Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riley37" data-source="post: 7620706" data-attributes="member: 6786839">Perhaps someone designing this system could produce multiple versions. Version A asks six questions. Version B asks six questions, three of which overlap with Version A.Issue both versions. Have people rate games. See if those ratings are useful to others. Ask those who read the ratings: if your first awareness of a game was its rating, and then you played the game, did your experience of the game match the rating, that is, do you think, afterwards, that the rating was accurate?Assess results. A good result: &quot;I read the ratings on Game X, and then played Game X. The ratings helped me anticipate what I did and didn't like about Game X.&quot;A bad result: &quot;The ratings gave me no useful information about Game X.&quot;Another bad result: &quot;Based on ratings, I tried Game X. I think the ratings misinformed my decision and I regret taking the ratings seriously.&quot;Compare how often Version A yields good results, versus how often Version B yields good results.Also: account for cognitive bias, across each step of this process. For example, people who *expect* to enjoy a game, might be more likely to report enjoyment of that game, than people who go in with no pre-conceptions.Come to think of it, information more specific than ratings, might also be useful. &quot;You won't enjoy FooBarQuest&quot; might be useful, if I'm choosing games at a convention and I can either try to get into a FooBarQuest game or try to get into a Pathfinder game.When I want to try a new game, and FooBarQuest is the only option aside from games I've already played, the situationally useful advice is &quot;If you play FooBarQuest, then play a martial class, because the magic rules are a mess; and don't play a quapatir, they look awesome but you'll never get to use the abilities.&quot; At which point, maybe what I want is a review?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riley37, post: 7620706, member: 6786839"] Perhaps someone designing this system could produce multiple versions. Version A asks six questions. Version B asks six questions, three of which overlap with Version A. Issue both versions. Have people rate games. See if those ratings are useful to others. Ask those who read the ratings: if your first awareness of a game was its rating, and then you played the game, did your experience of the game match the rating, that is, do you think, afterwards, that the rating was accurate? Assess results. A good result: "I read the ratings on Game X, and then played Game X. The ratings helped me anticipate what I did and didn't like about Game X." A bad result: "The ratings gave me no useful information about Game X." Another bad result: "Based on ratings, I tried Game X. I think the ratings misinformed my decision and I regret taking the ratings seriously." Compare how often Version A yields good results, versus how often Version B yields good results. Also: account for cognitive bias, across each step of this process. For example, people who *expect* to enjoy a game, might be more likely to report enjoyment of that game, than people who go in with no pre-conceptions. Come to think of it, information more specific than ratings, might also be useful. "You won't enjoy FooBarQuest" might be useful, if I'm choosing games at a convention and I can either try to get into a FooBarQuest game or try to get into a Pathfinder game. When I want to try a new game, and FooBarQuest is the only option aside from games I've already played, the situationally useful advice is "If you play FooBarQuest, then play a martial class, because the magic rules are a mess; and don't play a quapatir, they look awesome but you'll never get to use the abilities." At which point, maybe what I want is a review? [/QUOTE]

Verification