Constructive criticism

Discuss the comic here!
User avatar
Synch
Game Master
Posts: 4767
Location: New Zealand

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Synch » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:11 am

nikohl wrote:I think, in the interests of taking the "Constructive Criticism" thread at face value and giving the guys (and/or gals I dunno) who've come over to share their opinions with us the benefit of the doubt, we should look at what they say HERE. Hates-fun took the time to clean up their post and make it a bit more goblins-fan friendly than the original, which we should all remember was written for the BWW audience. So let's read and look at the one they posted here for us. I'm not saying don't go look over there - free country etc - but, acknowledge that an effort was made to bring some already-thought-out constructive criticism to us in a format we'd be happier to read.
+1.

I agree with the difficulty in following the panels sometimes. I find 10+ panels gets excessive and confusing. I understand that Thunt likes to use that many to tell a joke and deliver suitable facial reactions in the joke telling, but sometimes it does get a little confusing to follow. Especially when its not always left to right, there's often some mini split panels when you read top to bottm, then right again. 18 panels on that one page is very crammed. I like his bigger images, like when Chief died, or when Forgath leapt at Kore. Although its a bigger image to shade and detail, it surely is easier than drawing 18 separate panels of detail?
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
thinkslogically
Game Master
Posts: 17223
Location: Florida

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by thinkslogically » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:48 am

Yeah, I like that "new" version of the comic too to be honest :)

The way I view this comic is as a great big artistic experiment with a good storyline. The storyline is generally touted as the thing that keeps the fans here, and the artwork probably sees the most criticism. If you look at how the artwork and style has changed over the years, it shows how THunt has developed (and continues to develop) as a comic artist and writer. Sometimes the experimentation works out and sometimes it doesn't. Personally, I think more criticism of the kind posted above would be really interesting to have here because although I can tell when something might not flow very well, I'm not a comic artist and wouldn't know where to begin to fix it. For me, it's cool to learn more about this kind of thing!

User avatar
Lurks_In_Shadows
Cures Light Wounds
Posts: 7631
Location: In the Pharoh's mud pits, making bricks without straw.

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Lurks_In_Shadows » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:15 am

A legitimate argument about the flow from panel to panel. This is sometimes a difficult problem for artists: how to balance the art and not sacrifice the story. In a way, THunt could sometimes use an editor to reign in some of his excesses. I also know that very few artist like having their "vision" edited. ;) It's sometimes hard for them to remember that just because it's obvious to them, it might not be obvious to us. And THunt has admitted that he sometimes goes overboard with the details. He does seem to be doing better, though.

User avatar
spiderwrangler
Game Master
Posts: 21091

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by spiderwrangler » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:40 am

BootToTheHead wrote:
I do think mods tend to be a bit quick in trying to stop conversations from getting out of hand (the recent boob thing comes to mind). I understand wanting to stop an argument from occurring, but I don't know why they can't just say to make a different separate discussion for that and keep the more friendly conversation in the original board.
Suggesting that topics be split off to keep the original intent of a thread intact happens all the time, and not just from mod suggestions. There is a whole sub forum for Controversy, where folks can discuss things that might be a bit more on the divisive side.
Games I GM:
► Show Spoiler
Games I play in:
► Show Spoiler

YardMeat
Voices Opinions
Posts: 437

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by YardMeat » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:37 am

I like the Hates-fun version better too, though that particular comic wasn't one that I found difficult to follow. I guess I just don't see what is unusual about it. This sort of criticism has popped up on the forum before, it has been well-received and Thunt has clarified physical stuff that we've found confusing in the past. Does anyone else remember the Kore-falling-down-and-flipping-over comic?

User avatar
lingrem
Former Mod
Posts: 3947
Location: North of the Middle of Nowhere.

