A Rant, A permanent home for a pet peeve Options

[Ancient History]

T'be honest, playtesting is a mixed bag. The playtesters are rarely skilled at giving good feedback in a timely manner, and to be frank some of their responses are both difficult to read and insulting...I won't share some of the true gems with you, but trust me when I say they rank up to the worst things said on this board and then some. On top of that, few playtesters actually playtest - many of them just read the rules and never pick up a single die.

[Muspellsheimr]

On the topic of playtesters, how does one become a playtester?

[NightmareX]

Lack of criticism, in whatever form, is what killed TSR; and almost took the gaming standard of all RPG's, Dungeons and Dragons, down with it.

Particularly when combined with the public forum part. Doubly so for the most active part of that Active forum.

A) Starting a post in a dicussion forum, then asking people not to discuss it.

B) The old trope of 'KRITISM IS OWNLY OK IF U RIGHT IT URSELF LOLOLOLOL' (sic). I guess you better start an e-petition to take ebert's Pulitzer prize away from him because he has neither directed or acted. Clearly one is unable to present rational criticism of anything without being a professional yourself. Medical malpractice suits will no doubt cease overnight, or maybe rational thinking customers are capable of assessing whether the product they paid for and use is badly produced.

Didn't read the entire thread did you guys. Short recap. A) never said you couldn't complain (note the inserted bold above: rational good, ad hominem bad), and B) already stated it was a dumb idea to make a sig thread, let alone put it here and expect people to honor a simple request. Yes, dumb, inane, idiotic me. Happy everyone? Or do I have to say these things about a million more times (cause it's frikkin getting old).

On top of that, few playtesters actually playtest - many of them just read the rules and never pick up a single die.

Please don't tell me these people actual get paid to playtest.

[masterofm]

Well... as much as you would seem right Ancient History to me the rules seem to be written with a little too much complexity. I'm not saying with enough patience people can't figure out the rules, but it is a big problem that there are quite a large number of people that fret over the rules and the little nuances of applying the rules. There is some wording when you read the rule book that people can and have found confusing. There are tons of topics on the forums that go back and forth on certain rules and applications in the books. In the end I think most of what Shadowrun survives on is fluff at this point. People play the game because they are attached to the universe and like the fact that it is not a setting full of smiles and sunshine. I love the fluff and I like the in depth character creation that lets me flesh out a complex and gritty character. Yet in the end our group ends up almost creating a house rule a session or having (sometimes lengthly) discussions about the applications of different rules.

@ Ancient History and devs: Have you considered, in a sense, "dumbing" it down a little? If someone is having problems getting through the rulebooks before they even play test it shouldn't that send up large red flags? There are systems where the rule system is easy and straightforward, but there are certain.... how should I put this... quarks in SR that end up sometimes being needlessly confusing sadly enough.

Cthulhudreams summed it up perfectly when talking about the meta variants as most people when looking at the point disparity will instead of taking a huge blow to BPs for no real reason many GMs will just let their players take Orc and add on the "qualities" without taking up the 35 bp quality pool and call it the meta variant listed in the Runners Companion. If it was more balanced there would not be this complaint. There would be far fewer people in the end saying "I don't like that this meta variant has these balanced qualities set over this other one." The answer is they will probably just go and play the other meta variant if it was more balanced.

How long does play testing last and how many people are involved? A few days a few people and a few hours each day, or months with at least seven different tables for four hours each day? It just feels to me there is not enough play testing, and when the book is slapped together there is just not enough time allowed to give the book an thorough play testing before it is sent to the printers. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels so right. I would really love to get an answer or at least a ballpark figure of hours spent play testing the game.

[BishopMcQ]

Playtesters are not paid to my knowledge.

How long playtesting lasts is based on the product and production schedules. It doesn't take long to playtest simple mechanics, and the more advanced rules are given longer for playtesting. For specific hours spent, that would be a group by group thing. Generally the playtest materials are sent out with a deadline on when notes should be turned in. The amount of time spent actually playing varies.

The number of people involved in a specific book can be clearly seen by checking each one. The playtesters are given credit at the end of each table of contents.

On a side note: I'm curious how many of the Admins were at GC Indy over the last week and if any of them were actually watching the forums.

[Cyntax]

I'd like them to hire me so I can do some of the work, it'd beat the snot out of my current job.

[WearzManySkins]

Oh wonderful now knowing the most excellent working relationship the Devs/Freelancers have with the Playtesters. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

WMS

[Aaron]

Playtesters are not paid to my knowledge.

