Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,627 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Sebastian wrote:

Damn! I didn't know this ride was still running.

This thread is fun. Reminds me of the fact that we still had some hardcore 2e holdouts at Paizo up until a few years ago, and they would occassionally circle the wagons to rehash the 2e > 3e battle.

Has anyone mentioned how offensive it was to use the same art on the new red box version?

What about the lack of gnomes in the PHB?

Also, it's like an MMORPG.

I preferred 1e to 2e, and 1e/2e to 3e. Pathfinder was the first 3.x game that I was willing to actually play, because it fixed most of the egregious issues I had with 3rd edition. I enjoy 4e, but could have done with fewer class/option books in such a short time.

I watched those ad spots. I took them to be more tongue-in-cheek fun poking than assaults on players... but I had absolutely nothing invested in 3rd other than a couple 3.0 core books (PHB, DMG), and a couple 3.5 books (PHB, DMG, MM, Guide to the Forgotten Realms). I also wasn't playing any version of D&D (and hadn't been for years and years), when 4e was announced. SO I grant that I'm not really in a position to be offended.


Bluenose wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
@Scott Betts: The fact that a god of agiculture is probably one of the most widely worshipped gods by 'common' folk means that the deity would be very influencial. Sure many 'adventures' might not worship the god...but the impact of such a god on a world would be huge. It is a kind of attiude that turns everyone except the 'adventurers' into card board figures.
No, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. Even assuming that there's one 'god of agriculture' anyway. Not that it's sensible to compare historic pantheons to how pantheons work in D&D, but the link between number of worshippers and influence/power is not one you can take for granted.

Actualy I was not refering to the number of followers = the god's personal power. Though that has been true in D&D since 1st ed. Rather it is good or bad I am not going to get a arguement as both have pros and cons.

I was talking about influence and power of said church. The more people who whorship a faith the more temporal power it will have. It is just common sense really. Saying they are unimportant in terms of PC is just shallow world building and a very disturbing lack of imagination in a game based on imagination.


Well, I’m with Chris Mortika. Thrice; thanking cibet44 for the original post, his experience in regard to alternate realities referencing Traveller (which I discovered clicking his name to make sure I spelled it right), and finally ...

Chris Mortika wrote:
I am saddened that even a call to recognize the connections and shared history of all of the iterations of the D&D game, provokes that kind of hostility.

Role-playing games are (comparatively) a niche hobby, in a number or ways. I’m more than pleased to be “united” with anyone that enjoys sitting and down and playing a game I enjoy playing. If it’s a role-playing game, even more so. If it’s my beloved D&D, I’m even happier.

---

Edition wars aren’t worth fighting, much less “internet debating.” A debate implies rules all parties agree to, and in context a somewhat neutral third-party or entity that gets to decide “who won” the debate. Those conditions aren’t much evident on the intarwebz.

That typed, I enjoy seeing different points of view and reading the opinions of folks whose experience is different from my own. I'm also amused to no end seeing folks argue about things they are passionate about. It's just me. :D

Some of the opinions I’ve seen in this thread I agree with, some I don’t much agree with. Such is life.

---

Regarding D&D 4.0, the Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro (WotBro) really disappointed me … to the point of alienating me as a customer and engendering a general distaste for their efforts.

I think when WotBro decided to develop and release D&D 4.0 they had several competing corporate forces driving their efforts. I shudder to think about all the driving forces that motivated the corporate group, but I suspect they were pretty varied, as well (all the way from "I don't want to get fired over this!" to "I'm going to make MY mark on D&D!").

I’m sure they looked at World of Warcraft, and wanted a piece of that pie. I’m sure they wanted to bake a brand-new pie (and be the only person selling it). I’m sure they smelled the money in the air … and set about business.

I’m amused today is March 2, 2011, because after reading this thread I took a trip down memory lane and found this video, a live demo of the D&DI Toolset, dated "February 27--March 2, 2008".

So three years ago, WotB was telling me about the "D&D Gametable" that would have all these shiny features. It was a component of a larger, cohesive initiative that featured "D&D Insider" ... the books I'd buy would just be part of a much larger, robust digital infrastructure to play a game I loved so much!

