thread: 2014-07-19 : Aside: Designing a Bell Curve

On 2014-07-21, Moreno R. wrote:

@Vincent: you have listed the options, right.

I don't know if you are right about the percentages (as Ben said, too), but this is not the issue for me.

The issue is: what is more useful?

I consider a different division in categories.

1) Failed games I don't care a bit. Because I don't know about them, because I don't like them too, because I think that the player is a lost cause, because I have other things to do, etc, this is the bigger category. The default is not "people who played the game right", the default is "I don't care enough to care"

2) When I care. Because the player is my friend, because he asked me and I have the time and inclination to answer, or for any other reason, I want to help them.

But if care, I can't go for percentages. "Oh, in my opinion 79% of the people who don't like DitV played it right, so I will not ask anything to you and assume you are in the 79%. Stop playing DitV"

No, what I do, IF I care, is "what did happen in the game that you didn't like?"

And, simple like that, we are not talking about percentages anymore. If we talk about his game, it's rather easy to see if they played the game wrong (enough to give a false impression of the game, at least) or not.

until now I have not said anything that most people would not agree to, right? Vincent, you too ask these questions when you want to help someone with their game problems.

But this is the thing: to ask these question, you have to START with the "work hypothesis" that they plaied the game wrong, and ask question to verify if it's so. Because if the starting assumption is that they play the game right, there is no reason to ask.

So, the difference is really simply: assuming, in first instance, that a game (that worked for you) didn't work for other because they played it wrong, is fruitful. Even if you discover that they played it right but they simply don't like it could probably allow you to suggest them games that they would enjoy more.

Assuming in first instance that everybody is playing right is simply "RPG culture, the '90s", useless, static, no real communication, nothing to learn.

So, even if I agree that it's always possible that a game didn't work even if played right, it's always better (if you care) start searching for ways it was played wrong.

P.S.: from what you can learn from forum questions and actual play reports, about 95% of players play their first few "not traditional" rpgs wrong.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":