They get a (physical) copy of whatever it was they playtested.

On a side note: I'm curious how many of the Admins were at GC Indy over the last week and if any of them were actually watching the forums.

I'd heard all but one.

I'd like them to hire me so I can do some of the work, it'd beat the snot out of my current job.

Your current job probably pays better.

[Redjack]

On a side note: I'm curious how many of the Admins were at GC Indy over the last week and if any of them were actually watching the forums.

I'd heard all but one.

That is correct, though this forum is one of prime discussion today.

[TheGothfather]

T'be honest, playtesting is a mixed bag. The playtesters are rarely skilled at giving good feedback in a timely manner, and to be frank some of their responses are both difficult to read and insulting...I won't share some of the true gems with you, but trust me when I say they rank up to the worst things said on this board and then some. On top of that, few playtesters actually playtest - many of them just read the rules and never pick up a single die.

This means you didn't get the right playtesters. How do you select them?

[Wounded Ronin]

If I had to select playtesters, I'd actually specifically recruit physics grad students. They know math and they know physics and are thus best equipped to evaluate a RPG rule set.

[Redjack]

If I had to select playtesters, I'd actually specifically recruit physics grad students. They know math and they know physics and are thus best equipped to evaluate a RPG rule set.

Like yourself, I am on the outside looking in but I could definitely understand the issues recruiting said persons. There are financial considerations.. And you need to find people who are interested, capable and consistent.

Dumpshock is a perfect example. I honestly believe that almost everyone who comes here and posts quite a bit does so for a love of Shadowrun. However, the message of some posters is lost in their venomous posts. There have been a number of warnings given out where I wished for a way to send the poster to 'Anger Management 101' and 'Written Communication Skills for the Successful Negotiator'. I understood what they wanted to convey, but the message they posted wrapped in up in personal attacks, a large dose of flaming and pulled a paragraph from no where which was nothing more than trolling.

That said, in a perfect world, I absolutely agree. They would reduce the variances in the rules to a degree that should, theoretically, level the playing field.

[Cthulhudreams]

The problem is that the skillset of

'People who want to play test shadowrun'
'people who have the analytical reasoning to playtest shadowrun'
'people with the mathematical skills to playtest shadowrun'
'people who are strong communicators'
'people who are friendly co-operative communicators' and
'people who are clear and concise communicators'

is actually a pretty limited set. Frank is a perfect example of someone who had 5/6 qualities and thus got banned. The vast majority of people don't have skills 2-4 - pretty much everyone who posts.

Given that you will very rarely find people with all 6 qualities, and everyone here definitionally has quality 1,
you either need to accept bad criticism, or you need to accept critism presented in unclear of off putting ways.

The physics grads solution just generates lots of people in categories 1-3, but doesn't deliver on 4-6 - but without assuring yourself of 4-6 you just end up with frank or even mulshemmiers flaming of AH about rarity pricing. Their criticism is unquestionably (imho, franks work on skill/attribute pricing is very good, and mulshhemmiers points about karmagen and rarity pricing are mathematical facts) correct, but their opinion is not valued due to presentation.

That brand criticism is just not welcome by the dev team, so it is equally valueless.

[Rasumichin]

If I had to select playtesters, I'd actually specifically recruit physics grad students. They know math and they know physics and are thus best equipped to evaluate a RPG rule set.

I can already see the catgirls cowering in terror.

[Ancient History]

This means you didn't get the right playtesters. How do you select them?

I don't. Freelancers, unless they run the playtest groups themselves, generally have no say in who their stuff goes to for playtesting.

[Redjack]

5/6 qualities and thus got banned.

3-4 of 6 and not banned, only suspended - But if we derail into that conversation I will be forced to lock this thread before I get suspended.

Given that you will very rarely find people with all 6 qualities, and everyone here definitionally has quality 1, you either need to accept bad criticism, or you need to accept critism presented in unclear of off putting ways.

As with any business you do the best you can. I think a number of the play testers are well meaning folks, just like most of the Dumpshock members. The problem is the same I run into everyday in RL. A disparity in oral & written communication skills. Also, as noted above by Aaron, play testing doesn't pay well (a copy of product). That removes the motivation for consistent, professional play testing beyond the love of the game... and even then, RL (financial needs and otherwise) trump for time.

The primary issue is the impersonalization caused by the Internet and remote working. As a remote worker in RL, I have worked to improve my written communication skills and to find parity in my oral and written skills. Because written communication lacks body language (smileys don't really work to replace it) you have to compensate by strengthening your skills. Also, in oral communication, the other party has the ability to inject into the conversation and stop it from digressing. Finally, written communication provides a shield from physical threat and allows a conversation to digress to a level that in RL would either result in people walking away to cool down or entering a fist fight.

