How to Be An Effective Angry Gamer

[der_kluge]

At Wal-Mart there are no problems, only opportunities. Of course, they are also big Carnegie advocates.


Blech, IMHO.

Good points, though, Mike. Spot on.

 

[jasamcarl]

No, I don't think it's an ignorant statement since Wizards has ocassionally been very vocal about what they will and will not do, i.e. no modules, crunch vs. fluff debates (god, how I hate these buzzwords). I'm saying that while I agree with Mike Mearls statement as it pertains to smaller publishers, it doesn't work with the largest and most influential one. And 3rd edition was only birthed after it was bought by Wizards of the Coast/Pre-Hasbro. There was a definite change in direction once WotC came under Hasbro's direction.

I agree with Henry's POV. I was harsh, but I was accurate. WotC, as a part of publicly traded, stockholder-accountable Hasbro, does not follow the idea laid out by Mike.

Please, tell me how an internet rant has to go hand in hand with not purchasing the product. Of course if you are displeased by a product, you should probably not buy it. That would go with any company, not simply Wizards. But how does the standard of what constitutes effective/ineffective criticism change based on the size of the company? Do you think Wotc gives more credence to incomprehensible tirades now then they do well reasoned,articulate pressing of gripes? I don't think you thought that out at all well.

 

[TiQuinn]

Please, tell me how an internet rant has to go hand in hand with not purchasing the product. Of course if you are displeased by a product, you should probably not buy it. That would go with any company, not simply Wizards. But how does the standard of what constitutes effective/ineffective criticism change based on the size of the company? Do you think Wotc gives more credence to incomprehensible tirades now then they do well reasoned,articulate pressing of gripes? I don't think you thought that out at all well.

No, it's not simply Wizards. But what we're talking about here is the impact of criticism (effectively written or otherwise). My argument is that Wizards gives little to no credence to internet criticisms. It's very different when I can go to MonteCook.com or Green Ronin and communicate directly with not only the designer of the game, but also the editor, the artists, and the owner of the company. In many cases, they're one and the same. That's the beauty of a smaller company. More interaction and a well reasoned gripe is more apt to get a response or explanation. Can you honestly say the same about WotC now that it is owned by Hasbro? It's the rare company that maintains the same quality of customer feedback as it grows. Extremely rare.

 

[RigaMortus]

Every "rant" I have read (on these boards anyway) mentioned specific issues that the ranter didn't agree with. In other words, I haven't see a post where the person was ranting just for the sake of ranting.

I don't ever remember seeing a post with the subject line:

"This d20 product sucks."

And then no rhyme or reason for this declariation in the body of the post.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Mike Mearls has made several good points, here and elsewhere, about this subject, and I agree with what he's saying, almost completely.

The only thing with which I differ is in regards to what publishers actually pay attention to when they read criticism, constructive and otherwise, online. I've read (and, hell, posted) the entire spectrum of criticism of publishers on the internet - flames, praise, and constructive criticism. What I have seen publishers (and just about every other denizen of the internet) do is respond in the most vigorous fashion to the flames. We've all seen this. People responding to flames will (apparently) ignore every other post in a thread in order to wrestle with the virtual devil that has beset them.

So, while I heartily encourage would-be critics to follow Mr. Mearls' advice about how they should construct their criticism, I would also encourage publishers to acknowledge more often the less incendiary criticism - the praise and the truly constructive criticism. Saying "thanks" to the praise and "hmm, you raise several good points, let me address them..." more frequently would make it more obvious that it isn't just the unpleasantly squeaky wheel getting all the grease. I'm not saying publishers don't already do this, but it sure seems like the response to the flames is more common and spirited.

 

[mearls]

So, while I heartily encourage would-be critics to follow Mr. Mearls' advice about how they should construct their criticism, I would also encourage publishers to acknowledge more often the less incendiary criticism - the praise and the truly constructive criticism. Saying "thanks" to the praise and "hmm, you raise several good points, let me address them..." more frequently would make it more obvious that it isn't just the unpleasantly squeaky wheel getting all the grease. I'm not saying publishers don't already do this, but it sure seems like the response to the flames is more common and spirited.

This is very true. A lot of the time, a publisher or designer might not take the time to answer questions unless it is obviously an emergency (ie, a ranting hate fest) that he must deal with. The issue does cut both ways: the more vocal or visible a publisher is on a forum, the less likely someone is to attack them without reason. OTOH, most publishers are busy with enough things that taking the time to respond to every note is a bit beyond the scope of their resources. Still, people in the biz do read this message board.