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by lingrem » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:02 am

BootToTheHead wrote:I do think mods tend to be a bit quick in trying to stop conversations from getting out of hand (the recent boob thing comes to mind). I understand wanting to stop an argument from occurring, but I don't know why they can't just say to make a different separate discussion for that and keep the more friendly conversation in the original board. I do think some of that conversation was just plain weird, though.
As I'm the mod who posted to ask nikohl and Glemp to stop - I didn't bother to say take it to Controversy because well, both of them know and have used that subforum and I made the assumption that they would if they wished to continue. I also didn't totally slam the conversation down, as the main reason why I suggested they end it was because they were starting to just argue.

Things got more harsh when willpell joined the conversation: the conversation had ended, moved on, and willpell decided to reopen the topic. willpell in the past has demonstrated a great deal of sexism, and openly ignores myself and RocketScientist as he viewed us both as overly emotional females. In the past, he would only listen to what Moose (and sometimes WearsHats) would say, even if myself or RS had said the exact same thing. He was already banned from Controversy, he knew he was near being banned and was told he was on his very last chance, and had a habit of intentionally trying to start topics and incite things that he knew belonged in Controversy because he was mad that he could no longer post there; he tried to make General Discussion into another Controversy forum.

Which is why he was banned.
Felicia Faustus in Shipwrecked!

User avatar
lingrem
Former Mod
Posts: 3947
Location: North of the Middle of Nowhere.

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by lingrem » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:04 am

Double posting, sorry. (Had to take my cat to the vet).

As to well, everything else - there is a whole lot of incorrect assumptions about what we do as mods.

1) only willpell and Brassbaboon have been banned. That's it. Thunt banned Brassbaboon. So, as a mod team... only willpell. I don't think we've even given anyone else a temp-ban, but I might be wrong on that. So claiming that we come down with the banhammer all the time is completely false.
2) I'm not sure that we've ever deleted a thread unless it was purely spam. So saying that we delete threads is also completely false.
3) Posts have very rarely been deleted (I can't actually think of one). Except for spam. Usually we would just put it under a spoiler. If we did delete, we'd announce it.

As to myself: There are a lot of things which I could criticise or complain about in regards to the comic and how different things get done. I don't, because why bother wasting my time? Also, as a mod I just... would find it awkward I suppose. So I tend to keep my own opinions to myself.

Am I any sort of rabid-fanboy-cultist? No. Most of the time I don't even know that the comic has been updated until I see that someone has posted a thread. And while I did donate to the Kickstarter it was because I thought it'd be neat to see how the game turned out. I haven't donated financially otherwise.

Mostly I use the forum as a way to interact with friends. I usually read some of the General Discussion threads, especially if someone lets me know of a thread or conversation that's getting heated.

Sometimes we get frustrated/bored as mods when we see the exact same thing going on and on and on. It's like beating a dead horse or pulling nails out with your teeth. The same thing going on that has never once led anywhere except into arguments.

Usually it's rudeness that gets more involvement. Honestly, if my 9 year old students can manage to disagree with me and each other respectfully, so can the adults here. What's the point in name-calling and insulting others? Or just whining and complaining? What purpose does it actually serve? It doesn't do anything at all except annoy and upset others.

With a lot of the people who've opened up about being members of BWW - I can't say I am surprised with who any of them are! If I was really any sort of mod as the threads like to claim we are... well, a lot of you would have been banned quite quickly because it's not usually very subtle. But I don't, and others don't, because you are indeed allowed to be miserable and whiny, as long as you're not being really rude to others. For myself, if I feel like ranting about something... I do, but just with friends really, through PMs or facebook. Vents the frustration without resorting to being rude to others.
Felicia Faustus in Shipwrecked!

User avatar
RocketScientist
Global Moderator
Posts: 5969
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by RocketScientist » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:24 am

I've been asleep/offline since late last night/early this morning, so apologies on my late responses to a couple of posts that were back a few pages.
Hates-fun wrote:I apologize that this seems to be the impression you think we have of you over at the BWW. While you have been mentioned breifly, things done in your personal life, as well as religious affiliation have escaped our interest, and I don't think anyone over there even considers those things our business. I, personally, find nothing of worth in knowing someone's baby eating habits, whatever they may be.
Apparently my comment needs further explanation.
American Dork wrote:I wanted to make myself clear and yet come here with an honest approach because I knew some of you would write me off as a troll just like the review.