That brand criticism is just not welcome by the dev team, so it is equally valueless.

The issue here comes from the last paragraph. People are here for the love of the game. The devs are on a tight time-frame and I really doubt any of them are gonna retire writing source books. I would further bet that for almost (if not) all of them, the writing truly does not pay as well by the hour as many commodity jobs.

If I were a writer and a majority of the people were relatively happy, I would not give much time to people who would rather trash-talk and bash me and my work than work with me to make it a better product. That includes people who refuse to accept that some corner stones will not change. ergo. New rules will not invalidate the BBB. Just because this is a Shadowrun and a game does not mean that decorum and etiquette go by the way side. If you want people to hear you, if you want people to listen and if you want people to act you have to respect them first.

Final thought: If you twist my words when you reply to inflame rather than progress the conversation, that should tell you that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Cthulhudreams]

As with any business you do the best you can. I think a number of the play testers are well meaning folks, just like most of the Dumpshock members. The problem is the same I run into everyday in RL. A disparity in oral & written communication skills. Also, as noted above by Aaron, play testing doesn't pay well (a copy of product). That removes the motivation for consistent, professional play testing beyond the love of the game... and even then, RL (financial needs and otherwise) trump for time.

Obviously. I mean your other choice is to engineer the first quality of intrest by employing professionals. I didn't mention that option because it is obviously not an option, given that RPG mkaing is hardly a high margin industry.

The primary issue is the impersonalization caused by the Internet and remote working. As a remote worker in RL, I have worked to improve my written communication skills and to find parity in my oral and written skills. Because written communication lacks body language (smileys don't really work to replace it) you have to compensate by strengthening your skills. Also, in oral communication, the other party has the ability to inject into the conversation and stop it from digressing. Finally, written communication provides a shield from physical threat and allows a conversation to digress to a level that in RL would either result in people walking away to cool down or entering a fist fight.

You've missed the key difference between formal employment and a messageboard. In formal employment there is a externally created and enforced social structure in which you have a specific role to complete, and a measure of authority is assigned to you. For example, whatever I think of my manager, there is a way the relationship is supposed to work, and we have structures for providing feedback etc.

It's not the face to faceness that saves you - ever been to a seedy bar? Its the social context and structure that moderates the range of allowable actions.

No such structures exist in this environment. Given there is no structural measure for providing feedback, the ways to do it are limited. One option that some pick people is standing on their soapbox and shouting endlessly. It has mixed values.

If I were a writer and a majority of the people were relatively happy, I would not give much time to people who would rather trash-talk and bash me and my work than work with me to make it a better product. That includes people who refuse to accept that some corner stones will not change. ergo. New rules will not invalidate the BBB. Just because this is a Shadowrun and a game does not mean that decorum and etiquette go by the way side. If you want people to hear you, if you want people to listen and if you want people to act you have to respect them first.

Final thought: If you twist my words when you reply to inflame rather than progress the conversation, that should tell you that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I am not sure what this has to do with my point. You are just saying that people find people with abrasive manners disconcerting to deal with, as I outlined earlier. The problem is that if you make the concious decision to bin crititism from people with abrasive manners is that you will disgread a significant proportition of valid critique of your product. That is certainly a valid business decision, and one I have made, but then the onus falls on the maker of that decision to make an extra effort to validate outputs with customers.

But anyway, you make a very dangerous statement in that paragraph. Because the majority of your customer base is relatively happy, this is no reason not to improve. Doing the same thing is a reciepe for failure. The Bethlehem steel collapse is a testament to the shortsightedness and narcissism of companies that make that statement with regards to their conduct and operation. TSR nearly got kneecapped by exactly the same thing, and only D&D's brand strength saved their bacon.

Sticking with what you know dooms you to failure.

[Redjack]

Obviously. I mean your other choice is to engineer the first quality of intrest by employing professionals. I didn't mention that option because it is obviously not an option, given that RPG mkaing is hardly a high margin industry.

I think we both agree that there are primarily two extremes: Love of the game (ie. passion) at one end and hard math at the other.

You've missed the key .....

