As some of you may know, GamingReport.com gave me a less than glowing review. In fact, they were savage.

This is not the end in itself -- there will be other reviews, and some reviewers will like my game. But a problem has arose. FUDGE gamers seem to be an insular lot, and they seem to have latched onto that negative review to dismiss my efforts completely. On the FUDGE mailing list, I am being roasted over to coals by people who have not even read my book. One even deliberately misspelled the title to make his point -- that I somehow did not belong.

A bad review I can understand, but this sort of behavior I cannot. I want to control the effects of the bad press I've gotten but at the same time I don;t want to make things worse with people who should be part of my core auidence.

By the way, I don't think the game deserved all the criticism it recieved in that particular review. It's better than that, and I think it deserves to be bouight and played.

By the way, I don't think the game deserved all the criticism it recieved in that particular review.
It's better than that, and I think it deserves to be bouight and played.

At Origins, I went to a seminar called "How To Publish a Game!" It was run by Mike Williams of Living Room Games. I remember specifically him saying," Any press is good press." He was quoting someone else, whom I can remember.

Anyway, he said that you can't please everyone and that you shouldn't even try. You should thank them for writing a scathing review of your game. People will be more interested in taking a look at it to see for themselves.

Hello,

I agree with Mike Williams - all reviews are promotion.

I have seen multiple examples of people trying to defend themselves or their product/performance after a negative review, and it's always disastrous. The only option is to take the high ground: "Thanks for reviewing the game." Even if there are glaring errors and misunderstandings all through the review. Even if the review is demonstrably wrong.

It is absolute suicide to regard any mention of (in this case) your game as a gauntlet thrown down for you. There is no winning in that situation; all people have to do is be snotty and unreasonable, and they automatically win. Furthermore, such behavior is contagious - others, perceiving that if they weigh in on the side of the snotty person then they will win too, will join in with great fervor.

More generally, all small social groups consider themselves to represent Everyone. This is endemic in mailing lists or on-line discussion groups, especially - "We all think ..." they say, in some kind of assurance that they speak for the whole user/customer community. The important thing to recognize about this phenomenon is that it is short-lived. In another month, they will have some other chicken to peck, and some few of the people involved will sidle up and be interested in your work after all. They just couldn't say so at the time without being pecked themselves.

And even those individuals aren't that important. What really matters is that many other people are out there, plain old folks who (a) play or at least like Fudge and (b) have nothing to do with the list or review site at all.

Maybe I lost sales due to the few negative reviews of Sorcerer - I don't know. But I do know that I sold a bunch of copies to tons of people at GenCon last year who'd never heard of it before. So arguably, I "lost" nothing at all.

I've seen the promo copy of Heartquest. I don't know how it plays yet, and I don't know how its writing communicates its mission. But I do think it's a great idea and I think Fudge, as a meta-entity, will only benefit from more diverse ways of play being associated with it.

Best,
Ron

Chris Passeno wrote: At Origins, I went to a seminar called "How To Publish a Game!" It was run by Mike Williams of Living Room Games. I remember specifically him saying," Any press is good press." He was quoting someone else, whom I can remember.

Anyway, he said that you can't please everyone and that you shouldn't even try. You should thank them for writing a scathing review of your game. People will be more interested in taking a look at it to see for themselves.

Ok, so I read this review...

I wouldn't say it was savage...some of the typos he pointed out were pretty blatant and really should have been caught. The nice thing about small print runs and PDF distribution is that you can fix them.

I know with Universalis I had to proof the game myself because the outside editor I'd reserved bowed out. After sending the "final draft" to Matt, I caught over 100 more errors...some significant. Mike proofed it too, he only caught 6...but 5 of 'em were ones I had missed. After I got the next "final" version I caught nearly 100 more. When I see the final book...there will probably be several that will have me knashing my teeth...oh well, I ran out of time and options. Next time I'll be sure to have alternate editors lined up in advance.

Now if there are really lines that say "there are 4 varieties" but then only offer two and the like...frankly those should have been caught. A reviewer pointing them out isn't being savage, he's saying (and rightfully so) that they should have been caught BEFORE asking people to pay money for the book. But its too late to cry over spilt milk.

