Aren't the advance OGL kits available to publishers now, or soon? That would imply to me that they are done updating (or soon will be done updating), so really it strikes me about garnering free publicity. I'd prefer full opinions.
I don't know how relevant the OGL will be now. My understanding is that it will no longer contain actual rules but will instead point to them in products. So instead of listing how Attacks of Opportunity work, it might saw that the information on Attack of Opportunity found on pg XX paragraph Y line Z are open content.
If that type of thing is the case then looking at the OGL at this point is just a decision as to wether or not the company looking is willing to comply with the legalities involved prior to viewing the actual rules (and I believe they get to see this OGL prior to ponying up the cash, just not the actual rules).
If I am right (and I fully admit I could be wrong) then the OGL being available means very little to those of us not running a D20 producing business (unless the business we are likely to follow makes a decision based just on the OGL).
I would love to hear some reviews too... but it is too early at this point, we aren't going to get to hear unbiased reviews yet. Just ain't going to happen.
As we approach the actual release I think we will (and should) start seeing them.
Sean Mahoney
I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me that you read it and knows what it says. Maybe if you read it, that might help too. I find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.
So if you can't imagine how I can convince you, then there is no way to convince you. Period. Nothing will work as proof. Why then, should I (or anyone else) even bother trying?
I hear your point, but I think the timing is interesting. Aren't the advance OGL kits available to publishers now, or soon? That would imply to me that they are done updating (or soon will be done updating), so really it strikes me about garnering free publicity. I'd prefer full opinions.
Well, yeah, it's free publicity. And, yeah, I would like to hear full opinions, both good and bad. But what I want doesn't matter for $%^#. It's their rule set, their intellectual property. WotC holds all the cards right now, and they are free to do whatever they want with them. And, in my opinion, it's ethical that they do.
Greg
whereas before the seed of the idea that 4E might not be as bad as I think it will be was planted.
Everytime I think that it might not be that bad, I remember these words, "Dragonborn are a major race in the Forgotten Realms."
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me that you read it and knows what it says. Maybe if you read it, that might help too. I find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.So if you can't imagine how I can convince you, then there is no way to convince you. Period. Nothing will work as proof. Why then, should I (or anyone else) even bother trying?
You didn't read that carefully. I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me. It's like you're screaming at me to believe that UFOs exist because your buddy said they do and he's a really good friend and you believe him. Terrific. I don't see how you're going to convince me of the existence of UFOs by showing me the letter he wrote describing them to you. Try getting me a picture. Or other people that have seen UFOs.
But, regardless, I've played your game and assumed it's true, UFOs do exist if you say they do. I'm still not bothered by this fact.
|
I hear your point, but I think the timing is interesting. Aren't the advance OGL kits available to publishers now, or soon? That would imply to me that they are done updating (or soon will be done updating), so really it strikes me about garnering free publicity. I'd prefer full opinions.
the advance OGL kits will be available whenever the publishers, who just last week had to sign their own NDA to see it, get it - Wizards has not set a timetable for when this is going to be yet. I'm not sure how WOTC operates in regard to D&D playtesters but one set of magic playtesters would get the first version(Alpha) of X cards from R&D, use them and report their findings, R&D would then send revised cards to DIFFERENT playtesters - thus the issues found with the Alpha playtesters would be completly different from the second (Beta) versions, sometimes only the placeholder name would be the same. So this email may or may not mean that the feedback your friend placed with WOTC - his positive comments made it into the final version, but expect what he found negative to have changed.
Everytime I think that it might not be that bad, I remember these words, "Dragonborn are a major race in the Forgotten Realms."
I think it would be fair to agree that whatever is happening to Forgotten Realms and if it is a good thing or not should be a VERY superate issue from wether the 4E changes are good or bad.
And for my 2 cents, Dragonborn in FR isn't the worst of the changes they are proposing.
lol...
Sean Mahoney
I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me that you read it and knows what it says. Maybe if you read it, that might help too. I find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.So if you can't imagine how I can convince you, then there is no way to convince you. Period. Nothing will work as proof. Why then, should I (or anyone else) even bother trying?
Aye. You're on the right track, IMO. Be strong, let it go, it's not worth it. It doesn't matter if you convince one guy right now. If what you say is true, it'll most likely come back around to bite WotC in the arse at some later point.
|
I married a lawyer. Ever since I met her it became clear that popular belief about the legal system is often ill informed at best. When I see a debate about how contract law works and there are no lawyers in the conversation i tend to roll my eyes and mutter - I you only knew what this sounds like you would end this conversation quickly and go ask a lawyer.