That has nothing to do with oral vs written communication. A message board is no different than remote working (boss excluded) in that if you want peers, co-workers, partners, customers & suppliers (or other users, devs, mods & customers) to work with you, you must maintain a level of decorum and you must at least have a reasonable level of proficiency in several of your items from the list:
- 'people who are strong communicators'
- 'people who are friendly co-operative communicators' and
- 'people who are clear and concise communicators'

The problem is that if you make the concious decision to bin crititism from people with abrasive manners is that you will disgread a significant proportition of valid critique of your product. That is certainly a valid business decision, and one I have made, but then the onus falls on the maker of that decision to make an extra effort to validate outputs with customers.

Actually I would rather make the point that you can't please all the people all the time, so you have to put your best foot forward to please as many as you can. Regrettably, that means someone will be unable some of the time. Regrettable but unavoidable. With limited resources and an a foreknowledge that some people will be unhappy, combined with the knowledge that you can work with more people who are not abrasive than those who are the raw math of the business decision is easy. Does it take into account every situation? No. Is it perfect? No.

Because the majority of your customer base is relatively happy, this is no reason not to improve.

If you interpret that from my post we are not communicating clearly.

Doing the same thing is a reciepe for failure. The Bethlehem steel collapse is a testament to the shortsightedness and narcissism of companies that make that statement with regards to their conduct and operation. TSR nearly got kneecapped by exactly the same thing, and only D&D's brand strength saved their bacon.

Sticking with what you know dooms you to failure.

I agree. I'm hope you have not translated anything in my post to think I disagree. So to clarify, level-headed and constructive criticism will go miles farther towards being heard than flames and trash-talk.

Final note: Thanks for a clear, level reply. This is the discussion I was hoping to continue.

[Cthulhudreams]

I think we both agree that there are primarily two extremes: Love of the game (ie. passion) at one end and hard math at the other.

And hard maths is correct, and passion is valueless for analysis.

That has nothing to do with oral vs written communication. A message board is no different than remote working (boss excluded) in that if you want peers, co-workers, partners, customers & suppliers (or other users, devs, mods & customers) to work with you, you must maintain a level of decorum and you must at least have a reasonable level of proficiency in several of your items from the list:
- 'people who are strong communicators'
- 'people who are friendly co-operative communicators' and
- 'people who are clear and concise communicators'

Sure, but thats my point. The issue is not oral vs written communication, its the difference of operating within defined social structures and... not.

I have no meaningful way of influencing synner in convincing him rarity pricing is stupid, as you have over your manager (and visa versa!). There is no social structure for our communication to function in. He is under no obligation to even listen to my point, let alone actually consider my reasoning. It doesn't matter if I said this to him in a bar, or via a message in a bottle. He doesn't care. He doesn't have to care.

My only recourse is to point out the issue repeatedly and at great length. The objective is of course not to pursade synner, as that is impossible (It would be like obama pursading McCain to step down, or visa versa). The objective is to pursade enough other people that synner will respond to customer feedback.

So my tone, message and pitch should be (assuming I want to convince the populace) targeted at the body of the people. A simple glance at your TV and political ads will reveal that the most effective approach for that is not constructive harmonious debate, it is attacking polemics. Not that it is worth engaging in the less effective path of reasoned debate, at this junction as synner's position is impervious to any logical debate other than 'rarity pricing is destructive to game balance' to which his response is 'I'm okay with that'

So if I was to exhbit passion about the game, I need to actually repeatedly attack synner in the best of political style to achieve the changes I want.

Of course, I don't care either way and he can do whatever he wants, I'll just not pay for the product. This is probably for the best.

[masterofm]

Some ounce of clarity has sunk in while reading the posts on how much gets put into the game and how much play testing goes on.

Just to make sure I understand this I will post step by step what I feel is going on.

1. An idea for a book is created and different sections are passed out to different people on staff. Some work freelance and some are devs.

2. There are a few chats that probably happen online and everyone gets to spend some time looking over what everyone else has written and edits are made as needed with the devs generally having more say then the freelancers.

3. The freelancers do not actually collaborate all that much between themselves for chapter continuity and progression as most of that is left to the devs to tie in effectively. Some rules are changed as needed when they may or may not be too powerful, but it is hard to really come up with that.

By now two and three has probably happened about twice now, but since the project deadline is so close there is only very little time for play testing.

4. Play testing happens for about... two weeks? Maybe a month tops?

5. Play testers send out information on what they feel needs improvement and some are nice and others not so nice.

6. The devs take the comments and disperse the comments to the people creating the individual chapters. The writers tend to disregard most of the work because what they have written is their baby that they poured their heart and soul into creating, and these people are being over the top and harsh. Maybe using profanity, maybe saying something like "Your rules for emotitoys are just about the stupidest thing I have ever seen." (Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel Ancient History was talking about people being insulting so I'm just running with that.)

