Why allow Criticism of MGT?

[Allensh]

Yes, I think that legitimate criticisms can be cloaked in terms offensive enough to constitute a personal attack. However, this is an extremely subjective thing and reasonable people can dramatically differ on what constitutes "arrogance", "condescention", etc. I also think that game designers should recognize that criticism does come with the turf to some degree.

And agreed that a defense of a game you like isn't necessarily an attack on critics of that game -- until you do things like insinuate that they are just being irrational, bear an unreasonable grudge against the game, are jerks, etc. These things are all tactics used quite often by the "pro" side of the debate. These tactics become especially offensive (IMHO) when they are offered in lieu of a response to the criticisms.

Of course, it takes two to tango. Sometimes, a criticism is framed in terms that do not allow a response. "I just don't like it", for instance. In that case, it might help to recognize that this may well be an accurate statement, made in reasonably good faith. So instead of responding that the person is being irrational or is stupid for being unable to explicitely identify what he dislikes, you might try something like "well, I can't really respond to that because we are discussing a matter of personal taste and you've given me nothing to go on. Perhaps you could identify what mechanics you dislike?"

There is only one person that I can recall ever responding to in the way you have said (regarding unreasonable grudges)...and I stand by what I said. I believe this person's subsequent posts bear out the truth of my statements. I do not recall EVER accusing anyone of being stupid though.

And if someone basically says to me that if I don't agree with them then I obviously do not know what Traveller is all about...that is condescending and arrogant and I don't know any reasonable person who would disagree with that.

Allen

 

[drh]

However, it really is not the job of the player to fix problems in a game. Indeed, in my experience, many players are not able to suggest effective mechanical remedies. No slur on anyone intended;

That's a funny statement, given how many "old school gamers" post about how back in the day they had to make up their own rules and how much better that was. It's often trotted out as a defense of Classic Traveller's somewhat skeletal design.

Why should that be acceptable for older games, but not for newer ones?

 

[drh]

You do grok the fact that COI is not a Mongoose owned site, yes?

Yes, which makes this sort of behavior all the more damaging. This board is run by another RPG publisher (one that hasn't published anything for a long time and from what I've seen in discussions elsewhere here isn't likely to ever publish anything again), and yet it's admin and moderators seem happy to allow people to take frequent potshots at other companies.

*Oh, I'd probably toss someone if they got offensive enough. But I understand -- as apparently you do not -- that a criticism of a game I like <> a personal attack on me.

That's what you don't understand. Nobody's saying that attacking the game is the same as attacking the person who likes the game.

If a personal attack is defined as "attacking the person stating the idea, not the idea itself", then by analogy attacking the publisher of the game instead of the game itself is the same thing. People who seem to have nothing better to do than attack Mongoose all the time are making (analogies to) "personal attacks" on the publisher, and I don't see why that should be tolerated here - particularly given that the boards are run by another publisher that is competing for the same market.

I'm not saying that is necessarily actually the case, but it wouldn't be hard for someone to walk away from here believing that QLI implicitly has an agenda against Mongoose Publishing, given the lack of actual moderation here. It would be easy to perceive that the moderators are strangely unwilling to enforce the rules when it comes to criticism of Mongoose here. Given the evidence it's hard for an observer not to believe otherwise. And that reflects very poorly on the hosts of this board (clearly violating rule #6, which again the moderators seem to be completely ignoring on this MGT board). Going back full circle here, this is exactly why people elsewhere think that this community (and QLI, by association) is hostile to Mongoose and its Traveller products.

The moderators here do seem strangely impotent... despite the fact that they are obviously reading the posts written by a handful of people who very clearly have an anti-Mongoose agenda, they are completely unwilling to take any action unless a magic "report post" button is pressed to spur them into doing something. And yet, those moderators seem to be very quick to defend or make excuses for the people who are actually making those attacks against Mongoose. I've never seen such inert, passive, and effectively non-existent moderation elsewhere as what I have seen here on this board.

