But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?Old model: 3 core books presented everything I needed to run a D&D game that contained the elements I wanted for my D&D game.
Current model: 3 core books do not present everything I need to run a D&D game that contains elements I want for my D&D game.
On this point, I have no freaking sympathy. I've had to suffer through several editions of a game packed with garbage like elves, orcs, and halflings! And they're all still here - but at least I'm getting something that appeals to me.
The first person to say "But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?" gets a punch in the throat. LeiberVanceMoorcockHowardLovecraftMievilleMartinWolfePowers, people.
Now use the power of your beard to block the punch!
Old model: 3 core books presented everything I needed to run a D&D game that contained the elements I wanted for my D&D game.
Current model: 3 core books do not present everything I need to run a D&D game that contains elements I want for my D&D game.
On this point, I have no freaking sympathy. I've had to suffer through several editions of a game packed with garbage like elves, orcs, and halflings! And they're all still here - but at least I'm getting something that appeals to me.
The first person to say "But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?" gets a punch in the throat. LeiberVanceMoorcockHowardLovecraftMievilleMartinWolfePowers, people.
I really don't care if I have your sympathy... I was just stating my feelings on the issue. Sheesh!
Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative. Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative. In my eyes, this is a blatant attempt on WotCs part to mislead me (lie by omission) about the opinions of those who've engaged with the rules before most others. Shame on you, WotC!
Where did you get this information from? I've seen you post this condemnation of WotC twice BUT have seen no proof of it.
If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.
But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?
Probably because there's lots of Swords and Sorcery without Tolkien's ethos.
Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative. Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative. In my eyes, this is a blatant attempt on WotCs part to mislead me (lie by omission) about the opinions of those who've engaged with the rules before most others. Shame on you, WotC!
Where did you get this information from? I've seen you post this condemnation of WotC twice BUT have seen no proof of it.If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.
I don't know, this sounds pretty well in line with the kind of behavior I've come to expect from big companies in contexts where PR is a problem.
|
My personal view is 3.5 requires a battlemat too - in fact, I'd be interested to see how you play without one. I would argue that if you can take the battlemat out of 3.5, you can take it out of any system.
I don't use a battlemat on a regular basis. Didn't use it with 2nd ed, didn't use it with 3.0, don't use it with 3.5 rules. The maps drawn on paper or on a vynil mat are sketchy and off-scale.
The only times that I use minis and props (card elements from StoneEdges or WorldWorks) are for pure visual flair, and never for grid/battlemap/distance ruling necessity.
|
|
In regards to not being allowed to say negative things about the product that's actually nothing new. Games workshop have had that rule for years that staff members are not allowed to speak ill about a product no matter how terrible it is. So it wouldn't surprise me if another company has adopted this.
|
|
But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?
Probably because there's lots of Swords and Sorcery without Tolkien's ethos.
Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative. Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative. In my eyes, this is a blatant attempt on WotCs part to mislead me (lie by omission) about the opinions of those who've engaged with the rules before most others. Shame on you, WotC!I don't know, this sounds pretty well in line with the kind of behavior I've come to expect from big companies in contexts where PR is a problem.
Where did you get this information from? I've seen you post this condemnation of WotC twice BUT have seen no proof of it.If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.
Yeah, we may not have proof of this, but this is the type of behavior that I expect from them. They aren't doing any professional marketing that we know of, so they are "allowing" playtesters to "speak up", but only in a positive way, to finally give 4E some positive PR.
|
What I want to know is this...when did we all get so impatient? I don't need or want rpgs streamlined. I like that they take some mulling over and give my brain and creative juices a work out. Streamlined and fast button-mashing instant satisfaction is what my video games are for.
Wow. I have been spending the morning pouring over 4e messageboard stuff like a simpleton watching a trainwreck trying to come up with something (anything?) to say that expresses my feelings in a sea of 'wheee, it's just betterrrrr!', and this is it. Nic, you summed up my thoughts exactly, thank you.
DM Jeff, I hope you read this.
Darn Straight Mr. Kobold Sir! ;-)
-DM Jeff
RPG Superstar 2013
|
If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.
Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative.
There's not a company in the world that wouldn't ask the same thing of its people. And it's not dishonest. It's marketing. You say 'Our pizza is great,and our people are, too!' You don't say 'Bill is the worst driver in history. If he gets your order, we're sorry, but one more phone call about his driving and we're gonna fire his ass.'
You advertise what you believe is working, and then you try to internally fix the things your people are critical about. I have yet to hear anyone from WotC say 'The game is finished, and it has no flaws.'
I'd like to see evidence of a representative of Paizo saying 'Yeah, that wasn't one of our better adventures. We really let you down there, and that guy will never contribute again. Vic and Lisa killed him and mounted his skull in the East Wing.'
Here is the crux of it - I trust that WotC did its homework and that the new core will be just as fun to play as unextended 3.0...
I suppose that is the crux of it. Many people don't trust them. Why would they?
Evidence in favor of WotC & 4/e:
- what WotC has said, and what people paid by WotC have have said (this'll change, but for now there is no corroborating evidence)
Evidence against WotC & 4/e:
- an increasingly clumsy PR campaign -- I should believe they are doing a good job on game design when the job I see becomes shoddier and shoddier?
- an inability to produce promised material in DDI (it's better now -- not because content is better, but because the promises have been scaled back dramatically)
- a recurring failure to understand what parts of the game the general population holds dear (half-orcs, anyone?)
- a changed business model that increases profit by increasing the need to buy supplemental material (moving traditionally-core material into supplements, DDI...)
- plenty more examples brought up on these (and other) threads
I still have high hopes, but my trust was quickly destroyed. They're going to have to start from scratch to regain that.
a changed business model that increases profit by increasing the need to buy supplemental material (moving traditionally-core material into supplements, DDI...)
I have no problem with a company making a profit (heck, I prefer it), but do have a problem with taking the parts of something that I like that use to be in one book and spreading them out over several books just so I will buy several books.
What I want is for the books to be either so good or so useful (or both) that I will WANT to buy them, not NEED to buy them just for one little piece. That was my problem with the complete series. I'd buy a book for a single PrC, and nothing else. I didn't like it, but it did cost less then a full core book. 4E by contrast, core classes that I'd want to play (currently in the PHB) are going to be in the PHBII, which will cost the same as, if not more then, the PHBI.
EDIT: A great example of an RPG business model that has every book so useful that you want them all: WW's Exalted 2E. If you want a diffinitive guide to one region of the world, there is one 160p book that covers nothing but that whole region. There isn't going to be another book that covers a city later on; that city is covered in that book. That's one of the things I liked about WotC's MIC, ToM, etc. If they organized their books like that (1 book with nothing but magic items, 1 book with several alternate magic systems, etc), I'd be all for it. WotC could have a book with nothing but lesser played races (centaurs, dream dwarves, dragonborn, aasimars, tieflings, and the like), give each 6 pages, put 15 of them in a book, throw in some DMing advice, PrCs and feats and you've got a darn useful race book.
I'd like to see evidence of a representative of Paizo saying 'Yeah, that wasn't one of our better adventures. We really let you down there, and that guy will never contribute again. Vic and Lisa killed him and mounted his skull in the East Wing.'
Actually, we've seen Paizo admit to errors in judgement, and they have said (more than once) they'd have done some things differently, given the opportunity. At the same time, they appear to release only the best work they can do -- not shoddy half-jobs.
WotC, in contrast, starts the DDI with a self-admitted partial effort, and makes surprising mistakes even with that. Just recently they posted a video about multiclassing that was evidently outdated and thus incorrect. These kind of errors have become quite common with the announcement of 4/e.
It's not really to your point, but there is a difference in the way Paizo and WotC do business :)
I have no problem with a company making a profit (heck, I prefer it), but do have a problem with...
I think it would be very interesting to see how much it would cost in 4/e books to recover what is purely-core material in 3.5.
I have no problem with a company making a profit (heck, I prefer it), but do have a problem with...
And BTW, it's the new business model I find most offensive -- not the changes 4/e is introducing...
And BTW, it's the new business model I find most offensive -- not the changes 4/e is introducing...
I think we're saying the same thing, just two different ways.
I think it would be very interesting to see how much it would cost in 4/e books to recover what is purely-core material in 3.5.
We'll find out in time.
And BTW, it's the new business model I find most offensive -- not the changes 4/e is introducing...I think we're saying the same thing, just two different ways.
I think it would be very interesting to see how much it would cost in 4/e books to recover what is purely-core material in 3.5.We'll find out in time.
Or maybe we won't... ;)
Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative...
I'd be interested in any supporting documentation, too.
This wouldn't surprise me. It's a tested business model, with some justification. Part of the idea is that if people stay focused on the positive, the negative parts take care of themselves.
I think it's crap, though :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[I'd like to see evidence of a representative of Paizo saying 'Yeah, that wasn't one of our better adventures. We really let you down there, and that guy will never contribute again. Vic and Lisa killed him and mounted his skull in the East Wing.'
How about "Yeah, we really weren't prepared for the onslaught our store took in the Green Ronin sale, and we're sorry that some people didn't get their items. To make it up to you, we're going to give you a discount on future products. We've learned a lot and even our CEO has been down packing orders to provide the best service we can."
|
For example, I've NEVER once used a battlemat in my home game. I think from what I have seen of 4E so far, it absolutely requires one.My personal view is 3.5 requires a battlemat too - in fact, I'd be interested to see how you play without one. I would argue that if you can take the battlemat out of 3.5, you can take it out of any system.
no - 3.5 counted things in feet, therefore if you used the optional battlemat, you could use the map in the adventure to show where things were and you knew how far someone could go in one round. In one campaign i play in my maps that the players see, one square = 150 miles (they see only worldmaps and country maps). Therefore the average dwarf, traveling at 4 squares per round can walk 300 miles per round, when they obviously don't mean that, that is what their 'hardcoded' values for squares will do for my game - I will need to convert every spell and weapon and monster and race to fit a world on just how far they can walk normally, so that I don't have spend $30 on a battlemap plus minis (I'm a collector, so I own lots of minis and use them anyway in my other game, I'm just stating how not using an 'optional product" means you have to completely convert over 3/4 of the core books is a MAJOR design ommision.
I am curious how many people who are worried about the changes in core material started with 3rd edition and how many were playing in earlier editions. To me the idea of the half-orc is just NOT core to D&D. Nor is the druid as a class or any of the other things bemoaned as being lost or placed in other books "to force you to buy them."
If I were making the decisions as to what would be in the core books the basic concepts that would have to be there would be:
Races - Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling
Classes - Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric
Other than those basics the rest I would choose to put in would be a mix of new ideas that add to the game and old ideas that people have liked. It is my understanding that this is EXACTLY what WOTC has been doing.
Then I would say, "Well, people have seemed to like that we have been coming out with more books that contain races, classes, feats, etc., lets make that part of our business model right from the start so we can get it right and make each book as good as possible." Again, this looks like what they are doing. Each book will contain some old goodness updated for the new game as well as new material to exand the game even more.
Likewise, many people (including many that I really respect) seem to be railing against the use of the play mat. This is core to 3.x IMHO and I think those not using it are more likely hold out from earlier editions (not a bad thing, but you are railing against changes from 3rd ed., not 4th).
<sigh>...
I guess the discussion about trust is spot on. I see that 3rd edition was a far better game than 2nd edition IMO and that WotC is the company that did that. To me that is how they earned the trust I am now giving them. I would much rather they focus on good game designers rather than good marketing. I can read between the lines and make up my own mind... the better they are at spin the harder that gets.
Anyway... I digress... sorry if anyone felt this was a personal attack, it wasn't intended as such... Why is it this feels like such a personal argument?
<sigh>
Sean Mahoney
|
Contributor
|
[I'd like to see evidence of a representative of Paizo saying 'Yeah, that wasn't one of our better adventures. We really let you down there, and that guy will never contribute again. Vic and Lisa killed him and mounted his skull in the East Wing.'How about "Yeah, we really weren't prepared for the onslaught our store took in the Green Ronin sale, and we're sorry that some people didn't get their items. To make it up to you, we're going to give you a discount on future products. We've learned a lot and even our CEO has been down packing orders to provide the best service we can."
Or how about
"Yes, the bonus subscriber-only content was a bad idea that really only made a lot of our customers angry. We were trying to offer a nice incentive but it was a mistake. We won't do that again."
or
"We've come to realize that selling the item cards in boosters was not popular with our customers. From now on we'll only package them in a way that makes our customers happy."
(Note that these are not really quotes, even though they are in quotation marks. They are pretty accurate paraphrases though.)
Honestly, I can't count the number of times that Paizo has said "Our customer feedback about this was negative, and we won't make that mistake again." Considering how good their stuff is, it is shockingly frequent. Perhaps that's because sometimes it's also "We realize that this adventure didn't appeal to everyone, but enough of our customers like this kind of thing that we will do it again, but not too often."
no - 3.5 counted things in feet, therefore if you used the optional battlemat, you could use the map in the adventure to show where things were and you knew how far someone could go in one round.
It also contains things like, 'moving out of a threatened square provokes an Attack of Opportunity' and rules on how a radius effect spell is centered on the junction in between squares, not a square itself. One can certainly play 'old school' with out a battle mat, but the mat is most definately a part of the 3E ruleset. Playing with out one is a house rule and likely involves quite a few other house rules to deal with those situations in which the rules relies on the mat for resolution (even if the houserule is just to let the DM keep it in their head and trust them).
I can tell you for me that I would find that terribly disappointing as I love that 3E finally let me feel like I could have a tactically intelligent character in a small battlefield. In older editions I could make tactical decisions for large scale battles since the DM would have an area map or even decisions on where a battle took place, but I rarely ever felt my 'master tactician' was such during a smaller battle. (and yes this is a sign that I had a bad DM... more horrible than you can imagine, but I learned a lot about what NOT to do). Late in 2nd edition rules helped alleveate this and those rules were made core in 3rd edition.
The rules as written for 3rd edition use a mix of squares and feet for descriptions of things. It isn't that tough to know that 5' = 1 square but it is just poor editing to have things both ways. Right now EVERYONE has to convert in some situations from one to other (again, not difficult but it also isn't necessary). So taking how the majority of their players now play the game and making it consistent to that and letting the others do the simple math to convert is fine in my mind and is a good editing decision.
You do make a valid point though about the conversion to overland travel. However, I find that it is still a conversion now from a 30ft base movement to how far you can travel overland modified by various terrain features encountered. In fact, this is something I just don't worry about all that much since that type of math adds very little fun to the game and a quick eyeball of 'it's a 1/2 days journey' seems to work just fine. That said, some quicker, easier rules for that overland determination would sure be nice. I am sure I only find them annoying because I haven't used them much and they would be second nature to me if I did (like the rules for AoOs, Grappling, and such is for me now, but isn't for others).
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Races - Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling
Classes - Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, ClericI recall playing Monks and 1/2 Orcs back in 1st edition, actually. They weren't invented during 3rd edition, just made more playable. (The 1E Monk, in particular, was pretty dire.) 1E even had Drow PCs, four whole years before Drizzt showed up!
It wasn't until 3rd edition that the Rogue became a viable class, IMO, and I'd never considered it one of the mainstay classes, since I've seen less people play Thieves/Rogues than those newfangled Warlocks in 20-odd years of gaming.
Likewise, many people (including many that I really respect) seem to be railing against the use of the play mat. This is core to 3.x IMHO and I think those not using it are more likely hold out from earlier editions (not a bad thing, but you are railing against changes from 3rd ed., not 4th).3.5 seemed to ramp up the whole map aspect, changing Space of creatures to make horses into 10 x 10 blocks of meat, for instance (much like the horse Bugs is riding in his version of the Ring of the Nibelung, I suppose). We rarely used it, since we tend to see D&D as more of a role-playing game and less of a board game. We also rarely used miniatures, and when we need to determine roughly where someone is standing, my character is usually represented by a spare die, coin, bottle cap or polished stone. Whatever is handy.
I see that 3rd edition was a far better game than 2nd edition IMO and that WotC is the company that did that.If you are referring to Monte Cook, Skip Williams and Jonathan Tweet, who wrote the core books (with legions of playtesters, etc.), then yes, they vastly improved the game from 2nd Edition, and I'd trust them to update it again, were they doing so.
Considering how good their stuff is, it is shockingly frequent.
I once read that good company presidents make bad calls about 2 out of 5 times while bad company presidents make bad call about 3 out of 5 times. But the big thing to notice is that all of them screw up about half the time. The only real difference is that good ones learn from it and move on; bad ones fail to see their screw ups as screw ups or constantly try to pawn off their bad calls as undiscovered genius.
Honestly, I can't count the number of times that Paizo has said "Our customer feedback about this was negative, and we won't make that mistake again."
To be fair, this was AFTER the products actually came out. My understanding is that WotC IS making changes to 4E based on what their customers have been saying for some time. But the complaints about what they MIGHT do are coming first. In none of the cases where I saw feedback about Pathfinder or other products PRIOR to them coming out did I see it change greatly how things went... only AFTER they came out. I think that is pretty much exactly what I have seen with WotC here... I just fail to see the above as a difference.
There were certainly things that sounded like bad ideas in the run up to Pathfinder, that if I had been making feedback on at the time (before it came out but we were hearing teasers) I would have recommended against and now that they are out have worked just fine. In other cases, things I thought were something I didn't have to worry about, like the art, was a bit disappointing in the first several books.
(Side Note on Art in Pathfinder: it has gotten much better, but I may never run Rise of the Runelords because of the inconsistent NPC art throughout... going from poor quality to good quality means that there is no FEEL for the NPCs... something I loved in the SCAP hard cover that allowed me to make print outs of the NPCs and put them out anytime that person is speaking... this has been AMAZINGLY successful with my players and I would hate to give up something that is working so well).
Sean Mahoney
I just fail to see the above as a difference.
The fact that Paizo can actually say, "We screwed up," as opposed to WotC's attitude of, "Clouds keep coming, suck it up."
EDIT: Harrison Ford in Clear and Present Danger told the president to not give the press anything to report, "If they ask if he was a friend, say, 'No, he was a good friend.' If they ask if he was a good friend, say, 'No, he was a life long friend.'" IMO, most of the controversy surrounding 4E would really be dissolved if WotC was just honest and admitted in writing that "Warforged in the PHB is a bad idea, treating Gnome fans like 2nd class customers was a bad move, ditching the mags was a really really bad idea." But they don't. Instead they make changes based upon how loud customers whine. That only encourages customer whining because now they think the louder they whine the better chance their change will be implemented. Or they could just say, "Hey, we screwed up. We want to keep a civil dialogue with our customers so please tell us what you think without the personal attacks and we'll give them due consideration." Even if the change isn't implemented, customer's feel like an important part of the process (and opinions of the product and the company as a whole goes up).
I am curious how many people who are worried about the changes in core material started with 3rd edition and how many were playing in earlier editions. To me the idea of the half-orc is just NOT core to D&D. Nor is the druid as a class or any of the other things bemoaned as being lost or placed in other books "to force you to buy them."
I think a lot of people hold those two examples dear. The same uproar (probably for different reasons) occurred when 2/e excluded half-orcs.
For the record, I personally would have axed each of them -- IMO they are, for different reasons, the weakest race/class choices in the old core rules.
I guess the discussion about trust is spot on. ...To me that is how they earned the trust I am now giving them. I would much rather they focus on good game designers rather than good marketing. I can read between the lines and make up my own mind... the better they are at spin the harder that gets.
I trusted them at one time. Now, I can't get away from the gut feeling that they're a bunch of amateurs that are more-than-a-bit disconnected from what D&D is, and what D&D players want. I want to trust again, but they've done a first-rate job of wiping that away for now.
For what it's worth, I suspect (without direct evidence) that 4/e is the product of a set of marching orders from Hasbro -- find a way to generate a certain level of revenue and profit from this 'D&D' thing you have, or else. There have been just too many little revenue-increasing aspects to the new edition for me, sometimes things that have had a direct impact on game design.
sorry if anyone felt this was a personal attack, it wasn't intended as such... Why is it this...
I'm actually relieved that some of the personal rhetoric has died down. I think this discussion has been pretty civil :)
Regards.
|
|
Evidence in favor of WotC & 4/e:
- what WotC has said, and what people paid by WotC have have said (this'll change, but for now there is no corroborating evidence)
Evidence against WotC & 4/e:
- an increasingly clumsy PR campaign -- I should believe they are doing a good job on game design when the job I see becomes shoddier and shoddier?
- an inability to produce promised material in DDI (it's better now -- not because content is better, but because the promises have been scaled back dramatically)
- a recurring failure to understand what parts of the game the general population holds dear (half-orcs, anyone?)
- a changed business model that increases profit by increasing the need to buy supplemental material (moving traditionally-core material into supplements, DDI...)
- plenty more examples brought up on these (and other) threads
I still have high hopes, but my trust was quickly destroyed. They're going to have to start from scratch to regain that.
You forgot that:
I recall playing Monks and 1/2 Orcs back in 1st edition, actually.
Of course you did, as did I. But that isn't the same as them being 'core' to the game. I also played with Comeliness for a while, but it wasn't core. I also had to earn my way to be a bard or paladin, but they weren't core.
Through out the entire history of the game there has been additional material that has been added through supplements or Dragon magazine... but that isn't the same as saying they are core to the game.
It wasn't until 3rd edition that the Rogue became a viable class, IMO, and I'd never considered it one of the mainstay classes, since I've seen less people play Thieves/Rogues than those newfangled Warlocks in 20-odd years of gaming.
I actually find that very interesting, but I would venture to guess that this has not been the experience of most players out there. Strange though...
3.5 seemed to ramp up the whole map aspect, changing Space of creatures to make horses into 10 x 10 blocks of meat, for instance...
The impression I got from this change was that they realized that they were trying to say opposite things and it caused confusion. In this case it was that there is no facing for a creature, but a large (long) creature very obviously had a front and back. By giving the creatures a square size you take out the facing which is consistent with the rules (so the creature is turning sideways, ducking and bobbing and generally moving about in combat rather than just staying static, which is consistent with an RP explanation of a combat with no-facing rules). The other option they have said they discussed running up to 3.5 was going the other way to make it all consistent and add in facing, but it was decided that this was adding unnecessary complexity and making the game even more of a board game... I think this was the right decision (but they did include the other option in Unearthed Arcana for those who disagree).
If you are referring to Monte Cook, Skip Williams and Jonathan Tweet, who wrote the core books (with legions of playtesters, etc.), then yes, they vastly improved the game from 2nd Edition, and I'd trust them to update it again, were they doing so.
Just to be clear then, you are saying that you don't trust that the people that made 3rd edition (and it was FAR more than just the authors) made good decisions on training others and hiring other people to continue working on the game. I am kind of surprised by that since I see the people who are there now as the result of the people you mentioned above. hrmm... interesting difference in perception I guess.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
no - 3.5 counted things in feet, therefore if you used the optional battlemat, you could use the map in the adventure to show where things were and you knew how far someone could go in one round.It also contains things like, 'moving out of a threatened square provokes an Attack of Opportunity'
I believe it's actually worded as a "5 foot square" - which is a big difference
Honestly, I can't count the number of times that Paizo has said "Our customer feedback about this was negative, and we won't make that mistake again."To be fair, this was AFTER the products actually came out.
To be fair - there are multiple threads on these boards asking "what do you want to see in the guide to ..." or "what do you want to see in a future adventure path?" and we have seen things expressed from these threads, and from the Tuesday night chats used (albeit not exactly as stated, but using the general idea so it can be more easily changed as the DM feels necessary)
Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative. Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative. In my eyes, this is a blatant attempt on WotCs part to mislead me (lie by omission) about the opinions of those who've engaged with the rules before most others. Shame on you, WotC!Where did you get this information from? I've seen you post this condemnation of WotC twice BUT have seen no proof of it.
If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.
Well what will you accept as proof? What I'm telling you is that playtester(s) I know shared with me the email the they received from WotC. I guess I can ask the playtester to forward me the email or its text, but I could always be faking that if I posted it.
So is this second hand info? Sure, but I've got no motivation to lie. And as far as I know I've never lied to you before, so I guess you can believe me or not.
However, the playtester(s) I know are scared to speak up on their own as they hold freelancer aspirations. And you're right, it's a low move on wotc's part, so I'm speaking up.
For what it's worth, I suspect (without direct evidence) that 4/e is the product of a set of marching orders from Hasbro -- find a way to generate a certain level of revenue and profit from this 'D&D' thing you have, or else. There have been just too many little revenue-increasing aspects to the new edition for me, sometimes things that have had a direct impact on game design.
I think it would be an interesting thought experiment... Pretend that you are the guy at WotC making the decisions as to what products to make for D&D. This is just before the announcement of 4E and that you hadn't been working on 4E all this time... where would you have gone with the product line moving forward?
Would you just keep kicking out more Complete and Race books? They seem to sell well, and it is in your best interest to keep making money.
Would you have launched a new campaign setting? The whole World Design Contest turned out to have worked pretty well, maybe try that again?
I guess I just don't see where else they really could have gone with D&D and there are plenty of things, but I am just more excited by looking at the short comings of the current system and making a new system that isn't limited by them.
I seem to recall hearing a quote from some of the designers to the effect that it had come to the point where designers knew most of the pitfalls and holes in the current system and were just designing around them rather than trying to get rid of the deficits and make a game that was playing how people want to play it. I can see that and get on board conceptually.
Sean Mahoney
If this is true then WotC should close shop because that's pretty low.
Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative.There's not a company in the world that wouldn't ask the same thing of its people. And it's not dishonest. It's marketing. You say 'Our pizza is great,and our people are, too!' You don't say 'Bill is the worst driver in history. If he gets your order, we're sorry, but one more phone call about his driving and we're gonna fire his ass.'
You advertise what you believe is working, and then you try to internally fix the things your people are critical about. I have yet to hear anyone from WotC say 'The game is finished, and it has no flaws.'
I'd like to see evidence of a representative of Paizo saying 'Yeah, that wasn't one of our better adventures. We really let you down there, and that guy will never contribute again. Vic and Lisa killed him and mounted his skull in the East Wing.'
No no no, Sensei. You miss the point. These are not paid WotC employees. If they were, I get your comments. Of course they won't bash their own product.
But I'm talking about mostly independent members of the gaming community (this Ari fellow excepted I guess) who were asked to playtest the new edition but then gagged and told they are not allowed to share their honest opinions with others. Only half their honest opinions. This is like asking a reviewer to review a product under NDA then using the NDA to pressure the reviewer to delete the "Con" section of their review. Only "Pro" comments alloed.
WotC's product, 4e, needs to stand on its merits and on the honest reporting of those who've tried it -- or not at all. Trying to seduce me into buying it by influencing what others say about it prior to release is unnacceptable.
|
|
I have no problem with a company making a profit (heck, I prefer it), but do have a problem with taking the parts of something that I like that use to be in one book and spreading them out over several books just so I will buy several books.
2nd Edition DMG, anyone?
That book was so free of any content that I never bought it. I think I photocopied about a dozen pages at most (revised encumberance, some of the overland travel, as I recall).Everything else got stuck into the supplements with the blue-covers.
For years I ran and played 2nd Ed, using my 1st Ed DMG, and no-one noticed or had any complaints, since as I recall, the info was the same.
The 1st Ed book may have been all over the place, but at least the content was in there, once you knew where to look. I couldn't understand how they could make a new edition that was a similar size, but had so little in it.
|
Evidence against WotC & 4/e:
- an increasingly clumsy PR campaign -- I should believe they are doing a good job on game design when the job I see becomes shoddier and shoddier?
- an inability to produce promised material in DDI (it's better now -- not because content is better, but because the promises have been scaled back dramatically)
Game companies are notorious for missing deadlines. Heck - Chaosium said it was going to give RuneQuest players rule for heroquesting. It took nearly 30 years but we got them - for a completely different game system.
- a recurring failure to understand what parts of the game the general population holds dear (half-orcs, anyone?)
I agree that this may have been a miss-step. But it may also have been an intentional editorial choice given how half-orcs are conceived. I would say this is not a tick in the "I can'y trust them" column.
- a changed business model that increases profit by increasing the need to buy supplemental material (moving traditionally-core material into supplements, DDI...)
This I simply do not agree wiith. The core of the game has always changed. The only constants have been humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings and the classes fighter, cleric, and mage. Everything else first appeared in some form of supplement that had to be purchased. If you want to play with any options beyond the core you need to buy other books. That is the way it has always been.
However, the playtester(s) I know are scared to speak up on their own. And you're right, it's a low move on their part, so I'm speaking up.
To be fair, what a playtester signed up to do was to give feedback to the company. I can fully understand a company wanting feedback from players on their products before they are fully shiny and new so that they can make those changes and make them better. OF COURSE there are problems found in playtesting, that is what it is for. But it would be very innappropriate fo a playtester to voice that to the public during that point of the process. They NEED to be giving that feedback to the company, that is what they agreed to do, and hopefully your friend has been doing this.
If I was a tester for a say a Ford car (I have no idea if they have testers that are public types, I doubt it, but this is a analogy) and drove it and found problems with it and then complained publicly about those problems... why the heck would Ford ever use testers again?!? They wanted feedback so they could find issues in their product they missed and instead of giving them that I went and told the public that their products have problems.
I can't say it is low for a company to ask testers to not give their feedback to the public, that is NOT what testers should be doing. I think it would be really low of testers to share info outside of the agreement they made. It is those people I would be disgusted with.
Sean Mahoney
Game companies are notorious for missing deadlines.