7. Book is released fight a final edit and maybe one or two people give it a whole once over to see if they can't catch any mistakes and it goes to print. Their might be one more meeting possibly two yet there will probably be chats between the devs and freelancers, possibly an open chat line to discuss the book as a whole.

The problem I see is that if play testing is not regarded and/or given a very small slice of the time pie in creating a book it is generally skipping an important phase in most game development. Play testing helps fix "bugs" or glitches in the system that might need reworking. In the end the developers and freelancers become attached to the work they have put in and find themselves defending the work they have created. When the book goes to print I find the negative outpour on how people do not like the way one rule is constructed or another the writer of that part of the book will (for the most part) stick to their guns no matter what and defend the writing to the death.

When I write I have a hard time admitting that my work might have been bad or was in need of some serious improvement, but sometimes it's the harsh almost cruel comments that has made me create some of my best work. It is especially true when I cook food, since I generally put much more of my heart into it. In the end though the minute I stop listening and say tough luck is the minute I stop growing as a cook.

[DireRadiant]

I have no meaningful way of influencing synner in convincing him rarity pricing is stupid, as you have over your manager (and visa versa!). There is no social structure for our communication to function in. He is under no obligation to even listen to my point, let alone actually consider my reasoning. It doesn't matter if I said this to him in a bar, or via a message in a bottle. He doesn't care. He doesn't have to care.

My only recourse is to point out the issue repeatedly and at great length. The objective is of course not to pursade synner, as that is impossible (It would be like obama pursading McCain to step down, or visa versa). The objective is to pursade enough other people that synner will respond to customer feedback.

So my tone, message and pitch should be (assuming I want to convince the populace) targeted at the body of the people. A simple glance at your TV and political ads will reveal that the most effective approach for that is not constructive harmonious debate, it is attacking polemics. Not that it is worth engaging in the less effective path of reasoned debate, at this junction as synner's position is impervious to any logical debate other than 'rarity pricing is destructive to game balance' to which his response is 'I'm okay with that'

So if I was to exhbit passion about the game, I need to actually repeatedly attack synner in the best of political style to achieve the changes I want.

I don't like it! I will keep yelling till someone changes it!

Effective.

The design decision was made, it's built in to the game, it is not in principle "stupid", but a choice in design. It's been printed, tested and based on the evidence works in creating mechanics that interact with the players choices to support the genre. The fact you favor the alternate choice and choose to keep complaining about it won't change the thousands of books out there, and it especially won't change the one sitting on the table that I use.

If you're relying on customer feedback to support your opinion, I can tell you exactly which way it goes based on the feedback surveys of a large sample of players who have tried the game out. I am certain your yelling at them will contrast well with their actual experience at playing SR4.

Because the Line developers have made a choice that you don't like does not mean that they have abandoned the social construct. A choice must be made between options in designing a game. They made one, and have stuck to it. The choice was made in the base rule book, and has been maintained in the expansions. Kudos to the development team! It's really you that has abandoned the social process as soon as their is a decision that you don't like. Once that fundamental design decision was made, there's no going back from it without destroying the integrity of the game.

In the end, just because it's a different choice from what you would have made does not make it a wrong choice, but a different choice. If you are going to start yelling and screaming at everyone's different choice from yours, well... you are going to end up shouting and screaming a lot.

If you are really seriously opposed to SR4, then really don't buy it, or play, and go away. There is something out there for you. GURPS and Champions/Hero System are at least two other game mechanic system where you can use the SR genre, and have your precious non rarity costs for character build points.

And while you are thinking about rarity pricing, you haven't yet started yelling about all those different priced guns and options unbalancing the game. I mean, a 6P -1 AP pistol has an enormously wide price range. Some are more then double of others!

[Cthulhudreams]

It is probably impractical for them to incorporate playtesting into the entire development cycle in any sort of structured manner due to costs.

Consider what WOTC did for its playtesting over the lifecycle - basically the devs ran some campagins and used those insights for 4th ed. Thats what.. 3 campagins? Maybe? Run by the authors themselves who are imaging how its supposed to work? That informed the vast majority of the play test cycle? And I'm being generous.

And FASA is a 2 bit operation compared to WoTC, so you can see the problem with the commerical pressures at work here.

