No, you went beyond that and provided examples of why you felt Tracy Hickman, Gygax, Monte Cook, Jesse Decker and Mike Mearls where lousy writers. Thats not the same thing at all as saying they are not, in your opinion, as good as Wil.
Let's see...
"that includes the likes of people like Tracy Hickman (whose prose is mildly amusing, at most)."
Hm... That doesn't seem to say to me that Tracy Hickman has "lousy" writing. In fact, I can't find the word "lousy" there anywhere. I said his prose could be mildly amusing. that means it's "not lousy."
"What about Monte Cook? He's a great designer, but he's a boring read."
Again, no hint of "lousy" anywhere. "Boring," yes, and really not up to what I think Wil can write, but not "lousy." "Cracks in the Parchment Curtain," by Mr. Scott is an impressive read and is written in the same style - which is really boring, but it does get its message across. In fact, most documentaries are written in that style, for a reason.
"Jesse Decker? Mike Mearls? Anyone? Many of the writers for Dungeon have gaming chops but the number of people who have actual writing skill, let alone natural talent, is understandably small"
Have you READ the recent Class Acts articles by Mike Mearls in Dragon? I see no evidence of writing skill whatsoever. Even so, I didn't say that the writing was "lousy." I just said that it's mediocre. It takes a special kind of ineptitude to create the kind of article Gygax makes.
Yes, Mr. Gygax, if you're reading this post, it means I think you can benefit from a creative writing or essay writing class.
Jeremy Mac Donald: If you can show me a writer in Dungeon with the wit and style of Mark Twain, the stylish detail of Charles Dickens, or even the casual flow of Wil Wheaton (who really isn't even on the same level as the former literary greats, though he is the best of a mediocre bunch), then I will be much obliged.
Wil Wheaton has written in his blog (www.wilwheaton.net) that he will no longer be writing Wil Save, apparently due to negative feedback from somewhere...Hmm....
Curses! I really enjoyed his column. It was the first thing I read each issue.
I've looked through some of these posts, and I can not beleive how much people complain. It really and truly amazes me! I mean, you don't complain about all of the useless ads in the Magazine! They have even less game value than Wil save, yet you don't mention them!
Take this for example. I do not like the Eberron adventures that they print out in the Magazine. I don't even read them. In the case of the last one, that is 10 pages out of my issue. You only had one that you didn't read (well, I'm assuming.)
I also don't read campaign workbooks, dungeoncrafts, or Downer. In the last issue, that was 9 pages out. Now do you see me coming here and bashing all of those things? No. Why? Because I know some people get use out of those things. I know that other people enjoy these things. Plus, the magazine is such high quality that I don't care, as long as there is one good adventure, I am happy. You guys make out the changing of one page to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I mean, some people actually enjoyed reading Wil Save, some people may have gotten some ideas out of it. So why this one page?
Finally, before I end my rant for the day, I must ask. What use does Downer have for D&D? Which rules does it add? Which campaign does it allow you to run? Which ideas does it give you for campaigns? For that matter, what does Mt. Zogon or The Portent have for such things? Not to be a downer on Tony (Which, BTW, Tony, I have been with your site since week one), but really, what D&D related content does it add? Maybe we should start a Vendetta against all of these things, because they have no value whatsoever!
|
I've looked through some of these posts, and I can not beleive how much people complain. It really and truly amazes me! I mean, you don't complain about all of the useless ads in the Magazine! They have even less game value than Wil save, yet you don't mention them!
My computer isn't working, and I'm typing this on my wife's laptop. Somehow I managed to lose my entire reply, just moments before I finished it. The reply I'll give is likely to not be as well polished as it was before, since I'll be "recreating" what I wrote, rather than "rethinking" it.
In any case, I think the readers of Dungeon are smart enough to realize that advertising is a necessary and accepted part of a magazine, and most of life in general. We've reached the point where ads are included in restaurant menus (like Cheesecake Factory). I'm not sure how much advertising defrays the cost of my subscription, but I don't think I would be able to afford it if there were no ads. Besides which, the loss of ads would be unlikely to create more pages of content. On the other hand, 2 new pages of ads might be able to add one more page of content. So, ads are fine because they help give us more of what we like.
Take this for example. I do not like the Eberron adventures that they print out in the Magazine. I don't even read them. In the case of the last one, that is 10 pages out of my issue. You only had one that you didn't read (well, I'm assuming.)
I also don't read campaign workbooks, dungeoncrafts, or Downer. In the last issue, that was 9 pages out. Now do you see me coming here and bashing all of those things? No. Why? Because I know some people get use out of those things. I know that other people enjoy these things.
That's an interesting argument. How many other people have to like something to keep you from complaining? 1? 20? 10% of the readership? 50% of the readership?
If you really dislike something, you should let the magazine know, even if it is only through a reader survey. The magazine will do best when it pleases as many readers as possible.
Plus, the magazine is such high quality that I don't care, as long as there is one good adventure, I am happy. You guys make out the changing of one page to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I mean, some people actually enjoyed reading Wil Save, some people may have gotten some ideas out of it. So why this one page?
One adventure may be enough for you. Not for me. I really would like the equivalent of four adventures each issue. I know I'll get three actual adventures, but I'm looking for more content. A detailed area (like the Isle of Dread) works for me, or some critical threats, or a small well detailed encounter. Wil Save was one page, but it seemed like I could get just a little more game content if it was removed. So, that's why.
Finally, before I end my rant for the day, I must ask. What use does Downer have for D&D? Which rules does it add? Which campaign does it allow you to run? Which ideas does it give you for campaigns? For that matter, what does Mt. Zogon or The Portent have for such things? Not to be a downer on Tony (Which, BTW, Tony, I have been with your site since week one), but really, what D&D related content does it add? Maybe we should start a Vendetta against all of these things, because they have no value whatsoever!
Probably a good idea. But each thread has a topic. The Failed Wil Save thread was about Wil Save. There is a thread specifically devoted to the elimination of Downer. Posting off-topic posts is generally considered rude. Besides, saying "Wil Save sucks, but Downer is worse" doesn't really support keeping the Wil Save feature.