My point is that all this criticism of Mongoose itself is a clear violation of rule #6 on this board, and it is severely damaging this board's reputation and is a detriment to this community.That doesn't need to be reported, it's very self-evident to anyone looking at the content of these threads. So again, why is nothing being done to prevent this? Why are the people who repeatedly and persistently make those attacks still allowed to post here?

 

[aramis]

I thought MRQ was generic. I mean you can take the generic book Monsters II and use it in an Erlic game. Monsters II is not a Glorantha book.

MRQ itself wasn't Generic; it included specific Gloranthan elements that were specifically not in the SRD to give it "Gloranthan Flavor"... and incorporated Gloranthan imagery exclusively.

The prior edition of RQ was more generic; the professions were all Gloranthan, despite both having two setting books in the same box. Glorantha and Fantasy Earth... the difference being placenames and cultures... akin to the difference between JG's Ley and QLI's Ley... same professions, same tech scale, but not the same map, nor the same cultures on it. Only a few monsters were in the glorantha book, and none in the fantasy earth. But no one mistook it for beign truly generic; you got the same feel on Fantasy Earth as on Glorantha. And Cormac the Example seems to have been to both....

Seriously, Was the Judges Guild 4 sector block OTU? at one point, yes... was it Generic? No, not really. It's pure CT goodness, literally on par with Sup3, but 4 sectors instead of 1. Neither is it OTU after 1984, when Atlas came out... and specifically decanonized it. But it still was "3rd Imperium Traveller"... just in a suddenly alternate astrography. Doesn't make it generic, just not official. All the tropes in place, all the rules used as is. Just not the right version.

 

[tbeard1999]

That's a funny statement, given how many "old school gamers" post about how back in the day they had to make up their own rules and how much better that was. It's often trotted out as a defense of Classic Traveller's somewhat skeletal design.

Why should that be acceptable for older games, but not for newer ones?

<shrug>

I'm only offering observations regarding game design issues, to wit--

1. It isn't a player's job to fix a defective design*, though he's certainly free to give it a try; and

2. Based on my experiences, game design skill seems to be decoupled from game playing skill (or even game flaw spotting skill).

I also note that over the years, I've seen a lot of game "fixes" that I thought were pretty poor -- including some of my own. (Fortunately, few of those ever made it to widespread distribution).

OTOH, some have been inspired.

And FWIW, I don't generally criticise a game for mechanics that I can easily fix.

Now, to answer you question, I'd say that the answer is "it depends". "It can be easily fixed" is a valid response to a complaint about a game mechanic IMHO. That's why I don't generally gripe about problems that I can easily fix. I usually point them out, then note that they can be fixed, then move on.

Now, some games do seem more easily modified than others. My own rules seem to be that way (probably because I design the game as a series of relatively independent "subassemblies" -- in the case of an RPG, the subassemblies might be character generation; skill list; combat system; vehicle design system). So in some cases, this can be a genuine advantage.

However, I've found that RPG referees and players often overestimate their own ability to build *good* replacement systems, so I don't personally rank that "feature" of a game too highly. At the end of the day, I design and play games that *I* want to play. And I modify games into the games *I* want to play. To the extent that your tastes are like mine, you'll enjoy those games. The reverse is true, of course.

This brings up a highly relevant point that we sometimes forget. No game can be everything to everyone. Sometimes, a game won't satisfy you no matter what, because the designer's goals contradict what you like in a game too much.

On a few occasions, I have encountered gamers who simply wanted FFT to cover things in far more detail than I think is appropriate. After hashing it out, I gave them three options -- (a) play the game as written and live with it; (b) if applicable, play the game with a set of modifications that mitigate the problem (but impose too high a cost on other qualities to make it an official rule set); or (c) play _______________________ instead (fortunately, I know the qualities of most competing designs and can recommend alternatives).