And for my 2 cents, Dragonborn in FR isn't the worst of the changes they are proposing.
Everyone's got a line of "this is just to much change for me." That's mine. And it really has nothing to do with the FR at all. I only started playing in the FR less then 6 months ago. For me its just representative of how they're just making changes willey nilley and caring nothing of long time fans and the traditions of what they come to expect from it. Dragonborn in the FR is merely a 1 sentence reminder of that.
I thought you wanted to discuss the moral implications of allowing selective disclosure under an NDA. My situation is analogous to what WotC is doing, is it not?
You thought wrong. I want to know how people feel about playtesters being told not to share the full picture. I want to know how people feel about being led to form opinions on what playtesters say without knowing that playtesters are still not aloud to say critical things.
I want to know, if people feel this is an attempt at manipulation. In short, if playtesters are suddenly allowed to talk, we would presume they are free from their NDAs and be inclined to trust what they say. But that's not the full picture. We still can't trust what playtesters say because, unbeknownst to us, they are still gagged by their NDAs.
You turned that into, how do people feel about playtesters violating their NDAs; which, in turn, led to a debate about whether talking about this letter was a violation or not. Your question, which as a person who drafts NDAs you are uniquely qualified to speak to, is not my question.
Then you called me a conspiracy theorist. Along the way you implied I was either a fool or didn't understand NDAs, because no NDA could be written to distinguish between positive and negative verbiage. When I pointed out I wasn't talking about the contents of the NDA you doubted the existence of the email because you find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.
While that sounds like a terribly reasoable thing to find unlikely and seems like a terribly logical deduction on your part, none of that was actually my question or my point. Do you see the disconnect?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You thought wrong. I want to know how people feel about playtesters being told not to share the full picture. I want to know how people feel about being led to form opinions on what playtesters say without knowing that playtesters are still not aloud to say critical things.
I feel happy.
And you don't understand NDAs.
I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me that you read it and knows what it says. Maybe if you read it, that might help too. I find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.So if you can't imagine how I can convince you, then there is no way to convince you. Period. Nothing will work as proof. Why then, should I (or anyone else) even bother trying?You didn't read that carefully. I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me. It's like you're screaming at me to believe that UFOs exist because your buddy said they do and he's a really good friend and you believe him. Terrific. I don't see how you're going to convince me of the existence of UFOs by showing me the letter he wrote describing them to you. Try getting me a picture. Or other people that have seen UFOs.
But, regardless, I've played your game and assumed it's true, UFOs do exist if you say they do. I'm still not bothered by this fact.
It's really not like that at all. This is just more insulting infantalizing disguised as debate on your part, but fine allow me to restate:
So if you can't imagine how I can convince you, then there is no way I can convince you. Period. Nothing I say or do will work as proof. Why then, should I (or anyone like me) even bother trying?
And with that, I'm taking a fellow poster's advice.
You thought wrong. I want to know how people feel about playtesters being told not to share the full picture. I want to know how people feel about being led to form opinions on what playtesters say without knowing that playtesters are still not aloud to say critical things.
I feel happy.
And you don't understand NDAs.
Goody for you. I actually got that from you a while back, which left me wondering why you were still posting. Then I got over it.
|
Well you see, I run a company (a wee bitty one) and my NDAs regulate comments from people but not in this particular way, but I can see why they would do it that way.It is in WotC's best interest to only allow positive comments at this point since we do not have the means to judge the veracity of any negative claim and they want us to hear what people genuinely liked about 4E.The truth percolates.
Seems okay to me.No surprise there. ;)
Oh, that's all fine and dandy.
I'm just saying I wouldn't lose money betting that CWM loves 4e when it comes out.
This thread is loads of fun. Watching people try to argue points of law with a lawyer...priceless.
Thanks Sebastian for cheering me up today. :)
golf clap
Heh. :)
Heh. :)golf clap
:)
|
|
whereas before the seed of the idea that 4E might not be as bad as I think it will be was planted.Everytime I think that it might not be that bad, I remember these words, "Dragonborn are a major race in the Forgotten Realms."
That is so true. I still want to smack the FR design team after reading that garbage.
|
|
This thread is loads of fun. Watching people try to argue points of law with a lawyer...priceless.
Thanks Sebastian for cheering me up today. :)
Yep. It is always entertaining unless you are the non-lawyer in the conversation. My wife had me curled up in the fetal position after a few of our conversations about the Constitution.
|
|
I think we are missing the bigger picture. If playtesters are allowed to speak about 4e but only in positive terms, why aren't we hearing from more people? Either only a few are allowed to talk, or most of them are being silent because they have little good to say about 4E. I probably opened up a new can of worms with this one.
I think we are missing the bigger picture. If playtesters are allowed to speak about 4e but only in positive terms, why aren't we hearing from more people? Either only a few are allowed to talk, or most of them are being silent because they have little good to say about 4E. I probably opened up a new can of worms with this one.
We can only speculate. Maybe some would consider me naive, but I'll give WotC the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. I prefer to have facts over speculation.
|
|
I think we are missing the bigger picture. If playtesters are allowed to speak about 4e but only in positive terms, why aren't we hearing from more people? Either only a few are allowed to talk, or most of them are being silent because they have little good to say about 4E. I probably opened up a new can of worms with this one.We can only speculate. Maybe some would consider me naive, but I'll give WotC the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. I prefer to have facts over speculation.
I agree. The truth will out soon enough anyway.
For what its worth, I have now read the actual email. In it wotc specifically allows playters to communicate positive impressions (and gives examples) and disallows negative impressions (and gives examples). So as ridiculous or unlikely as that seems to you, Sebastian, they wrote it.
We can only speculate. Maybe some would consider me naive, but I'll give WotC the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. I prefer to have facts over speculation.
Assuming for a second that playtesters are free to speak as long as they only say something positive about 4E, if I were a playtester and I had mixed views of the playtest version, I'd keep quiet about it. I wouldn't share my positive views on it simply because I'd be afraid something I said would be construed as less then positive by the powers that be. But that's just me.
I 'm with you on this one. It might be smart marketing (the first that we've seen form them regarding 4E), but it seems that it is designed to be deceptive and misleading. In short, with the info you have presented us, the comments they made carry zero weight with me, whereas before the seed of the idea that 4E might not be as bad as I think it will be was planted. That seed is starting to die.Then the playtesters should be saying nothing, instead of making commentary on the system with their hands tied.Well, in the end, it's the playtesters that decide whether they speak or not, isn't it? If WotC has conditions on an NDA that allow positive feedback to be released, well, it's up to the playtesters to decide if they want to play that game or not, eh?
Greg
Again, this is not part of the NDA. This is about an email after the fact that releases the playtester from prior NDA restrictions, but only with their hands tied. Now you may be comfortable with wotc using the playtester channel to release positive-only info, but I'd really like to hear fair assessments, not just the good stuff. Or none at all.
It's this propaganda-style imbalancing that bothers me. I dislike the infomercial taste of this move. It bothers me. Let me say this again, viscerally, this bothers me.How do you feel about it? Not "what's your legal analysis of applicable nda, first ammendment or felony murder law" not "what do you think, should I stay friends with my friends or castigate them for their obvious lack of integrity" -- none of that is the point or my question.
My question is: how do you feel about this latest wotc move?
Exactly how I feel!
|
|
We can only speculate. Maybe some would consider me naive, but I'll give WotC the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. I prefer to have facts over speculation.Assuming for a second that playtesters are free to speak as long as they only say something positive about 4E, if I were a playtester and I had mixed views of the playtest version, I'd keep quiet about it. I wouldn't share my positive views on it simply because I'd be afraid something I said would be construed as less then positive by the powers that be. But that's just me.
Or, like the old adage, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."
|
|
I thought you wanted to discuss the moral implications of allowing selective disclosure under an NDA. My situation is analogous to what WotC is doing, is it not?
You thought wrong. I want to know how people feel about playtesters being told not to share the full picture. I want to know how people feel about being led to form opinions on what playtesters say without knowing that playtesters are still not aloud to say critical things.
I want to know, if people feel this is an attempt at manipulation. In short, if playtesters are suddenly allowed to talk, we would presume they are free from their NDAs and be inclined to trust what they say. But that's not the full picture. We still can't trust what playtesters say because, unbeknownst to us, they are still gagged by their NDAs.
You turned that into, how do people feel about playtesters violating their NDAs; which, in turn, led to a debate about whether talking about this letter was a violation or not. Your question, which as a person who drafts NDAs you are uniquely qualified to speak to, is not my question.
Then you called me a conspiracy theorist. Along the way you implied I was either a fool or didn't understand NDAs, because no NDA could be written to distinguish between positive and negative verbiage. When I pointed out I wasn't talking about the contents of the NDA you doubted the existence of the email because you find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.
While that sounds like a terribly reasoable thing to find unlikely and seems like a terribly logical deduction on your part, none of that was actually my question or my point. Do you see the disconnect?
Hey Lou, I'll take you at your word and assume that you are speaking the truth. How do I feel about them using playtesters this way? It sucks. But hey, lately, WOTC has sucked. This wouldn't be them going out on a limb. It would be business as usual. Is it legal? Heck, I don't know. My dad's a lawyer and I have worked in marketing. I know that to sell you stuff, corporations will use all sorts of dirty tricks and 'bait and switch' routines. It's their job to make money, no matter how low they have to go (as long as in theory, they don't break the law.) It doesn't make these practices right, at least not morally.
If it makes you feel better, and if you believe in hell; you can comfort yourself knowing that there will most likely be an extra hot room reserved for lawyers and marketing executives. I do worry for my dad sometimes.
As far as arguing with Sebastian; it's not worth it. He knows his legal stuff. And he really enjoys toying with folks when they aren't on solid ground with their arguments. Just remember that really hot room. What was it Shakespeare said about lawyers again?
lol! Thanks for the support.
I just want to say I don't have any venom for anyone in this whole situation enough to make me curse them to eternal damnation.
Eternal always seemed a bit too much to me...
Contributor
|
Since everyone in the NDA is posting in both threads, I won't double post, but I put something in the other thread.
Here I'll add that I have a great deal of respect for Sebastian, even if he is a heartless old curmudgeon, and I trust his legal expertise. In fact I trust that if Sebastian says he knows something that he does know it.
By that I mean to say, tread carefully Lou, you or your source may be in a legally murky area.
That said I also have the utmost respect for Lou, and I take him at his word, even without my own reasons for believing him.
I just love when people make broad based statements based on their opinion, as if they are fact.
Funny Stuff!
Funny, because I love when people make snarky criticisms of other people's posts without actually saying what they mean!
I said what I meant. Sorry it was above you.
|
Contributor
|
Funny, because I love when people make snarky criticisms of other people's posts without actually saying what they mean!I said what I meant. Sorry it was above you.
Let me clarify. You don't say who you refer to, or what they said that fits your description. I'm curious.
I also find that people often criticize posters on these boards for stating their opinion as though it was fact. I always find this weird because in school I was always taught that you don't need to tell people that something is only your opinion. If it isn't backed up with a source, you are saying it's your opinion.
So I was curious whether you meant something that someone simply stated, and didn't bother to say "IMO" or if you were referring to something else. I'm honestly curious as to what you are talking about.
|
I have a great deal of respect for Sebastian, even if he is a heartless old curmudgeon...
You don't know how correct you could be. I for one am convince that Sebastian has forged a deal with some hellspawned power. This deal allowed him to remove his heart and place it within a mystical container, thus rendering him impervious to injury and granting eternal life.
Sorry, folks, the email Lou mentioned was indeed sent out to playtesters. Three seperate playtesters I know confirmed it. Anyone want to call my friends liars, even though they don't know each other directly and yet all confirmed the same letter? I will brick fight you.
What I heard was it said something to the effect of, "If you liked the new version, feel free to tell people you liked it, but please refrain from discussing what you didn't like before the consumers gets a chance to make up their minds about it."
Sucks that so many posters seemed to reflexively offer up topic diversions and accusations rather that just attempt to answer Lou's question.
|
|
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!
Not to mention druids are extremely versatile, and create excellent role-playing opportunities.
I'm tempted to think their exclusion (for now), along with the (forest-dwelling?) gnome, may be down to the initial rules having a general focus on the dungeon environment, and the later releases will open the world up into other arenas, rather like the environment books (Sandstorm, etc).
It wouldn't be the first time this has happened; it's what TSR did with the Basic Edition. For levels 1-3, your characters tromped round corridors, then you bought the Expert set, and your level 4-15 characters stepped blinking into the sunlight and learned the overland travel rules, and discovered the world was carved into hexes instead of squares...
|
Contributor
|
I have a great deal of respect for Sebastian, even if he is a heartless old curmudgeon...You don't know how correct you could be. I for one am convince that Sebastian has forged a deal with some hellspawned power. This deal allowed him to remove his heart and place it within a mystical container, thus rendering him impervious to injury and granting eternal life.
This is, in fact, exactly what I meant.
I have Sebastian's heart in a jar on my desk. It's an awesome paperweight and conversation starter.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sorry, folks, the email Lou mentioned was indeed sent out to playtesters. Three seperate playtesters I know confirmed it. Anyone want to call my friends liars, even though they don't know each other directly and yet all confirmed the same letter? I will brick fight you.
Brick fight?! That doesn't sound good.
Alright, well that's a funny thing for WotC to do, but between finally getting a first hand report on the email and this, it does sound like it exists and isn't a misinterpretation.
Sucks that so many posters seemed to reflexively offer up topic diversions and accusations rather that just attempt to answer Lou's question.
Uh...I did answer the question. And, I posted a hypothetical to reframe the issue. It's just that one person saying "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend that WotC said X" is next to worthless, particularly given how unusual it is to allow such categorical disclosure. And smacking down people who are wrong about the law is half the point of being a lawyer.
So, to recap, I still am not bothered by WotC is doing, it's not even a big deal, and thus the diversion into more entertaining topics (which have sadly played out).
I have a phylactery containing a piece of Sebastian's heart. When I go to the doctor to have the triple fracture in my distal radius diagnosed my Sebby Sliver explains how it's all really a question of law and the doctor doesn't have the knowledge or the stones to be telling me anything about anything.
To date, three of those doctors have converted to attourneydom, and they currentely keep themselves busy administering hospice care to unwinnable cases.
What can I say... the man's convincing.
Sorry, folks, the email Lou mentioned was indeed sent out to playtesters. Three seperate playtesters I know confirmed it. Anyone want to call my friends liars, even though they don't know each other directly and yet all confirmed the same letter? I will brick fight you.
What I heard was it said something to the effect of, "If you liked the new version, feel free to tell people you liked it, but please refrain from discussing what you didn't like before the consumers gets a chance to make up their minds about it."
Sucks that so many posters seemed to reflexively offer up topic diversions and accusations rather that just attempt to answer Lou's question.
Good to know (from another source). WotC has EVERY right to send e-mails that ask playtesters to refrain from sharing negative comments about 4th edition.
At the same time, as D&D fan, I'd like to hear all that I can about the next edition in order to make an informed decision about it. It's hard to trust playtest reviews when I know that they are biased.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have a great deal of respect for Sebastian, even if he is a heartless old curmudgeon...You don't know how correct you could be. I for one am convince that Sebastian has forged a deal with some hellspawned power. This deal allowed him to remove his heart and place it within a mystical container, thus rendering him impervious to injury and granting eternal life.
This is, in fact, exactly what I meant.
I have Sebastian's heart in a jar on my desk. It's an awesome paperweight and conversation starter.
Mental note to self: do not give phylactory to persons that use it as a paperweight and announce that fact on the Paizo boards.
This thread rocks. I've been called a nazi, I've been threatened with physical force, I've had people question my hygiene, my ethics, my professional competence, but I have never received a threat of death or damnation. To receive both in the same post from someone I wasn't even arguing with touches the blackness where my heart once rested.
Sucks that so many posters seemed to reflexively offer up topic diversions and accusations rather that just attempt to answer Lou's question.Uh...I did answer the question. And, I posted a hypothetical to reframe the issue. It's just that one person saying "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend that WotC said X" is next to worthless, particularly given how unusual it is to allow such categorical disclosure. And smacking down people who are wrong about the law is half the point of being a lawyer.
So, to recap, I still am not bothered by WotC is doing, it's not even a big deal, and thus the diversion into more entertaining topics (which have sadly played out).
I was batching all the "against" posts into one comment. I know you answered the question, babe. All good. ;)
|
|
Everytime I think that it might not be that bad, I remember these words, "Dragonborn are a major race in the Forgotten Realms."I think it would be fair to agree that whatever is happening to Forgotten Realms and if it is a good thing or not should be a VERY superate issue from wether the 4E changes are good or bad.
And for my 2 cents, Dragonborn in FR isn't the worst of the changes they are proposing.
lol...
Sean Mahoney
No, but it's still pretty bad, especially the horrid way they shoehorned them into the setting.