I was impressed with the feedback and statements that Mike made here at
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=373066
This was also featured on ENworld.
The guy hit the mark with his statements IMHO. As a player and DM since 1st Edition I always felt I had a stake in D&D. If some of the people engaged in working on 4E feel that D&D is "Our" game I think 4E might just be a better product.
Here's to being hopeful!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I liked some of it, but was pretty turned off by a couple of things. The comment about the removal of the monk in 2nd ed being arbitrary was pretty bizarre since (1) monks are missing in 4th and (2) monks were removed because they didn't fit the western model of the other 2nd ed classes. I also felt he blatantly misrepresented how long it took between 2nd ed (1989) and TSR failing (1997) - that's not a few years. In fact, it is as long as the lifespan of 3rd edition.
So part of it was ok, but part of it was more of the "We're telling you why what we sold you sucks."
I was impressed with the feedback and statements that Mike made here at
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=373066
Doing my part by linkifying for ease.
And here is the previous Paizo thread on this post. (Now that I have looked at it.)
|
This was my post about it on the WotC forum:
Let me focus on these:
"At the end of the day, all you can hope for is that enough people thought their baby was ugly, or their house crappily laid out, that they happy with the change or able to accept it after giving it a try. I think the stuff we've done does make improvements to areas where the game didn't work all that well, makes the game more accessible, and makes it easier to play D&D."
Note the order here.
First someone has to hate what they have, then they have to either be satisfied, or able to accept what is new. Only after all that does he begin to touch on whether the quality of the job done is actually good.
"4E - It doesn't suck as much as 3E!"
Somehow, that does not inspire me.
"In the end, gamers get to judge whether the changes we have made are for the good of the game or not. When the game is out there, then we'll know. Right now, you have some people who want it to fail for various ideological, personal, or other random reasons, and others who want it to succeed for all the same factors. All that conjecture and hope doesn't mean anything until the game comes out and the vast majority of gamers who are stuck somewhere in the middle pass judgment."
Here we have a major problem.
Why is there an assumption that everyone who is a critic wants the game to fail?
Is it impossible for people who want the game to succeed to express any concerns over material that has been announced?
That does not look good at all.
Link here.
AAAAHHHHHHHHH!
That beast is like 73 pages long! Most of it is people being irritating and nitpicking each other.
Is Mike Mearl's comment even on there? Or are folks just funning me?
Do I have to read through every page, trying to find his response? Argh. I don't even know his screen name.
No links or nothin' needed. Just that his post is halfway down on page 48 would be plenty. Thanks.
...wow I think my eyes are bleeding from having read that.
...I love Paizo.
Go Mike!
WOOOoooooo...ooo.eh..cough! cough!
ack!
Also, he sounds a little defensive when talking about people wanting the game to fail.
Wouldn't you if you were in his shoes?
Mearlsie is in a tight spot. But he's also the new designer on the block when it comes to official D&D. He didn't design 3e, or 3.5 e, but he did a lot of design work for it. His choice as one of the architects of 4e makes sense, he sees problems and wants to fix them.
I don't like where the game seems to be going, as myt D&D game. I had the same reaction to Iron heroes -- neat game, but too far removed to be D&D. I had the same reaction to Mutants and Masterminds for that mateer. Now, I love me some M&M, because ti works better than any other superhero game I have played. But I don't happen to need another fantasy game. I lvoe the one I have. So I may play 4th ed, just like I have played Iron heroes, but I am unlikely to play it often, or run games in it.
I'm not sure what else he can say. I'm sure his corporate masters need him to walk a fine line, and that's fair, he works for them. And he may think things I love are stupid or bad ideas, but obviously he doesn;t want to say that.
It is clear to me Wizards has decided D&D needs a new audience. They are designing this game for that audience. Blessings on them, and Mearlsie, bgut I'm not part of that group. I am now just sad, but it's fair. Their game, their rules, their call. I hope absolutely everyone that picks it up loves it, as I don't beleive in wishing failure on good folks, and Mearlsie is good folks.