*Which of course invalidates one of the more common (and lame) retorts from supporters of a game - "oh yeah, well come up with something better". That retort utterly misstates who has responsibility for what IMHO. It's the designer's job to fix his own game IMHO. If my Ford truck has a serious design defect, I doubt seriously that Ford would consider the issue resolved by demanding that I redesign the truck. Same's true of games as I see it.

 

[tbeard1999]

That's what you don't understand. Nobody's saying that attacking the game is the same as attacking the person who likes the game.

No, you're just acting that way.

I learned a long time ago that how someone *acts* is far more important than what they *say*.

And you -- and others -- seem to take any criticism of MGT highly personally.

 

[drh]

On a few occasions, I have encountered gamers who simply wanted FFT to cover things in far more detail than I think is appropriate. After hashing it out, I gave them three options -- (a) play the game as written and live with it; (b) if applicable, play the game with a set of modifications that mitigate the problem (but impose too high a cost on other qualities to make it an official rule set); or (c) play _______________________ instead (fortunately, I know the qualities of most competing designs and can recommend alternatives).

So why can't people do that here, with Mongoose Traveller? Play it, fix it yourself, or walk away. It's that simple.

I don't see a (d) option, which is "attack the company, denigrate the product everywhere, and generally be spiteful, vindictive and annoying to anyone trying to enjoy the game" but that's what some people seem intent on doing here to Mongoose Traveller.

 

[tbeard1999]

There is only one person that I can recall ever responding to in the way you have said (regarding unreasonable grudges)...and I stand by what I said. I believe this person's subsequent posts bear out the truth of my statements. I do not recall EVER accusing anyone of being stupid though.

Well, it seems to me that one of your main points is that there's a lot more to the communication than what is explicitely stated. In any case, I have personally endured -- and laughed at -- numerous attacks on me as being an irrational hater of MGT. Despite the fact that I have posted FAR more explicit detail on what I dislike than the defenders have.

Of course, some of this may be due to my, er, what was it... Ah, my "passionate. . . [d]ownright evangelical, bordering on rude" presentation

But not all of it. In point of fact, I raised a number of very valid criticisms about MGT -- and Mongoose agreed with me on the big one (the timing/effect system). Not saying that my input caused the shift. But, not to put too fine a point on it, I was right, at least in the eyes of the publisher. And I did FAR more than merely complain that the system sucked. I built detailed spreadsheets to demonstrate *why* I thought it was flawed.

IMHO, the optimum strategy may be to simply assume that the other person is posting in good faith and require an extremely high level of proof to alter that assumption. Easer said than done, obviously.

I'd submit that it is unhelpful to explicitely or implicitely accuse MGT critics of simply hating MGT irrationally, even if you suspect that. First, it *is* a personal attack, just like an accusation that you are an empty headed fanboy would be. Second, their motives are irrelevant to the accuracy of the criticism. Third, it gives the impression that you're evading the criticism by making ad homenim attacks. Finally, it's hardly conducive to determining if their criticism is, in fact, valid.

Of course, similar things should be born in mind by critics. At the minimum, a critic should understand that his criticisms cannot be answered without some detail. As I said "I just don't like it" is a fair statement, but there's not much that the designer can do to address that criticism. And it is equally unhelpful to insinuate that MGT fans are witless fanboys utterly ignorant of Traveller -- although the latter is a legitimate point if they demonstrate such illiteracy. Well, it's legitimate to the extent that there's a disagreement over what is "Traveller" and what isn't. As opposed to what *should* be Traveller and what *shouldn't* -- a rather different discussion.

And if someone basically says to me that if I don't agree with them then I obviously do not know what Traveller is all about...that is condescending and arrogant and I don't know any reasonable person who would disagree with that.

I'd agree with that, assuming that you didn't somehow goad them into making such a statement. And assuming that this is a reasonable characterization of their statement. I would, however, accept a clarification that this was not what was intended (if offered).