The reason is at BWW you won't get shot at for defending the comic or even Thunt, whereas here criticism of the comic or Thunt is frowned upon. At least that's what I was told.
(emphasis mine)
My point was that I've never shot anyone here for any reason. The babies thing was just bonus info. As was the dragon for Dork's parade.
Morgaln wrote:I can give you two examples on the forum where people were indeed screamed down for constructive criticism.

The first one was still on the old Keenspot forum
There were no moderators on the Keenspot forum. We moved forum hosts for that specific reason. And everyone over at Keepnspot was... excitable(?) most of the time, myself included. Do I understand correctly that your complaint then is with the general membership of the forum then? And may I ask what you expect a largely different group of people to do about it?

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Morgaln » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:02 pm

RocketScientist wrote:
Morgaln wrote:I can give you two examples on the forum where people were indeed screamed down for constructive criticism.

The first one was still on the old Keenspot forum
There were no moderators on the Keenspot forum. We moved forum hosts for that specific reason. And everyone over at Keepnspot was... excitable(?) most of the time, myself included. Do I understand correctly that your complaint then is with the general membership of the forum then? And may I ask what you expect a largely different group of people to do about it?
I'm not expecting you to do anything. What I posted were examples for why I did never consider this community a good place to voice criticism and why not everyone might feel this community is as friendly and welcoming as it appears to you.

That said, since Lurks_In_Shadows asked for actual critique, I'm going to tell you about the things that bothers me most about the story. It's what I consider a "story-breaking bug," to adapt a phrase from video gaming.

The comic is called "Goblins: Life through their Eyes" It's supposed to be about Goblins and how they perceive being used as the typical cannon-fodder for low-level adventurers. There are even several main characters who are goblins and they get introduced before anyone else. Only, the story is not really about them. It never was. The story is about a group of humans sitting around a table and playing a game. The goblins get a lot of screentime, but they are not real, not even within the universe Goblins plays in. They are a bunch of NPCs who were created by a DM called Herbert to use in his story. A DM, I'd like to point out, who has already proven that he does not care at all about the monster NPCs he creates; he's perfectly willing to kill them off randomly just to make a point to his players (as shown by the scene with the crippled orc). That means he didn't even create those Goblins for the purpose of showing the fantasy racism D&D is prone to. They are a plot point, a means to an end to give motivation to his players and to bring them where he wants them so they can face off against the real villains. Every time Minmax and Forgath break character, the immersion we have in the story is shattered and we get reminded that the whole story is just a game thought up by someone living in a basement. It's extremely jarring to be told that the characters that we are supposed to feel with and root for are just stats on a piece of paper and don't even have real people behind them that play them. Before someone says that the GAP might have players too: there is no indication at all of that. They met the three drows, who couldn't stay in character if they tried; if they had been killed by other PCs, we would have known immediately because there would have been out of character accusations. There is also nothing that would lead us to believe that they were later taken over by real humans, as they never get out of character at all.

If you carefully watch the story, the real protagonists are Minmax and Forgath anyway (fitting since they are the PCs), with Minmax being the clear hero of the story. The GAP is pretty much always running away from things; they never actually solve a problem. They just set the stage for the PCs to save the day. Look at Goblinslayer; in the end, it's Minmax and Forgath who take him out; they get to shine by showing their superior morale over him and even get to rescue the damsel in distress (Kin), something at which the GAP pointedly failed. Thaco might have disabled Goblinslayer, but being stuck to a pipe didn't make him defenseless. He had the use of his arms (one of which can grow weapons; ranged weapons, even, so why he didn't just shoot Thaco is beyond me) and probably quite a number of hit points left. Had Thaco actually tried to kill him in that situation, there would have been a very real chance of Goblinslayer killing him. Same goes for Kore. It's Forgath who gets to make the stand against him; he's lower level than the goblins and still does better against Kore than the whole GAP together. I'm not even going into how often Minmax gets to be the hero of the day in the Maze of Many and save the damsel in distress again. It's made worse by the fact that Minmax is very obviously Hunt inserting himself into the comic; same kind of humor, same set of ethics, they even look the same. Just compare pictures of them side by side.