I'm simply saying for me, D&D 4.0 was "advertised" to me as part of a much bigger product offering, leveraging the power of computers with the fun I've always enjoyed playing Dungeons and Dragons.

I, for one, will always judge the "4th Edition Core Collection" I'm looking at against what was "advertised" to me.
---

Regarding the actual design intentions of the folks that worked on 4.0, I typed earlier I've been strolling down memory lane vis-à-vis this thread.

Here's what Rob Heinsoo (who along with Andy Collins and James Wyatt is credited as the "D&D 4th Edition Design Team" on the inside cover of my 4.0 Player's Handbook) said (I'm the one that transcribed, I'm not sure he's ever actually wrote this)

Rob Heinsoo wrote:

... we were talking about all the alternative universes Dungeons and Dragons might exist in, and that eventually we were going to narrow it down to one; but that we had the responsibility to look at all of those alternate universes.

Now when I say that responsibility, I mean the funny thing is, we're not, at this stage, going ahead and talking to everybody about all the alternate universes that these rules occupy. Partly because some of them have game mechanics which turned out NOT to be Dungeons and Dragons.

It's like our original mission … we weren't told, "Do 3.7." We were told, "You're doing 4.0. Push it! Don't hang back!

Here is where I saw Rob say this.

It's my opinion that, as Rob said, some games can have game mechanics that are NOT Dungeons and Dragons. Some of those games can even be sold and marketed as a "D&D" game.

---

Long post, I know, it's just I'm working on 550 some posts.

Long live D&D (regardless of how it incarnates!),

-- Andy

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jandrem wrote:


People say MMORPG like it's a bad thing, and a LOT of 4e defenders argue it away like it's an insult. It's not. I play 3e/PF, and *gasp* I play MMO's too. It's a kind of game, one that has millions of subscribers, and DnD looked to it for inspiration. Oh my Goddesses I can't believe I'm defending 4e.

I've got a good friend, who is a staunch, diehard 4e player. The mere mention of "MMO" and he goes into full Wolvie-berzerker rage mode. Hilarious factoid, he's never played a MMO in his life.

4e is like a MMO. 3e is like a war game.

So what?

Linkified. NSFW.


Jandrem wrote:

Really? Other than the implied "You had 8 years to figure out how to grapple. Here, since you fail, we're just going to take it away from you and give you something easier. Math is so hard. Sorry about that."

Some of us use grapple rules on a fairly regular basis without any trouble. This was an over-exaggeration of a rule that isn't that hard.

I know some of you did. So did I. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of groups really had issues with grappling, and that for a lot of them it would slow the game down to a crawl every time someone tried it.

Jandrem wrote:
Basically, instead of just saying "Hi, we have a new edition of the game we feel strongly about, here's why...", they took the route of "You've been playing "wrong" all this time. You're not having as much fun as you think you're having. You're only playing it right if you play our NEW edition. That, or you can keep on not having fun. Your choice." It was insulting.

Right, except they didn't say or imply this. This is you reading something very, very negative into a lighthearted internet ad.

Jandrem wrote:
Instead of hyping 4e up on it's own strengths and potential, they instead chose to attack their previous edition.

No, they did plenty of that in their previews and interviews and articles. The point of this ad was to make it clear that despite some very real sticking points/flaws/whatever of previous editions that lead to significant rules changes, decades can go by but you still have the same group of imagination adventurers slaying paper trolls around a dinner table. The ad's thesis comes at the end - "The game remains the same." Believing that the point (or even the slightest intent) of the ad was to make you feel like you were dumb for ever liking 3e (or whatever edition) is just weird.

Jandrem wrote:
Sort of like how a bully has to hurt other people's feelings to make himself feel better, or a disrespectful person puts down others so that they look better.

Uhhhhhhh...

Jandrem wrote:
They thought they were being hip and edgy, and wound up shooting themselves in the foot. WotC is that guy trying to be the "Cool Dad" and appeal to the young, hip kids, and ends up looking like a tool. That's what I got from these ads. WotC is the 50 year old guy wearing MC Hammer parachute pants in the 2000's.

Right, I don't think anyone expects a brilliant marketing campaign from what are essentially a bunch of D&D nerds. But the corniness of their ads is the sort of thing that's very easy to laugh off with an "Oh, you guys..."


