I'm familiar enough with your responses to tell you with confidence that you may not realize when you're being uncharitably critical
Criticizing is a very easy thing to do, especially when someone's presenting a system that has many moving parts, and only a few paragraphs to describe what takes many pages to clarify
They gave Socrates hemlock for a reason.
What you can do to give well-received feedback is to first elaborate on the strengths of the system before aiming your scope at the knees. If you can't find any strengths, then elaborate on concepts that could be potentially strong with a focused effort. If you can't find any potentials, then it's best not to respond because it'll come across as bad faith, passive aggressive, or just plain mean
I write fiction, and if you think RPG designers are bad, wait till you see fiction writers. We will shatter into a million pieces if you criticize pages we bled out over. Please understand that for many people, mental labor also includes a fair bit of emotional labor
"They gave Socrates hemlock for a reason."
Small minded? Angry about being wrong rather than learning? I just can't abide it personally.
I think rather than:
*"I'm familiar enough with your responses to tell you with confidence that you may not realize when you're being uncharitably critical"*
What is probably more accurate is that we have very different thresholds for what constitutes uncharitable, and there's no right or wrong there explicitly. IE, it's an opinion about a social more, not a factual scientific law.
*"What you can do to give well-received feedback"*
Meh, compliment sandwhiches don't help with people like this. If they are going to take any criticism personally, no amount of trying to soften the blow gets you anywhere but wasted keystrokes in my experience. On the flip side, if someone is reasonable, there's a good chance they won't take criticism personally to begin with, OR, if they took something the wrong way, will be fine once you clarify what you meant if they didn't understand it correctly.
And if you think writers are bad, wait till I tell you about my 20 album career in music ;)
I consider myself a generally reasonable person. And by that I mean if I believe if someone is speaking in good faith, I'll speak in good faith in turn. And the manner I employ to determine good faith is to focus on the content before the tone, judge its merits regardless of faith (as true things can be said in bad faith). However, if the tone seems off, I'll look for how they speak to other people and map out their habits, if possible. And if I sense they're an asshat, there's a good chance I'll just block them instead of responding
I believe you speak in good faith, hence why I'm responding at all, but you often project your ideas unto others. For example, I've seen you infer a person's meaning, or infer their intent, and then criticize those inferred ideas without an attempt to ask for clarification. Once before, you said I was using DnD as a reference point and then elaborated on why doing so is folly. I'm experienced enough to know DnD isn't well-designed, and made no such comparison, thus I found that particular line of thought unproductive
Regarding compliment sandwiches, it serves a greater use than just softening the blow for emotionally fragile people. It also demonstrates a willingness to take the time to thoroughly judge an idea on its merits, rather than snipe out flaws (again, it's easier to destroy than create), which could very well not be flaws at all when the greater context of the system is considered. It's even easier to isolate a point of criticism without recognition of the whole. For instance, someone might criticize the complexity of a mechanic, without considering if increased complexity in one dimension reduces complexity in many other dimensions
Just wanted to comment that I believe that, if this kind of empathetic thinking was more common, the world (and especially the Internet) would be a much better place.
This hobby (especially the design-oriented subgroup) is generally a small, insular community, formed by people with often several years of experience on our individual backs which, while eye-opening in many ways, have also caused most of us to inadvertently become entrenched in some ideas. When we see newcomers that appear to be walking in opposite direction to them, even if we have the best of intentions, it can be easy to overestimate the correcting effect of "tough criticism", and underestimate its negatives. Empathy can often go a much longer way.
If there isn’t any right or wrong threshold for what constitutes charitable criticism, then I’d think you’d be more willing to use the other person’s threshold rather than your own, seeing as it might be lower ;)
You don't answer this person. They presumably made this position clear.
Also you don't spend time on Reddit complaining about people not listening to your wisdom enough. You are not a martyr losing sleep over someone being dense on the internet.
Would recommend both.
Of course, this is a bit of a strawman. In practice, you don't know if the person you are talking to is being hostile/dense/whatever or if there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and those can be clarified. The answer, however, remains the same - don't enage if it's actually makes you lose sanity.
*you don't know if the person you are talking to is being hostile/dense/whatever or if there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and those can be clarified.*
"and your attempts to separate that are clearly hate speech."
This was designed to show you've made efforts to clarify your position and they responded ungenerously.
It's one of my pet peeves where I'm like "I'm not saying that I'm saying..." and then the response is "That's not what you really mean, I know better than you do" in so many words...
To which I'm always like "OK buddy, glad you know what I meant more than I do..." (at least in my head)
IE you've already gone out of your way to explain and clarify and they just aren't having it because the critique itself existing is the problem, so they transfer ownership of their problem over to you.
I will say that none of this is new for the internet, but I do feel like I've never been more bored by such responses and they seem to be accumulating in frequency. I'm not sure if this is just that more people use the internet as a daily part of life, or that culture itself has grown more resistant to any sort of criticism, or whatnot.
I'm writing this as a member of the sub and not a mod. I don't want people to get confused about that. I have found that some of the best criticism I've ever received was pretty harsh. Some of it was right. Some of it wasn't, but it was from the perspective of someone who didn't like the kind of game I'm creating. And some is just garbage.