For me, all of that breaks the basic premise of the comic; everything that happens isn't actually real and the story that is supposed to turn the table on RP players makes the human adventurer the focus of the story after all in the end.

The issue cannot be completely fixed without going back and revising the story, which is not something I'd ever expect or ask for. But to salvage some of the potential the original idea had, this is what I would do: Minmax and Forgath would have to move into the background, being reduced to mostly a supporting role for a longer period of time. The GAP would need to come into their own and actually start to shine at something instead of just barely surviving everything only for the PCs to later handle what the GAP couldn't. Minmax and Forgath could have the occasional spotlight, but the GAP would have to be the ones who most consistently solve problems. To keep the audience immersed in the story, the PC's should stop breaking character at all. It's probably too late to keep the usage of very modern words out of the story, but at least things like "hawt" and "ninja'd" should be avoided.

YardMeat
Voices Opinions
Posts: 437

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by YardMeat » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:31 pm

I think most of this has to do with the combination of the hiatus and the most recent complete story arc being the Maze of Many. That's the only reason why I see Forgath/MM being the "main characters" at the moment. Overall, I've always seen Big Ears and Complains being more of the main characters. You see the PC/RPG aspects as being central to the story, I see them as a side gag.

Also, while you say you don't think this is a welcoming place for criticism . . . this is a criticism that has been brought up her before. In fact, the whole "Goblins isn't about goblins enough" is one of the more frequent criticisms. No one is getting shouted down for it.

User avatar
Glemp
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 1083

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Glemp » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:43 pm

Why does it being a story within a story somehow make it not real? It wasn't real to begin with. Is it any different to, say, Arabian Nights?

User avatar
SuperVaderMan
Extensively Logorrheic
Posts: 6177

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by SuperVaderMan » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:48 pm

Glemp wrote:Why does it being a story within a story somehow make it not real? It wasn't real to begin with. Is it any different to, say, Arabian Nights?
It's an immersion thing. If the characters in the story look to the viewer and go "haha, this isn't actually real btw" then that kinda deflates the gravitas of it all. It sucks out the investment in the story.

User avatar
Sessine
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 386

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Sessine » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:51 pm

Morgain, if that's a story-breaking bug for you, I can understand that you would feel an itch to "fix" it. To me, though, it's a feature, not a bug. I enjoy meta, I enjoy frame switches, I enjoy complexity, I enjoy the way Goblins switches back and forth. Are the characters real, or are they not? In fact, they are both. There are moments of complete immersion and then, when I least expect it, suddenly the comic breaks the fourth wall and is winking at me. This pleases me. It makes me laugh! It's one of the biggest reasons I'm a fan.

I do get that Thunt isn't telling the story you would like him to tell. But, you know, not everyone wants the same sort of story. The story he is telling has certainly found an audience of people who like it. If you don't, well... the answer isn't to tell Thunt he's doing it all wrong! When a webcomic that other people like feels all wrong to you, the only sensible answer is to go off and read some other webcomic that's more to your taste.
► Show Spoiler

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Morgaln » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:52 pm

@YardMeat
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that the whole Herbert thing is just a side gag; but by its very existence, it carries all the implications I posted above. And every instance of breaking character reminds us of that.

@Glemp
It's less real because at that point, it's one single person who is responsible for everything, and that is Herbert. He literally controls everything that happens in the story, since he is the DM. Every NPC will have to do exactly what he decides they have to do. No one except the PCs actually have any free will whatsoever. Which means whatever the goblins do, they didn't decide to do it. Herbert decided it would happen that way. They never had a chance to change that. Nor did anyone else, whether it was Kin, Goblinslayer, Kore, K'selliss, Grem, name whoever you want except Minmax and Forgath. They just had every single part of their life decided upon by someone else.
Of course you can argue that this is the case for all of them including the PCs, by just replacing Herbert's name with Hunt's. But then, no one ever breaks out of character and destroys the immersion on that level.

User avatar
Glemp
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 1083

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Glemp » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:54 pm

Morgaln wrote:@YardMeat
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that the whole Herbert thing is just a side gag; but by its very existence, it carries all the implications I posted above. And every instance of breaking character reminds us of that.

@Glemp
It's less real because at that point, it's one single person who is responsible for everything, and that is Herbert. He literally controls everything that happens in the story, since he is the DM. Every NPC will have to do exactly what he decides they have to do. No one except the PCs actually have any free will whatsoever. Which means whatever the goblins do, they didn't decide to do it. Herbert decided it would happen that way. They never had a chance to change that. Nor did anyone else, whether it was Kin, Goblinslayer, Kore, K'selliss, Grem, name whoever you want except Minmax and Forgath. They just had every single part of their life decided upon by someone else.
Of course you can argue that this is the case for all of them including the PCs, by just replacing Herbert's name with Hunt's. But then, no one ever breaks out of character and destroys the immersion on that level.
But the GAP are all PCs, that's what happened when they took adventuring levels right? Or does DnD not work like that?

As to immersion breaking...yes, that can be very annoying to me, especially as bad comedy. But in this case the "outer world" isn't us, it's just as fictional as the DnD world, so it isn't breaking immersion to me it's just switching perspectives.

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Morgaln » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:02 pm

Glemp wrote:
Morgaln wrote:@YardMeat
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that the whole Herbert thing is just a side gag; but by its very existence, it carries all the implications I posted above. And every instance of breaking character reminds us of that.

@Glemp
It's less real because at that point, it's one single person who is responsible for everything, and that is Herbert. He literally controls everything that happens in the story, since he is the DM. Every NPC will have to do exactly what he decides they have to do. No one except the PCs actually have any free will whatsoever. Which means whatever the goblins do, they didn't decide to do it. Herbert decided it would happen that way. They never had a chance to change that. Nor did anyone else, whether it was Kin, Goblinslayer, Kore, K'selliss, Grem, name whoever you want except Minmax and Forgath. They just had every single part of their life decided upon by someone else.
Of course you can argue that this is the case for all of them including the PCs, by just replacing Herbert's name with Hunt's. But then, no one ever breaks out of character and destroys the immersion on that level.
But the GAP are all PCs, that's what happened when they took adventuring levels right? Or does DnD not work like that?

As to immersion breaking...yes, that can be very annoying to me, especially as bad comedy. But in this case the "outer world" isn't us, it's just as fictional as the DnD world, so it isn't breaking immersion to me it's just switching perspectives.
Ah no, that's not how it works. NPcs can and do have character classes. In fact, there are specific character classes that are only available for NPCs. Some versions of D&D even have monster classes, where non-humanoids can level up in being whatever they are and thus grow more powerful. Classes and levels are by no means restricted to players.

User avatar
Glemp
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 1083

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Glemp » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:08 pm

Morgaln wrote:
Glemp wrote:
But the GAP are all PCs, that's what happened when they took adventuring levels right? Or does DnD not work like that?
Ah no, that's not how it works. NPcs can and do have character classes. In fact, there are specific character classes that are only available for NPCs. Some versions of D&D even have monster classes, where non-humanoids can level up in being whatever they are and thus grow more powerful. Classes and levels are by no means restricted to players.
Right, something similar is in Fallout. But those NPCs don't level up, do they? They just have fixed levels and abilities, they don't get better between battles?