 

[atpollard]

The moderators here do seem strangely impotent... despite the fact that they are obviously reading the posts written by a handful of people who very clearly have an anti-Mongoose agenda, they are completely unwilling to take any action unless a magic "report post" button is pressed to spur them into doing something. And yet, those moderators seem to be very quick to defend or make excuses for the people who are actually making those attacks against Mongoose. I've never seen such inert, passive, and effectively non-existent moderation elsewhere as what I have seen here on this board.

Be carefull what you wish for, this sure reads like something close to a 'personal attack' by you on the moderators - who are unquestionably people.

 

[drh]

No, you're just acting that way.

Then your interpretation of our actions is completely incorrect.

And you -- and others -- seem to take any criticism of MGT highly personally.

You have frequently attacked people who like MGT - every time when you sneered at people who liked it and called them "irrational fanboys" or some other derogatory name. Or when you claim that anyone who likes it is just blindly loving the game.

We're not taking criticism of MGT itself personally. We're just completely sick of hearing it from the same people all the time. You made your point, we know you don't like it. What we don't get is why you can't just move on and let everyone else who does like it discuss the game in peace here. You even just said that you expect people to do that with your own game if they don't like it. You also said that you accept that not every game is for everyone. So why can't you accept that Mongoose isn't for you and move on?

 

[captainjack]

Without taking sides (despite having done so where it counts ), I would point out that there are numerous posts by more than one of the "vocal opposition" describing the Mongoose writers insultingly: for instance as incompetent (one of many epithets, and one of the less infllammatory) ; it's hard not to see that that is an attack on mongoose, or the people behind it and not the rules. Since any one of the noted posts would be fairly regarded as a personal attack in a post aimed at me (for instance), this seems (to me) to undermine the complaint about the pro mongoose lobby attcking the messengers.

I agree that criticism is good, and that quashing is bad. However, neither side is fault free here when it comes to attcking individuals on the board or not, and attempts to sieze the moral high round by nobly pointing out how the others are attacking one, are verging on ludicous. Its also hard not to come to the conclusion that when one indulges in insulting attacks, that one dislikes the target, in addition to having criticisms of their work.

The attacks are there, written out, not implied or inferred. And both sides are doing it. heck, I know I have (and I have the infraction point to prove it )

 

[Spinward Scout]

That's a funny statement, given how many "old school gamers" post about how back in the day they had to make up their own rules and how much better that was. It's often trotted out as a defense of Classic Traveller's somewhat skeletal design.

Why should that be acceptable for older games, but not for newer ones?

I see I wasn't the only one thinking he was virtually b!tch slapping anyone who ever made a house rule.

 

[aramis]

I don't normally issue warnings nor points in threads I'm active in unless there is a report or an egregious violation.

There is a reason: To prevent my lower threshold when frustrated by people who just don't get it from resulting in unitary decisions to their detriment. If I see & NOTICE a clear infraction, I zing them, no matter what, but a lot of it is "I missed it" or "It's on the border." I've reported several posts, to get other moderators notice on questionable posts lately; I was too close to the issue to be fair alone.

 

[captainjack]

I see I wasn't the only one thinking he was virtually b!tch slapping anyone who ever made a house rule.

Not really a bitch slap - just a personal opinion, as far as I can tell from the quote, granted, and opinion presented with great authorial gravitas; which I'm sure he'll agree that that doesn;t make it more right or wrong, just more stylish.

Still, He was skirting (or dodging) a question that is somewhat relevent to the topic of "why not MT (or CT or T4)" -why do classic and MT get a pass on eratta and need for houseruling when considering comparative value ? I'm not suggesting that the previous editions are a justification for ignoring faults in MgT, but it is relevent to the question of "how do they compare" . Which was the topic that spawned this.

 

[drh]

Be carefull what you wish for, this sure reads like something close to a 'personal attack' by you on the moderators - who are unquestionably people.