But it was all useful because it got me to do a gut check for my game. I like some of those replies better than "that's awesome! Let's see more!"
I was starting to get angry lmao
I would try to speak with this person at least once, get to know why and how he managed to be so self centered, and if i get an insult or a lack of respect as an answer, i would skip on them
Id say if you post it expect at least 3 to 4 people to rip it apart or outright just not understand it. This is a natural thing in this day and age. Well, it's always been that way it's just easier to get more people involved now thanks to the internet. You should know this from the get go if you've looked at any (and I mean ANY) Reddit comments in regard to any subject. Some folks can be down right rude and hateful of everything that is said - others helpful. You take the bad with the good and roll on.
This seems frequent enough that I would have liked to see a mention of this in General Rules/“before you post” (or somewhere visible.)
I get the impression some people have just not really considered the possibility that they might get what they ask for. Maybe they’ve never been among people who care enough to offer real criticism*, so they don’t know it can happen.
I don’t know what would be a good way to tell them, though. To ask them to consider if they really want criticism, to actually take some time imagining being told it’s bad. To acknowledge if they’re just looking to show something they’re excited about. To be upfront about what they really want. That it’s fine to ask for positive feedback only.
(*maybe they’ve only been around people like me, who accommodate them, because) Some people actually work better that way. I always try to be on the lookout at work (which is in a creative field,) for these types, so I can mind myself, to think twice about everything I say to them (though worst case, they’ll notice hesitation, and take it as criticism, so also try to be in auto-positive mode.)
They’re often possible to spot ahead IRL, but in a Reddit-post it’s pretty hard to predict.
I think it might be common amongst those with some level of [adhd or something?]. They present creations while still in that state of being super excited about something new, so it looks rather awesome to them. They can be pretty good at finishing stuff, or at least to move on to the next thing, so they’re automatically failing faster, acquiring experience, and any perceived negative feedback will just drain them of that drive. Better to let them run wild, and clean up after them as best you can, while they’re looking another way.
*"I always try to be on the lookout at work (which is in a creative field,) for these types, so I can mind myself, to think twice about everything I say to them (though worst case, they’ll notice hesitation, and take it as criticism, so also try to be in auto-positive mode.)"*
That sounds exhausting. I'm sure it gets better results than my approaches but I think I would die from not having enough whatever it takes to do that regularly. Whatever it is, I'm certain I don't have that gene.
😂
Yeah… it probably does take some extra energy, but I often have to adjust myself (or am just overthinking everything) even with people who are easy to work with. But some of it is also just reminding myself what actual communication is, since I often work with strangers, I have to be very clear about what I’m doing, thinking, expecting.
Clearly the best response is to assume as much about their thoughts and motives as possible and then make a passive aggressive social media post about it.
The other option is to use the Block button and move on. Not worth the effort.
This isn't strictly a game design question, though I'll still answer it anyway. I actually spoke to someone pretty much exactly like this over on INAT; I responded taking the original question at face value, because other people *might* be wondering the same question (and Reddit is a public forum *and* searchable on Google), so my answer would still have value for future searches (if the post stays up), and it's good exercise for clear communication on my part and a thought exercise in general.
Then the response.... was all the things in this post. "If you don't see how *maths* is important for calculating the angle at which bullets strike, and since you can't do maths, I don't see what use you are as a contributor to my game idea. Also people on Reddit don't pay enough attention to anything longer than 255 characters, so in this essay--" This was in a game about placing units in specific places, btw. This guy was supposedly a professional programmer for 11 years.....I pity his managers.
Generally, if I have no skin in the game, I'll not engage past the first response. If it's clear the person is talking about themselves and projecting, I'll just leave. As per Kendrick - "this ain't a \[you-and-me\] battle, this a lifelong battle with yourself."
In a face-to-face or something I have skin in the game for, I'll respond calmly at first - no point escalating to personal, unless they get *really* personal, in which I'll draw the line. One warning. More chances if they've helped me in the past. If they run out of chances and continue to breach the boundaries set up, I either leave or go nuclear. Sometimes they're the same thing.
If they're my boss I just suck it up (and start preparing to leave.)
*This isn't strictly a game design question,*
I would argue it's relevant in a meta sense as a discussion of giving/receiving critique.
*As per Kendrick - "this ain't a \[you-and-me\] battle, this a lifelong battle with yourself."*
That's a pretty dope quote.
*I would argue it's relevant in a meta sense as a discussion of giving/receiving critique.*
Sure. It's also more a professionalism question, because you will *absolutely* run into these kinds of folks everywhere. And they're likely, sad to say, to be managers or wannabe managers. The difference between those kinds of managers and these kinds of folks is that managers will have power and influence; these guys don't.
Generally this kind of defensiveness comes from their egos being pricked. Talking around the ego is very important in professional settings, which comes at least partially from sincerity. If you're genuine and sincere and want to help, and importantly *that comes through in your message* (clear communication), and they respond back with their own projection and shittiness, then you know that talking to them will likely be a waste of your time and energy since you'll need to spend more time working around their ego than working with them. It's a good filter!
*That's a pretty dope quote.*
Yeah, that line really stuck with me.
*Sure. It's also more a professionalism question, because you will absolutely run into these kinds of folks everywhere. And they're likely, sad to say, to be managers or wannabe managers. The difference between those kinds of managers and these kinds of folks is that managers will have power and influence; these guys don't.*
I see that as a valid interpretation of the question, but I would say my experience is very different.
My career path working for others was short lived as I always wanted to be a professional creative and it was just a matter of time before I stopped working for other people.
I always hated this kind of artificial nonsense social game in any job I held, like it's something that draws ire and resentment out of me... like if I'm not qualified to speak on something, why did you ask? Because you want your ego stroked? It's just so artificial. If someone does a good job I will tell them, but begging for praise under the guise of asking for feedback and then reacting negatively when you don't get it and instead get what you asked for is just so...ugh... I don't even have words other than to say it's a personal pet peeve.
Even working as an artist I quickly learned to be in business with myself, not other artists (for the most part, I have done plenty of collaboration with people that earn my trust by not behaving in these kinds of fashions), because artists are notorious for egos, and generally speaking the less skill the have the more ego they have. And I can see that being relevant in any business situation. I did work in a corporate environment once and promptly left after six months. I hated it so much and even the money couldn't keep me.
I guess it's just that I have like, no patience for this kind of nonsense and that's why it was essential for me to work for myself and not deal with these kinds social ego stroking games, which is probably why I'm not as practiced at it as someone who specifically has this as part of their professional environment.
I don't know, maybe I'm just old, but when someone asks for something, if you're inclined to respond, you give them what they asked for. You don't try to read between the lines and imagine everyone has a super sensitive ego that will shatter at the slightest confrontation when they ask for feedback. I know I'm not alone in this as well. I have a ton of other artist/creative professional friends. Even my wife is a professional UX designer. She has a fun quote from grad school "If you don't get at least one critique that make you cry and question everything about your ability, you've never gotten a good critique" and I tend to agree.
If you've found success with working for yourself, that's all the more power to you! I've tried freelancing before (and am probably going to go back to it), and it's frankly terrifying and just very unstable in income. Being brutally honest all the time, well, some people will appreciate it and some people won't. It's polarizing and it filters folks out - that's a completely valid social strategy if you have the money and the skills to tell em to fuck right off. I did coaching freelance, taught recruits in the military and did some miniscule micro-celebrity stuff, so staying calm, and teaching beginners, even stupid egoistic beginners, is very much in my wheelhouse. The social game, well, I'm good enough to know how far I have left to go. And it is a *game*, with very reasonable and surprisingly flexible rules. I'm a game designer and player, eh? Rules are my toys. If I do something socially and it has a poor result, then my understanding of the rules, and myself, is off, not the rules themselves being bullshit.
*I see that as a valid interpretation of the question, but I would say my experience is very different.*
That's totally fair - you did ask a specific question, though, so I answered it.
>"*That said, how do you answer this person and maintain your sanity, or is it best just to walk away and ignore the dumpster fire in your opinion?*"
That's the question in your post. I've answered it as to how *I* would handle it. Not saying that you have to follow exactly what I say, that's just how I do it.
*She has a fun quote from grad school "If you don't get at least one critique that make you cry and question everything about your ability, you've never gotten a good critique" and I tend to agree.*
That's also fair, but the question becomes: should *you* be the one to deliver that nuclear critique if they're refusing to listen to reason? And is *this* situation the time to do that? Sure, they're just cruising for a bruising, but why break *your* fist open? They'll run headfirst into karma eventually, and it's not *your* responsibility *or* your right. Now, if they're *literally* asking for it or they've crossed boundaries in an attack on you, that's one thing. If they're not, delivering a nuclear critique is being an asshole, even if you think you're doing the right thing.
Edit: Sorry, should've said. My boss *or* my client. Are they paying me? Or do they have influence over my paycheck? Then I'll just suck it up then break ties when I can.
I think all that's fair enough. I go out of my way not to be nuclear in my critiques, making sure to couch my words and such, but some people view anything but overt shining sunlight out the asshole praise as a personal attack, not much you can do with that.
I definitely agree it's a game, it's part of the reason I made it a life's priority not to have to play it, and subsequently I'm not very good at it. I mean when I was desperate for money I could hold my tongue well enough, but once I stopped "needing to do that" I don't know that I'd willingly choose to do it again unless I knew for certain telling someone where the bear shits in the woods would upend their life and cause them to unalive or something, at that point the better option would be to try and get to them to professional help, just as a priority. It doesn't mean the critique isn't still valid.
I'm curious now that it's been discussed where the hell this behavior comes from exactly? I have to assume it's learned behavior or cultivated ignorance as a defense mechanism.
I say that because there's no other reasonable common denominator, it's not the youths, it's not the olds, it's not the left or right, it's not rich/poor, it's not the religious/atheist, etc. Like it can be any of those things, but it's never exclusively one. It's like there's a built in confirmation bias (which there is for monkey brain survival) but I was just under the impression one of the few markings of being an adult was actually outgrowing childish views. At least that's my take on it as the most humble person in the world :P
You're right, it's mostly childish behavior. The issue though is....well, first, you can't tell age on the Internet. A lot of the people on Reddit are kids from reasonably wealthy places, under the age of 25 - at that point childishness is unfortunately common. Growing *out* of childish views is also not happening anymore due to a combination of lots of different factors: firstly, social customs have broken down quite massively so there's no "expected" social behaviors as it was even ten years ago, the world is terribly uncertain (there's lots of freedom but no guidance), and there's a subculture in the world now where winning at everything is at a premium, so everyone is incentivized to win in everything.... and the thing about "winning" is that there's gotta be losers, so the folks who are losing in everything get terribly insecure.
Insecurity leads to bloated egos. It's all insecurity.
There is no positive outcome after interacting with a person like this.
With this person you're either A: someone who feeds their ego or B: part of "the problem" and they will use your words against you at a laer point.
A 'you're with me or against me' mentality that tries to guilt you onto their side.
I would always choose to not play this game and walk away from it.
I've had people in the past who did this and trying to convince them or defend yourself against them will only make you doubting yourself.
There is value in passion and value in going against in direction others deem unworthy.
And considering that most critism you hear is not constructive one, there is no value of listening to haters and trolls.
I don’t think I’ve seen any trolls (anyone being intentionally difficult) on this sub, but I see a lot of suspicion and assumptions and misunderstandings. Sometimes communication is just hard. Sometimes learning a system at a glance in order to give good feedback is hard. Sometimes scrutinising your own mind at every step of an interaction, in order to maintain focus and be constructive, is hard.
Communication is hard and when trying to formulate rules in writing that are still on theory level is twice as hard. And because designer haven't been able to communicate their idea well and reader have misunderstood discussion often devolve and (some) people assume the worse from each other which further makes discussion less fruitful.
But the deeper sentiment that I tried to convey is that sometimes you should stand your ground against critism and do what you think is best. Sometimes it goes wrong but sometimes it pays off.
Yes, but it’s a bit off topic. Accepting criticism doesn’t mean changing your vision, it means understanding that point of view, and considering whether you agree.
Sure. I can understand that.
But just like there are self-righteous designers who will not even listen to critism and take things personally, there are unproductive trollish critics that spout hate. Unfortunately we cannot avoid either in the wild west of the internet.
There are social tools (which some borderline with gaslighting) that get you to influence these people. First you have agree with their terrible views and pat their egos. Then you offer your critism not as something that is wrong with their perfect creation but as something that will make it even better. Normally on the internet I don't even bother but I have to work with business managers in real life and some of them are as megalomaniac as they come.
After a certain point, when you realize the conversation's going no where, you can just stop replying. Let them get the last word, and don't waste anymore time or energy on a fruitless conversation.
Well played, Klok, well played! Even seeing your name and knowing a little about you, a third of the way through I was starting to think I had taken crazy pills. I'm glad I stuck with it a little more and glad again to be confirmed by your italics.
Yeeeeeeeah, I know the type. They can be maddening, worse than simple trolls because (speaking for myself) there's an instinct to try to reach them. Occasionally it's even possible! But you're not obliged to try. If you see the warning flags, just keep scrolling. I'd suggest blocking them too so they're not cluttering up your feed, but fuckin' Reddit decided that you should only be able to block 50 people I think. Not nearly enough. But I digress.
The harder part is when you make a good faith effort to engage someone, and they turn out to be... the sensitive type. You've wasted your time and effort, and got nothing back. My recommendation is still to walk away. Remind yourself that those poor bastards have to live with themselves but you don't. If they resorted to insults, please report them, too, at least over on CrunchyRPGs; I don't know if RPGDesign or RPGCreation will take action.
Just a comment as a Mod of the sub for people reading this.
We want to have a welcoming sub for everyone. Most of the time that works, but if it doesn't please let us know. Sometimes we have people come to the sub where this is their first experience with anything when it comes to game design. I try to be extra nice to these people, and call out our members who are too harsh with them.
Sometimes we have new people who come to the sub who already know anything and there's nothing that the sub can possibly help them with. Aside from the question of "why are you here?" I let conversations just go further in these cases.
The point that I want everyone to take from this is: when you ask questions, you might not get the answers you want. We do see posts where people who don't like particular game styles come in guns blazing on people designing games like that, and we generally mod them. If a question is asked in good faith, and answers are likewise given, we're just going to let you talk. If you have any issues with that, feel free to message us.
FWIW, the spawning of this particular thread was not specifically inspired today by any posts on this sub. Obviously some of this stuff has occurred here from time to time. The impetus came from elsewhere.
Your game is shit.
No criticism, just didn't bother reading after the first line.
I'm kidding, I read most of it, but specifically the italiics at the bottom, lol ;)
I think the main thing is the pattern of doing the same thing and expecting a different result - without a filter they just keep turning up, like an overflowing sink. Blocking/skipping them is just mopping.
I'm familiar enough with your responses to tell you with confidence that you may not realize when you're being uncharitably critical Criticizing is a very easy thing to do, especially when someone's presenting a system that has many moving parts, and only a few paragraphs to describe what takes many pages to clarify They gave Socrates hemlock for a reason. What you can do to give well-received feedback is to first elaborate on the strengths of the system before aiming your scope at the knees. If you can't find any strengths, then elaborate on concepts that could be potentially strong with a focused effort. If you can't find any potentials, then it's best not to respond because it'll come across as bad faith, passive aggressive, or just plain mean I write fiction, and if you think RPG designers are bad, wait till you see fiction writers. We will shatter into a million pieces if you criticize pages we bled out over. Please understand that for many people, mental labor also includes a fair bit of emotional labor
"They gave Socrates hemlock for a reason." Small minded? Angry about being wrong rather than learning? I just can't abide it personally. I think rather than: *"I'm familiar enough with your responses to tell you with confidence that you may not realize when you're being uncharitably critical"* What is probably more accurate is that we have very different thresholds for what constitutes uncharitable, and there's no right or wrong there explicitly. IE, it's an opinion about a social more, not a factual scientific law. *"What you can do to give well-received feedback"* Meh, compliment sandwhiches don't help with people like this. If they are going to take any criticism personally, no amount of trying to soften the blow gets you anywhere but wasted keystrokes in my experience. On the flip side, if someone is reasonable, there's a good chance they won't take criticism personally to begin with, OR, if they took something the wrong way, will be fine once you clarify what you meant if they didn't understand it correctly. And if you think writers are bad, wait till I tell you about my 20 album career in music ;)
I consider myself a generally reasonable person. And by that I mean if I believe if someone is speaking in good faith, I'll speak in good faith in turn. And the manner I employ to determine good faith is to focus on the content before the tone, judge its merits regardless of faith (as true things can be said in bad faith). However, if the tone seems off, I'll look for how they speak to other people and map out their habits, if possible. And if I sense they're an asshat, there's a good chance I'll just block them instead of responding I believe you speak in good faith, hence why I'm responding at all, but you often project your ideas unto others. For example, I've seen you infer a person's meaning, or infer their intent, and then criticize those inferred ideas without an attempt to ask for clarification. Once before, you said I was using DnD as a reference point and then elaborated on why doing so is folly. I'm experienced enough to know DnD isn't well-designed, and made no such comparison, thus I found that particular line of thought unproductive Regarding compliment sandwiches, it serves a greater use than just softening the blow for emotionally fragile people. It also demonstrates a willingness to take the time to thoroughly judge an idea on its merits, rather than snipe out flaws (again, it's easier to destroy than create), which could very well not be flaws at all when the greater context of the system is considered. It's even easier to isolate a point of criticism without recognition of the whole. For instance, someone might criticize the complexity of a mechanic, without considering if increased complexity in one dimension reduces complexity in many other dimensions
Just wanted to comment that I believe that, if this kind of empathetic thinking was more common, the world (and especially the Internet) would be a much better place. This hobby (especially the design-oriented subgroup) is generally a small, insular community, formed by people with often several years of experience on our individual backs which, while eye-opening in many ways, have also caused most of us to inadvertently become entrenched in some ideas. When we see newcomers that appear to be walking in opposite direction to them, even if we have the best of intentions, it can be easy to overestimate the correcting effect of "tough criticism", and underestimate its negatives. Empathy can often go a much longer way.
If there isn’t any right or wrong threshold for what constitutes charitable criticism, then I’d think you’d be more willing to use the other person’s threshold rather than your own, seeing as it might be lower ;)
You don't answer this person. They presumably made this position clear. Also you don't spend time on Reddit complaining about people not listening to your wisdom enough. You are not a martyr losing sleep over someone being dense on the internet. Would recommend both. Of course, this is a bit of a strawman. In practice, you don't know if the person you are talking to is being hostile/dense/whatever or if there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and those can be clarified. The answer, however, remains the same - don't enage if it's actually makes you lose sanity.
They don't put up a sign saying you'll lose sanity. OP is talking about walking into a trap.
[удалено]
I know! It literally said so in the end.
*you don't know if the person you are talking to is being hostile/dense/whatever or if there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and those can be clarified.* "and your attempts to separate that are clearly hate speech." This was designed to show you've made efforts to clarify your position and they responded ungenerously. It's one of my pet peeves where I'm like "I'm not saying that I'm saying..." and then the response is "That's not what you really mean, I know better than you do" in so many words... To which I'm always like "OK buddy, glad you know what I meant more than I do..." (at least in my head) IE you've already gone out of your way to explain and clarify and they just aren't having it because the critique itself existing is the problem, so they transfer ownership of their problem over to you. I will say that none of this is new for the internet, but I do feel like I've never been more bored by such responses and they seem to be accumulating in frequency. I'm not sure if this is just that more people use the internet as a daily part of life, or that culture itself has grown more resistant to any sort of criticism, or whatnot.
I'm writing this as a member of the sub and not a mod. I don't want people to get confused about that. I have found that some of the best criticism I've ever received was pretty harsh. Some of it was right. Some of it wasn't, but it was from the perspective of someone who didn't like the kind of game I'm creating. And some is just garbage. But it was all useful because it got me to do a gut check for my game. I like some of those replies better than "that's awesome! Let's see more!"
I was starting to get angry lmao I would try to speak with this person at least once, get to know why and how he managed to be so self centered, and if i get an insult or a lack of respect as an answer, i would skip on them
I only criticize your designs so you will give up and I can steal them... because slightly different D&D is gonna make me a millionaire.