I personally don't like Downer. But I do like comics in general. I'd love to see Downer removed, and I'd love to see 2 smaller comics go in its place, yielding another 1 1/3 pages of content. But, I do like comics, and I don't want them to be removed. That is why I'm less vocal on the subject. Also, when I brought up valid criticisms of Downer Erik Mona told us that those criticisms were being addressed. When a change is made, I believe in giving it a little time before I begin complaining. Of course, when I begin complaining, I believe in continuing until someone addresses my points adequately.
In any case, I think the readers of Dungeon are smart enough to realize that advertising is a necessary and accepted part of a magazine, and most of life in general. We've reached the point where ads are included in restaurant menus (like Cheesecake Factory). I'm not sure how much advertising defrays the cost of my subscription, but I don't think I would be able to afford it if there were no ads. Besides which, the loss of ads would be unlikely to create more pages of content. On the other hand, 2 new pages of ads might be able to add one more page of content. So, ads are fine because they help give us more of what we like.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I know that they are a necessary evil, and I was just on a rant before. It was the first thing that came to mind.
That's an interesting argument. How many other people have to like something to keep you from complaining? 1? 20? 10% of the readership? 50% of the readership?
If you really dislike something, you should let the magazine know, even if it is only through a reader survey. The magazine will do best when it pleases as many readers as possible.
As long as a lot of other people like it, I know that it is worth it. I known this is going to make me sound like a hypocrite (Seeing as I just did it in my last post), but I really don't like to complain, as the one thing that bothers me is a complainer. It sends me on rants like that and then I sound like a moron.
Probably a good idea. But each thread has a topic. The Failed Wil Save thread was about Wil Save. There is a thread specifically devoted to the elimination of Downer. Posting off-topic posts is generally considered rude. Besides, saying "Wil Save sucks, but Downer is worse" doesn't really support keeping the Wil Save feature.
I personally don't like Downer. But I do like comics in general. I'd love to see Downer removed, and I'd love to see 2 smaller comics go in its place, yielding another 1 1/3 pages of content. But, I do like comics, and I don't want them to be removed. That is why I'm less vocal on the subject. Also, when I brought up valid criticisms of Downer Erik Mona told us that those criticisms were being addressed. When a change is made, I believe in giving it a little time before I begin complaining. Of course, when I begin complaining, I believe in continuing until someone addresses my points adequately.
I am sorry to make this sound off topic, but my point was to sound sarcastic. I personally have not seen the "Get rid of Downer" thread (I don't come here a lot), but my point was that if that one page bothered you so much because it was not game content, why doesn't these two. Now I do realize that it does bug some people, and I apologize.
Really I should just stop talking about it. I know that Wil save is not coming back, but I personally hope that Erik finds someone else just like him to do it again.
I'm coming late to this discussion, but still...I enjoyed Wil Save. When I first heard of fans getting upset over it, I chalked it up to the closet geek mentality that attacks anything that is *new*. Wil wrote from a very personal perspective, and his love of gaming was very evident. I applaud his reasons for leaving--he took the high road, when he could have easily slapped together some faux D and D columns. Hopefully we'll see more of him over in Knights of the Dinner Table, where I think he'll find a more appreciative audience, given Kenzerco's more embracing approach to all aspects of gaming.
This isn't meant to slam Dungeon, or Erik. Yet the challenge is there: find a current D and D player who is a competent and funny writer, and give us that fan perspective that Wil provided.
Go on, I dare you!
Wil Wheaton has written in his blog (www.wilwheaton.net) that he will no longer be writing Wil Save, apparently due to negative feedback from somewhere...Hmm....
As per the opinion of most here I have nothing against Wil, but regaining a pageful of actual gaming content over another content-light anecdote from a guy who doesn't even play D&D anymore? Lose a celebrity spokesman, gain sixty more seconds of my interest per issue. A fair trade off, I'd say.
As for Kid Dork's challenge... I just don't want to pay to read a nostalgic fan's lighthearted memoirs. There should be a special zine for that. Somewhere. Else. ;)
|
|
This isn't meant to slam Dungeon, or Erik. Yet the challenge is there: find a current D and D player who is a competent and funny writer, and give us that fan perspective that Wil provided.
Go on, I dare you!
Please no. I, as well as most of the people posting against Wil Save made it clear that we had nothing against Wil personally. But we did have something against the type of article that he wrote. There may be some people who miss Wil Save, and some who would love to see a reincarnation.
I'm not one of them.
The editors have said that it is unlikely that such a thing will take place, but I want to make it very clear that the actual subject matter was the problem, not the author. No more "columns" that aren't about D&D. Please.
That's a shame.
My friend and I, both a little older and experienced, enjoyed Wil's talks about the little things that make gaming fun; things like going to cons, teaching young people, and being nostalgic about gamer stuff.
I understand the need to have D&D related commentary though.
An observation:
Someone said that certain people who write articles in these magazines have no writing talent. I must disagree. Comparing an article in Dragon or Dungeon to Twain or Dickens is downright foolish. They are totally different. There are no standards by which one can be compared to the other in any way.
Different kinds of writing take different skills. For example, an english student would point out Twain and the like as an example of good writing; However, there are historians, like Desmond Seward, Jared Diamond or Barbara Tuchman, who are also very good writers. There are scientists like Stephen Hawking who are very good writers; and there are comedians like George Carlin who are very good writers. You could not compare any of them in ability, because their good writing is in different fields.
I bet Dickens couldn't have written a Class Act; does that make him a bad writer? No.
It is foolish and short-sighted to act as though technical writing for an adventure game can be indicative of the ability of the writer in question.
Anyways.
What will be replacing Wil Save?
You could not compare any of them in ability, because their good writing is in different fields.
I think you have described the situation perfectly. I didn't like Wil Save at all but I couldn't say anything about Wil's writting ablities. He's quite good. I just didn't think he should be writing for Dungeon. I could, however, see his column in Dragon. His column was more player oriented rather than GM oriented. I think that no one would have had problems with it in Dragon. Erik should talk with Wil and get the column moved to Dragon. That's where it should have bee all along.