I also hope for success to those supporting 3e into the future. No ill wishes on anyone from me.
corporate masters
|
Here we have a major problem.
Why is there an assumption that everyone who is a critic wants the game to fail?
Is it impossible for people who want the game to succeed to express any concerns over material that has been announced?
That does not look good at all.
That annoys me too.
The designers did with 4th what they thought would be cool. Sure, there are a lot of influencing critics from the ordinary DMs and Players (e.g. the grapple gripe). But ultimately there were a few designers who re-created most of D&D mechanics and designs as they saw fit.
In view of this I can only say: Sure, D&D is OUR baby, but you did the first 15 years of breeding and education. Now I have to cope with what you created. Now the child is adolescent and you give it to me. Expressing my concerns over his behavior you only say that is how the modern child behaves. You ask me if I want our child to be a looser.
If I again express my concerns over his behavior, you just say: Hey, that is how you wanted the child to be, this is the new generation!
Or did somebody ask you if you want the Dragonborn in the PHB1?
Why is there an assumption that everyone who is a critic wants the game to fail?
That's a good summary of my feelings. I may be a critic of the game (maybe, just maybe), but I don't want the game to fail. I do hope that 4E is so popular that it draws in a whole new crowd of gamers, increases literacy, spurs the collective imagination of the next generation to go into science, environmental, and math related fields, stimulates the global economy, and ultimatlely saves the world. That doesn't mean that I have to be happy with all the changes to 4E though.
Why is there an assumption that everyone who is a critic wants the game to fail?That's a good summary of my feelings. I may be a critic of the game (maybe, just maybe), but I don't want the game to fail. I do hope that 4E is so popular that it draws in a whole new crowd of gamers, increases literacy, spurs the collective imagination of the next generation to go into science, environmental, and math related fields, stimulates the global economy, and ultimatlely saves the world. That doesn't mean that I have to be happy with all the changes to 4E though.
Here is Mike Mearl's quote from the board in question:
"Right now, you have some people who want it to fail for various ideological, personal, or other random reasons, and others who want it to succeed for all the same factors."
He says "some people". He doesn't say "all critics want it to fail".
And, for the record, there have been people, on the Paizo boards specifically, that have said they want 4e to fail.
Greg
He says "some people". He doesn't say "all critics want it to fail".
And, for the record, there have been people, on the Paizo boards specifically, that have said they want 4e to fail.
Wasn't talking specificly about him. It just seems that some lump all critics of 4E into one large category. This really isn't true here. It more applies to other boards (ENWorld/RPG.net). I do understand that the pro crowd is tired of hearing the critics talking about how "the game is ruined" and so on, but still, being lumped into a big generialization is never fun.
|
|
The big question is: Is he telling us just what we want to hear for the sake of damage control, or does he really believe it? The blogs and design and development articles express just the opposite mentality from what he presents. The message you get from them is: "D&D is our game, and we will do what we want with it. You can shake your fist at the changes we are making, but we are still going to make them." I still don't believe that gamers complained as much about the Big 13 as much as they say. They heard what they wanted to hear because they needed a new edition to boost sales.
|
|
The big question is: Is he telling us just what we want to hear for the sake of damage control, or does he really believe it? The blogs and design and development articles express just the opposite mentality from what he presents. The message you get from them is: "D&D is our game, and we will do what we want with it. You can shake your fist at the changes we are making, but we are still going to make them." I still don't believe that gamers complained as much about the Big 13 as much as they say. They heard what they wanted to hear because they needed a new edition to boost sales.
Yeah, now I remember the famous "clouds in the sky" blog. I do not remember who wrote it or when but it caused quite an uproar.
The big question is: Is he telling us just what we want to hear for the sake of damage control, or does he really believe it?
I'd like to believe that Mearls believes he's doing the right thing. Maybe I'll be more cynical when I'm 30 (next week).
|
|
Yeah, now I remember the famous "clouds in the sky" blog. I do not remember who wrote it or when but it caused quite an uproar.