[masterofm]

No doubt. They might not have the choice in the matter anyway, since the revenue might be too badly needed to have a few months dedicated to have some people play test the game for the price of a book (hell I would settle for a PDF and there is a good chance it is.) Every month they spend is a month not making money, but it is a short term view of the situation. Hell maybe they can only plan for the short term when it comes to pumping out a book, but in the end if it is given to the right players for at least a month there might not be griping that the whole meta variant stick just doesn't cut the mustard or bla bla bla, ect., ect. In the book business you are only as good as your last book, and when people get upset about a book that they believe is an inferior product, or are upset that the only response they get to their argument can be interpreted as "life isn't fare so deal with it" they might not be as inclined to buy any more books.

*edit* @ Dire: you might want to take out the part where you said it has been tested as that seems to have been said otherwise. Well maybe it gets tested, but it seems like for only a very short period of time. Is it truly enough testing?

Also just because something gets printed does not mean it is set in stone. There are erratas for goodness sakes, but I do agree that someone just trying to be the loudest voice in a crowd is generally a pain in the ass for the other people who have to put up listening to it, or have a more quiet and reasonable point. *edit*

[NightmareX]

3-4 of 6 and not banned, only suspended - But if we derail into that conversation I will be forced to lock this thread before I get suspended.

Admins can get suspended? (asked out of curiosity only)

--------

On the upside it seems at least some good has come of this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dead.gif)

[Cain]

Consider what WOTC did for its playtesting over the lifecycle - basically the devs ran some campagins and used those insights for 4th ed. Thats what.. 3 campagins? Maybe? Run by the authors themselves who are imaging how its supposed to work? That informed the vast majority of the play test cycle? And I'm being generous.

I had a friend at WotC at the time; he was in a playtesting group. I learned some of what went on then. I don't know how playtesting is handled now, under Hasbro; but here's what he told me about the release of D&D 3.0:

• There were hundreds of playtesting groups, spread across the country. I don't know how they were selected.
• Each group was given a draft copy of the rules, and, I believe, some adventures to run. I don't know if pregen characters were handed out or not. NDA's were, of course, required.
• Feedback forms were solicited after each session, and after each adventure arc. Individual GMs also came up with their own adventures.
• Many different character types were run, at various levels.
• After a time, new draft copies of the rules would come out, and the groups would playtest the new drafts.
• The cycle continued for a while. I believe the process went on for over a year before the last draft copy came out. I do remember that his playtest group was folded almost a year before D&D 3.0 hit the shelves.

That's certainly a good way of handling playtesting. Obviously, the larger your playtest sample is, the better off you are. Also, so is sending out revisions to be playtested before release, instead of simply rewriting a rule before release. Standardized forms cleared up communication problems, but still left room for individual comments to be solicited. Also, the game was played at various levels; I know that the SR4 playtest were only run on starting characters.

Naturally, this would slow down a release schedule; so it'd work best with a major release of a new edition, which would have the most tweaks to work out. And even then, problems might not be noticed until too late; that's why 3.5 came out so quickly. Compare that to the quick release of SR2 after SR1; it's not that different.

I don't like it! I will keep yelling till someone changes it!

Effective.

What do you think the old letter-writing campaigns were all about? Sometimes they worked, and sometimes they didn't. But when the manufacturers listened, we often got a better product out of the deal. If you look at the errata, there's a couple of rules there that were changed/modified/clairified in response to arguments made here, on Dumpshock. Causing a ruckus raises attention, and attention is what often causes change.

You probably weren't alive during the Vietnam era, but one of the reasons we pulled out was because of all the negative attention it received. Huge protests here, plus the horrifying news footage coming from over there, caused massive pressure on the people in charge. You definitely won't remember the Civil Rights March on Washington; but the footage it received helped push in a new era of change. It was all about drawing attention to the problem.

We're in the internet age now, and our stakes are much smaller: a small idea we love, called Shadowrun. A lot of us don't like the direction it's headed. So how do we make ourselves heard? The same principles apply. You cause enough noise that you can't be ignored. Here on an internet forum, that means causing enough controversy that your thread grows ten pages overnight. Flaming and insults aren't required, but you don't have to have a constructive solution in order to have a complaint.

If you are really seriously opposed to SR4, then really don't buy it, or play, and go away. There is something out there for you. GURPS and Champions/Hero System are at least two other game mechanic system where you can use the SR genre, and have your precious non rarity costs for character build points.

Ah, the "Love it or leave it!" argument that used to go around so much in the 60's. It didn't hold water then, and it doesn't hold water now. If you want something to change, you use what methods you have to change it. You don't abandon your car because it doesn't have tinted windows.