What will be replacing Wil Save?
I hope for the rebirth of "Side Treks". I always could get alot of mileage out of one of those! :)
--Ray.
I really hope Erik Mona just replaces Wil Save with a blank page. Some of you whiners and complainers really deserve it.
|
|
I really hope Erik Mona just replaces Wil Save with a blank page. Some of you whiners and complainers really deserve it.
That seems awfully petty, PsychoticWarrior. Don't you think so?
Let's deal with facts for a moment.
I'm allowed to voice my opinion, even if it deviates from the "majority". The magazine wants to provide features that are liked by the largest segment of the reading population. Wil Wheaton had misconceptions about what the article was supposed to be about. Wil Wheaton was writing about D&D, but not playing D&D. Even if people in this thread hadn't complained, I expect the column would have faded away. It's hard to make your Wil Save 15 times in a row!
The point is, some people want to place all the blame at the feet of people in this single thread on paizo's website. It wasn't all our fault. And, now that Wil Save is gone (whether because of us or despite us) the magazine will want to replace it with a feature that is at least as popular, if not more so.
Now, some people seem to think that readers don't have a right to complain. I disagree. We're paying for the product, and we're going to argue that it should be designed for all of us in mind.
Maybe a majority of people liked Wil Save, but many readers couldn't understand the point. It went beyond being personally useless, we couldn't understand what any DM could get out of the article. I don't complain about EVERYTHING I dislike in the magazine - if I don't like an adventure, I'm guessing that many DMs can get something out of it. Wil Save was a different category completely. And if the majority likes something, that still doesn't mean much. Shouldn't an article that is beloved by 75% of readers be replaced with an article that is beloved by 90% of the readership?
Sure, it would best if that 90% beloved article replaced one that only 30% like, but who would complain? Of course, the 10% that don't love the new artcile (they probably liked the old one better) will complain. You expect that. You should encourage it.
It doesn't mean the powers that be will necessarily change anything.
Now, there have been some anti-Wil statements on this thread. If Wil has any internet-savvy (and it seems as though he does), he should have ignored his personal detractors and dealt with the rest of us. He didn't. He likes poker more than D&D, and I can live with that.
Anyways, the column is gone, so it is time for all of us to move on. Not a time to punish all the readers because you think some crossed a line when talking about Wil or talking about Wil Save.
I hope for the rebirth of "Side Treks". I always could get alot of mileage out of one of those! :)--Ray.
Since side treks required 3-5 pages of the magazine, I wouldn't hold your breath... though we should be getting at least one, as the Origins Side Trek contest winner should be having their article printed in the fall.
- Ashavan
Yeesh. I liked Wil Save quite a lot. A thousand plagues upon the whiners - may the worms of Kyuss infest thy nether regions!
If Wil were to read through this post I'm sure he'd be flattered and horrified. Love to see that expression.
Worry when they stop talking about you, right?
He left STTNG, citing certain reasons. But I wonder if getting called Wussley Crusher on every forum board is what pushed him over the edge.
And perhaps forum perusal is what killed Wil Save.
I won a cover song contest a few years back and attained some minor celebrity on Davidbowie.com. One day a certain newbie showed up and ragged out my rendition to no end (though she had never heard the original). It was brutal, like scouring bleeding gums with a well used toilet brush.
True, it was weird having someone lay into me when I was actually ON THE SITE on a regular basis, but I did the best I could to quiet my ranting supporters, saying to the newbie, "Hey, this was something I did. It's okay that you didn't like it but it's kind of forward of you to slam me when I'm right here. You wouldn't like it if I followed you around and rated all the things you attempt in a day. Maybe you'll like something I do in the future better."
Said fan capitulated and cooled her jets.
Best to just not take forum flaming all that personally when you're a celebrity. They're not really insulting you... they're just sounding off.
It's what we do on forum boards.
I mean, I'm no Jennifer Lopez fan myself... but if she was on this board I wouldn't be posting the lyrics to Taco Flavored Kisses (from South Park). I'd behave. No, really.
You know, I just realized something. It's people like the ones in this thread who got Wil Save canned, that are the reason why I find it so difficult to get a gaming group together, and keeping them together without either hating everybody in it, or at least one person having a personality conflict with everybody else, or them being smelly and downright scary, or a bunch of other reasons relating to the patheticism of RPG-geeks in general.
RPG-geeks are the whiniest, most self-important, arrogant asses on the planet. It was ONE FREAKIN' PAGE! I mean, really. So what if you didn't like it. Flip the damn page and get over it. Don't come and argue about it and vehemently describe how horrid it is on a message board. IT JUST ISN'T WORTH IT. There are FAR more important things in life, like watching House MD.
My god. I used think working as the editor of Dungeon or Dragon would be the coolest job on the planet. Then I joined these boards...
I used think working as the editor of Dungeon or Dragon would be the coolest job on the planet. Then I joined these boards...
Sometimes I have to wonder if Erik feels the same way. :-D
|
|
I want to get angry, but it just isn't worth it.
A thousand plagues upon the whiners - may the worms of Kyuss infest thy nether regions!
Gee, that isn't a little personal?
It's people like the ones in this thread who got Wil Save canned, that are the reason why I find it so difficult to get a gaming group together, and keeping them together without either hating everybody in it, or at least one person having a personality conflict with everybody else, or them being smelly and downright scary, or a bunch of other reasons relating to the patheticism of RPG-geeks in general.
You know, after getting called "immature" from just about everybody who ever liked Wil Save, I've got to say, I just don't think anyone has a concept of what that means. I'm not smelly, or scary. I have no trouble keeping a group of people together. I've got a regular group of 10 players, and I'm about to launch a completely new group with 6 players. I manage to avoid personality conflicts with everybody else (for the most part) and we all have fun.
You know, I don't want to get personal, Delgath, but if it seems like it is everyone else, maybe it's you.
