Lou's page

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

Lou wrote:

Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative.

If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.

There's not a company in the world that wouldn't ask the same thing of its people. And it's not dishonest. It's marketing. You say 'Our pizza is great,and our people are, too!' You don't say 'Bill is the worst driver in history. If he gets your order, we're sorry, but one more phone call about his driving and we're gonna fire his ass.'

You advertise what you believe is working, and then you try to internally fix the things your people are critical about. I have yet to hear anyone from WotC say 'The game is finished, and it has no flaws.'

I'd like to see evidence of a representative of Paizo saying 'Yeah, that wasn't one of our better adventures. We really let you down there, and that guy will never contribute again. Vic and Lisa killed him and mounted his skull in the East Wing.'

No no no, Sensei. You miss the point. These are not paid WotC employees. If they were, I get your comments. Of course they won't bash their own product.

But I'm talking about mostly independent members of the gaming community (this Ari fellow excepted I guess) who were asked to playtest the new edition but then gagged and told they are not allowed to share their honest opinions with others. Only half their honest opinions. This is like asking a reviewer to review a product under NDA then using the NDA to pressure the reviewer to delete the "Con" section of their review. Only "Pro" comments alloed.

WotC's product, 4e, needs to stand on its merits and on the honest reporting of those who've tried it -- or not at all. Trying to seduce me into buying it by influencing what others say about it prior to release is unnacceptable.

Lou wrote:

Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative. Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative. In my eyes, this is a blatant attempt on WotCs part to mislead me (lie by omission) about the opinions of those who've engaged with the rules before most others. Shame on you, WotC!

Where did you get this information from? I've seen you post this condemnation of WotC twice BUT have seen no proof of it.

If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.

Well what will you accept as proof? What I'm telling you is that playtester(s) I know shared with me the email the they received from WotC. I guess I can ask the playtester to forward me the email or its text, but I could always be faking that if I posted it.

So is this second hand info? Sure, but I've got no motivation to lie. And as far as I know I've never lied to you before, so I guess you can believe me or not.

However, the playtester(s) I know are scared to speak up on their own as they hold freelancer aspirations. And you're right, it's a low move on wotc's part, so I'm speaking up.

Yeah, I read it. He sounds really enthusiastic about the new rules. Of course, he is working on 4E stuff, so you can't say that his opinion is unbiased. This isn't much different than Mike Mearls or another WotC designer commenting on how great 4E is. Duh! Of course, he's going to say that it rules!

Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative. Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative. In my eyes, this is a blatant attempt on WotCs part to mislead me (lie by omission) about the opinions of those who've engaged with the rules before most others. Shame on you, WotC!

What in that stat block actively contradicts any roleplaying, and more so, what more in the stat block do you need to use it in a story? Each monster (as I understand it) will come with well-nigh a full page of flavor text in the MM. That should be the base for the non-combat-y bits, while the stat block is the wrench you use for the combat-y bits.

That's why, as a writer, the edition tickles me pink. No more rummaging about for the appropriate monster with the appropriate trained skills and appropriate background to fit my plot -- or adjusting the fiddly stats of cool monsters to wedge them into my PC's level and story setting. No more building NPC's for hours so they not only do what I want them to do, they also have every fiddly bit necessary to work but that I'll never, ever access in-game. Enough detail to guide, never so much to cripple.

What in the stat block supports roleplay? Nothing. Pages of fluff won't tell me if my players can baffle an entertainment starved monster with their musical performance.

Also, I can't see why there's no more rummaging about for monsters to fit a plot. You still have to pick 'em and fit 'em in. As for fiddly bits and NPCs, just make what you need. Why'd you waste time figuring out unnecessary things to begin with?

Nothing personal, but I'm stil suspicious and not impressed.

Devil's Advocate Question: What if WotC is only letting those speak that will say something positive about 4E?

thoughts?

For the record, I don't believe this, but I would believe that WotC is allowing those to speak that they know won't say to much and give away anything that are not allowed to share. But I thought I would still pose the question as a discussion point/food for thought.

You should believe it. It's true. I know some playtesters, and I've seen the email. Basically, the folks at WotC told their playtesters that they can admit they were playtesters, but they must only say good things about the game. All negative comments should be kept to themselves.

In my mind, this is a horrid abuse of trust, and a blatant attempt to deceive me by censoring their playtest group. Shame on you WotC.