It was James Wyatt. Yeah, it was basically he and upper management getting fed up so he basiclaly posted to what amounts to "we're changing what we want, and you can gripe about it all you want but we recommend just sitting back and watching it because your input at this point is irrelevant."
-DM Jeff
|
|
Here is Mike Mearl's quote from the board in question:
"Right now, you have some people who want it to fail for various ideological, personal, or other random reasons, and others who want it to succeed for all the same factors."
He says "some people". He doesn't say "all critics want it to fail".
And, for the record, there have been people, on the Paizo boards specifically, that have said they want 4e to fail.
Greg
Check both parts.
There are people who want it to fail and people who want it to succeed.If I am critic, which group do I fall into?
Hint: Based on a lot of other comments from WotC people, I am not one of those who want it to succeed.
WotC is creating a false polarization. They are saying you are with them or against them. Oh or utterly uninvolved and will see the game later. But increasingly they are recognizing no middle group among people commenting.
That is the problem.
Yeah, now I remember the famous "clouds in the sky" blog. I do not remember who wrote it or when but it caused quite an uproar.It was James Wyatt.
It was on Dave Noonan's blog, actually.
Mike
|
|
The big question is: Is he telling us just what we want to hear for the sake of damage control, or does he really believe it? The blogs and design and development articles express just the opposite mentality from what he presents. The message you get from them is: "D&D is our game, and we will do what we want with it. You can shake your fist at the changes we are making, but we are still going to make them." I still don't believe that gamers complained as much about the Big 13 as much as they say. They heard what they wanted to hear because they needed a new edition to boost sales.Yeah, now I remember the famous "clouds in the sky" blog. I do not remember who wrote it or when but it caused quite an uproar.
I'm pretty sure it was David Noonan. He might not have meant it as "We'll do what we want and you just sit back and wait for it" type of comment, but that's the way it came out.
Check both parts.
There are people who want it to fail and people who want it to succeed.
If I am critic, which group do I fall into?
Hint: Based on a lot of other comments from WotC people, I am not one of those who want it to succeed.
WotC is creating a false polarization. They are saying you are with them or against them. Oh or utterly uninvolved and will see the game later. But increasingly they are recognizing no middle group among people commenting.
That is the problem.
Ahh, c'mon, there are more than 2 types of people in the world. Heck, in D&D there are 9 (LG, NG, CG...).
"There are some people who want it to fail, and there are some people who want it to succeed." And there are also some people who don't like what they are doing, but still want the brand to succeed. There are some people who like what they are doing, but in the end, don't care if they succeed.
And then there are people like me, who really don't give a hoot one way or the other. I believe that D&D will continue on, regardless of whether 4e is a success or a failure. But I really don't care right now whether it succeeds or not.
The world if full of greys. (And by that, I don't mean extra terrestrials. :-)
Greg
WotC is creating a false polarization. They are saying you are with them or against them. Oh or utterly uninvolved and will see the game later.
That reminds me of a Mitch Hidburg joke.
I was in a band once. People either loved us or they hated us. Or they thought we were ok.
The big question is: Is he telling us just what we want to hear for the sake of damage control, or does he really believe it?
Mike may modulate his speech to avoid offending his employer, but he's always been a straight-up guy who speaks his mind. So he really believes it. Mike's very passionate about D&D even if you don't agree with him and his playstyle. (And in my own head, I suspect that the 3E designers hit the right notes with my playstyle, whereas the 4E designers are catching the right vibe with a slightly different crowd. Won't know till I see 4E of course.)
I honestly respect what he said and despite a few bad metaphors believe that at least he is sincere in bringing us (those who play D&D) a better product. Now some folks thought the D&D movie was a good product so the result depends upon the consumer.
Bottom line. I'd buy Mike a beer.
I have respect for him wanting to earn a paycheck, eat and pay rent.