Does anyone even bother registering the fact that Erik Mona rejected a submission by Wil Wheaton because it dealt with Poker exclusively, and didn't even touch on D&D? Didn't anyone notice that Wil said he originally thought he would have free reign on what he wrote, but the expectation that it have something to do with D&D was really hard since he doesn't play anymore?
I'm hoping Wil does just fine in his personal and professional life. I'm happy that he isn't in Dungeon. I would have been satisfied if he would actually make his columns relevant to D&D, but now I don't have to worry about it.
Still, there are a lot of people that seem to think it is okay to tear people apart because they think that someone did that first. That's wrong on so many levels. First of all, when you make general accusations, you don't differentiate between who is responsible and who isn't. Read the thread. Evaluate each poster. Then come here and say "You, ____, went to far when you said _______". Better yet, you should have wandered into the Failed Wil Save thread and offered defenses for your favorite column beyond "I like it". Even better, you could have called out people as they said things you disagreed with.
You know, the supporters of Wil Save, by and large, have done more to discredit fans of the column than anything its detractors could have said or done.
I hope you're proud of yourselves.
edit - fixed quote tage
You know, after getting called "immature" from just about everybody who ever liked Wil Save, I've got to say, I just don't think anyone has a concept of what that means. I'm not smelly, or scary. I have no trouble keeping a group of people together. I've got a regular group of 10 players, and I'm about to launch a completely new group with 6 players. I manage to avoid personality conflicts with everybody else (for the most part) and we all have fun.
You know, I don't want to get personal, Delgath, but if it seems like it is everyone else, maybe it's you.
Does anyone even bother registering the fact that Erik Mona rejected a submission by Wil Wheaton because it dealt with Poker exclusively, and didn't even touch on D&D? Didn't anyone notice that Wil said he originally thought he would have free reign on what he wrote, but the expectation that it have something to do with D&D was really hard since he doesn't play anymore?
I'm hoping Wil does just fine in his personal and professional life. I'm happy that he isn't in Dungeon. I would have been satisfied if he would actually make his columns relevant to D&D, but now I don't have to worry about it.
Still, there are a lot of people that seem to think it is okay to tear people apart because they think that someone did that first. That's wrong on so many levels. First of all, when you make general accusations, you don't differentiate between who is responsible and who isn't. Read the thread. Evaluate each poster. Then come here and say "You, ____, went to far when you said _______". Better yet, you should have wandered into the Failed Wil Save thread and offered defenses for your favorite column beyond "I like it". Even better, you could have called out people as they said things you disagreed with.
You know, the supporters of Wil Save, by and large, have done more to discredit fans of the column than anything its detractors could have said or done.
I hope you're proud of yourselves.
Well put.
This talk of self importance and whining rendered in CAPPED DEMANDS and an armageddon of exclamation points is just priceless.
Any good public forum doesn't provide air enough for even a small spark of censorship. When Mutually appreciated content in a post encounters a loud dissenter in need in of a glad rag we just keep on talking.
This is the way of adult communication. Even when you disagree with someone's opinion you give them the respect of letting them speak their mind. If you can't stand what you hear, you tune them out.
If someone wants to share a broad bias about a specific group of people (such as RPGers) I don't tell them that they aren't allowed to. I just shake my head and refuse to take them seriously from that point on is all.
Any agenda to tell others what they can and can't do on a messageboard usually backfires. On a glam rock site one authoritarian poster demanded that we all stop posting pics of our cats. One week later you would have thought you were on a cat appreciation site. It was wallpapered with the stuff.
"Hang in there, baby."
It's all so relative, this what's important and what isn't on a website... what's worth saying and what is pathetically beneath saying. It's like George Carlin observed, "Ever notice how anyone driving slower than you is an idiot and anyone driving faster than you is a MANIAC?"
I want to get angry, but it just isn't worth it.
A thousand plagues upon the whiners - may the worms of Kyuss infest thy nether regions!
Gee, that isn't a little personal?
Interesting... and I suppose that you're right. I didn't seriously think that a reference to a game element would be taken as a serious insult. But in just a few short hours, two people seem to have snapped it up as a personally-directed attack. So, in that light, I humbly seek a thousand pardons.
But I'm not sorry for saying that I liked Wil's column. I'm sorry to see it go.
Interesting... and I suppose that you're right. I didn't seriously think that a reference to a game element would be taken as a serious insult. But in just a few short hours, two people seem to have snapped it up as a personally-directed attack. So, in that light, I humbly seek a thousand pardons.But I'm not sorry for saying that I liked Wil's column. I'm sorry to see it go.
You're completely cool, Laeknir... not to worry.
Although I do believe you wished abberation based crotch rot on some here. lol
Make amends and hand out some sample packs of Keoghtom's ointment.
Man, I wish I knew how to spell that name.
You're completely cool, Laeknir... not to worry. Although I do believe you wished abberation based crotch rot on some here. lol
No further comment... I have officially muzzled my camel on this sadly divisive issue.
Make amends and hand out some sample packs of Keoghtom's ointment. Man, I wish I knew how to spell that name.
Well enough, then... free samples of Keoghtom's ointment to all who have been negatively affected by my poor attempt at humor.
|
|
I must ask. What use does Downer have for D&D?
“Downer” contextualizes a myriad of races, classes, spells, scenarios, motifs, and settings which are all integral to Dungeons and Dragons. Kyle Hunter’s serial is an excellent, albeit often convoluted, representation of a fantasy realm, complete with archetypal characters and plot situations.
Personally, I find Hunter’s angular and dynamic style to be quite intriguing and I look forward to enjoying the continuing adventures of the drow in “Downer.”
I was less intrigued by Wheaton’s work, which lacked the presence of Dungeons and Dragons that I anticipate in Dungeon, an official Dungeons and Dragons magazine. The article did not seem to work in this context, whereas Kyle Hunter’s art does. It explores and enhances Dungeons and Dragons, Wheaton failed to do so accurately.
|
|
Interesting... and I suppose that you're right. I didn't seriously think that a reference to a game element would be taken as a serious insult.
You know, I accept the apology as you've given it. I'm certain you didn't intend it as a real insult now, but because we're writing rather than speaking, intent is often impossible to determine. I'd just like to point out that everyone at some point says something intended to be innocent, but it can easily be taken the wrong way, just because we don't know each other.
There really are a lot of people out there, though, that seem not to care about decorum in the anonomity of the online environment. To a point, those people should be educated. After a certain point, they should be ignored.
In any case, I'm not really offended. At least, not if you don't really want me to become infected. I mean, assuming I was in the generalized group of "whiners".
“Downer” contextualizes a myriad of races, classes, spells, scenarios, motifs, and settings which are all integral to Dungeons and Dragons. Kyle Hunter’s serial is an excellent, albeit often convoluted, representation of a fantasy realm, complete with archetypal characters and plot situations.
Personally, I find Hunter’s angular and dynamic style to be quite intriguing and I look forward to enjoying the continuing adventures of the drow in “Downer.”
I was less intrigued by Wheaton’s work, which lacked the presence of Dungeons and Dragons that I anticipate in Dungeon, an official Dungeons and Dragons magazine. The article did not seem to work in this context, whereas Kyle Hunter’s art does. It explores and enhances Dungeons and Dragons, Wheaton failed to do so accurately.
OK, who let the English major out :)
BTW very nicely (and IMHO accurately) put.
Regards,
Jack
Well enough, then... free samples of Keoghtom's ointment to all who have been negatively affected by my poor attempt at humor.
BTW, not one word I said above was aimed at you... I was commenting on the haymakes being thrown by someone else, a few posts above me.
I could have directed what I said directly to the poster but I didn't want to make some kind of personal attack. I thought just making a general comment on the issue would be more appropriate.
Said issue now closed. And peace returns to the valley once more...
Truth be told, though severe... I quite thought your attempt at humor was colorful and funny. It even got me wondering about D&D related arcane STDs. That HAS to have been fleshed out somewhere unofficial, hasn't it?
This is the way of adult communication. Even when you disagree with someone's opinion you give them the respect of letting them speak their mind. If you can't stand what you hear, you tune them out.
Yes, because it's so adult and respectful to ignore someone and tune them out :rolleyes:
It's like George Carlin observed, "Ever notice how anyone driving slower than you is an idiot and anyone driving faster than you is a MANIAC?"
That would be because I travel at the speed limit.
I could have directed what I said directly to the poster but I didn't want to make some kind of personal attack. I thought just making a general comment on the issue would be more appropriate.
So in other words all you were really trying to do was bypass any sort of censorship so that you could get your veiled attack across. How very manipulative and under-handed of you. Oh, and very 'adult'.
BTW, not one word I said above was aimed at you... I was commenting on the haymakes being thrown by someone else, a few posts above me.
No worries, completely understood. On to other topics, I say!
|
|
If someone wants to share a broad bias about a specific group of people (such as RPGers) I don't tell them that they aren't allowed to. I just shake my head and refuse to take them seriously from that point on is all.
I could have directed what I said directly to the poster but I didn't want to make some kind of personal attack. I thought just making a general comment on the issue would be more appropriate.
So in other words all you were really trying to do was bypass any sort of censorship so that you could get your veiled attack across. How very manipulative and under-handed of you. Oh, and very 'adult'.
Hello Delgath, and welcome to the conversation. Since you seem to be having trouble following the relative points, I've condensed the most recent ones for you. There was no 'veiled attack'. It doesn't look like anyone is trying to manipulate you or do anything under-handed. The Jade thinks (or at least, to me it appears he thinks) that the posts you've submitted indicate you have opinions that shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'd also like to point out that there is a big difference between being mature and being adult. Anyone can be an adult. You can be responsible for the deaths of 35 million people, while lying to the world and your own people and be an adult. A mature adult, however, should endeavor to assume that others are also mature adults, and try to focus on the issues rather than the personal attacks.
It may be my fault. I'm determined to defend myself from the people who (apparently) think it is my fault that Wil Save is no longer in the magazine. I'm happy about the situation, and I may have played a small role, but it would have happened sooner or later. Because I'm interested in defending myself, I won't stand silent while someone comes along and labels me some sort of undesireable name, or offers hopes for some unpleasant future event. I'm also not going to allow people to offer the useless idea of leaving a blank page in Dungeon to teach me a lesson, or something. The fact that Wil Save is gone isn't a bad thing. I might be in the minority on that point, but I feel it very strongly. Sure, it's one page of the magazine, but something better can go there. My hope is that the opportunity is seized, and something better (in the eyes of all readers) goes in that space.
Now that my views are clear, let's talk about yours. What was the point of your last two posts? Do you want to start a personal argument? Do you want to make the people who posted in the "Failed Wil Save" thread feel bad? What do they contribute to the discussion? Should I ignore them?
I'm trying to avoid sounding dismissive, but I think that if you have a point to posting here, other than causing people to get upset, I've missed it.
And if that is your objective, well then, yes, I'd have a pretty low opinion of you. People posting on the Wil Save thread, by and large, had the goal of seeing something eliminated from the magazine and replaced with something better. It was, by its very nature, a constructive purpose. If you have no constructive purpose, than I would consider what you have written to be a greater waste of time that what I've written.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
...In any case, I'm not really offended. At least, not if you don't really want me to become infected. I mean, assuming I was in the generalized group of "whiners".
Please put away your rod and reel... no more fish in this Laeknir.
I'll agree that my comment was an inappropriate snipe at anti-Wil whiners, but it was a) meant rather jokingly, b) a general comment not directed at anyone specific, and c) followed by my apology. But just for absolute, concrete clarity: I don't want anyone to be infected by any real life disease.
Stuff
Here's the crux of why I posted what I did.
All I've seen, is a bunch of people denigrate a small aspect of a magazine so vocally and vociferously, that the author was inclined to walk away from the article.
That angered me. Aside from generally liking Wil through having read a few of his blogs, I just felt it was so far overblown for people to come on to a message board and be so vehement about something that is ultimately little more than an issue of flipping past one page, and getting on with the rest of their lives.
I mean, Wil's a generally decent guy as can be seen from his very personal blogs. It seemed grossly unfair and just wrong that he should be chased away by a selfish few who can't bring themselves to look past one, teency, weency little aspect of a magazine, and appreciate the other 99.9% of it.
Can you see how that would rile someone up?
|
|
Can you see how that would rile someone up?
Absolutely.
However, living in a free society means that people are free to express their opinions. You'll certainly find some opinions offensive, and you'll also see that some opinions are clearly based on erroneous information. However, you don't need to worry about people expressing an opinion you don't like. These boards are not your personal playground, anymore than they are mine. If someone crosses the line, the staff at Paizo are ultimately responsible for deciding how to handle the matter. There is a code of conduct, and as long as people avoid violating that code, any opinion should be respected. That does not mean it shouldn't be debated, disagreed with, or eventually discounted - but it should still be respected as a valid opinion, even though it differs from your own.
A basic fact of life is that intelligent people will disagree over very basic things. Most of the time it is because of a value judgement. Politics is a great example of this. Some very wonderful, intelligent people are Democrats, and some very wonderful, intelligent people are Replublicans. Others might be misguided or confused, but at some point you must respect that certain people have different values. Everybody agrees that in a perfect society everyone will have a great education, but some people feel that preventing crime is a better use of funds. Those are opinions based on a particular preference. Again, in a perfect world we would have both excellent education and no crime.
While it might seem completely unimportant relative to the great issues we confront as a society, Wil Save is another example of a value based preference. In a perfect world, Dungeon Magazine would be 8000 pages long, contain 15 full length adventures, 1 dozen Maps of Mystery, 6 Side Treks, and a new map and write-up of a previously unknown region of a world, along with all the columns and features that we have come to expect. I'm sure that Wil Save would be a part of that perfect magazine. But we're not dealing with perfect. Dungeon isn't able to publish all the material they have each month. They have to choose what to include and what to drop.
Some of us, and I don't know the percentage, felt that Wil Save, although it was only 1 page, was not a good value. My hope is that something better comes along - something that everyone feels is better, not just the .1 percent that you think hated Wil Save.
And just as a way of closing, let me present 5 reasons I didn't think Wil Save belonged in Dungeon. Remember, these are value-based judgments. In a perfect world, they wouldn't apply, but since we must choose between different "goods", I think they apply.
1) Wil Wheaton is recognized more as an actor than as a writer. A monthly column should be written by a well-known, respected writer over a famous actor.
Note- I've since learned that Wil is an author, but I didn't know that when I began voicing a complaint in December of 2004.
2) Dungeon is primarily for DMs. Wil Save did not provide any information that was more relevant to DMs than to players, so Dragon would have been a better location for the article.
3) Dungeon has not been publishing as many Maps of Mystery or Critical Threats as I would have liked. While Wil Save may have been a single page, I would have preferred other content over Wil Save.
4) The editors repeatedly claimed things were delayed due to the "bumped-for-space monster". I didn't think Wil Save was as fun as some of the articles that were bumped. While it is possible that a single extra page wouldn't have made a difference, it certainly didn't help.
5) The content of each issue had little or nothing to do with Dungeons & Dragons. For a magazine featuring 100% D&D content, it didn't seem appropriate.
6) Dungeon provides great adventures ready made for even a novice DM to utilize. It appears Wil Wheaton did not respect the quality of the publication when he chose, over the course of an entire year, never to run a single adventure from the magazine for his step-son, who appeared to have been very eager to learn to play D&D. When he finally did get around to running an adventure, he chose to download one off the internet, ignoring the valuable resource that his column was being published in.
I don't think you're getting the gist.
Personally, I didn't care for the Wil Save article. But so what? I didn't campaign to hurt an author's feelings just so I could satisfy my inability to flip past one page.
Doing so is all about you. You don't want this. You think that's not good enough. You aren't happy with how things are. You. You. You. You. You.
Sometimes it's good to think about other people aside from oneself. Other people like Erik Mona, who obviously made an informed judgement call as to it's presence in the magazine, after all, he stuck by it and didn't can it, despite the criticism. Would I have done the same? Maybe not. But then I'm not an editor, and nor have I spent ten or so years getting to that position and nor do I know jack about publishing or the inner workings of Paizo.
Other people like Wil Wheaton. Put yourself in his shoes. He's a D&D geek from way back. Forget about Stand By Me or Star Trek. He's a person with feelings. And as an author of some success, imagine how buzzed he must've been to get to publish something in Dungeon? And then to cop all the negativity over it. Authors tend to be pretty emotionally raw people, and although it's par for the course to cop criticism as a writer, it doesn't make it any easier.
So great, he's walked away. Congratulations, you got what YOU wanted. Some day, you might want to think about the other 90% of people who DID like the column, and the authors and editors who tried to make it happen and keep it alive.
I don't think you're getting the gist.
Personally, I didn't care for the Wil Save article. But so what? I didn't campaign to hurt an author's feelings just so I could satisfy my inability to flip past one page.
Doing so is all about you. You don't want this. You think that's not good enough. You aren't happy with how things are. You. You. You. You. You.
Sometimes it's good to think about other people aside from oneself. Other people like Erik Mona, who obviously made an informed judgement call as to it's presence in the magazine, after all, he stuck by it and didn't can it, despite the criticism. Would I have done the same? Maybe not. But then I'm not an editor, and nor have I spent ten or so years getting to that position and nor do I know jack about publishing or the inner workings of Paizo.
Other people like Wil Wheaton. Put yourself in his shoes. He's a D&D geek from way back. Forget about Stand By Me or Star Trek. He's a person with feelings. And as an author of some success, imagine how buzzed he must've been to get to publish something in Dungeon? And then to cop all the negativity over it. Authors tend to be pretty emotionally raw people, and although it's par for the course to cop criticism as a writer, it doesn't make it any easier.
So great, he's walked away. Congratulations, you got what YOU wanted. Some day, you might want to think about the other 90% of people who DID like the column, and the authors and editors who tried to make it happen and keep it alive.
I have some things I'd like to say you personally. No exclamation points. No name calling.
May I have an email address? Or could you or I create one proprietary to a discussion between us?
I am not a hacker with bad intentions.
I would not sign you up for spam.
Or you could have my email address if you like, phone number, whatever.
Doesn't matter.
I just want to talk about some of the rough thing that are being said.
You chuck out a lot of scathing descriptive adjectives. I'd like a chance to respond civilly where such responses should be conducted, in private.
Please don't be touchy and try to shame me publically over this gesture. I'm just trying not to sully a truly fun forum for anyone else here.
There are way too many personal insults being posted here. What does any other this have to do with the exchange of helpful information or the camaraderie we share here? This is an ugly pattern and if we care about the potential for positive tone in our community feedback, which you seem to very much, I'd think we can help to nip it in the bud.
White flag out. Just want to have a conversation about tone and mutual respect. Your decision.
Peace
|
|
Personally, I didn't care for the Wil Save article. But so what? I didn't campaign to hurt an author's feelings just so I could satisfy my inability to flip past one page.
I don't think I campaigned to hurt an author's feelings. I stated what I felt were good reasons for Wil Save to find another home. Each individual was free to disagree with my assessment (PS, I'm drunk, so I'm not sure I can spell). I had what I considered valid reasons for my opinion. I can't imagine a reason I should have remained silent when I had an opinion about what would improve the magazine.
Again, I don't know what percentage of readers enjoyed Wil Save. I was continually suprised by the number of people posting in support of it. The reasons I "condensed" in the above post indicate my reasons for feeling it needed either improvement, relocation or removal.
I do care about the beneficial effects of the magazine for other readers. If an article purports to be useful for novice DMs, I'll likely bite my tongue. Even though such an article is unlikely to be useful to me, I can at least see what use it has. Wil Save, despite my best efforts, did not appear useful to anyone. Sure, some people enjoyed it, but I wanted to make it clear that I, as a subscriber, prefer useful content over "human interest" articles.
I find it interesting that newsstand buyers seemed to support Wil Save more than subscribers did, at least in the "Failed Wil Save" thread. I don't know if it means anything, but I wonder. In all honesty, I was a news stand buyer until Paizo released "subscriber only" sections. After considering whether I would prefer to do without Dungeon or subscribe, I chose to subscribe. As a subscriber, I take a far more personal interest in the magazine. I'm stuck with it, whatever they produce, for another year and a half.
As a news stand buyer, that was never the case. I could always vote with my dollar by choosing not to buy a particular issue.
In any case, I don't think I, personally, was wrong to advocate a removal of Wil Save. If anyone thinks so, I'd love to defend myself publicly.
One last point - while national policy might deserve more attention than a single page in a magazine, it is much harder to choose which policy is better. Increased spending on education may well reduce crime in 20 years, but hiring 15 more police officers in every city in America will pay off immediately. Those are big decisions, and choosing which one you feel more strongly about is hard. Wil Save was an easy decision. Since it isn't important, it is easier to make a clear choice. I believe the magazine is better without it. Because that decision was much easier to make, it was also easier to support in the proper forum than writing my Senator would be for supporting either education or crime spending over the other. The fact that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme makes it easier to argue our point effectively.
Wow. I never saw any thread remain relatively eloquent but also so barbaric.
Wil Save is gone. It sucks to some, not to others. I liked it, but don't mind it being gone if good stuff will fill in.
I would suggest that everybody just say "Ok" and move on to disucssing what would be the best replacement for Wil Save.
Good golly are you guys still blasting each other? I think we've all said our piece, let's wait and see what Erik et al. can come up with to replace it, then we can start slagging each other over our differing opinions on that feature. Sound good? :-)
Wow, I'm a new to these boards and this thread has been quite interesting. A few thoughts:
1. Wil Save was a creative marketing tool to maybe attract new readers but in my opinion would have been better suited to Dragon as opposed to Dungeon.
2. Message board threads can be a magnet for negativity. As veteran of the Survivor Sucks message board I can tell you that people tend to dogpile when they smell blood..the target of the attacks (in this case Wil Wheaton) should bear in mind that such posts are long on hyberbole and often exaggerate faults.
3. Erik Mona and the current staff of Dungeon are amoung the best team I have seen since I started reading Dungeon in 1986. The editing is very good, the artwork is fantastic, the overall package is great value for money.
4. I am thrilled that the magazine actually has a message board where the staff regularly interject with ideas and thoughts. If one of them should feel the need to label some board participants whiners, that is their perogative and makes them seem human, as long as they realize that such message board participants are likely to be the most avid readers of the magazine and may be indicative of readership as a whole.
Good golly are you guys still blasting each other? I think we've all said our piece, let's wait and see what Erik et al. can come up with to replace it, then we can start slagging each other over our differing opinions on that feature. Sound good? :-)
Works for me.
Still, there are a lot of people that seem to think it is okay to tear people apart because they think that someone did that first. That's wrong on so many levels. First of all, when you make general accusations, you don't differentiate between who is responsible and who isn't. Read the thread. Evaluate each poster. Then come here and say "You, ____, went to far when you said _______". Better yet, you should have wandered into the Failed Wil Save thread and offered defenses for your favorite column beyond "I like it". Even better, you could have called out people as they said things you disagreed with.
You know, the supporters of Wil Save, by and large, have done more to discredit fans of the column than anything its detractors could have said or done.
I hope you're proud of yourselves.
DeadDMWalking -
You know, you just went on at length about how you need to evaluate each post, and then respond thoughtfully - which, in all fairness, is genuinely what you usually do - and then proceeded to lump all supporters together, saying that we all failed to do that. I'm sorry 'by and large' doesn't cut it. A lot of us DID respond thoughtfully to the posts, until they got to be so full of vituperative nonsense that some of us couldn't bear to look at the forum anymore. I know I couldn't.
I come on these boards to engage in thoughtful discourse, not to watch people say "he sucks" 8 million times. I tried several times early on in the discussion to elucidate why I felt that Wil Save deserved to be kept, why, in fact, that I feel that articles like wil save are necessary for the continued existance of the magazine.
