You know, this is almost precisely what I wrote last week for this thread...but then I deleted it. I had to take a step back, because it was sort of personal to me. I have gamed with Stephen in Jason Bulmahn's game for over 2 years. Before that, I met him at Norwescon, running the RPGA tables. To read all the comments about how he was bragging, how his "tone" was condescending...all these perceived slights, well, I realized that folks are so uptight about 4th ed. that any WotC staffer who puts themselves out there might as well have a great big bullseye on them!It is equally apparent that many of you don't know, haven't met these WotC people. Therefore, you have no idea of their tone or intent when they write this stuff. There are comments that people think Mearls sounds "stuck up and full of himself" on the podcasts, and can't stand him. Judging a person on the sound of his voice??? We are better than that. Calm down, wait for the 4E stuff to come out, check it out, and make your decisions then.
Hmm, and I thought October is one of our trial months to judge the DI. But it seems I can't form an opinion on the DI articles unless I've meet the wizards staff. Or wait until I have to pay for DI. Which this article has far more to do with than it does 4e.
I did find the whole discussion of the dice rolling stats to be insulting. I was told my group plays wrong and it's disapointing we roll instead of bieng progressive and doing point buy. No, I dont know the writer personally and shouldn't need to to read dungeon magazine. If it was his blog I'd feel diffrent. It's free now but in a few months I'd get to pay to be annoyed.
Wizards staff putting themselves out there? They've spent most of the time since 4e announcement saying how great 4e is but telling little details with no backing. So shockingly people are talking about it and speculating. And they do have a bullseye on them. They are convincing us to pay for the DI with this trial. So people are going to have opinions on whether they will pay for it based on their feeling as they read it.
Right now the current articles convince me I wont get the DI. However, for those who are annoyed with Wizard's should send a response to them on how they would like the DI. This is a trial and maybe they will change some of it. I know Id rather have the DI be a useful service than dismiss it out of hand.
Oh and Mearls attitude does seem to be getting worse on the later Podcasts, but that could be his excitement over 4e. His job isn't to be a public speaker so I do agree its unfair to judge him by his tone.
You're right - we (naysayers) don't know them. All we can go by is what they tell us - since they don't interract with us.
They don't interact with us? Between the blogs, the podcasts, the web articles, the messageboard postings, seriously, how can you begin to back up that statement?
All we can go by is the fact that they are rolling out a product line that is a subscription model.
Yes, D&DI. And they're rolling out another product line that is not, the 4e books.
All we can go by is the fact that they told us that if we don't like the change, too bad - it's coming anyway.
Which change, exactly? The change of Succubi from "demons" to "devils"? The advancement of the Realms timeline? The advancement of the Eberron timeline? The names of fighter maneuvers?
Some changes that are coming are already set in stone, yes. In other places they've been responding to feedback.
All we can go by is the fact that at the D&D experience, they knowingly allowed a misquote to circulate to give the idea that there would be no 4E D&D through 2008.
I work for a company known for its sometimes infuriating secrecy. Correcting a misquote in that instance is tantamount to an announcement right there.
All we can go by is that they canceled print editions of Dragon and Dungeon magazine for reasons they won't completely provide (or that we agree with).
Disagreement is not a problem. "Reasons they won't completely provide"? What exactly are they holding back?
All we can go by is what they tell us and how they behave. You may like them and know them personally. We don't.
I don't either, but I don't see much in the way of inexcusable behavior. I see articles being posted saying, "Welcome to the new magazine. Let me give you an overview of my column."
You may like many of the 4E changes that have been presented. We don't.
Personally, I think they're probably good people, but they are not taking my favorite game in a direction I like. And that pisses me off.
What pisses me off is coming to a board I generally enjoy reading and seeing that it's moved from honest criticism into Three Minutes Hate mode. I'm basically right with Laithoron - there's a feedback loop in the messageboard that's pretty much guaranteeing that every statement put forward by WotC will be either derided ad infinitum, or ignored. Discussion has coalesced into "Dude, look how much more I hate 4e than you do! BLEARRGH!"
What pisses me off is that all this bile is coming from a bunch of posters I generally admire, and who in every other sub-board here continue to write well thought out, reasonable posts. Heathy excepted. =)
Posting negative comments without considering the content itself does not insure the content is positive.
People can be posting reflexively and still be right, but through dumb luck rather than logic or skill.
The questions/suggestions are old basic ones. It's like they're starting at Square One as though there has never been magazines before them.