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Morgaln » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:24 pm

Glemp wrote:
Morgaln wrote:
Glemp wrote:
But the GAP are all PCs, that's what happened when they took adventuring levels right? Or does DnD not work like that?
Ah no, that's not how it works. NPcs can and do have character classes. In fact, there are specific character classes that are only available for NPCs. Some versions of D&D even have monster classes, where non-humanoids can level up in being whatever they are and thus grow more powerful. Classes and levels are by no means restricted to players.
Right, something similar is in Fallout. But those NPCs don't level up, do they? They just have fixed levels and abilities, they don't get better between battles?
That is up to the DM. If he plans for them to be recurring NPCs he is likely to adjust their power level between encounters to keep them a challenge for the PCs. Of course they're not going through actual adventures and act that out, but the DM might well decide to give some detail on what the NPCs did to get that power increase. If he wants to keep the players involved, he'll let them come across evidence of what those NPCs did. Like, for example, let them visit a town they recently attacked? In those terms, everything in the comic that doesn't involve the PCs could be explained as Herbert giving a background to what is happening within his setting. The interpretation admittedly does have one flaw; that kind of behavior, especially a world that is moving forward even in places where the PCs are not is usually a sign for a good DM. The instances where we have seen Herbert act directly give the opposite impression.

User avatar
Wolfie
She Who Admins
She Who Admins
Posts: 3472
UStream Username: Wolfie213
Location: In a handbasket on a bus... and it's hot

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Wolfie » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:35 pm

The Goblins are PC's within the world, not NPC's. They're just playing themselves instead of having an outside force do so. That is explained when they first pick their classes. (On a tablet so it's hard to link...)

Personally, I like the immersion breaks, but to each his own.
"This is my therapy dragon, she's for my panic attacks. I attack, everyone panics." (Quote found on http://outofcontextdnd.tumblr.com/)

"If I have a +2 strength sword and I stab you, you won't get a +2 strength, you get wounds" ~Sir Butcher

"How few there are who have courage enough to own their faults, or resolution enough to mend them." ~Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
SuperVaderMan
Extensively Logorrheic
Posts: 6177

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by SuperVaderMan » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:49 pm

Wolfie wrote:The Goblins are PC's within the world, not NPC's. They're just playing themselves instead of having an outside force do so. That is explained when they first pick their classes. (On a tablet so it's hard to link...)
That's technically true. I don't know how you become a "Player Character" without having a player, but alright.

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Morgaln » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:59 pm

Wolfie wrote:The Goblins are PC's within the world, not NPC's. They're just playing themselves instead of having an outside force do so. That is explained when they first pick their classes. (On a tablet so it's hard to link...)

Personally, I like the immersion breaks, but to each his own.
Anything the goblins themselves say is no proof of their own free will, as they are creations of Herbert and will say whatever he chooses. Games just don't work that way. When I stop playing a session of W:tA (Werewolf: the Apocalpyse, my RP system of choice, for those who are interested), my NPCs don't play on without me. They will be right where I left them in the next session, unless I decide that they moved somewhere else. Even during a session they will not do anyting I don't have them do; not because they don't want to but because they literally cannot. They are not actual people that can act on their own. The only characters who can decide to do something independently from me are the PCs. Goblins has been established as a game with a DM, therefore it either has to follow these rules or break its own continuity. Only if you have a world that runs on game stats without any outside force running an actual game (OOTS is doing that, for example), you can argue free will on the characters.

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Morgaln » Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:25 pm

Sessine wrote:Morgain, if that's a story-breaking bug for you, I can understand that you would feel an itch to "fix" it. To me, though, it's a feature, not a bug. I enjoy meta, I enjoy frame switches, I enjoy complexity, I enjoy the way Goblins switches back and forth. Are the characters real, or are they not? In fact, they are both. There are moments of complete immersion and then, when I least expect it, suddenly the comic breaks the fourth wall and is winking at me. This pleases me. It makes me laugh! It's one of the biggest reasons I'm a fan.

I do get that Thunt isn't telling the story you would like him to tell. But, you know, not everyone wants the same sort of story. The story he is telling has certainly found an audience of people who like it. If you don't, well... the answer isn't to tell Thunt he's doing it all wrong! When a webcomic that other people like feels all wrong to you, the only sensible answer is to go off and read some other webcomic that's more to your taste.