TiQuinn: One of the things about WotC is that they base their marketing decisions on surveys, analysis of sales, and other tools that smaller publishers simply can't afford to use on a regular basis. So in a way, comments on the Internet aren't as important to them. However, it does bear pointing out that there are WotC people online. Even if they can't make a direct decision, they do see and hear what goes on here.

As an aside, I don't normally see any angry or hateful messages on these boards, but the various Paizo threads had me concerned. And heck, I think sometimes it's easy to forget how small this industry is. We really are all just gamers who happen to do this for a living.

 

[FDP Mike]

I don't ever remember seeing a post with the subject line:

"This d20 product sucks."

And then no rhyme or reason for this declariation in the body of the post.

Heh. You need to hang out at RPG.net more often ....

Seriously, though, Mike is pretty spot on in terms of characterising the general "rantishness" of on-line criticism of RPGs and their publishers. Those with constructive, well considered, detailed criticisms are actually the breath of fresh air in all the choking smoke of "this sucks!" posts.

One possible source of the ineffective type of "angry gamer" might just be found in how gamers treat each other. (I've written about this issue, I guess, in the latest Dragon's Breath installment on the FDP site. Check it out. ) You don't see too much anger here at ENWorld, as ostensibly we're all fans of D&D/d20; perhaps only the occasional disagreements about particular products or issues will involve some real mudslinging. Go to a place such as RPG.net, however, and you will see not only much of what Mike is describing and alluding to, but also a lot of destructive behaviour between gamers. Something about the hobby gets folks taking sides. Something about the internet gets folks taking shots at other folks they might never take when face-to-face. Publishers, of course, are gamers, too -- so why spare them from the carpet bombing?

An irony that Mike does not address is how publishers are generally expected to keep silent in the face of criticisms and rants. Once a publisher responds, quite suddenly his or her "professionalism" is called into question, and people just decide to swear off that publisher's products because for once the publisher allowed his or her humanity to show through. Certainly, publishers can respond in effective or ineffective ways to criticisms and rants (Jim Ward, for some, might be an example of the latter). Yet I can understand why once in a while the guard is let down and the anger released ....

In any case, I'm glad that Mike started this thread. It connects very closely with some issues that I've been pondering lately. Mostly, I simply don't understand all the time how willing some folks are on-line to be hurtful, spiteful, insulting, and destructive.


Take care,
Mike

 

[EricNoah]

It's human nature to go on the defensive when attacked, so attacking is usually not an effective way for human beings to get what they want.

However, I think that publishers can still get useful information out of hot-headed rants if they have someone on board who doesn't have as much of a vested interest in going on the defensive, someone a little more "neutral" who can read the rant, distill it to its essence, and report it to the publisher in a less emotional fashion. That might get the publisher to try to make the suggested changes rather than defend the status quo.

 

[jasamcarl]

No, it's not simply Wizards. But what we're talking about here is the impact of criticism (effectively written or otherwise). My argument is that Wizards gives little to no credence to internet criticisms. It's very different when I can go to MonteCook.com or Green Ronin and communicate directly with not only the designer of the game, but also the editor, the artists, and the owner of the company. In many cases, they're one and the same. That's the beauty of a smaller company. More interaction and a well reasoned gripe is more apt to get a response or explanation. Can you honestly say the same about WotC now that it is owned by Hasbro? It's the rare company that maintains the same quality of customer feedback as it grows. Extremely rare.

Uh, I see no evidence that Wizards is any less responsive than these other companies. Just because they choose to produce products that you don't like, does not make them deaf to the consumer. And the inherent flaw in your logic is that they wouldn't be as large and viable as they are if they hadn't responded to aggregate consumer taste.

Which has nothing to do with the effective/ineffective criticism part. Of course higher credence will be paid to a well reasoned argument than a flame, because, for the very reason that said argument comes off as logical, it is thought to be more indicative of the public's taste than a rant which probably reflects more the personal issues of the poster. Anectodaly, I have seen Wotc staff post on the company's boards on several occassions with feedback, but they have directly stated they will ignore noise; and upon examination, that holds up.

So your argument is that internet feedback is given limited credence by Wotc; fair enough. I actually agree, and I don't think that that is a bad thing, especially from their perspective.
But that does not change the fact that, within the limits that you can affect company policy by posting, a 'positive' post will have greater returns than a negative one.

 

[Pramas]

I can't speak for other publishers, but I certainly pay attention to what people say about Green Ronin books. And while I go to all sorts of forums, I pay special attention to the EN forums because I feel like part of the community here. I've been reading and posting for 3+ years at this point and I've always found folks here to be friendly and honest (well, except that one guy who ripped us off, but he's one bad apple). If a sudden stream of "GR Sux" threads popped up, you bet I'd be concerned.

Same goes for the GR forums, obviously.