It's a statement of fact. They have already stated that they refuse to do anything unless the report post button is pressed, despite the fact that they have minds of their own and surely can come to their own conclusions about when someone is breaking a rule whenever they read these posts themselves. They also have frequently defended the people making those attacks. And as a personal observation, I have not seen such passive moderation elsewhere as I have seen here. All of those are statements of fact, not attacks.

Generally speaking, it's surely up to the moderators to moderate discussion, enforce the rules, and to be fair and impartial about it. But if their own personal biases are getting in the way of that then they simply cannot be effective moderators. And I don't think anyone can doubt that they seem to have a continuous blind spot when it comes to rule #6, as applied to Mongoose Publishing and their products.

Fact is, the moderators are the people who must take the ultimate responsibility for allowing this board to get the reputation that it has. They have to think long and hard about what they want this board to be and where they want this board to go. They can either choose to take action to improve this board's reputation, or they can choose to continue as they are and ultimately drive people away from it and give the board a bad reputation. It's all in their hands really.

 

[Allensh]

Then your interpretation of our actions is completely incorrect.




You have frequently attacked people who like MGT - every time when you sneered at people who liked it and called them "irrational fanboys" or some other derogatory name. Or when you claim that anyone who likes it is just blindly loving the game.

We're not taking criticism of MGT itself personally. We're just completely sick of hearing it from the same people all the time. You made your point, we know you don't like it. What we don't get is why you can't just move on and let everyone else who does like it discuss the game in peace here. You even just said that you expect people to do that with your own game if they don't like it. You also said that you accept that not every game is for everyone. So why can't you accept that Mongoose isn't for you and move on?

I do not feel -at least at the present time- that tbeard is the problem. Yes, he has issues with the game. Some of his issues are even actual issues and not just matters of taste. Furthermore, he is actually doing something about those issues to at least an extent which is putting his money where his mouth is (figuratively speaking, at least). I'm ok with that; in fact, I respect that.

Yes, some of the things he's responded with in previous postings may have bordered on the kind of behavior that I've complained about...but I haven't been perfect in these "debates" either. Sometimes when you get frustrated these kind of things happen. He's writing something for Mongoose, in concert with others, that I am very interested in. I'd say cut him some slack.

Allen

 

[drh]

I don't normally issue warnings nor points in threads I'm active in unless there is a report or an egregious violation.

There is a reason: To prevent my lower threshold when frustrated by people who just don't get it from resulting in unitary decisions to their detriment. If I see & NOTICE a clear infraction, I zing them, no matter what, but a lot of it is "I missed it" or "It's on the border." I've reported several posts, to get other moderators notice on questionable posts lately; I was too close to the issue to be fair alone.

Then I would respectfully suggest that you don't get involved in threads here. Primarily because it seems that the only other moderator here doesn't seem to be willing to even look at this MGT board because he want to "pretend that Mongoose Traveller was just a bad dream" (and by that comment, immediately makes his biases clear and rules himself out of being a fair moderator on this topic). (see this post)

If one moderator is getting involved in the thread and refuses to do anything because of that, and the other moderator doesn't want to intervene or even read the threads because he dislikes the game so much then what are we left with?

 

[aramis]

DRH - Take your own advice: "What we don't get is why you can't just move on and let everyone else who does like it discuss the game in peace here." But also relize those who don't like it may (within civility) discuss it.

You're right on the edge of infraction yourself. And what you don't see is the number of times Ty or S4 or ___ gets warned to tone down. Nor do you have a right to that information.

Gripes about moderation are restricted to the website issues forum. This isn't there.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Ok, instead of really going off on a bunny trail, I'm forking part of this thread.

 

[atpollard]

It's a statement of fact...

You know the rest of your post so I don't need to quote it, but let me offer a suggestion in a neutral and non threatening way:

A marine walks into a pub and sees another man standing at the bar, screaming at the top of his lungs, pounding his fists on the table and flinging spittile with every pronouncement.

The marine's options would seem to be:

1. ignore the situation
2. attack the man
3. call the police

Which should he do?
(it is a rhetorical question.)