Its lemonade from lemons time. Instead of being steamed at a savage review, you should be sending him a very complimentary, enthusiastic, gratefull email thanking him for his time and commentary. It NOT an opportunity for excuses or explainations its a time to ask powerful questions like:

"I see you only gave HeartQuest 2 stars and I read in your review some of the reasons why. I'm now working on a revised edition of the game, what can I do to make the game worth 4 or 5 stars in your mind"

or

"Much of your review focused on editorial and layout problems with the presentation. I know we have some real weaknesses there right now that we're working on improving. Since you were able to give such an honest appraisal of that aspect of HeartQuest, I'd like to ask you your opinion on the game itself. What did you think of....<insert pertinent game issue that you're particularly proud of here>"

In other words, make a friend and an ally and someone who has a vested interest in following your progress, not an enemy who already has plenty of ammunition to use against you if he were so inclined...your mission...to unincline him.

Defensive: bad.
Excuses: bad.
Sob stories: bad.
Taking the lumps when you deserve them with a stiff upper lip: good
Sincere gratitude for his honest and objective commentary: good
Encouraging him to focus on the aspects of the game he liked: good.

That said, the number of potential customers who've seen the review is a tiny fraction of the number of potential customers who'll be at GenCon. So don't let it bring you down at the Con.

As far as the Fudge forum goes...fuhgit about it. Nasty troll like organisms infesting an internet forum...go figure.

I fail to see how any Fudge forum or mailing list can be raking you over the coals. What I gleaned from the review was that the reviewer didn't like the Fudge system, and that's hardly your fault. The way I see it, the insular Fudge community should have your back...

The editing is your fault. I haven't seen HeartQuest yet, so maybe it's not as bad as it sounds. Even so, gamers are (sadly) acclimated to this I think, and are willing to forgive quite a lot. As Ralph points out, all of this can be fixed.

And anyway, typos happen to the best of us. Charnel Gods is going to have mistakes in it, despite my best efforts (the efforts of Paul, Ron, and my wife). Shit happens.

- Scott

Michael,
You need to stop stressing over all this. The review wasn't that bad. I didn't read once where the guy said "this game sucks" or "don't buy this game". In fact:

Overall, it seems to be a relatively decent system

Chapter 2 outlines the rules for creating supernormal powers, which require a certain amount of description and work with the game master. This section of rules is nicely segregated from the main character creation since not all games in this genre use these sorts of powers.

HeartQuest makes a nice attempt to provide a general basis for running shoujo manga games.

I would recommend that you provide a way to download a sample of the game on your website.

I believe most roleplayers will read a review, download your sample, then make up their own mind about the product. Every roleplayer I know does this.

As far as your sample goes, I would recommend it be something that really captures the flavor of your specific product. I would also recommend that you stay away from long pieces of fiction, although including short pieces of flavor text should be fine.

Roy

Michael Hopcroft wrote: As some of you may know, GamingReport.com gave me a less than glowing review. In fact, they were savage.

Michael Hopcroft wrote: This is not the end in itself -- there will be other reviews, and some reviewers will like my game. But a problem has arose. FUDGE gamers seem to be an insular lot, and they seem to have latched onto that negative review to dismiss my efforts completely. On the FUDGE mailing list, I am being roasted over to coals by people who have not even read my book. One even deliberately misspelled the title to make his point -- that I somehow did not belong.

A reading recommendation: How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. It's available in book form, but I listened to it as an audio book one weekend while painting my house; possibly the easiest way to take it.

It has a reputation as a book for hard-sell pushy salesmen. I can tell you that it's full of good information for anybody who has to deal with other people. It has sections on dealing with the very situation you're finding yourself in, and how to turn it around.

Beg borrow or steal this book and devour it before going to GenCon. Get it on audio cassette and listen to it on the drive. You'll learn amazing things that will make the convention a lot better for you.

I got a pretty nasty review from a reviewer (now a moderator--ugh) of RPG.Net. The review was for our Horror adventure Season of Worms (for JAGS) and he missed the ENTIRE point (it was a one shot: he noted that you wouldn't "use it again," it was fairly unique in that it included a way to kill off all the PC's and still have fun (they get two characters at the start of the adventure) ... he missed that aspect ... etc.)