-DM Jeff
Whore is, after all, a most ancient and perfectly respectable profession. Go Mikey. ;)
You may want to reconsider that last post. I know what you meant, but....
Nope. Sarcasm is a legitimate form of speech. Someone can get me banned if they want and feel I've violated some rule-o-posting. I'll survive. No regrets.
And, for the record, there have been people, on the Paizo boards specifically, that have said they want 4e to fail.
Greg
I am one of them. Because I believe D&D can only go back to the way it was if 4th Edition did fail, either by WotC doing the smart thing and sticking with 3E like they should've or selling the game to someone that actually cares and knows what they're doing.
To Razz:
I'm not so sure that sticking with 3E could have been a smart thing to do for WotC... If you consider for one moment that Wotc is a company who's trying to sell RPG books and make profit, do you really believe that they could have sold enough new interesting DnD 3.5 supplement to stay in business? Is there really no end to the books of class, races, feats, prestig class and monster that DnD fan could buy? After about 5 version of each, I think enough is enough for one edition and that WoC should try to move on for something new... And if, as a player, you just bought for 1000$ of those products, you should probably keep playing with 3.5E (or else since you got the profile of a compulsive buyer you will probably want to buy 4E stuff too... more profit for WotC).
|
|
You may want to reconsider that last post. I know what you meant, but....Nope. Sarcasm is a legitimate form of speech. Someone can get me banned if they want and feel I've violated some rule-o-posting. I'll survive. No regrets.
There is sarcasm, and there is gratuitous insult. You might wish to learn the difference. I'm not overjoyed about the changes re 4E, but comparing MM to a whore is just stupid, unnecessary and says much more about you and the quality of your judgement than it does about him.
Whore is, after all, a most ancient and perfectly respectable profession. Go Mikey. ;)
Whores of the coast!eh eh
Ahh, c'mon, there are more than 2 types of people in the world.
Humor alert:
There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary, and those that don't.
Whores of the coast!eh ehWhore is, after all, a most ancient and perfectly respectable profession. Go Mikey. ;)
Wow....
Character assassination seems to be de rigueur here.
And people wonder why 4e discussions are impossible to keep civil...
Ahh, c'mon, there are more than 2 types of people in the world.Humor alert:
There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary, and those that don't.
:-)
Guys...
Mona and Lisa posted on a different thread they're really busy with work right now so they're not around to help settle the crowd down some. As such, I'm going to ask you all calm it down some. ok? Truce (atleast for the moment)?
Some pretty harsh insults for someone doing a job that they are passionate about. I think that kind of reaction might just lend Mike a little more fortitude in his convictions.
I think they have retreated here. But frankly, I there there are a lot more people who are just '4E meh' than downright hating it, it's just that there is a really vocal minority who are incensed at everything WotC has done.
Some pretty harsh insults for someone doing a job that they are passionate about. I think that kind of reaction might just lend Mike a little more fortitude in his convictions.Yep, the bile meter here can get pretty high. It seems this place is the niche where all the 4E hate clusters.
And yet you dwell here.
We're here because we like Paizo. If people are here because they hate WotC, then they are here for the wrong reason.
Some pretty harsh insults for someone doing a job that they are passionate about. I think that kind of reaction might just lend Mike a little more fortitude in his convictions.Yep, the bile meter here can get pretty high. It seems this place is the niche where all the 4E hate clusters.
I agree that the 4E haters need to tone it down a few notches. They do a disservice to their "cause" by making personal attacks rather than making valid points in order to back up their stance.
Just as this site has its anti-4E trolls, EN World has a large wolf-pack looking to bash those who criticize 4th edition. I got dogpiled the other day by several posters who attacked me for daring to voice a negative opinion about 4th edition. Not that I can't handle it, but it was pretty crappy to get personally attacked for speaking my mind.
Sadly, it looks like the edition wars are in full swing and publishers like Paizo (and people out to discuss their favorite hobby) are getting caught in the middle.
Doesn't bode well for avoiding a fragmented market...