How to Be An Effective Angry Gamer

[francisca]

The point about polite and constructive criticism being a two-way street is dead on the mark. When (I forget his name right now) from Paizo blamed "whiners" for not putting gags in the April issue, I lost a lot of respect for them.

Many people have posted constructive, specific complaints about the mags. I don't think alot of the heat generated in these forums are "rants" about Paizo, but rather people roasting each other over their opinions. How many times have you seen something like this:

Troll #1: "You know, I really feel cheated by the reduction in page count in Dragon/Poly. I wish it were more D&D oriented and less d20 mini-gamish, as I don't play them."

Troll #2: "You ignorant slut! Don't you know you can mine the mini-games for ideas...blah blah blah"

Ok, that's a little bit of an exageration, but I think you get the idea.

Personally, I won't be subscribing to Dungeon/Poly again because I don't want the mini-games and most of the adventures require so much shoe-horning for my game that it isn't worth using them. (And no, the above example is not a result of me being flamed.) Also, if I don't start finding more useful stuff in Dragon, I won't resub, especially in light of the "whiners" comment. While I can't name any specific things that I don't like, I simply cannot think of one thing I've read in Dragon in the past 6 months that I've wanted to use in my game.

Mr. Mearl's main point still holds. I teach part-time at the proverbial "large, conservative, midwestern university". When I get my student evals back at the end of the semester, pretty much any "you suck!" comments get tossed. On the flip side, stuff like: "more practical examples would be nice", or "should have spent more itme on operating system internals" get lots of consideration and actually shape the course I teach.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

And the fact that you do frequent these boards, as well as Mike Mearls, Monte Cook, Sean Reynolds, and other designers and owners of small RPG companies, is something that I applaud. The great thing is that customers such as myself can actually have a discussion about your products and feel like our feedback/criticism is useful.

 

[FDP Mike]

Mr. Mearl's main point still holds. I teach part-time at the proverbial "large, conservative, midwestern university". When I get my student evals back at the end of the semester, pretty much any "you suck!" comments get tossed. On the flip side, stuff like: "more practical examples would be nice", or "should have spent more itme on operating system internals" get lots of consideration and actually shape the course I teach.

I know EXACTLY what you are describing! Students who take the time to make comments on specific aspects of a course or my teaching get my attention. Like you, I have changed a course and/or my teaching in light of such comments.

The same attitude on my part relates to RPG products. Editors, of course, often take the heat for mistakes in books, rightly so or not. I read the reviews of products on which I worked, and I read comments about those products in places such as ENWorld. Every time someone points out an error that slipped past my radar, I feel the sting -- but I also recognise the opportunity to improve the next time around and try not to make the same sort of error. Editing well, I have learned, involves more than just owning a good sense of grammar and detail; a lot of "professional skills" make up the job, some of which you learn along the way and some of which you need to go out and acquire.

I've also learned over the past few years with FDP and S&SS that so many elements go into actually putting a product on store shelves, the end user just simply does not know how many things can (and will) go wrong along the way. I'm sure that most publishers always endeavour to put out the perfect product. Yet people ranting loudly and rashly about how X "sucks!" and Y is "broken!" will get nowhere other than on a publisher's dart board (along with other photos ... ). People expressing appreciation and insightful criticism, however, may just make a publisher's day.

Seriously.


Take care,
Mike

 

[Arnwyn]

Let's pretend in your gaming group there's a guy named Dave. Dave always shows up right on time, he never loses his character sheet, he has a miniature for his character, and he always brings a 2 liter of Dew and a bag of Doritos. In short, Dave's a great gamer.

Then, one week, Dave doesn't show up. The next week, he shows up late and doesn't have his character sheet. The week after that, he doesn't bring anything to eat. In short, Dave is now a crappy gamer.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the *point* mearls is trying to make, I'd like to make a note re: the above quote: "worst analogy EVAR".

I'll try to make the analogy a little more accurate, and I'll use the same situation. You have Dave, and he's now a crappy gamer. Unfortunately, you have been *paying* Dave, each session, to be a good gamer - and he's clearly not living up to the agreement.

Now we're a bit more accurate, and now (IMO) the consumer has every right to be a might PO'd. Sure - you can be sweet to Dave and ask him "pretty please, be a good gamer?" - and you should be sweet. The first time. After that, if I were paying Dave the crappy gamer, I'd be telling him the second time he dropped the ball after my pleasant plea to "shape up or I'll kick your rosy red behind to the curb".

But in any case, I do agree that criticism should be constructive. (Interestingly enough, though, that's all I've ever seen at ENWorld, which makes me wonder about the point of this thread being posted here as opposed to RPG.net. Being proactive, I suppose, which is wise!)

 

[Umbran]

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.

Yes, that is the response you see. But what about the response you don't see?

The response we see on the message boards may be vigorous, but it's also transitory and inconsequential. The response we don't see, the response in the designers heads, the response in the corporate meetings to discuss products, may be less vigorous and heated and vehement, but it is far, far more effectual in terms of getting products you like.

The response you see is a matter of marketing. The response you don't see is a matter of design. The rant deals with the former, the thoughtful post the latter.

 

[Henry]

From FDP Mike:

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 ....

I don't see it as an irony, but as a reality that publishers need to observe, and one that Monte Cook pointed out quite poignantly. Monte said that a publisher should not respond to criticism. Note that he was wrong for doing so, just that he should not.

