Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N01H3r3" data-source="post: 6685488" data-attributes="member: 6799909">Perhaps, but it's also the nature of feedback. From the context of a playtest, if the question being asked is "do these rules work as intended", the answer "I don't care, I don't like it" isn't useful information. It's noise.One thing that seems continually the case is that the people who are most vocally and vociferously opposed to Threat are also the people who aren't actually testing the game; they're giving it a passing glance, forming an initial opinion, and never pushing beyond that. There's a place for theory and evaluation in the design and development of any game... but there's a need for practical testing as well.And, you know what, it'd be nice for people who have reservations about the system to get some time with the system on the table as well. I'd like to hear practical feedback from that perspective, not necessarily because I think it'll make converts of everyone (though the game is one that plays better than it reads - one of my goals is to get it to read better, to narrow that difference), but because I think that we'll get some valuable feedback that might otherwise be missed. But we can't get that feedback from a portion of the gaming community that not only dismisses the system out of hand, but attempts to dominate discussion about the system in a way that drowns out or deters other feedback.You're right that perspective matters... but we aren't getting workable, useful feedback from some perspectives, because the people who don't like the game don't provide any feedback except some variation of "I don't like it"."I don't like it" doesn't have much value, because not everyone will like every game anyway.It's an awkward situation, obviously - it's very difficult to get actual play feedback from people who don't want to play.</blockquote>

Verification