Yea, but WotC is the industry leader. Like it or not, industry leaders are held to a higher standard then smaller companies. Medical groups and health groups always target McDonalds as how they need to reduce fat and make their food healthier, ignoring the fact that Burger King actively increases the amount of fat and sodium in their food. How can they get away with that? Well Burger King is the industry #2. #2 doesn't draw the attenction like #1 does.
|
|
Game companies are notorious for missing deadlines.Yea, but WotC is the industry leader. Like it or not, industry leaders are held to a higher standard then smaller companies. Medical groups and health groups always target McDonalds as how they need to reduce fat and make their food healthier, ignoring the fact that Burger King actively increases the amount of fat and sodium in their food. How can they get away with that? Well Burger King is the industry #2. #2 doesn't draw the attenction like #1 does.
So distrust of WotC is justified because of a double standard? That make no sense to me.
You forgot that:
at D&D XP last year we were told that a 4.0 was absolutely not even being talked about yet, much less developed. and then we are supposed to accept that they lied to us then (they are now saying it has been in production since 05) but arn't lying to us about it now?
this is the one that actually pissed me off the most... I was still willing to give 4e a decent chance, though, I read what the designers have said in thier blogs, the races and classes preview book that wotc released, and the content on the wotc website, by this point I have pretty much concluded that what they are doing with 4e isn't going to appeal much to me... infact it seems they are removing much of what I liked about 3.5 and adding a bunch of stuff that I find questionable at best based upon what has been written about it.
Now to be perfectly fair, I could be wrong, what has been written could be misleading (at least the way I am reading it), but I have basicaly lost so much faith in WotC over the last year or so that I am no longer willing to risk my money on that. At some point in the future when I can find the books used (and WotC won't be seeing any profit from my purchase), I might pick them up and give the game a try... I play many RPGs, and one more won't be a problem, although to be honest unless 4e is very different then the designers blogs describe I can never see it becoming my primary prefered gaming system, and it will probably spend most of the time sitting on my self with other games I rarely play, but sometimes mine ideas from, like MERP and Heroes Unlimited.
This is like asking a reviewer to review a product under NDA then using the NDA to pressure the reviewer to delete the "Con" section of their review. Only "Pro" comments allowed.
This is not at ALL like that. Playtester and Reviewers are WORLDS apart. If you were expecting the playtesters to give you reviews of 4E then I can see why you have been so sadly disappointed.
The point of a playtester is to check out the system and give feedback to the company so they can make a better product. Once the product is released then you will start getting reviews but it won't be until then that the product is in a reviewable state. Often companies will send a few pre-release copies to reviewers just before this so they can post their review at the same time of the release, but they are NOT playtesters... they are reviewers. They aren't at this point yet, and I am shocked that you seem to expect that they are.
WotC's product, 4e, needs to stand on its merits and on the honest reporting of those who've tried it -- or not at all.
I completely agree. And judging it prior to its release on a product that isn't the final version sure would not be doing this. Which is one more reason it would be unethical of playtesters to be releasing negative opinions now.
Trying to seduce me into buying it by influencing what others say about it prior to release is unnacceptable.
You must get really mad at movie trailers to. Building hype about an upcoming product is a common and accepted marketing technique that helps insure you have an audience looking at your product when it is released. I can't see this as an unnacceptable practice, but just good business sense (and there is plenty in the marketing of WotC that I don't think was good... but the general idea of building hype IS a good idea).
Sean Mahoney
This is like asking a reviewer to review a product under NDA then using the NDA to pressure the reviewer to delete the "Con" section of their review. Only "Pro" comments alloed.
I disagree. They are not reviewers, they are playtesters. Their job is to play the game, test the game, and report back to WotC their findings. It's a surprise that they let them speak at all, quite frankly. They may not be paid employees, but they are doing "work" for WotC. The fact they only let them say positive things, is possibly because the positive aspects of the game would not likely be changed (and thus can be divulged publicly), while the negative stuff would go back to the drawing board.
That is the point of playtesting, after all. To find where a game breaks - but to tell WotC, not the public. If they wanted a bunch of yes men, they'd keep it all in house. Rather, they probably want honest opinions, just not publicly shared ones.
Greg
(edit: looks like Sean beat me to it... what he said!)
So distrust of WotC is justified because of a double standard? That make no sense to me.
I was discussing why missing deadlines that are suppose to showcase their talent is less acceptable from a Hasbro-size/quality company then from a Chaosium-size company. Distrust, I wasn't discussing that.
I was discussing why missing deadlines that are suppose to showcase their talent is less acceptable from a Hasbro then from Chaosium. Distrust, I wasn't discussing that.
I think Chaosium might not be the best ones to compare things to... I mean do you know how late most of their stuff gets?!?! Compared to them WotC is WAY ahead of schedule...
All that said (and tongue in cheek), I have to agree with the point that they have not done well at capatalizing on the DDI stuff at all. I am somewhat disappointed at that.
Sean Mahoney
This is like asking a reviewer to review a product under NDA then using the NDA to pressure the reviewer to delete the "Con" section of their review. Only "Pro" comments alloed.I disagree. They are not reviewers, they are playtesters. Their job is to play the game, test the game, and report back to WotC their findings. It's a surprise that they let them speak at all, quite frankly. They may not be paid employees, but they are doing "work" for WotC. The fact they only let them say positive things, is possibly because the positive aspects of the game would not likely be changed (and thus can be divulged publicly), while the negative stuff would go back to the drawing board.
