Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N01H3r3" data-source="post: 6687635" data-attributes="member: 6799909">Which is valid criticism... but we can't go on forum posts alone, because those tend to become dominated by a small number of frequent posters (Water Bob alone is a majority of the commentary in this thread). We've just gotten in the responses from playtest surveys, and the results there are far more positive. How much weight do we give to negative posters on forums who by their own admission don't want to play the game, over people who've given it a try and responded positively? It doesn't bear out in any of my own tests and demos, or those of my colleagues either.Any given forum thread will tend in one direction or another, primarily because people who disagree with it seldom stick around to present a counter-opinion. Social media is the same - you just end up with self-reinforcing echo-chambers that reinforce one set of opinions, while people who hold other opinions avoid it. Individual feedback sent privately - emails, face-to-face discussions at conventions, survey responses - tends to lack that factor, so we get feedback from people who aren't as likely to spend time on a message board complaining about games they don't play.My own experiences, the experiences of my colleagues, and the feedback coming in directly is coming back saying "yes". Forums seem to consist of a small number of people saying "no" loudly and often, particularly places like this that skew more towards traditional styles of RPG.Personally speaking, if you don't find our game to be to your tastes, you're welcome not to like it - particularly if you've already got a game that serves your needs*. I'd ask, out of courtesy, that you don't try and dominate discussions about it to dissuade others - if others like it, it's for them to decide, on their own terms.*On this note, this tends to be a factor in feedback received - a part of the Mutant Chronicles community preferred the rules-heavy simulationist style of the earlier editions in the 90s, but they were a relative minority. Conan is similar in this regard, as it's a well-established property with numerous older games of more traditional styles. Infinity has very little of this kind of feedback - there's no prior edition to compare to. John Carter, thus far, has had little in the way of this commentary, in part due to a relative dearth of prior games for that setting. Presenting a new edition that takes a new approach to an existing community is always a fraught proposition... but if nobody tried new approaches to gaming, we'd never have had D&D to begin with.</blockquote>

Verification