I just realized, I forgot to comment on this post; sorry for the double post but I didn't want to just ignore it.

I'm well aware some people might like it and some people won't care. It's everyone's prerogative but if everyone who dislikes something keeps quiet about it because others might like it, the unspoken assumption will be "everyone likes everything". Also, I am already reading a comic that does these exact things much better in OOTS. Redcloaks story adresses very similar issues to what Goblins is supposed to be about and handles them far better, even though Redcloak is one of the main villains of the story.
I also never insisted this has has to be changed or that Hunt is doing it all wrong. We were asked for actual criticism, which I gave. We were also told that actual constructive criticism contained solutions, which I provided. Your response was to tell me to leave if I don't like it. Which is exactly the point I made earlier; criticism, and by extension those who give it, are not welcome here.

User avatar
Sessine
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 386

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Sessine » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:00 pm

Morgaln wrote:
Wolfie wrote:The Goblins are PC's within the world, not NPC's. They're just playing themselves instead of having an outside force do so. That is explained when they first pick their classes. (On a tablet so it's hard to link...)

Personally, I like the immersion breaks, but to each his own.
Anything the goblins themselves say is no proof of their own free will, as they are creations of Herbert and will say whatever he chooses. Games just don't work that way. When I stop playing a session of W:tA (Werewolf: the Apocalpyse, my RP system of choice, for those who are interested), my NPCs don't play on without me. They will be right where I left them in the next session, unless I decide that they moved somewhere else. Even during a session they will not do anyting I don't have them do; not because they don't want to but because they literally cannot. They are not actual people that can act on their own. The only characters who can decide to do something independently from me are the PCs. Goblins has been established as a game with a DM, therefore it either has to follow these rules or break its own continuity. Only if you have a world that runs on game stats without any outside force running an actual game (OOTS is doing that, for example), you can argue free will on the characters.
Um, no, hold on here. I was following along just fine until I got to the sentence I've bolded. I thought you were explaining how you handle NPCs, which is all fine and interesting, but then you lost me. What, any game with a DM has to follow your rules...? That can't be what you meant to say.

Viewed from the real world, our world, the non-fictional world, where people are sitting around a table roleplaying and eating pizza, you could say that none of the characters has free will. PC or NPC, in sessions or between sessions, quite obviously not one of them will do anything unless either a player or the DM says they do. That's just how RPGs work. Then, once you plunge into the fictional world they're in, you're viewing them all as real people or creatures in their world. There's no reason beyond DM convenience to assume any difference between PCs and NPCs; they all have "free will" to the exact extent, and no further, that the player or the DM is willing to roleplay them as having free will.

What I like most about Goblins is that it's dancing on that divide. You cannot pin it down. Just when you think you've got it analyzed, it winks at you mischievously and does something that should be impossible. This, of course, drives some people up the wall, and leads to endless discussions in the forums, but... you know what? I'd rather not overthink it. I prefer to relax and enjoy the show!

ETA:
Morgaln wrote:
Sessine wrote:Morgain, if that's a story-breaking bug for you, I can understand that you would feel an itch to "fix" it. To me, though, it's a feature, not a bug. I enjoy meta, I enjoy frame switches, I enjoy complexity, I enjoy the way Goblins switches back and forth. Are the characters real, or are they not? In fact, they are both. There are moments of complete immersion and then, when I least expect it, suddenly the comic breaks the fourth wall and is winking at me. This pleases me. It makes me laugh! It's one of the biggest reasons I'm a fan.