They don't interact with us? Between the blogs, the podcasts, the web articles, the messageboard postings, seriously, how can you begin to back up that statement?You're right - we (naysayers) don't know them. All we can go by is what they tell us - since they don't interract with us.
Messageboard posts are interactive. The other means you state (podcasts, articles, etc.) are one way. There has been some interaction, but so much has already been decided that input at his point has had minimal impact on product already in production.
All we can go by is the fact that they are rolling out a product line that is a subscription model.Yes, D&DI. And they're rolling out another product line that is not, the 4e books.
Maybe you weren't paying attention, but there will be PHB1, PHB2, PHB3, etc., all core books. It's now a model that if you want the "core" game, you'll have to get a few PHBs and MMs. Want stats for a Frost Giant? - a monster that's been in the first MM of each edition - sorry! You have to wait for MM2 or MM3 or whatever.
All we can go by is the fact that they told us that if we don't like the change, too bad - it's coming anyway.Which change, exactly? The change of Succubi from "demons" to "devils"? The advancement of the Realms timeline? The advancement of the Eberron timeline? The names of fighter maneuvers? Some changes that are coming are already set in stone, yes. In other places they've been responding to feedback.
4E in general. It's too soon for an edition change (IMO).
All we can go by is the fact that at the D&D experience, they knowingly allowed a misquote to circulate to give the idea that there would be no 4E D&D through 2008.I work for a company known for its sometimes infuriating secrecy. Correcting a misquote in that instance is tantamount to an announcement right there.
Not my problem. The deception remained.
All we can go by is that they canceled print editions of Dragon and Dungeon magazine for reasons they won't completely provide (or that we agree with).Disagreement is not a problem. "Reasons they won't completely provide"? What exactly are they holding back?
Um, if I knew what they were holding back, then they wouldn't have been holding it back.
All we can go by is what they tell us and how they behave. You may like them and know them personally. We don't.I don't either, but I don't see much in the way of inexcusable behavior. I see articles being posted saying, "Welcome to the new magazine. Let me give you an overview of my column."
And that's a valid viewpoint. Mine is different.
You can 'roleplay' just as well with point buy. In fact, you get to decide (choice is always good) what you are going to 'roleplay'. Rolling crappy characters was never 'fun' for me.
Hovering over players as you monitor their dice rolling isn't fun either, nor is having to accuse a player of cheating when he/she has unbelievable rolls.
And point buys never leave anyone screwed by bad rolls.
I like point buys, too :)
...I work for a company known for its sometimes infuriating secrecy. Correcting a misquote in that instance is tantamount to an announcement right there.... I don't see much in the way of inexcusable behavior.
I agree with some of what you say, but I can't on this point.
Secrecy is one thing -- willful deception is quite another. It is a violation of any ethical and moral standard I can think of, and saying it's OK because it's business (which may not be a claim you're making) doesn't pardon it.
Lying is inexcusable.
I agree with some of what you say, but I can't on this point.
Secrecy is one thing -- willful deception is quite another. It is a violation of any ethical and moral standard I can think of, and saying it's OK because it's business (which may not be a claim you're making) doesn't pardon it.
Lying is inexcusable.
I agree, and honestly I'm being somewhat wishy-washy on this point because I don't know precisely what was said and by whom. There's a difference, though, between saying "4th Edition isn't coming out anytime soon" at an event 15 months before the planned release of said product, and saying "We're not working on 4e right now" when it's been under development for a good 18 months. I've heard each of those statements attributed to WotC; I have no idea what exactly was said.
I'm not saying no one has any right to feel upset, or opposed to fourth edition. And there have been some valid reasons to complain about Wizards' handling of the announcement (witness Countdown to 404!). Nonetheless, my favorite board is descending way into ugly knee-jerk. And with that said, I will attempt to stop talking about the boards and just try initiating the discussions I'd like to see.
I'm not saying no one has any right to feel upset, or opposed to fourth edition. And there have been some valid reasons to complain about Wizards' handling of the announcement (witness Countdown to 404!). Nonetheless, my favorite board is descending way into ugly knee-jerk. And with that said, I will attempt to stop talking about the boards and just try initiating the discussions I'd like to see.
Please do not take my comments (or ire) personally, as none of my vitriol is directed at you.
If you like what you see in 4E and from the designers, then enjoy it. I was very hyped about 3E when it came out, so I understand the good feelings and excitement that can come with a new edition.
However, the bottom line for me is that I do not trust the motives behind the new edition (or presentation thereof), nor do I trust the comments of WotC employees due to the deception described above.
I wouldn't say it was willful deception. There was a lot of misquoting that got blown out of proportion on this here Interweb thingie. Read a nice summary thread here.
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
You're right - we (naysayers) don't know them. All we can go by is what they tell us - since they don't interract with us.All we can go by is the fact that they told us that if we don't like the change, too bad - it's coming anyway.
All we can go by is what they tell us and how they behave. You may like them and know them personally. We don't.
You may like many of the 4E changes that have been presented. We don't.
Personally, I think they're probably good people, but they are not taking my favorite game in a direction I like. And that pisses me off.
Hmm.....It appears that saying I know some of the WotC people, I am now lumped in the category of "WotC lover". Ummm. No. That was not my point. My point was that posters' perception of the condescending tones and "we are WotC...bow down and kiss our butts" was PROBABLY (note the qualifier there) not really there. I base that on my personal insight on knowing the author of the help column discussed in this thread. I agree with other posters' opinions that this is merely a "Hi, let me introduce myself" column.
Am I a 4th editon fan? I really have no opinion. To me, this is still an unfinished product. I can't say I love or hate it, until I see it. When I hear that "WotC is doing <insert change here>", I could really care less. Why? Because I refuse to listen to the rumor mill, and get worked up about something that is not absolutely, positively going to be in the new game. If WotC says it, so what? I refuse to believe it until I see it.
Now, do I discount your right to get worked up and angry about it? Absolutely not. I just disapprove of the personal attacks. I think that members of this board are far, FAR better than that. I wish to keep us from becoming Gleemax 2 (too?).
Do I approve of WotC's promotional work on 4E? Ugh. No. The analogy that they have rolled a 1 on their diplomacy check, with negative modifiers to boot is a good one. Companies usually have a PR department that handle product promotions, with people who are very good at selling a new product. I think putting that responsibility on those who are developing the game is...well, they should be DEVELOPING the game, not promoting it. So, I agree with you there. And yes, again, you have the right to be angry about it.
Do I approve of WotC cancelling the magazines and resurrecting them in digital format? Not really. Paizo did a great job with the magazines. I have yet to "see" a product from WotC...I see a lot of previews and samples and trial runs, but nothing I'd call a product. Lots of promotion...so see above comments. But I also realize that until WotC's venture on this fails miserably, Paizo is not getting those magazines back. So, Paizo has admirably moved on.
Lastly, rolling vs. point buy. Why are we arguing about this, again? I did not take Stephen's comments as a "anyone who rolls stats is a grognard" statement at all. He suggested point buy as a completely valid and appropriate strategy to eliminate any possibility of cheating, using the "grognard" reference to refer to those who would dismiss it outright as invalid. Merely 6 months ago, I had no idea what a point buy option was, and I'd been playing 3.5 for 2 years. His suggestion in the article WAS valid, especially for new players and DMs. For more experienced gamers, less so.
That said, I think all of this suggests that WotC is aiming 4E at new &/or younger gamers. You know, high schoolers and 20-somethings that have lots of free time to play (unlike us with jobs, kids, etc). I'd be curious to see demographics for RPGers...what's the % of 30-40, 40-50? If we are a small slice o' pie, then no wonder this game is getting changed. Sad, but business. And yes, that pisses me off too, if only for the fact that it reminds me that I'm "old" now. ;-)
OK. (Steels himself for attack). Hit me. (wince)
That said, I think WotC is aiming 4E at new gamers. You know, high schoolers and 20-somethings that have lots of free time to play (unlike us with jobs, kids, etc). I'd be curious to see demographics for RPGers...what's the % of 30-40, 40-50? If we are a small slice o' pie, then no wonder this game is getting changed. Sad, but business.
It would be more intresting to see the #'s of those buying of wizards products. I know besides mini's Ive only bought the Expedition to Greyhawk and Stormwreck in the last couple of years. However, I have bought IK products, pathfinder/gamemaster/dungeon, Arcana Evolved products and Ptolus. My gaming group might have bought 6 total wotc books but 30 or so d20 books in 2 years. Heck as much as Im annoyed they dont listen to my group, we're not their target customers.
They may be marketing to the groups they know will buy more of their books. They also seem to be expanding core books to rope in those who only get certain core books such as my group. Since I like using paizo adventures I'll wait to see their take on it.
That said, I think all of this suggests that WotC is aiming 4E at new &/or younger gamers. You know, high schoolers and 20-somethings that have lots of free time to play (unlike us with jobs, kids, etc). I'd be curious to see demographics for RPGers...what's the % of 30-40, 40-50? If we are a small slice o' pie, then no wonder this game is getting changed. Sad, but business. And yes, that pisses me off too, if only for the fact that it reminds me that I'm "old" now. ;-)
I think you're spot on with this, actually.
College students are certainly part of the target as they have the game time that us old folks just don't.
College students are certainly part of the target as they have the game time that us old folks just don't.
It's not just time to game so much as disposable income and the inclination to buy new products. Those are us who've spent the last 25 years acquiring D&D products are increasingly difficult to convince to buy "new" books that contain the same material we already have in several different versions already.
Heathy excepted. =)
Well yeah, he's always excepted (but never truly accepted) :-)
And yes, it does feel as though they are trying for a younger market, and to be honest, why not?
They say that younger minds are more accepting to change (I know that I'm not), and its got to better/easier to try and hook them into D&D/Roleplaying when they're young, because as people get older (and have had no experience of such things) they seem to have a misconception about roleplaying, or are resistance to trying it out. (I dread trying to explain roleplaying to relatives, or collegues, or anyone else for that matter)
So yes, I think they'll have better luck at getting some college kids to give it a go, rather than some 30+ year old officer workers (no stereotyping or offence intended here) that only ever heard about it from their nephew, or as a comparison in a magazine to the latest online PC game.
As for the rest of us? Well I know that in the end I'll wait to see what the finalized product is like, regardless of the lead-up to it all, and will decide at that point.
Back to the original thread title, I actually liked this posting; it's about the only encouraging thing I've seen on the Wizards board lately. Maybe it's because I absolutely loathed Nelson-Brown's "Save My Game" column, which was nothing of the sort ("you should name your characters after basketball players!" and "My gaming credential is that I'm an 'active and committed born-again Christian'!"). This new fellow sounds as if he might actually give useful gaming advice; I'm sort of looking forward to reading what he has to say.
|
I wouldn't say it was willful deception. There was a lot of misquoting that got blown out of proportion on this here Interweb thingie. Read a nice summary thread here.
It's not so much the statement about "products through 2008" that brought about the accusations of deception. The "We are not currently working on 4th edition" quote was the one that was a blatant lie. There is no need for accusation here, and there is no defending it. We were lied too, so we would continue to purchase 3.5 products at least up until the GenCon announcement.
I wouldn't say it was willful deception. There was a lot of misquoting that got blown out of proportion on this here Interweb thingie. Read a nice summary thread here.It's not so much the statement about "products through 2008" that brought about the accusations of deception. The "We are not currently working on 4th edition" quote was the one that was a blatant lie. There is no need for accusation here, and there is no defending it. We were lied too, so we would continue to purchase 3.5 products at least up until the GenCon announcement.
The quote was that WoTC was not actually working on a 4e that required minis.
I find this thread a little disheartening. I think that it's clear that a lot of us simply aren't part of Stephen's target audience, so of course his comments don't address us.
If one of my players regularly cheats during character creation, for example, I can deal with that. I expect that this is true for many of us, and we'd have to be substantially different people (or substantially younger) not to be able to come up with solutions. I have no problem with Stephen addressing those other people, and I'm guessing that he'd have no problem with me giving this sort of advice column a miss. I might read it anyway, but more as an item of interest than because I need this sort of instruction.
I'm not saying that we should all love everything about WotC. I'm saying that we, the denizens of the Paizo boards, can probably do better than attacking a WotC rep for giving really basic advice to new DMs.
It is equally apparent that many of you don't know, haven't met these WotC people. Therefore, you have no idea of their tone or intent when they write this stuff. There are comments that people think Mearls sounds "stuck up and full of himself" on the podcasts, and can't stand him. Judging a person on the sound of his voice??? We are better than that. Calm down, wait for the 4E stuff to come out, check it out, and make your decisions then.
On the one hand you're right -- it's easy for us (including me) to forget that the targets of our attacks are regular people like you and me. Many of our comments (including mine) have ranged from insensitive to mean-spirited to considerably worse.
On the other hand, WotC has made their bed -- now they have to lie in it. The buildup to 4/e is becoming a series of clumsily-executed steps seemingly designed to alienate the existing customer base. If you step out into traffic, you're going to be hit -- don't just blame the cars.
And for what it's worth, I think most will will wait for 4/e to be released before we judge it. In the meantime we're judging the Digital Initiative at least a year after it was conceived, and it is disappointing -- to be generous.
