also stated elsewhere, there is a minimum level of commitment required for a Werewolf game. Anything above that is down to the individual, whether that be a matter of tactics, real life issues or simple playing style. Personally, I find it difficult to play Werewolf without becoming totally engrossed in it, even when I am busy in real life. That’s me. If others are happy to play without the same level of involvement, then that’s fine by me (although I reserve the right to use it for tactical purposes, within the context of the game itself, where appropriate).

OK. I have said my piece.

I will re-open this thread, but ask that any further comments be directed towards the game in question and that they be made in the spirit of civil and constructive debate.

The points made above give rise to general issues which I am happy to discuss further on the Tol-in-Gaurhoth admin thread. Again, though, I would counsel that all who participate do so in a civil and respectful manner.