You posted rather eloquently about why you disliked Wil Save - many of your fellow detractors did not. But saying that we, by being upset that people spewing vitriol contributed to the cancellation of a favorite column, have discredited supporters of the column? I don't approve of some of the really rather childish posts that have come from some of the supporters since the cancellation, and I have some hope that they are still teenagers and working on developing the response management skills that I expect in adults.
Do I think the mean-spirited posts are the reason Wil left? Certainly not all of it. I acknowledge that Wil needed to bring the article more into the world of D&D than he did. But his struggle to do so is one that I, as a working adult, can sympathize with. Indeed, writing about that struggle in one of his final columns produced what I felt was one of the best columns of the run.
I miss Wil Save. I'm pissed that it's gone. I'm speaking out in the forums where the missing page is discussed to try to ensure that the column that replaces it is at least one that I can find a use for. If it is not, I will be upset. I will post my objections in an adult and dignified manner. But I will not engage in the sort of petty name calling and viciousness that was expressed in many of the people who asked that Wil Save be replaced.
You could have restrained yourself. You could have held back that last line. But it appears that you, too, have succumbed to pettyness. You took from your argument every bit of strength that it had by making that comment. Why? To make us feel bad?
- Ashavan
|
|
Koldoon -
You've taken the time to write a thoughtful post, so I'd like to respond in kind.
First of all, I should make it very clear that I ought to always avoid categorical imperatives, like this sentence. Sometimes I say "always", or "all", when I should say "most". Now, with that said, people form associations and groups, and talking about a group in general terms is not bad. At least, not as long as you're making clear that you're talking about the group in general.
For example, people often talk about "gamers" as a group, and I do the same. That might include people who play video games, RPGs, LARPS, or any combination of these. Of course, this group is large enough that there are significant differences between people in the general category, or even each sub-category. And sometimes, the differences between one sub-category and another could convince you that you're not dealing with a related group at all.
Still, the important point is that a group is identified by those who choose to identify themselves in that manner. For example, I identify myself as an American. I identify myself as a Roman Catholic. I identify myself as a Californian (even though I live in Iowa), and I identify myself as a "Gamer", even though I really only play RPGs. I've also chosen to identify myself with the group of "Wil Save detractors". As a member of that group, I want to do what I can to represent that group in the most positive light. Sure, there are members of that group that I disagree with - and I should have made that more clear earlier.
Now, even though there was a lot of "vitriol" spewed by those against Wil Save, it was generally a "positive" effort. The purpose was to improve the magazine (in each of our personal opinion) by eliminating a piece that didn't seem to fit in (again, in our own minds).
Now, there are specific individuals that have abandoned any hope of achieving a postive effect. There goal can only be to make other people feel bad. I disagree with that motivation, and I want to call these people on it. However, they were awfully numerous, and they exist on both the EnWorld boards and here on the Paizo boards.
My point is that some of the people who didn't like Wil Save went to far, but that is not excuse for those who liked it to go to the same lengths. There are certain members of this community that are willing to be hypocritical enough to both insult people for making personal attacks, and then go on to make as damaging (or worse) personal attacks against other members of this community.
I think my point remains valid. Some people that have identified themselves as Wil Save supporters have said things they shouldn't have. By doing so, they can't help but make the other supporters of Wil Save look bad. In some sense, they're claiming to speak for that group as a whole. Of course, they can't, but then they should make it clear that they're not trying to.
Does that make sense? I'm trying to explain it well, but I'm having trouble.
If I could simplify - People are not bad because they don't like Wil Save. People are not good because they do. People are people, and it is really difficult to make judgements about these people over a medium like an internet message board. When people try, they end up looking like idiots.
Maybe that is more clear. Hopefully.
I only own 3 or 4 Dungeons with Wil Save essays in them (the first 2 in which they appear, issue 124, and one in-between somewhere).
I must say the essays gave me 5 good minutes of nice, light reading. I'll miss the feature.
As an editor, I have had several authors hand in resignations like Wil's to Erik. It hurts, but it is better for the magazine, readers, and writer when the writer realizes he can not deliver what the editor requests.
I may not check out Wil's blog now and then for updates, and I hear him on the "too busy to game" front! I WISH I COULD GET A REGULAR GAME GOING AGAIN!
I may not check out Wil's blog now and then for updates, and I hear him on the "too busy to game" front!
Did you mean to say that you may check out his blog?
Did you mean to say that you may check out his blog?
I may not check out Wil's blog now and then for updates, and I hear him on the "too busy to game" front!
D'oh!!!
It should have read "now", not "not".
Dang ogre-sized hands make typing hard!
Yes, I think I will check out Wil's blog now and then.
I got issue 121 today (local grocery store is slooooow to take out old issues sometimes, thank goodness!) and enjoyed his take on Magic. A lot like my experience with the game.
Wil was never my favorite actor, and his views in Dungeon were no more valid than, say, Vin Diesel's would be, or any other celeb who may be a gamer.
But Wil Save was a nice, fast read that offered fond memories for Wil, his stepson, and me, as a reader as I remembered similar things in my life as a gamer and a father.
I'll miss it, and hope another one page column or feature (Maps of Mystery anyone? An NPC to toss at players? New monsters?) takes its place soon.
If someone had taken the time out of their day to bash my work (over and over) the same way Wil Wheaton has been attacked personally and professionally, I don't think I could bring myself to read Dungeon or bear to hear it mentioned in my presence afterward. It's really got to hurt. Bad. I mean this is the hobby he grew up with and loves and got to write about it (not always directly, mind you) in the holiest of D&D magazines. Everyone has a different relationship to the game. Some can play a lot, others juggle more resposibilities and can only game infrequently at best.
While I never had a strong opinion one way or another about his article, I still found myself flipping to it first when I got each issue because it was an easy and most of the time entertaining read before I sat down to really pore over the adventures.
I think it's a shame that people are so petty. It was one lousy f-ing page at the very BACK OF THE MAGAZINE!!! Shame.
Exactly.
Why gripe over that one page? I mean, if ya don't like it, why not just think of it as ad space? Who would bother to think twice about a one page ad in Dungeon they didn't like?
Seriously.