Report To The Stakeholders

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

That's pretty much what I was talking about in my post - the folks who dislike munchkin enough to see a thread on SJG's stakeholders report, and then go post on it about how Munchkin sucks. That's active enough for me. And I just don't see the point of doing so.

To be honest, it doesn't surprise or even annoy me unduly. The point is that Munchkin and a lot of other games are all part of a fairly coherent "games hobby", and people in that hobby tend to have likes and dislikes, some of them strong. And while ranting about your dislikes isn't terribly healthy, it's pretty common among hobbyist types. They can even argue quite coherently that they don't want their clubs and conventions taken over by X, making it harder to get a game or whatever of something else, or that they don't want their hobby represented to the public at large by something they consider inferior. And sometimes it's just plain "Oh for pete's sake not that again!" exasperation.

If there was a separate "Munchkin hobby", chasing discussion of that down to make "Munchkin sux" posts would just be trolling. But Munchkin isn't a Games Workshop wargame.

[David Johansen]

Of course, GURPS and Munchkin could both be taken as long geek diatribes against D&D...

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by David Johansen

Of course, GURPS and Munchkin could both be taken as long geek diatribes against D&D...

GURPS would count as an unusually constructive one. (A critique, not a diatribe.) Munchkin is aimed a little too well at people who play D&D enthusiastically, but don't want anyone to think that they really don't see what might be considered silly in it. It's a bit of a minor masterpiece of having your cake and eating it for a lot of the market.

[Palmer]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

That's pretty much what I was talking about in my post - the folks who dislike munchkin enough to see a thread on SJG's stakeholders report, and then go post on it about how Munchkin sucks. That's active enough for me. And I just don't see the point of doing so.

In the case of BGG, the whole thing came up in the Board Game NEWS section, which a huge number of dedicated/active users of BGG have a subscription to.
It's not like people went hunting that post. It came to them.

That being said, there are a large number of people on BGG who, if Munchkin comes up in a thread, will take some time out to flame it a bit.

That, to me, qualifies as "active dislike".

Then again, to me, actively avoiding something also qualifies as an active dislike. Dislike isn't "aggressive behaviour", avoidance is just as much a property of dislike as trash talk or evangelism. Taking steps to avoid exposure is an active measure against a dislike.

[Alden Loveshade]

As of right now, SJ Games Discussion has exactly 1,000 threads.

What does that have to do with this discussion? Um, er, I'm making a report about it to the Stakeholders. Yeah, that's it.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

To be honest, it doesn't surprise or even annoy me unduly. The point is that Munchkin and a lot of other games are all part of a fairly coherent "games hobby", and people in that hobby tend to have likes and dislikes, some of them strong. And while ranting about your dislikes isn't terribly healthy, it's pretty common among hobbyist types. They can even argue quite coherently that they don't want their clubs and conventions taken over by X, making it harder to get a game or whatever of something else, or that they don't want their hobby represented to the public at large by something they consider inferior. And sometimes it's just plain "Oh for pete's sake not that again!" exasperation.

If there was a separate "Munchkin hobby", chasing discussion of that down to make "Munchkin sux" posts would just be trolling. But Munchkin isn't a Games Workshop wargame.

Yeah. Gamers shouldn't forget it wasn't that long ago when the oldtimer war gamers wanted to fire their muskets at the new-fangled roleplayers, and even less long ago when the oldtimer roleplayers wanted to use their magic wands to lightning bolt the newfangled trading card players.

Yes, one type of game does take people away from another; but on the other hand, if it wasn't for newfangled stuff that inspires even more newfangled stuff there wouldn't be a GURPS or a Munchkin.

I still remember a Champions-fanatic who liked saying GURPS ripped that game off. I pulled out and opened my GURPS Basic and said, "See, it says Champions was an inspiration right there in the beginning of GURPS. It's no secret; Steve Jackson credits them right there."

It shut him up. Really, I felt like shutting him up by punching him in the mouth, but this method was less subject to prosecution.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Exactly. A pet peeve of mine is the misuse of "actively" as an intensifier for "dislike" equivalent to "very much" or "greatly." Active dislike means you take action against the object of your dislike – not only do you not engage or partake, but you object to others engaging or partaking, and move to deny them that opportunity. In the context of this thread, that would mean not merely "not playing Munchkin," but also discouraging others from playing Munchkin, writing letters to stores and distributors asking them not to carry Munchkin, and possibly writing "attack reviews" aimed at damaging Munchkin sales, even trumping up moral or legal charges against Munchkin.

There are very few things that I actively dislike, and just about all of them are criminal activities.

You seem to actively dislike people misusing "actively dislike", which isn't -- in any jurisdiction I'm aware of -- a criminal activity. ;)

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

You seem to actively dislike people misusing "actively dislike", which isn't -- in any jurisdiction I'm aware of -- a criminal activity. ;)

No Kromm called it a pet peeve not an active dislike. My post gave him an opening to talk about it. If it hadn't come up he probably would have done nothing about it, hense he wasn't active about it. Note he didn't ban the person for abuse of language ;)

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by niamh88

The report to the stakeholders is itself a big example of transparency. i must say

Yep. Especially when you consider there overly broad definition of stakeholders includes customers like us.

[Buzzardo]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Yep. Especially when you consider there overly broad definition of stakeholders includes customers like us.

"overly broad"? Nay, friend - entirely accurate. Steve understands that it's the folks who buy the games that pay the bills. Would that more companies thought in those terms.