IFGS Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Society Discussion > 8.0 Rules Discussion
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Problems moving to 7.0

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
whaddon View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
William Haddon

Joined: 31 March 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 793
Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Problems moving to 7.0
    Posted: 06 November 2013 at 1:43pm
I barely remember the issues that cropped up moving from 6.8 to 7.0 but I do remember there were some issues.  

I remember there were a lot of people upset about not enough playtesting, and not enough feedback.  What do you remember?  What do you want to make sure happens moving towards 8.0?  
If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
Back to Top
Cedric View Drop Down
Society Sanctioning Committee
Society Sanctioning Committee


Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2013 at 9:42pm
One quick thing that I'd like to mention.  I'd be wary of what happened when DND when to 4.0.  At first it seemed like some of the changes were good (healing surges and the like) but in the end many felt like it was too MMOish.  This is a trap that I think I'd fall into if I were designing the next version of IFGS so it's probably something to be wary of.

Back to Top
Spencer View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
Spencer Corbin Lawson

Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1550
Post Options Post Options   Quote Spencer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2013 at 8:45am
Early buy in was not there from DB in particular, the FRC was told that DB was not even going to accept 7.0 at all and actually snapped up all of the 6.5 rulebooks. The comments we got were "you taking too much of person skill out of the game" read no test archery and reduce lock. Also there was a call that we took too much risk out of the system, which I do not know what that was about.

The MILL rule was mixed in reaction.

I do not remember any problems with playtesting, we had 6.95 out for 2 or 3 seasons which we used to create the final 7.0. Personally I will laugh at anyone that says that there was not enough feedback available to the FRC. Between the forums and direct email all members had direct access to the FRC to give their opinions. Did the FRC take all suggestions no but the FRC did consider everything that came in.

The biggest take away I got from the process is that the FRC will need to publish more of the thought process so the process is as transparent as possible.


Edited by Spencer - 07 November 2013 at 8:46am
Spencer Corbin Lawson - PNW Member"It looks like they used the tried and true combat tactic of hiding behind the MU." Camille Graves
Back to Top
whaddon View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
William Haddon

Joined: 31 March 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 793
Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2013 at 3:23pm
Great feedback.  I think, this time, some of the impetus is actually coming from DB, so that shouldn't be a problem.  If anything, I worry that we don't have the branches and representatives in Dallas to promote this and to get good feedback there.  One of our early steps needs to be to find a representative in each Chapter to act as an 8.0 liaison.

From what I saw in DB, it was definitely a communication issue.  Some very vocal people had some really bad assumptions about 7.0 and specifically about the archery system, and once those got talked through (admittedly after 7.0 had already been out a while) it seemed to get better.  All the people who swore they would never play in a 7.0 game have now played in a number of 7.0 games.


If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
Back to Top
Ray M. View Drop Down
Denver/Boulder Board Member
Denver/Boulder Board Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ray M. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2013 at 8:34pm
I would offer three things to consider ...
   Foster better communications and transparency with the project
   Consciously seek outreach to and feedback from the membership
   As a committee, avoid the pitfalls of "Groupthink"   (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)

  • Better communication definitely will help. Hearing you mention the liaisons is a great idea I think.

    • Consult with people who know and love to play specific classes. Example: Nobody knows what would be cool for a Knight to do better than somebody who has spent years playing one. Likewise, nobody understands the weaknesses and imbalances of a class better than the people who play the class.

    • Involve the membership more through pollings, forum discussions, etc. Before even starting work on v8.0 ... get a sense of what people are looking for and hoping for.

    • Write a "Mission" statement ... what are the rules trying to accomplish? What are the intended "fixes" that will be targeted? Why are you going through all that work to write a new version anyway? Having this to refer back to once the committee is up to their eyelashes in work will help you stay on track to your original intentions.

    • Publicize this mission statement ... if people know what you are trying to accomplish they know how to better give feedback. Transparency in change does a lot to help people accept the change.

    • Playtest ... playtest ... playtest!
      Don't just put the rules out there and invite people to try them ... many writers have too much invested into their game to want to risk it on untested rules; or to risk losing people who might be turned off at the idea of having to study a new set of rules.
      Specifically commission games that will test specific parts of the rules. Make sure any playtest game includes a follow-up survey.