That is the point of playtesting, after all. To find where a game breaks - but to tell WotC, not the public. If they wanted a bunch of yes men, they'd keep it all in house. Rather, they probably want honest opinions, just not publicly shared ones.
Greg
(edit: looks like Sean beat me to it... what he said!)
Fine. They're not reviewers. That's clear. Bad analogy choice on my part, and I withdraw it. Maybe its just that 1st ammendment thing I'm stuck on. But in my book, Wotc has told people that they are't allowed to share their full opinion with us. And your point about changing negative stuff may or may not be true - I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future. However, what I can tell you, from my personal experience, is that at least one playtester I know dislikes more than one thing that Wotc has absolutely no intention of changing. But they fear saying anything public because they bleive it'll be the death of their freelancing aspirations. I on the other hand, have no such aspirations.
|
|
I am curious how many people who are worried about the changes in core material started with 3rd edition and how many were playing in earlier editions. To me the idea of the half-orc is just NOT core to D&D. Nor is the druid as a class or any of the other things bemoaned as being lost or placed in other books "to force you to buy them."I think a lot of people hold those two examples dear. The same uproar (probably for different reasons) occurred when 2/e excluded half-orcs.
For the record, I personally would have axed each of them -- IMO they are, for different reasons, the weakest race/class choices in the old core rules.
I guess the discussion about trust is spot on. ...To me that is how they earned the trust I am now giving them. I would much rather they focus on good game designers rather than good marketing. I can read between the lines and make up my own mind... the better they are at spin the harder that gets.I trusted them at one time. Now, I can't get away from the gut feeling that they're a bunch of amateurs that are more-than-a-bit disconnected from what D&D is, and what D&D players want. I want to trust again, but they've done a first-rate job of wiping that away for now.
For what it's worth, I suspect (without direct evidence) that 4/e is the product of a set of marching orders from Hasbro -- find a way to generate a certain level of revenue and profit from this 'D&D' thing you have, or else. There have been just too many little revenue-increasing aspects to the new edition for me, sometimes things that have had a direct impact on game design.
sorry if anyone felt this was a personal attack, it wasn't intended as such... Why is it this...I'm actually relieved that some of the personal rhetoric has died down. I think this discussion has been pretty civil :)
Regards.
Well, if you are going to axe classes and races by virtue of power and usefulness, I would get rid of the half-elf and bard way before the half-orc and druid. Half-orcs make decent melee characters, and druids are stupidly powerful. Bards have a weak mish-mash mix of abilities, and half elves get +2 to two social skills and low-light vision. Whoopee! I don't like bards and gnomes that much, but I wouldn't axe tehm because they are engrained into the game, and lots of players do like them.
This is like asking a reviewer to review a product under NDA then using the NDA to pressure the reviewer to delete the "Con" section of their review. Only "Pro" comments allowed.This is not at ALL like that. Playtester and Reviewers are WORLDS apart. If you were expecting the playtesters to give you reviews of 4E then I can see why you have been so sadly disappointed.
The point of a playtester is to check out the system and give feedback to the company so they can make a better product. Once the product is released then you will start getting reviews but it won't be until then that the product is in a reviewable state. Often companies will send a few pre-release copies to reviewers just before this so they can post their review at the same time of the release, but they are NOT playtesters... they are reviewers. They aren't at this point yet, and I am shocked that you seem to expect that they are.
WotC's product, 4e, needs to stand on its merits and on the honest reporting of those who've tried it -- or not at all.I completely agree. And judging it prior to its release on a product that isn't the final version sure would not be doing this. Which is one more reason it would be unethical of playtesters to be releasing negative opinions now.
Trying to seduce me into buying it by influencing what others say about it prior to release is unnacceptable.You must get really mad at movie trailers to. Building hype about an upcoming product is a common and accepted marketing technique that helps insure you have an audience looking at your product when it is released. I can't see this as an unnacceptable practice, but just good business sense (and there is plenty in the marketing of WotC that I don't think was good... but the general idea of building hype IS a good idea).
Sean Mahoney
Dude. You're kind of missing my point. I accept full responsibility for a bad analogy in comparing playtesters to reviewers. But I never said anything about "hype". My point was wotc has chosen to issue a gag warning to the people who have experienced the proto-game. They have been warned against sharing more than half their opinion with the public.
If playtesters' good opinions can be trusted, I'd like the opportunity to evaluate their critical opinions too. What I choose to judge on what evidence is really my business, isn't it? And if wotc is concerned about no one pre-judging their product based on playtest info, why 1/2 relax the NDA gag? wotc doesn't have a problem with the good stuff coming out of playtest (do you?), so clearly they feel playtest opinions do matter.
To continue with an analogy, movie screeners aren't told to keep their critical comments to themselves, so I'm not sure what it is you thought I was saying. No, I have no problem with movie trailers.
Maybe I should just skip trying to use analogies to express my opinions and feelings. How do you feel about wotc telling playtesters not to share their full and honest impressions of the game with us, the potential customer? Do you think that's a good thing?