Jandrem wrote:
For all the ad accomplished, they might as well have been playing Monopoly in that last scene; what they were playing didn't amount to anything since nothing from 4e got talked about. That last scene could have just as easily been a 3e game.

Actually, that was one of my points: you should seriously consider whether or not you would have reacted differently to this ad had they been playing Pathfinder in the final scene rather than 4e. Was it really the ad itself that caused your negative reaction? Or was it the mental framework you already had built up around WotC the company that led you to view the ad in a certain light?


John Kretzer wrote:

@Scott Betts: The fact that a god of agiculture is probably one of the most widely whorshipped gods by 'common' folk means that the deity would be very influencial. Sure many 'adventures' might not whorshipp the god...but the impact of such a god on a world would be huge. It is a kinda of attiude that turns everyone except the 'adventurers' into card board figures.

Also put simply I can see reaqsons for a cleric of a agiculture god to go adventuring. One of the most important aspect of deities and their priest is to protect their whorshippers...so I really just disagree with their assertationb that a god of agiculture is unimportant...it is wrong...and just short sighted.

I also just got a strong feeling of just laziness on their part.

Maybe the problem is you are right.

You are right that a god of agriculture could be extremely influential on the world/setting. So if I wanted to produce a product that was setting neutral, or as close to it as I could, would I want to put a god of agriculture in it? Probably not. I would wait and put a god of agriculture instead in a setting specific book, where the setting is heavily influenced by that deity.

In fact, I would say it would be an extremely bad idea to include any fundamentally setting shaping deities in a setting neutral game product.

Is PF core book setting neutral (or as close as they could get to it) or Golarion(sp?) specific?


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
For all the ad accomplished, they might as well have been playing Monopoly in that last scene; what they were playing didn't amount to anything since nothing from 4e got talked about. That last scene could have just as easily been a 3e game.
Actually, that was one of my points: you should seriously consider whether or not you would have reacted differently to this ad had they been playing Pathfinder in the final scene rather than 4e. Was it really the ad itself that caused your negative reaction? Or was it the mental framework you already had built up around WotC the company that led you to view the ad in a certain light?

If they had actually countered the difficulty experienced with grapple rules in 3.5 with how easy it was to resolve in 4.0, then yeah, people who had a problem with the ad would just be a bunch of haters. Since the ad really just sold 4.0 sizzle and not steak, I don't think anyone who had an issue with the ad would be unfairly maligning 4.0- they have a point in mentioning that without addressing the issue clearly shown on the 3.5 side of the ad, it's empty at best, offensive at worst. It probably would have been wiser to just show people not having fun on the 3.5 side of the ad, or if they were grappling with a rule, have it be a very open-ended interpretation of what specific rule they were having trouble with.


Give it up, Scott. Some people simply won't be convinced that WotC doesn't kick puppies and boil kittens.

Personally, I just think they (meaning whomever is managing the D&D brand) don't know what the hell they're doing.


Scott Betts wrote:


Right, I don't think anyone expects a brilliant marketing campaign from what are essentially a bunch of D&D nerds. But the corniness of their ads is the sort of thing that's very easy to laugh off with an "Oh, you guys..."

Of course, because you're on their side of the fence. You're biased, just as I am. Of course none of these ads strike you as offensive. Of course you don't see why people are getting so worked up.

If this is all in our heads, and you're 100% right on all counts, then why would Merls feel the need to even make an article in the first place calling for unity?

Some people take things differently than others. Your opinion is not law. You are in absolutely no place to decide whether or not someone can or cannot, should or should not be bothered by something.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. Opinions are not facts.


Jandrem wrote:

You're right, Pathfinder changed a lot of the same things 4e changed, but you are completely ignoring the respective companies approach to the changes, which I think is what everyone is arguing here.

WotC took a very aggressive stance on the edition change, a very "if you're not with us, you're against us!" kind of approach. They couldn't figure out how to sell their system without attacking others. WotC, in a slightly exaggerated example, sits high on their throne, behind 100' tall walls, and tells the player how to enjoy their game. They even had the nerve to say things like "you're not having as much fun as you think you are." That's a pretty bold statement. I'd like to think your average human being can decide for themselves whether or not somehting they are doing is fun. Hell, animals can figure that much out.

Okay, first, attacking others? When did WotC do this? I mean, what others would they have even been able to attack? Also, when did they say "you're not having as much fun as you think you are"? In this case I'm not necessarily questioning whether or not they said it, I just want to read the context surrounding the quotation.

Jandrem wrote:
Paizo took a completely different approach. They held open play-testing, infinite hands-on play discussions, constant updates and revisions, and gave us the game we told them we wanted to play. To this day you'll find regular posts from the games creators right along side other posters. Instead of lording the game over us and telling us how to play, they took it to the community, and have openly and plainly defended every change they made. They have nothing to hide. Of course you can't please every single player, but for the most part it was player input that decided the final version of Pathfinder.

Yes, Paizo is the model of brilliant developer-customer interaction. It doesn't get any better than that. But Paizo was really the first company to even attempt this sort of thing. I think we'll see this become the model (or something close to it) going forward in the industry.

Jandrem wrote:
Rules changes can be fine. Updates can be good. I think the popular misconception of 3e players is that we're mad that something got changed; most of us aren't. It's how those changes came about; one company slapped us in the face with them, while the other took time to ask us what we'd like to see changed.

WotC asked the community what it wanted to see changed, too. They just did it over a much, much longer period of time. Pretty much every change made in 4e was the direct result of examining a rule or sub-system that they'd received many complaints or concerns about over the life-cycle of the previous edition.

But no, you're right, they were two very different approaches. One was the old way things were done, one was the new way. If WotC's big innovation in leveraging the internet for D&D was developing their digital toolset, Paizo's was changing the way the company interacts with the customers. It's awesome that we're seeing these massive leaps forward.


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
For all the ad accomplished, they might as well have been playing Monopoly in that last scene; what they were playing didn't amount to anything since nothing from 4e got talked about. That last scene could have just as easily been a 3e game.
Actually, that was one of my points: you should seriously consider whether or not you would have reacted differently to this ad had they been playing Pathfinder in the final scene rather than 4e. Was it really the ad itself that caused your negative reaction? Or was it the mental framework you already had built up around WotC the company that led you to view the ad in a certain light?

Scott, you are absolutely right. If that was a Pathfinder ad, you'd better believe I wouldn't be playing Pathfinder right now. I was a WotC fan for years. I started playing Magic the Gathering back during Ice Age, around '95 I think? Had the tables been turned, and that had been an ad for Pathfinder, and not 4e, I'd still fell the same way.


Freehold DM wrote:
It could be argued that is what the first commercial did.

Sure, it could be. But then you'd be forced to acknowledge that the first commercial makes fun of the people who made it. Which, in turn, forces you to acknowledge that your argument is wrong in the first place, or that the perceived jabs at players of previous editions aren't intended to be taken seriously.


John Kretzer wrote:
@Scott Betts: The fact that a god of agiculture is probably one of the most widely whorshipped gods by 'common' folk means that the deity would be very influencial. Sure many 'adventures' might not whorshipp the god...but the impact of such a god on a world would be huge. It is a kinda of attiude that turns everyone except the 'adventurers' into card board figures.

You're right, it would be a very big deal to the common folk. But that's cool, because the common folk now worship Pelor, who received the agriculture portfolio.

John Kretzer wrote:
Also put simply I can see reaqsons for a cleric of a agiculture god to go adventuring. One of the most important aspect of deities and their priest is to protect their whorshippers...so I really just disagree with their assertationb that a god of agiculture is unimportant...it is wrong...and just short sighted.

I can see reasons, too. Just, y'know, not nearly as many reasons as I can see for a cleric of Pelor to go adventuring. Which is the whole point.

They didn't say that a god of agriculture is unimportant. They said it's less important to adventurers than other gods. That's the truth. Pelor is, pretty inarguably, more important to more adventurers than yon-god-o'-farmlands.

And John, I gave you the passage you were referring to. There's no real excuse for misrepresenting it.

John Kretzer wrote:
Side note on cars: Actualy it is because the cars devalue is what makes them less desirable by conbsumers...not that they go down in price because of the cunsumer's desires.

...is anyone else getting this?