    • Do not work on a deserted island! Involve the other game-involved committees. Example: There are discrepancies between the 7.0 rulebook and some committee policies. It is tough to chair a committee and try to enforce policy, only to have somebody say, "but the rulebook says ..." and it is contradictory.

    • Remember to be receptive to people who give their ideas ... even if they seem like "dumb" ideas. Do not be defensive against considering some new idea that you may not have considered. It can be an easy trap for a group to "put the blinders on" when trying to finish a task, intent on their vision of the finished product; and to reject out of hand any idea that is outside of their conceptual box. But sometimes those are the ideas that should be considered hardest ... even if it means needing to re-adjust your vision. Again, look up "Groupthink" ... and avoid it!

    • Beyond just being receptive to feedback, remember to appreciate the feedback and to grant the person giving it due respect; whether you decide to incorporate the feedback or not. Nothing will turn peoples' stomachs against an idea faster than giving them a sense of hypocrisy. Saying that you are looking for feedback, but not really seeking it or wanting it.


    Back to Top
    whaddon View Drop Down
    Society Fantasy Rules Committee
    Society Fantasy Rules Committee
    Avatar
    William Haddon

    Joined: 31 March 2009
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 793
    Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2013 at 9:11pm
    FANTASTIC.  Ray, this is exactly the kind of thoughtful advice I was hoping for.

    I need to understand Groupthink better.

    To me, the two things that really jump out the most here are the need for a public Roadmap (Mission Statement) and the transparency.  So many people want this to be a well communicated process, and that, I think, will be the most rewarding and most challenging part of the process.  It has not been something that IFGS traditionally does well.
    If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
    Back to Top
    whaddon View Drop Down
    Society Fantasy Rules Committee
    Society Fantasy Rules Committee
    Avatar
    William Haddon

    Joined: 31 March 2009
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 793
    Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 November 2013 at 11:40am
    I wanted to post some advice that Patrick McGhearty gave the FRC on this issue.  Posted with permission:

    General advice:
    You can't please ever please everyone. Your best bet is to
    get clear direction and work towards a consensus for what
    the goals of the revision are. If you can agree on a public
    statement of your goals, that would also be helpful.

    I will be surprised if everyone who voted for version 8.0
    has the same desires for where they want the rules to go.
    Maybe your play-testing of rules variations has been helpful
    in shaping such a consensus.  If so, I encourage some of DB
    to talk to ECO and Dallas leaders personally to see if they
    might be willing to run a play test event or two in their
    chapters. Getting local leaders involved is critical to
    getting their chapters to feel invested in the process.
    And if they do volunteer to run that event, try to get
    some of those working with the new rules to be present
    and hear people's feedback. That will also make a big
    difference in eventual acceptance of rules 8.0.

    I hope to avoid getting into specifics. As a general
    goal, I hope that existing characters will be able
    to be adaptable to the new rules and able to maintain
    continuing back stories. I'll speak in the first person
    to make my examples more tangible, but the following could
    apply to any of our existing active members. I have
    about a dozen characters and it can be many years before
    I play some of them. I might even have a period in my life
    where I'm less active in IFGS, but then am considering
    coming back to be more active. If, when I come back,
    the characters that I've put many years of playing time
    can't be recognized under the new system, I will be much
    less likely to return. If I have to be a rules geek
    to understand the new system and play effectively,
    I'll be less likely to return.  If I can have someone
    skim over my magic list and tell me how to fix it
    and then give me a quick brief on how damage/defense
    has changed and then let me go have fun, I probably
    can be convinced to come back. Much of success of a new
    rules version is in the attitudes of the chapter leaders.
    If they are hostile, the chapter as a whole will drag
    their feet. If they are supportive, the chapter will
    accept the rules.  Conclusion: be sure you get buy
    in from chapter leaders at all chapters. And by
    leaders, I don't just mean whoever happens to be
    President this year. Getting buyin will take having
    an active member on the FRC from every active chapter
    or at from someone who's known to the leaders of
    every active chapter.
    If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.64 [Free Express Edition]
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz