Is it really necessary to make a personal attack on her by calling her a village idiot?
I agree with Lilith...those final two words of the thread title are totally uncalled for. I prefer a civilized discourse.
Hmmm... My mystic powers tell me this thread'll be locked by the time I get around to checking the boards tomorrow morning.
Hmmm... My mystic powers tell me this thread'll be locked by the time I get around to checking the boards tomorrow morning.
And rightly so. This "we bash WotC employees" is demeaning to them, and will not do any good at all.
Stefan
|
You would have done better to question her statement of being an avid gamer instead of asking a board where less than 1% of the worldwide gaming community happen to post. Not one single person in my group of 7 posts on this site, does that make me not an "avid" gamer because no one comes to back me up? No.
You could have attacked her claim of being an avid gamer by saying that a REAL avid gamer would have known the importance of the 2 magazines to hardcore gamers and would never have even thought to steal that from us.
I am angry with the decision also but I am also realistic. She and everyone else involved (and it wasn't only her decision) should be labeled and never allowed to touch a D&D product ever again. Fired, removed from society and flogged also come to mind.
IF she games, the actual chances of having someone on these board who gamed with her are impossibly slim. State what you want to state and don't ask for unreasonable actions to back up your point.
FH
There are a lot of holes in this theory. For one thing, I can understand not being happy with the decision, but at the same time, trying to find a certain person to villify really doesn't do any good. Even if there was one person that made the decision, I doubt that it was made without any input or discussion with other branches of the business. And if she does have that level of autonomy, then I would guess there are problems at WOTC that are far greater than just pulling two magazine licenses.
You know, as much as I will miss the magazines, there have been a lot of things going on in my life lately that really make me put things in perspective. If you aren't happy with WOTC, let them know. If you don't want to buy their stuff, fine. But don't drag someone's name through the mud, and don't try to make them seem like some kind of horrible person. You don't know her, or her family, or anything about her, really.
I get being upset about this stuff. If I wasn't emotionally invested, I wouldn't care. But when it generates this level of passion . . . I really sometimes think, "its just a game."
Very well said, KnightErrantJr....I agree with you completely.
I'm a little lost- does this mean that being upset is okay, but expressing negative sentiment not? YES, it's only a game, and noone is forcing anyone to buy WOTC products, but people should be able to criticize an unpopular decision and those who made it. Then again, I am posting this after the thread title was edited, so I have no idea what was said.
You can say (or post) whatever you like (within the parameters set by the gracious people that actually run the site), but the more attacks become personal, and designed to impune someone's reputation, the less you are helping your cause, in my opinion (lest anyone think I am making some kind of cosmic pronouncement here), and in fact you may actually hurt it, because the more hurtful and personal a comment is, the easier it is to dismiss as random internet inflamatory chatter.
The following is purely my opinion:
It's okay to:
be upset about a decision
post comments about how upset you are with a decision
solicit others to share their feelings on the subject
express disappointment with people who were involved in the decision
It's NOT okay to:
make personal attacks on an individual ("She made this decision that I disagree with" is okay but "She's not a real gamer" seems an unnecessary escalation so is kinda borderline and "Let's everybody criticize this stupid person" definitely crosses the line)
solicit others to make or join in such personal attacks
make threatening comments aimed at specific individuals or at companies (this last one didn't occur in this thread, but I've seen it in others, most notably one over at the Wizards boards in the last couple of days)
FH you make a good point, but I would assume that a gamer that works for Wotc would have gamed with at least some of the Paizo staff that monitors this board or would take in an RPGA event once in a while. I play LG on the east coast and people have seen my posts and written me about them. I don't see why someone who is in her position would have little exposure to gamers on this board unless she was exagerating her gaming experience. If I put a similar post for instance on gaming stories of experiences with Gary Gygaz, Monte Cook, or Eric Mona I would expect to receive many responses. Liz claims to be an avid gamer - I'd just looking for proof and thought this community could shed some light on it. So far its been pretty dark as in Far Realms dark.
What does this actually prove though? Someone that games all the time couldn't make a bad business decision? Or that someone that works for a large gaming company must have actually played with people at conventions?
I'm not saying that argueing that someone is out of touch with the gaming community isn't a valid point of arguement, but at the same time, this really proves nothing.
If you find out that she does indeed game, then what next? Will you agree that she must then have made a good decision? Or then do we start trying to find out if she is a powergamer, or if she is a bad DM?
I just think this is a really weak way to go about argueing this point.
FH you make a good point, but I would assume that a gamer that works for Wotc would have gamed with at least some of the Paizo staff that monitors this board or would take in an RPGA event once in a while. I play LG on the east coast and people have seen my posts and written me about them. I don't see why someone who is in her position would have little exposure to gamers on this board unless she was exagerating her gaming experience. If I put a similar post for instance on gaming stories of experiences with Gary Gygaz, Monte Cook, or Eric Mona I would expect to receive many responses. Liz claims to be an avid gamer - I'd just looking for proof and thought this community could shed some light on it. So far its been pretty dark as in Far Realms dark.What does this actually prove though? Someone that games all the time couldn't make a bad business decision? Or that someone that works for a large gaming company must have actually played with people at conventions?
I'm not saying that argueing that someone is out of touch with the gaming community isn't a valid point of arguement, but at the same time, this really proves nothing.
If you find out that she does indeed game, then what next? Will you agree that she must then have made a good decision? Or then do we start trying to find out if she is a powergamer, or if she is a bad DM?
I just think this is a really weak way to go about argueing this point.
I *think* I see where both of you are coming from, and if I'm right then JR has a point when he's worried about how far this can go, but so far TK hasn't taken it to that level. As I've said before I think it's okay to criticize an idea and the person behind it- although saying their mother dresses them funny WOULD be going too far(then again, I DID miss that earlier comment).
The simple truth is that Liz claims to be someone she is not.
She is not:
An avid gamer
In touch with the pen and paper role playing consumer
The gamer community
Okay, let's be fair here. I don't like the decision, and I'm leary of the Online Innitiative. I think that WOTC has done a poor job of reassuring us of what is going to go on when Dungeon and Dragon end, and what the future of the D&D line is.
On the other hand, I have no idea how "in touch" I am with the whole of the gaming community. In my own gaming group, 2 out of five of us get Dungeon and Dragon on a regular basis. Two out of that three probably really don't care much about this one way or the other.
I visit the DragonLance Forums, the Paizo Forums, Candlkeep (a Forgotten Realms forum), VERY rarely WOTC's forum, and a local community gaming forum.
There was minimal reaction to this at the DL Forums until the DL announcement was also made.
On Candlekeep there was general saddness and fondness for the magazines, and a wish that they would go on and confusion about the future of what is going on, and general skepticism.
On WOTC's forums, alternatively nothing is wrong and we should all just shut up and wait and see, OR the staff at WOTC are unveiling their plans to unleash the Apocalypse by sacrificing our beloved game to the heartless god of consumerism. Then again, simmilar comments seem to follow every decision WOTC makes on their site, though this was a bit more widespread, so its hard to figure out what is going on there.
On my local gaming forum, there were a handful that were concerned, a handful that in general feel bad that the magazines are gone but haven't bought them in years, and a few that didn't really care much one way or the other.
So what do I know for sure? Most of the people that frequent the forums that I go to feel similar to what I feel. They don't like that the magazines are gone, they think that WOTC has done a poor PR job, and they are skeptical but not completely dismissive on the Online initiative.
Now, the problem is, what percentage of people that are the actual core audience for D&D actually post at the places I frequent?
Long story short, I know my opinion, and the opinion of many that I respect on this board and others, but there is a lot more to this story than I know, or likely will ever know. That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion or that I won't let that opinion be known, but it does mean that I'm not going to try to assume facts that aren't in evidence, nor base any arguments I make on them.
I visit the DragonLance Forums, the Paizo Forums, Candlkeep (a Forgotten Realms forum), VERY rarely WOTC's forum, and a local community gaming forum.
Hey, me too, save for the candlekeep and local community one. This is another hole in the 1%er theory, in my opinion...
On WOTC's forums, alternatively nothing is wrong and we should all just shut up and wait and see,
They've also started smacking people for being critical. Redundant thread closing, my foot.
OR the staff at WOTC are unveiling their plans to unleash the Apocalypse by sacrificing our beloved game to the heartless god of consumerism. Then again, simmilar comments seem to follow every decision WOTC makes on their site, though this was a bit more widespread, so its hard to figure out what is going on there.
I used to feel bad for WOTC- their every move is criticized to an unrealistic excess. But a stopped clock howling constantly that it is two o'clock and all is not well is right twice a day, even if that clock is online and presumably relatively easy to ignore.
First off, yes, WOTC wants to make money. That doesn't help any arguement at all. All companies want to make money. All companies need to make money to continue existing. Even if you accept the paradigm of WOTC=Evil; Paizo=Good, the fact the matter is that Paizo wants to make money. They need to pay for houses and cars and groceries and probably tuition for their kids to go to school, etc. So argueing that WOTC is just doing things for the money is a weak arguement. I know of no non-profit roleplaying organizations, and frankly I don't see any forming any time soon.
The only thing unethical about wanting to make money is to do so in a manner that is fraudulent. I've bought D&D minis, and I know pretty much what they are. If I'm not sure of a given book, I'll page through it at the book store, look at the art and excerpts online, and if I'm still not sold, I'll wait for reviews to flow in on sites like Candlekeep and here.
As far as "knowing your audience," you underscore a weakness in this arguement right there. You mention that the "Living" program would be one way to see what gamers like, but neither I nor anyone in my group have ever played in a "Living" campaign. So right there they wouldn't see what I wanted out of the game. They could be completely in "the know" with the "Living" gamers and miss what I like in the game.
I have no problem with critizing products I don't like, and I'll not support WOTC if the digital initive doen't meet my needs. If WOTC goes in a direction I'm not happy with concerning D&D, I'll not buy it just to support the "brand." But I operate under no illusions that WOTC is going to come to my house, take notes on what I want personally, and put out the "KnightErrantJR" line of products.
Lets turn this around. Other than knowing that you don't like that Dungeon and Dragon are cancelled, what do you want out of WOTC? Its going to do a lot more to help your desires if you can clearly articulate what you want, and not just that you feel that WOTC and their executives are disingenuous and incompetant. I could be wrong, but I don't think you are looking for WOTC to put out a book on how incompetant they are, so I'm not sure that this is going to accomplish what you desire.
Mystic powers were slightly off ::sniff::
I'm curious to know where all of this is heading.
Tom, by learning that Liz Schuh is not an avid RPG gamer, precisely what kind of "Aha!" moment is that going to create for you? On the other hand, if someone actually steps in here (read, "not going to happen") and claims, "Yes, I've gamed with Liz before. Boy, are her halfling rogues a hoot!", what then?
I just don't get what any of this is going to prove for you. And more importantly, how it's going to change anything.
Edit: One last note, if you are actually interested in getting her attention or fellow gamers of hers, you'd be better off posting this to WotC's boards or on EN World.
This thread concerns me greatly. No one can back up the fact that I actually game. This means it's only a matter of time before everyone realizes that I am a brain in a jar. Oh s*&&, did I think/type that aloud?
LOL. I KNEW IT!!!
|
This thread concerns me greatly. No one can back up the fact that I actually game. This means it's only a matter of time before everyone realizes that I am a brain in a jar. Oh s&&%, did I think/type that aloud?
Betting quatloos on alien gladiators is gaming. Dude, I'd say I have your back, but it would just be figurative AND might hurt your feelings (again figuratively).
This thread concerns me greatly. No one can back up the fact that I actually game. This means it's only a matter of time before everyone realizes that I am a brain in a jar. Oh s&~!, did I think/type that aloud?
I already knew Sebastian . . . I already knew . . .
This thread concerns me greatly. No one can back up the fact that I actually game. This means it's only a matter of time before everyone realizes that I am a brain in a jar. Oh s*~%, did I think/type that aloud?
Yesterday a lawyer. Today a brain in a jar. Tomorrow, THE WORLD!
On a lighter note I'm happy to say I've come up with the solution. Everyone just put in a dollar so we can buy 2 dozens copies of the following book and send it to WOTC and call it a day!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Dummies-Bill-Slavicsek/dp/0764584596 /ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/002-2119049-0048030?%5Fencoding=UTF8&qid=11782955 45&sr=1-15
Well...it's kinda obvious guys...if your not an AVID gamer than your just a bad person...
FLOGGING!!!!! Let's FLOG all the Wizards of the COAST.
WAHH WAHH.
Dungeon and Dragon may be leaving Paizo and going on line, but it isn't over. More importantly Paizo isn't over, so the good work continues. The Adventure Paths has my gaming group convinced I'm an awsome DM.
Paizo make Dungeon Masters better.
Still a good flogging would be good. You know for morale.
FLOGGING!!!!! Let's FLOG all the Wizards of the COAST.
Your ideas are intriguing, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
Well...it's kinda obvious guys...if your not an AVID gamer than your just a bad person...
FLOGGING!!!!! Let's FLOG all the Wizards of the COAST.
WAHH WAHH.
We may have lost Dungeon and Dragon, but at least the boards come through with their characteristic sarcasm. Now all we need is a threadjacking and the Mission will be complete...
KnightErrant Jr.
Very articulately put argument. As a long time AVID, sometimes RABID gamer, I too will miss the hands on Dungeon and Dragon magazine format. Will I follow WoTC with their online product? Absolutely, for as long as that product fulfills my gaming need. Will Pathfinder and Paizo's products arrive in my mailbox? Absolutely! As a "mature" gamer, I have a measure of disposable income which determines which products I purchase for my gaming experience. When I find a product I like, I buy it and keep buying it. When that product no longer interests me, I don't buy it - that simple.
I don't adhere to this company is bad and this one is good, I too run a small business and sometimes some decisions are bad, ill-conceived or just plain wrong. Do I learn from such mistakes, of course we all do. Believe me consumers vote and their ballot is money.
Dungeons and Dragons the game has no fear of disappearing, as long as you can imagine it - you will be able to play it. There is enough content in the gaming community to supply endless ideas, after nearly 25 years of gaming and home-brewing I have yet to find the idea well dry. Of course every now and then scanning through the pages of Dungeon or Dragon "sparks" a new idea or campaign, but these inspirations are not limited to them. I have had ideas come from music, "Come Sail Away" by Styx - inspired a campaign of Avariel elves and their Cloud King despot, movies "Indiana Jones" based traps and even from Scripture, the collapse of the walls of Jericho inspired the deadly "Legion of Trumpeters" and their fierce horns of blasting and so on.
We as a gaming community will be fine; whether Paizo or WotC feeds our appetite is entirely up to us the consumer. The banquet table is not empty we just need to enjoy the feast.
FLOGGING!!!!! Let's FLOG all the Wizards of the COAST.Your ideas are intriguing, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
sent $100.00 check or money order to:
Sir Kakillah100110101 Binary Lane
The Edge of the World, Earth
for a life long subscribtion
My husband gamed with somebody named Liz when he was in college. I don't have any immediate evidence that this is a different Liz. Although from his stories, she was a bit - odd.
Between the two of us, my husband and I have gamed with dozens of people over the years, but neither one of us has ever gamed with anyone named Tim. Nor anyone named Sebastian, come to think of it.
PROOF! Proof, I tell you, that both Tim and Sebastian must be brains-in-jars!
Oops I mean I HAVE LOTS OF BRAINS
Reading all the posts, I wonder if perhaps TK's concern is not so much that Liz portrays herself as an avid gamer (and may not be) but that she claims to "know the will of the people" and make her decisions thusly.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I was under the impression that this decision was guided by surveys conducted by WotC _online_.
I posted on EnWorld (and it seemed some people just didn't get it) that the decision to cancel the magazines can not reflect the will of the people who used the magazines unless those were the people surveyed. I don't recall seeing such a survey.
Quite simply:
0% of non-magazine consumers (those who did not, and would not use the magazine) are affected by the decision to cancel the magazines.
100% of magazine consumers are affected by the decision.
Seems like simple logic to me.
If WotC had allowed the magazines to co-exist, the non-mag consumers would have still subscribed (or not) to the DI. The _only_ reason to cancel the mags was to push people who were magazine consumers to the DI. There seems to me to be no other credible reason.
If they had surveyed _magazine_ consumers about whether or not they would prefer DI over print, and if the _majority_ of those consumers had said yes to the DI _over_ print, then WotC would be justified, and we would all have to shut up.
If they had survey mag consumers, and the majority had chosen print over DI, then killing the mags would be stupid, _unless_ you want to force those consumers to the DI.
A survey that includes (or is entirely) non-magazine consumers skews results of a survey asking about preference between print and DI.
They should have done two separate surveys.
1. (non-mag consumers) Would you like a DI?
2. (mag consumers) Would you prefer a DI over print?
I'm fairly certain that the survey was only one of the things that WOTC did to get an idea about where they wanted to go with their online plans. Also, I was signed up for surveys through WOTC's site, so I imagine that they did have some magazine subscribers or purchasers in on the survey, but yes, in this particular survey, 0% of gamers that do not go to WOTC's site would be included, since that's how they determined who was part of the survey.
I don't want anyone to misinterpret what I've said so far. I'm not happy with the magazines getting cancelled, and I think WOTC has done a very poor job of assuring their customers about the future. I'm just saying that I'm not automatically going to boycott them because of this, especially before I find out what the digital initiative entails, or what their long term future plans are.
I'll even go one step further and say that I've read Liz Schuh's and Scott Rouse's bios, and both mention that they were not D&D players until assigned to the brand. It does occur to me, especially in my more cynical moments, that both of them are Hasbro corporate types that that were assigned to take a firmer hand over WOTC with a keener eye toward profitablility, and that the "we love D&D and have started playing it" theme is likely there as a bulwark against this very kind of critism.
That having been said, I don't know them, and I don't think it would be fair to make any comment like this without a disclaimer that states that it may indeed be possible that either or both of them really are avid gamers at this point in time and that they really do feel a kind of loyalty to the brand. I honestly don't know them or their feelings on this.
In the end though, gamers or not, its not really cogent to the arguement at hand. Its not likely that the licence will go back to Paizo any time soon, and it does strike me that it would be much more helpful to at least communicate to WOTC that their lines of communication are . . . not good . . . and what we want and expect out of the D&D line. If they don't provide it, then we don't buy it. That's about it at this point.
This thread is terribly strange, because my real name is Liz...though my last name isn't "Schuh." I keep thinking I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone, and I haven't heard the Rod Serling voiceover yet.
This thread is terribly strange, because my real name is Liz...though my last name isn't "Schuh." I keep thinking I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone, and I haven't heard the Rod Serling voiceover yet.
But are you a brain in a jar? Because we've seen a few of those pop up . . .
|
|
And, schuh means "shoe" in German. That's what really strikes me as odd. Because I wear shoes. And what am I? A werewoof.
And I don't think I ever remember gaming with Liz, but I have these dreams at night where I'm hunting a wildebeest on the African plains in the full moon, and I don't have any shoes on.
And, schuh means "shoe" in German. That's what really strikes me as odd. Because I wear shoes. And what am I? A werewoof.
And I don't think I ever remember gaming with Liz, but I have these dreams at night where I'm hunting a wildebeest on the African plains in the full moon, and I don't have any shoes on.
Heathy! Focus! You must stay on topic! Now . . . were there any brains in jars on the African plains while you were hunting shoelessly?
But are you a brain in a jar? Because we've seen a few of those pop up . . .
Only when I spend too much time staring at code.
|
|
Heathy! Focus! You must stay on topic! Now . . . were there any brains in jars on the African plains while you were hunting shoelessly?And, schuh means "shoe" in German. That's what really strikes me as odd. Because I wear shoes. And what am I? A werewoof.
And I don't think I ever remember gaming with Liz, but I have these dreams at night where I'm hunting a wildebeest on the African plains in the full moon, and I don't have any shoes on.
No. They usually'll keep em in a type of gourd.
Chief Technical Officer
|
The following is purely my opinion:
It's okay to:
be upset about a decision
post comments about how upset you are with a decision
solicit others to share their feelings on the subject
express disappointment with people who were involved in the decisionIt's NOT okay to:
make personal attacks on an individual ("She made this decision that I disagree with" is okay but "She's not a real gamer" seems an unnecessary escalation so is kinda borderline and "Let's everybody criticize this stupid person" definitely crosses the line)
solicit others to make or join in such personal attacks
make threatening comments aimed at specific individuals or at companies (this last one didn't occur in this thread, but I've seen it in others, most notably one over at the Wizards boards in the last couple of days)
You might note that we don't really have a posted policy about content, though we reserve the right to remove anything we feel is inappropriate. We believe that we have an intelligent community here, though, so in practice, we rarely have to do this.
We don't have a problem with rational discussion and opinion, but when you go from "I think this idea sucks" goes to "I think YOU suck," you've gone over the line.
It does occur to me, especially in my more cynical moments, that both of them are Hasbro corporate types that that were assigned to take a firmer hand over WOTC...Liz was an employee of Wizards of the Coast long before the Hasbro buyout.
Honestly, that's why I pointed out in my post that I wanted to put in a disclaimer that I don't know anything about her. Its a knee jerk reaction, and one that you want to make when you are angry, but unless you have facts to back it up, it shouldn't be stated definatively.
I hope that came across in my original post.