Scott Betts wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
It could be argued that is what the first commercial did.
Sure, it could be. But then you'd be forced to acknowledge that the first commercial makes fun of the people who made it. Which, in turn, forces you to acknowledge that your argument is wrong in the first place, or that the perceived jabs at players of previous editions aren't intended to be taken seriously.

Without the quote of what I was originally responding to, I'm a bit lost. Still, just because I smile when calling you an idiot doesn't mean I'm not calling you an idiot(note- I am NOT calling you[Scott Betts] an idiot, just using it as an example). However, I fear we may have to agree to disagree on this topic overall.


Scott Betts wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Side note on cars: Actualy it is because the cars devalue is what makes them less desirable by conbsumers...not that they go down in price because of the cunsumer's desires.
...is anyone else getting this?

Not really. Seems like a clear case of putting the cart (or in this case, car) before the horse.


Jandrem wrote:

Some people take things differently than others. Your opinion is not law. You are in absolutely no place to decide whether or not someone can or cannot, should or should not be bothered by something.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. Opinions are not facts.

I do find it interesting how people keep telling Scott he is wrong for suggesting people are making a big deal out of nothing. And yet when I suggest that a PF supporter with loose ties to the company has insulted me as a 3.5 player/GM, it is described as fantasy. Pot...kettle?


Hydro wrote:

Your older posts focused on the idea that WoTC wasn't saying that 3e was bad, and that it was ridiculous to think that they were. You didn't exactly say it and I could be misreading you, but that tone implies that maybe some level of offense would be justified if they had been saying that 3e was bad (which they weren't!)

In more recent posts you are saying that it is okay in marketing to say that your old product was bad, and that that same reasoning applies to marketing in gaming.

Can you clarify, please? Do you think that that particular add was portraying 3e as "bad"? If so (or, theroetically, if it had), do you think that would be okay? And if the same tactics were used in one of Wizards' older and better managed properties; i.e, selling new (MtG) blocks by marketing the old ones as "bad", do you think that would be a good idea?

I've had to clarify this once or twice already, and, granted, it's not exactly a straightforward argument.

No, I don't believe WotC was calling 3e bad.

But there are people saying that WotC did exactly that.

For the sake of argument, I'm temporarily taking that as valid.

I then pointed out that this has been done before, and specifically called to mind the Dominos Pizza crust case. They called their old product bad (which is what some people are saying WotC did), and no one reacted in the same way that some people reacted to the WotC ad.

I then presented a (purposefully) ridiculous hypothetical wherein a raging fan's rant refers to Dominos' crust in the same way that we saw fans referring to D&D with respect to WotC's ad. The offended fan raging seems patently absurd when it refers to pizza crust, but apparently becomes a reasonable position to take when it refers to D&D, despite the rough equivalency in form.

The question, then, that I'm trying to get people to ask themselves is: Why is it not ridiculous to become offended by an ad campaign that calls its older product bad, given how that offended rage appears to others?

And then, taking the original argument as no longer valid, how is that in any way a healthy way to look at the world given that WotC didn't even call its product bad to begin with?


pres man wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

Some people take things differently than others. Your opinion is not law. You are in absolutely no place to decide whether or not someone can or cannot, should or should not be bothered by something.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. Opinions are not facts.

I do find it interesting how people keep telling Scott he is wrong for suggesting people are making a big deal out of nothing. And yet when I suggest that a PF supporter with loose ties to the company has insulted me as a 3.5 player/GM, it is described as fantasy. Pot...kettle?

Well, black is a slimming color. I'm not sure what else you're referring, I never called anything you said a fantasy.


Scott Betts wrote:
Hydro wrote:

Your older posts focused on the idea that WoTC wasn't saying that 3e was bad, and that it was ridiculous to think that they were. You didn't exactly say it and I could be misreading you, but that tone implies that maybe some level of offense would be justified if they had been saying that 3e was bad (which they weren't!)

In more recent posts you are saying that it is okay in marketing to say that your old product was bad, and that that same reasoning applies to marketing in gaming.

Can you clarify, please? Do you think that that particular add was portraying 3e as "bad"? If so (or, theroetically, if it had), do you think that would be okay? And if the same tactics were used in one of Wizards' older and better managed properties; i.e, selling new (MtG) blocks by marketing the old ones as "bad", do you think that would be a good idea?

I've had to clarify this once or twice already, and, granted, it's not exactly a straightforward argument.

No, I don't believe WotC was calling 3e bad.

But there are people saying that WotC did exactly that.

For the sake of argument, I'm temporarily taking that as valid.

I then pointed out that this has been done before, and specifically called to mind the Dominos Pizza crust case. They called their old product bad (which is what some people are saying WotC did), and no one reacted in the same way that some people reacted to the WotC ad.

I then presented a (purposefully) ridiculous hypothetical wherein a raging fan's rant refers to Dominos' crust in the same way that we saw fans referring to D&D with respect to WotC's ad. The offended fan raging seems patently absurd when it refers to pizza crust, but apparently becomes a reasonable position to take when it refers to D&D, despite the rough equivalency in form.

The question, then, that I'm trying to get people to ask themselves is: Why is it not ridiculous to become offended by an ad campaign that calls its older product bad, given how that offended rage appears...

Well, the easy answer is, this isn't a Domino's Pizza forum. Heck, there might be people on their forums as upset as you describe.

Secondly, we're not talking about what's for dinner on a friday night, we're talking about a hobby, which a lot of people around here invest a lot of time, effort, money, and creativity into. Maybe you invest just as much into your pizza, if so then you can vent about crust all you want. You can use my shoulder if you need to.


Jandrem wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Hydro wrote:

Your older posts focused on the idea that WoTC wasn't saying that 3e was bad, and that it was ridiculous to think that they were. You didn't exactly say it and I could be misreading you, but that tone implies that maybe some level of offense would be justified if they had been saying that 3e was bad (which they weren't!)

In more recent posts you are saying that it is okay in marketing to say that your old product was bad, and that that same reasoning applies to marketing in gaming.

Can you clarify, please? Do you think that that particular add was portraying 3e as "bad"? If so (or, theroetically, if it had), do you think that would be okay? And if the same tactics were used in one of Wizards' older and better managed properties; i.e, selling new (MtG) blocks by marketing the old ones as "bad", do you think that would be a good idea?

I've had to clarify this once or twice already, and, granted, it's not exactly a straightforward argument.

No, I don't believe WotC was calling 3e bad.

But there are people saying that WotC did exactly that.

For the sake of argument, I'm temporarily taking that as valid.

I then pointed out that this has been done before, and specifically called to mind the Dominos Pizza crust case. They called their old product bad (which is what some people are saying WotC did), and no one reacted in the same way that some people reacted to the WotC ad.

I then presented a (purposefully) ridiculous hypothetical wherein a raging fan's rant refers to Dominos' crust in the same way that we saw fans referring to D&D with respect to WotC's ad. The offended fan raging seems patently absurd when it refers to pizza crust, but apparently becomes a reasonable position to take when it refers to D&D, despite the rough equivalency in form.

The question, then, that I'm trying to get people to ask themselves is: Why is it not ridiculous to become offended by an ad campaign that calls its older product bad, given how

...

Actually, I'm not a fan of their new pizza, but that's because of the sauce, not the crust.


Jandrem wrote:
pres man wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

Some people take things differently than others. Your opinion is not law. You are in absolutely no place to decide whether or not someone can or cannot, should or should not be bothered by something.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. Opinions are not facts.

I do find it interesting how people keep telling Scott he is wrong for suggesting people are making a big deal out of nothing. And yet when I suggest that a PF supporter with loose ties to the company has insulted me as a 3.5 player/GM, it is described as fantasy. Pot...kettle?
Well, black is a slimming color. I'm not sure what else you're referring, I never called anything you said a fantasy.

Sorry for the confusion, you were telling Scott he didn't have the right to judge others opinions.

Some, not you necessarily, have judge my opinions. And my guess is that those others would look at your statement and agree with it, but not see the hypocrisy in there treatment of my views.
What is the difference? They dislike 4e/WotC and like PF, that is it.


Jandrem wrote:
You are in absolutely no place to decide whether or not someone can or cannot, should or should not be bothered by something.

Dude.


Jandrem wrote:
Well, the easy answer is, this isn't a Domino's Pizza forum. Heck, there might be people on their forums as upset as you describe.