I was pissed but I accepted it. I didn't send him anything else to review (he said he didn't like the system). However:

We got what was for that month an all-time high number of hits on the day the reivew aired.

Bad reviews are, unfortunately, a hazard of the business. People (esp) on message boards are often thoughtless and nasty. The internet, in general, is pretty damn harsh.

My Advice: if you know someone is going to review your stuff ahead of time, contact them and offer to answer questions. Tell them you're proud of what you've done. Acknowledge flaws if you're aware of any up front. Let the reviewer know you're a real person with real feelings that'll be hurt if they're nasty.

After that, all you can do is hope--but it took us almost a year to get a review in GamingReport--and to date there've only been two--so you're ahead of the curve there.

Good luck. I know it can be rough.

-Marco

Well, soem good has come out of this whole thing. Another reviewer sent me a draft of HIS review, and it inspired me when he pointed out that there was no section on online play in HeartQuest.

Now this is not unusual -- very feww RPGs have actual sections on online play (I think Guardians' SAS is the first one I've seen). But HeartQuest is such a very strong candidate for online play that it seems in hindsight a glaring omission.

Glaring ommissions should be corrected, and that's what supplements are for., So Seraphim gaurd has a new product waiting to be put on its schedule -- HeartQuest Online: Online Campaigning in the WSorlds of Shoujo manga. Hopefully I can bundle the PDF file with all the software players and GMs are going to need -- a few RPG Aid packages, die rollers, and the like -- so people can buy the supplement and play right away. I just wrote the introduction.

(If anyone has suggestions for things to add to this book, they would be very welcome at this stage! Especially from experienced online roleplayers and GMs.)

Michael,

If you can, dig up some issues of John Wick's Game Designer's Journal over on http://www.gamingoutpost.com You may have to register to access it. I'm sure that is John were around today and not off making computer games, he would admit that some of the stuff he did when dealing with criticism like what you've described is a perfect example of what not to do.

One thing in particular comes to mind. He was shown some of the harsh things some people were saying about 7th Sea. He contacted one guy who was being especially harsh on the newsgroup, asking his what his problem was. Nicely. The guy replied that he did that to see if he could get John to contact him and since he did, he would do that again in the future.

These people are just trying to get a rise out of you. That's all. Nothing else. Do not give it to them. It is better to simply ignore them or, if you have a thick skin, read it anyway and comment intelligently to intelligent questions or comments, ignoring the blatant trolls. But this is easier said than done and better to not even read it.

It is true, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe some people who would've otherwise given Heartquest a look won't because of the negative vibe on the mailing list. But plenty of people will have their curiousity peaked and give you a look when the would have otherwise never heard of you. "What is this thing that everyone hates so much?" they'll think.

I mean, is Spawn of Fashon, noted as being one of the worst games ever made, and that was probably on purpose, can enjoy a 20th anniversary printing, then you should be able to gain from the negativity, too.

Don't worry about all those chokers who think they're the Roger Ebert of RPGs. Everyone knows that Ebert is often full of it.

There's a new review up at rpg.net which seems a lot more flattering. Think of all the publicity you are getting. Now, you also have feedback for when you release the second edition.

Orkworld took some pretty nasty blows. That was my first experience with reviews on a product I'd worked on. But looking back I realize there were people with an axe to grind (particularly against John Wick).

Orkworld is really very good, not great and I could have done better art but there's some decent work in there. I've gotten over the mean spirited reviews.

Other stuff like Underworld, What's that smell, Tome of the Dragon and others have received a variety of different reactions. You learn to roll with the punches and get up to try again.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

I have seen multiple examples of people trying to defend themselves or their product/performance after a negative review, and it's always disastrous. The only option is to take the high ground: "Thanks for reviewing the game." Even if there are glaring errors and misunderstandings all through the review. Even if the review is demonstrably wrong.

It is absolute suicide to regard any mention of (in this case) your game as a gauntlet thrown down for you.