The fact is, if a publisher makes a response to a vitriolic criticism, he had better be absolutely correct in his response, down to grammar and spelling, because his response will be both modelled and repeated by his fans, and picked apart by his critics. (The true irony is my bringing up Monte Cook's statements on this subject as a point of reference. )

ENWorld used to have a frequent poster who went by the screenname "Ruin Explorer." Some of his responses about products, rules, etc. were quite abrasive - but darned if they weren't dead-on 99% of the time. I used to love to debate with him, just to try and poke holes in his statements, because it was good debate practice.

From TiQuinn:

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.

I don't believe that WotC NEVER listens to what is said here; in fact, from 2001 until now, the PnP business manager of the company has been an active contributor to ENWorld and other forums, everyone from Ryan Dancey, to Keith Strohm, all the way to Anthony Valterra.

My problem is RIGHT NOW - as of right now, I don't think anybody in management (except possibly Bill Slavicsek) ever visits RPG forums, particularly these forums, or listens to the "person on the street" any more. While we do make up a vocal minority as memeber of RPG internet forums, we are also the strongest sample of die-hard fans anywhere in the company. If the majority of the most loyal of fans dislike a product, then chances are the core audience a product is trying to reach may not like it much, either. Most of us represent not just ourselves, but the majority of posters on these and other forums are active DM's in campaigns, any represent the general trends of anywhere from 3 to 6 other players. It's not an inconsiderable segment, and if the management of this segment is not listening, then that's a considerable audience to ignore.

So, it's not fair to say that WotC has NOT been listening; they certainly have, and it has shown in many ways (certain design params in e-tools, certain new rules in 3.5e, etc.) but my main concern for WotC's input is RIGHT NOW. I'm sorry to see Anthony
go, and particularly sorry not to see the online presence of the current business manager, or any of the other managerial staff at WotC, and not even so much as a "pop by and say hello" in the general forums. It's a situation that I hope changes in the coming months.

 

[Aeris Winterood]

Beware of Lurkers....

I have for the most part been coming to the EN boards for the last 2 years and have mostly lurked and listened, but I now feel I need to say something.

I buy nearly every d20 product that hits the market. Why? Just so I can have it. I may use one item or idea from a 200 page book. Many books may not be my "style" of gaming... On my shelves you will see Green Ronin, Malhavoc Press, S & S... you name it.. .every company that puts out fantasy d20 material. And yes, I own every Dragon and Dungeon mag that has been released since the advent of those mags. What is my point you may ask?

My point is that I enjoy the heck out of all the material. In all of my gaming years (24+) I have only returned two books which I deamed worthless. (both in the last year, company left unsaid) I feel most of my gaming brothers out here do a well enough job critiquing the products for which I proudly buy, read and most of the time put on a shelf.

What I do despise are those who just blatently blast a publisher or designer for a "terrible" or "useless" product. I do think I will now come out of my lurking shell and let all of you designers who hit the boards know about what I think o your products. I run homebrew campaigns, but I enjoy taking bits and pieces from this book and that to tweak my world to make it as fresh as possible for my players. In all I want to say thank you to the designers for listening and sticking your noses in here, even when fire may be sprayed your way.....

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yes, that is the response you see. But what about the response you don't see?

The response we see on the message boards may be vigorous, but it's also transitory and inconsequential. The response we don't see, the response in the designers heads, the response in the corporate meetings to discuss products, may be less vigorous and heated and vehement, but it is far, far more effectual in terms of getting products you like.

The response you see is a matter of marketing. The response you don't see is a matter of design. The rant deals with the former, the thoughtful post the latter.

Well, sure, I agree with what you're getting at, I think. However, I'm not entirely sure if you're talking about the response of the designer or the fan. Anyway, I was just saying that it would be nice if some of the energy devoted to duking it out with the trolls and heated posters could be shunted over to responding to those who post thoughtful critiques. Let them know that what they say has worth and merit, and is considered by the designers, rather than giving all the attention to those who make the biggest fuss.

 

[Perithoth]

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 ....

Mike,

I don't find Mike Merle's silence on the subject of the publisher's expected role of silent sufferers while facing criticism ironic, instead, I find him focused on his topic. To bring up the travails of the published and publishers distracts from his point that gamers and game critics are too rude and angry, making themselves ineffective as positive agents of change in the gaming industry.

Mike Merle's argument deals with communication and how civil discourse can have a larger impact than the visceral trench warfare that is the norm out on the web. It was not excuse for those on the receiving end of angry criticism to go out and do the same. I am not saying that you have to be a cold, logical robot that never feels. Without passion any argument you make is uninspiring and flat. I am not asking publishers and authors to be doormats either. Take a stand, but do it with the integrity you expect from the outside world. Because if you cannot lead by example, who will?

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, constructive criticism is important. The main thing is that you point out WHY something sucks and point out a WAY TO FIX IT. Do those, and publishers get good advice. Otherwise, it's just...blech.

Here, we generally do a good job.

And I agree that having more publishers participate 'in the community' certainly helps. Responding directly to criticism with the whys and wherefores and how comes helps people not only to understand the mental process, but also to understand the person who made it. If there is little to no presence on the boards (WotC, to name one), then we assume you're not listening, won't care, and don't matter.

Also, even though supportive bashing is better than regular ol' bashing, everyone has a right to gripe and complain and even be incomprehensible about it. Flaming is a protected right. But it won't bring about the change you want -- at least, not if the few publishers who read these boards see the flame for what it is.