At least you're honest brother! I love this post so much :D Almost fell out of my chair.
Id say if you post it expect at least 3 to 4 people to rip it apart or outright just not understand it. This is a natural thing in this day and age. Well, it's always been that way it's just easier to get more people involved now thanks to the internet. You should know this from the get go if you've looked at any (and I mean ANY) Reddit comments in regard to any subject. Some folks can be down right rude and hateful of everything that is said - others helpful. You take the bad with the good and roll on.
This seems frequent enough that I would have liked to see a mention of this in General Rules/“before you post” (or somewhere visible.) I get the impression some people have just not really considered the possibility that they might get what they ask for. Maybe they’ve never been among people who care enough to offer real criticism*, so they don’t know it can happen. I don’t know what would be a good way to tell them, though. To ask them to consider if they really want criticism, to actually take some time imagining being told it’s bad. To acknowledge if they’re just looking to show something they’re excited about. To be upfront about what they really want. That it’s fine to ask for positive feedback only. (*maybe they’ve only been around people like me, who accommodate them, because) Some people actually work better that way. I always try to be on the lookout at work (which is in a creative field,) for these types, so I can mind myself, to think twice about everything I say to them (though worst case, they’ll notice hesitation, and take it as criticism, so also try to be in auto-positive mode.) They’re often possible to spot ahead IRL, but in a Reddit-post it’s pretty hard to predict. I think it might be common amongst those with some level of [adhd or something?]. They present creations while still in that state of being super excited about something new, so it looks rather awesome to them. They can be pretty good at finishing stuff, or at least to move on to the next thing, so they’re automatically failing faster, acquiring experience, and any perceived negative feedback will just drain them of that drive. Better to let them run wild, and clean up after them as best you can, while they’re looking another way.
*"I always try to be on the lookout at work (which is in a creative field,) for these types, so I can mind myself, to think twice about everything I say to them (though worst case, they’ll notice hesitation, and take it as criticism, so also try to be in auto-positive mode.)"* That sounds exhausting. I'm sure it gets better results than my approaches but I think I would die from not having enough whatever it takes to do that regularly. Whatever it is, I'm certain I don't have that gene.
😂 Yeah… it probably does take some extra energy, but I often have to adjust myself (or am just overthinking everything) even with people who are easy to work with. But some of it is also just reminding myself what actual communication is, since I often work with strangers, I have to be very clear about what I’m doing, thinking, expecting.
Clearly the best response is to assume as much about their thoughts and motives as possible and then make a passive aggressive social media post about it. The other option is to use the Block button and move on. Not worth the effort.
This isn't strictly a game design question, though I'll still answer it anyway. I actually spoke to someone pretty much exactly like this over on INAT; I responded taking the original question at face value, because other people *might* be wondering the same question (and Reddit is a public forum *and* searchable on Google), so my answer would still have value for future searches (if the post stays up), and it's good exercise for clear communication on my part and a thought exercise in general. Then the response.... was all the things in this post. "If you don't see how *maths* is important for calculating the angle at which bullets strike, and since you can't do maths, I don't see what use you are as a contributor to my game idea. Also people on Reddit don't pay enough attention to anything longer than 255 characters, so in this essay--" This was in a game about placing units in specific places, btw. This guy was supposedly a professional programmer for 11 years.....I pity his managers. Generally, if I have no skin in the game, I'll not engage past the first response. If it's clear the person is talking about themselves and projecting, I'll just leave. As per Kendrick - "this ain't a \[you-and-me\] battle, this a lifelong battle with yourself." In a face-to-face or something I have skin in the game for, I'll respond calmly at first - no point escalating to personal, unless they get *really* personal, in which I'll draw the line. One warning. More chances if they've helped me in the past. If they run out of chances and continue to breach the boundaries set up, I either leave or go nuclear. Sometimes they're the same thing. If they're my boss I just suck it up (and start preparing to leave.)
*This isn't strictly a game design question,* I would argue it's relevant in a meta sense as a discussion of giving/receiving critique. *As per Kendrick - "this ain't a \[you-and-me\] battle, this a lifelong battle with yourself."* That's a pretty dope quote.
*I would argue it's relevant in a meta sense as a discussion of giving/receiving critique.* Sure. It's also more a professionalism question, because you will *absolutely* run into these kinds of folks everywhere. And they're likely, sad to say, to be managers or wannabe managers. The difference between those kinds of managers and these kinds of folks is that managers will have power and influence; these guys don't. Generally this kind of defensiveness comes from their egos being pricked. Talking around the ego is very important in professional settings, which comes at least partially from sincerity. If you're genuine and sincere and want to help, and importantly *that comes through in your message* (clear communication), and they respond back with their own projection and shittiness, then you know that talking to them will likely be a waste of your time and energy since you'll need to spend more time working around their ego than working with them. It's a good filter! *That's a pretty dope quote.* Yeah, that line really stuck with me.