Regards :)
Jack
I find this thread a little disheartening. I think that it's clear that a lot of us simply aren't part of Stephen's target audience, so of course his comments don't address us...
With respect, I have to disagree with this (sort of).
We most certainly are his target audience -- he just doesn't seem to know it. WotC needs to look carefully at the high standards and substantial content we've enjoyed and come to expect from Dragon and Dungeon.
My irritation isn't at his column's content, but at a continuing failure on the part of WotC to provide anything comparable to the magazines' previous content.
To add insult to injury, WotC acts as though I'm stupid enough to believe otherwise -- I'm dumb, but not that dumb.
I'm not saying that we should all love everything about WotC. I'm saying that we, the denizens of the Paizo boards, can probably do better than attacking a WotC rep for giving really basic advice to new DMs.
When it is an example of a product in a few months we will be paying for because they took our old product I think we need to attack it. We need to tell them we want more than the current DI if they expect to have us pay for it like we did for Dungeon. Since we are paying more for printing costs and sign up we need to tell them what we want.
I find this thread a little disheartening. I think that it's clear that a lot of us simply aren't part of Stephen's target audience, so of course his comments don't address us...With respect, I have to disagree with this (sort of).
We most certainly are his target audience -- he just doesn't seem to know it.
I'm using the phrase "target audience" to mean something other than what I think you're using it to mean. I'm trying to say that Stephen is addressing people other than us. I think that you're trying to say that he ought to be addressing us.
My take on his column is that WotC has hired him to write for novice GMs, so he is. Maybe they ought to forego that and have him write for us instead, or (better yet) hire someone else to write for us in addition to having someone write for novice GMs. That they haven't done this might reflect badly on the corporation, but not necessarily badly on Stephen.
When it is an example of a product in a few months we will be paying for because they took our old product I think we need to attack it. We need to tell them we want more than the current DI if they expect to have us pay for it like we did for Dungeon. Since we are paying more for printing costs and sign up we need to tell them what we want.I'm not saying that we should all love everything about WotC. I'm saying that we, the denizens of the Paizo boards, can probably do better than attacking a WotC rep for giving really basic advice to new DMs.
But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is one where people are saying that they are soiled just by reading Stephen's advice for new GMs. I agree completely that we ought to let WotC know how we feel about the new product. I just don't think that we need to call Stephen a git.
I just don't think that we need to call Stephen a git.
Honestly thats the feeling I got from the way he wrote his advice on rolling dice. It had some good advice but was written to me in an annoying way. My whole group got turned off by his article due to it. I thought the rest of his article was fine. I do think it be better the more people discussed why they didn't like it then just attack.
However his attitude combined with lackluster DI is convincing me not to pay for DI. However, since October/November is the trial month I have been politely sending pm's to the authors with my opinions to see if they will improve.
If Stephen can call us grognards, then we can call him a git.
I don't know Stephen, but he called me a grognard for rolling stats so of course he is a $#%^&@ git.
Some of us have been playing Dungeons and dragon for a long time too. I have been playing since 1981.
Yes I have played for 50 hours straight. I am not in high school anymore.
None my games has ground to a halt because of a rule discrepancy or short coming. DM's and players are individuals who can improvise and roll with the punches.
And if you were really interested in SAVING MY GAME maybe you should shout over those cube walls you are so #$%^& proud of and talk some sense into your coworkers ya #$@%^& GIT!
I wasn't to upset at a new edition but now I am getting annoyed. Fortunately there is a Hasbro shareholders meeting coming up.
Grognard my ^$$.
With respect, I have to disagree with this (sort of). We most certainly are his target audience -- he just doesn't seem to know it...
I'm using the phrase "target audience" to mean something other than what I think you're using it to mean. I'm trying to say that Stephen is addressing people other than us. I think that you're trying to say that he ought to be addressing us.
I think you're absolutely right, both about what Stephen wrote (and why), and that I'm implying that they need to recognize what audience they have appropriated from Paizo, and respond accordingly -- rather than pay Stephen to write such articles.
They continue to spend time (theirs and ours) and money with this drivel that we've been getting free from the WotC website for years, while we wait (seemingly in vain) for material that's worth a subscription fee.
My take on his column is that WotC has hired him to write for novice GMs, so he is. Maybe they ought to forego that and have him write for us instead, or (better yet) hire someone else to write for us in addition to having someone write for novice GMs. That they haven't done this might reflect badly on the corporation, but not necessarily badly on Stephen.
I think you're dead on. I actually have no problem with what SRM said, but I'm still waiting for substantial, original content from WotC.
Regards :)