I do get that Thunt isn't telling the story you would like him to tell. But, you know, not everyone wants the same sort of story. The story he is telling has certainly found an audience of people who like it. If you don't, well... the answer isn't to tell Thunt he's doing it all wrong! When a webcomic that other people like feels all wrong to you, the only sensible answer is to go off and read some other webcomic that's more to your taste.
I'm well aware some people might like it and some people won't care. It's everyone's prerogative but if everyone who dislikes something keeps quiet about it because others might like it, the unspoken assumption will be "everyone likes everything". Also, I am already reading a comic that does these exact things much better in OOTS. Redcloaks story adresses very similar issues to what Goblins is supposed to be about and handles them far better, even though Redcloak is one of the main villains of the story.
I also never insisted this has has to be changed or that Hunt is doing it all wrong. We were asked for actual criticism, which I gave. We were also told that actual constructive criticism contained solutions, which I provided. Your response was to tell me to leave if I don't like it. Which is exactly the point I made earlier; criticism, and by extension those who give it, are not welcome here.
Oh dear. No, no, no. That's not what I meant at all! I was not telling you to leave! I was only advising you to read the webcomics that please you, just as I read the ones I like. I follow OOTS too, but I find it quite a bit less involving than Goblins. It's all right, clever enough, worth a few minutes to check it out when there's an update. I just don't care all that much about any of the characters, nor am I particularly hooked on the story. My reaction to a new update is more like, "Oh, yes, so that happened, did it? Okay." I am not going, "Dammit, now what??? I can't wait to find out what's going to happen next!"

Which is what I have been saying all along. Different people want different things, and there are plenty of webcomics out there to suit every taste.
Last edited by Sessine on Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
► Show Spoiler

nikohl
Discussion Moderator
Posts: 4575
Location: Ó▓á_Ó▓á

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by nikohl » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:03 pm

Morgaln wrote: I also never insisted this has has to be changed or that Hunt is doing it all wrong. We were asked for actual criticism, which I gave. We were also told that actual constructive criticism contained solutions, which I provided. Your response was to tell me to leave if I don't like it. Which is exactly the point I made earlier; criticism, and by extension those who give it, are not welcome here.
I think it's unfair to extrapolate "well, if the story's not to your liking, perhaps try a different story" as far as "well gtfo then", Morgaln, although I appreciate you come from a background of potentially -expecting- to read that. I took Sessine's post more to mean that your dislike probably won't change the story's progression or outcome and if it's really that depressing, read something else as well, or instead - but not that he was telling you to stop going on about it and go away already.

I guess it's not much fun to be in a position of having your dislike of something not be able to influence it, but that's fairly standard... I didn't like [character I liked] dying in Harry Potter, but I couldn't do jack about it. No-one's said "ugh stop being unhappy" or anything to me about that, nor to you here that I can see. I hope you don't feel unwelcome already - that's not our goal :/

Mindlink
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 22

Re: Constructive criticism

Post by Mindlink » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Morgaln wrote:
Wolfie wrote:The Goblins are PC's within the world, not NPC's. They're just playing themselves instead of having an outside force do so. That is explained when they first pick their classes. (On a tablet so it's hard to link...)

Personally, I like the immersion breaks, but to each his own.
Anything the goblins themselves say is no proof of their own free will, as they are creations of Herbert and will say whatever he chooses. Games just don't work that way. When I stop playing a session of W:tA (Werewolf: the Apocalpyse, my RP system of choice, for those who are interested), my NPCs don't play on without me. They will be right where I left them in the next session, unless I decide that they moved somewhere else. Even during a session they will not do anyting I don't have them do; not because they don't want to but because they literally cannot. They are not actual people that can act on their own. The only characters who can decide to do something independently from me are the PCs. Goblins has been established as a game with a DM, therefore it either has to follow these rules or break its own continuity. Only if you have a world that runs on game stats without any outside force running an actual game (OOTS is doing that, for example), you can argue free will on the characters.

The way I've always read Goblins is like this; The world of the goblins are a real world, that just happens to have laws of physics based on D&D, and is also linked to Herberts world, therefore actions in one world will influence an action in the other, and the fact that the GAP is becoming PCs by playing themselves, e.g. taking control of their own destiny, they are also "influencing" Herbert and the decisions he makes for the game. You have to think nDimensionally.

Post Reply