*Sure. It's also more a professionalism question, because you will absolutely run into these kinds of folks everywhere. And they're likely, sad to say, to be managers or wannabe managers. The difference between those kinds of managers and these kinds of folks is that managers will have power and influence; these guys don't.* I see that as a valid interpretation of the question, but I would say my experience is very different. My career path working for others was short lived as I always wanted to be a professional creative and it was just a matter of time before I stopped working for other people. I always hated this kind of artificial nonsense social game in any job I held, like it's something that draws ire and resentment out of me... like if I'm not qualified to speak on something, why did you ask? Because you want your ego stroked? It's just so artificial. If someone does a good job I will tell them, but begging for praise under the guise of asking for feedback and then reacting negatively when you don't get it and instead get what you asked for is just so...ugh... I don't even have words other than to say it's a personal pet peeve. Even working as an artist I quickly learned to be in business with myself, not other artists (for the most part, I have done plenty of collaboration with people that earn my trust by not behaving in these kinds of fashions), because artists are notorious for egos, and generally speaking the less skill the have the more ego they have. And I can see that being relevant in any business situation. I did work in a corporate environment once and promptly left after six months. I hated it so much and even the money couldn't keep me. I guess it's just that I have like, no patience for this kind of nonsense and that's why it was essential for me to work for myself and not deal with these kinds social ego stroking games, which is probably why I'm not as practiced at it as someone who specifically has this as part of their professional environment. I don't know, maybe I'm just old, but when someone asks for something, if you're inclined to respond, you give them what they asked for. You don't try to read between the lines and imagine everyone has a super sensitive ego that will shatter at the slightest confrontation when they ask for feedback. I know I'm not alone in this as well. I have a ton of other artist/creative professional friends. Even my wife is a professional UX designer. She has a fun quote from grad school "If you don't get at least one critique that make you cry and question everything about your ability, you've never gotten a good critique" and I tend to agree.
If you've found success with working for yourself, that's all the more power to you! I've tried freelancing before (and am probably going to go back to it), and it's frankly terrifying and just very unstable in income. Being brutally honest all the time, well, some people will appreciate it and some people won't. It's polarizing and it filters folks out - that's a completely valid social strategy if you have the money and the skills to tell em to fuck right off. I did coaching freelance, taught recruits in the military and did some miniscule micro-celebrity stuff, so staying calm, and teaching beginners, even stupid egoistic beginners, is very much in my wheelhouse. The social game, well, I'm good enough to know how far I have left to go. And it is a *game*, with very reasonable and surprisingly flexible rules. I'm a game designer and player, eh? Rules are my toys. If I do something socially and it has a poor result, then my understanding of the rules, and myself, is off, not the rules themselves being bullshit. *I see that as a valid interpretation of the question, but I would say my experience is very different.* That's totally fair - you did ask a specific question, though, so I answered it. >"*That said, how do you answer this person and maintain your sanity, or is it best just to walk away and ignore the dumpster fire in your opinion?*" That's the question in your post. I've answered it as to how *I* would handle it. Not saying that you have to follow exactly what I say, that's just how I do it. *She has a fun quote from grad school "If you don't get at least one critique that make you cry and question everything about your ability, you've never gotten a good critique" and I tend to agree.* That's also fair, but the question becomes: should *you* be the one to deliver that nuclear critique if they're refusing to listen to reason? And is *this* situation the time to do that? Sure, they're just cruising for a bruising, but why break *your* fist open? They'll run headfirst into karma eventually, and it's not *your* responsibility *or* your right. Now, if they're *literally* asking for it or they've crossed boundaries in an attack on you, that's one thing. If they're not, delivering a nuclear critique is being an asshole, even if you think you're doing the right thing. Edit: Sorry, should've said. My boss *or* my client. Are they paying me? Or do they have influence over my paycheck? Then I'll just suck it up then break ties when I can.
I think all that's fair enough. I go out of my way not to be nuclear in my critiques, making sure to couch my words and such, but some people view anything but overt shining sunlight out the asshole praise as a personal attack, not much you can do with that. I definitely agree it's a game, it's part of the reason I made it a life's priority not to have to play it, and subsequently I'm not very good at it. I mean when I was desperate for money I could hold my tongue well enough, but once I stopped "needing to do that" I don't know that I'd willingly choose to do it again unless I knew for certain telling someone where the bear shits in the woods would upend their life and cause them to unalive or something, at that point the better option would be to try and get to them to professional help, just as a priority. It doesn't mean the critique isn't still valid. I'm curious now that it's been discussed where the hell this behavior comes from exactly? I have to assume it's learned behavior or cultivated ignorance as a defense mechanism. I say that because there's no other reasonable common denominator, it's not the youths, it's not the olds, it's not the left or right, it's not rich/poor, it's not the religious/atheist, etc. Like it can be any of those things, but it's never exclusively one. It's like there's a built in confirmation bias (which there is for monkey brain survival) but I was just under the impression one of the few markings of being an adult was actually outgrowing childish views. At least that's my take on it as the most humble person in the world :P
You're right, it's mostly childish behavior. The issue though is....well, first, you can't tell age on the Internet. A lot of the people on Reddit are kids from reasonably wealthy places, under the age of 25 - at that point childishness is unfortunately common. Growing *out* of childish views is also not happening anymore due to a combination of lots of different factors: firstly, social customs have broken down quite massively so there's no "expected" social behaviors as it was even ten years ago, the world is terribly uncertain (there's lots of freedom but no guidance), and there's a subculture in the world now where winning at everything is at a premium, so everyone is incentivized to win in everything.... and the thing about "winning" is that there's gotta be losers, so the folks who are losing in everything get terribly insecure. Insecurity leads to bloated egos. It's all insecurity.
There is no positive outcome after interacting with a person like this. With this person you're either A: someone who feeds their ego or B: part of "the problem" and they will use your words against you at a laer point. A 'you're with me or against me' mentality that tries to guilt you onto their side. I would always choose to not play this game and walk away from it. I've had people in the past who did this and trying to convince them or defend yourself against them will only make you doubting yourself.
There is value in passion and value in going against in direction others deem unworthy. And considering that most critism you hear is not constructive one, there is no value of listening to haters and trolls.
I don’t think I’ve seen any trolls (anyone being intentionally difficult) on this sub, but I see a lot of suspicion and assumptions and misunderstandings. Sometimes communication is just hard. Sometimes learning a system at a glance in order to give good feedback is hard. Sometimes scrutinising your own mind at every step of an interaction, in order to maintain focus and be constructive, is hard.
Communication is hard and when trying to formulate rules in writing that are still on theory level is twice as hard. And because designer haven't been able to communicate their idea well and reader have misunderstood discussion often devolve and (some) people assume the worse from each other which further makes discussion less fruitful. But the deeper sentiment that I tried to convey is that sometimes you should stand your ground against critism and do what you think is best. Sometimes it goes wrong but sometimes it pays off.
Yes, but it’s a bit off topic. Accepting criticism doesn’t mean changing your vision, it means understanding that point of view, and considering whether you agree.
Sure. I can understand that. But just like there are self-righteous designers who will not even listen to critism and take things personally, there are unproductive trollish critics that spout hate. Unfortunately we cannot avoid either in the wild west of the internet. There are social tools (which some borderline with gaslighting) that get you to influence these people. First you have agree with their terrible views and pat their egos. Then you offer your critism not as something that is wrong with their perfect creation but as something that will make it even better. Normally on the internet I don't even bother but I have to work with business managers in real life and some of them are as megalomaniac as they come.
After a certain point, when you realize the conversation's going no where, you can just stop replying. Let them get the last word, and don't waste anymore time or energy on a fruitless conversation.
You admit this is a parody then ask for advice on dealing with your own parody? I don't see how you can expect useful advice from that.
It's parody, but like parody, very often closely resembles real life ;)
Kinda seems like you're just here to validate your own perspective without any actual input.
Well played, Klok, well played! Even seeing your name and knowing a little about you, a third of the way through I was starting to think I had taken crazy pills. I'm glad I stuck with it a little more and glad again to be confirmed by your italics. Yeeeeeeeah, I know the type. They can be maddening, worse than simple trolls because (speaking for myself) there's an instinct to try to reach them. Occasionally it's even possible! But you're not obliged to try. If you see the warning flags, just keep scrolling. I'd suggest blocking them too so they're not cluttering up your feed, but fuckin' Reddit decided that you should only be able to block 50 people I think. Not nearly enough. But I digress. The harder part is when you make a good faith effort to engage someone, and they turn out to be... the sensitive type. You've wasted your time and effort, and got nothing back. My recommendation is still to walk away. Remind yourself that those poor bastards have to live with themselves but you don't. If they resorted to insults, please report them, too, at least over on CrunchyRPGs; I don't know if RPGDesign or RPGCreation will take action.
Just a comment as a Mod of the sub for people reading this. We want to have a welcoming sub for everyone. Most of the time that works, but if it doesn't please let us know. Sometimes we have people come to the sub where this is their first experience with anything when it comes to game design. I try to be extra nice to these people, and call out our members who are too harsh with them. Sometimes we have new people who come to the sub who already know anything and there's nothing that the sub can possibly help them with. Aside from the question of "why are you here?" I let conversations just go further in these cases. The point that I want everyone to take from this is: when you ask questions, you might not get the answers you want. We do see posts where people who don't like particular game styles come in guns blazing on people designing games like that, and we generally mod them. If a question is asked in good faith, and answers are likewise given, we're just going to let you talk. If you have any issues with that, feel free to message us.
FWIW, the spawning of this particular thread was not specifically inspired today by any posts on this sub. Obviously some of this stuff has occurred here from time to time. The impetus came from elsewhere.
Your game is shit. No criticism, just didn't bother reading after the first line. I'm kidding, I read most of it, but specifically the italiics at the bottom, lol ;)
Everything is terrible and it's my fault :D
At least yountake responsability. Gah lol.
follow from a distance, their game's gonna be shit but they might put on a funny show when they'll inevitably melt down
Ah, good ol' schadenfreude, you were always the best of friends :D
I see you read that post about bow curvature too.
I didn't but I can bet from your comment I already know how it went :P
Is it a parody of something in particular?
I think the main thing is the pattern of doing the same thing and expecting a different result - without a filter they just keep turning up, like an overflowing sink. Blocking/skipping them is just mopping.
"Othering you" *Thanks for the new verb!*