And your assertion is, then, that it would be a reasonable thing for a Dominos Pizza fan to be offended at Dominos' ad campaign, and not in any way a gross overreaction?


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
You are in absolutely no place to decide whether or not someone can or cannot, should or should not be bothered by something.
Dude.

Back atcha' pal. Black looks good on us. So who gets to be Pot or Kettle?


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
Well, the easy answer is, this isn't a Domino's Pizza forum. Heck, there might be people on their forums as upset as you describe.
And your assertion is, then, that it would be a reasonable thing for a Dominos Pizza fan to be offended at Dominos' ad campaign, and not in any way a gross overreaction?

Reasonable or overreaction is really different depending on who's viewing it. Who knows, maybe someone had a hand in that recipe that everyone called bland. Maybe that person took great offense to the ads calling it cardboard. You can call it an overreaction all you want, but you don't get to say they're wrong for feeling that way.

Dark Archive

James Martin wrote:
Hydro wrote:
As an aside, I think it's a little creepy (in a McCarthyist sort of way) that Mr Betts status as a Pathfinder player and his place in this community has been called into question just because he defends Wizards (yes, he "proved" that he did play Pathfinder, which made me laugh, but that's not the point). I guess now it's my turn to say "what the heck, internet?"
Your Paizo card will be confiscated shortly. Do not leave your present whereabouts. Do not contact anyone. Under no circumstances are you to look at a Pathfinder core book. The System has spoken!

The deviant and enemy sympathiser will be dealt with at once. All hail our Infernal Overlords!


Jandrem wrote:
Reasonable or overreaction is really different depending on who's viewing it. Who knows, maybe someone had a hand in that recipe that everyone called bland.

Sure. I don't think the people being offended by the ad were the ones who wrote the grappling rules, though. They were just guys.

To clarify, it is entirely possible that circumstances exist surrounding a person's reaction to the ad that would make being offended more reasonable. But, by and large, I don't think the people acting offended had circumstances justifying the offense taken.

It is merely my opinion that it's ridiculous to be offended by this ad. However, it's also my opinion that such a reaction is indicative of a more systemic problem, and that it's actually unhealthy to look at the world in a way that one would rather be offended than rationally examine something.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Or Dionysus, god of getting really drunk and trashing things.

A Toast To Our Bacchanal Lord!

Let's get s%#!faced, break some stuff, break some faces, and then make out with those maenads!


Yeah I am going to back off here....and agree to disagree. I have made my points and this really....not interesting anymore. I respect your opinion...I really do. Just wish you could show the same courtesy.

Also have you ever brought a car? You really don't get it and your lack of knowledge really shines though to me. So I'll try this again...as it might help you out in RL.

A car loosing value has nothing to do with consumer desire. It is a very simple fact. Mostly it is artificial in that car dealerships have to clear the lot for new cars( there ir most of the time little difference between a car from say 2009 and 2010 except when there is a new model...which Does not happen every year). But since they clear the space...they sell them for cheaper...thus the market price for cars of that year drop all over. Since most people relied on the trading in value of a car to buy their next car...a 2009 xar is not as attractive as said a 2010 car...because they will end up getting more for their 2010 car than their 2009 car. There is a reason why car dealerships are slow before that years cars are released...because people want a better value of their car.

Now this might cause a consumer to less desireable to buy a older car. But that is because the devalueing of the car. It is not because of the other way around...true this might look like a chicken before th egg type of statement...but it is a clear case of cause and reaction.

Also just curious...how old are you? Your picture makes you look like you are late teens to early twenty...but that can be deceptive...


KaeYoss wrote:
Let's get s&!%faced, break some stuff, break some faces, and then make out with those maenads!

At least until the maenads kill us and use our blood and flesh to enhance the grape harvest.


pres man wrote:
I do find it interesting how people keep telling Scott he is wrong for suggesting people are making a big deal out of nothing. And yet when I suggest that a PF supporter with loose ties to the company has insulted me as a 3.5 player/GM, it is described as fantasy. Pot...kettle?

You suggested he was directed by Paizo to do so.

Perhaps you could actually, you know, tell the truth?


Dragonsong wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Let's get s&!%faced, break some stuff, break some faces, and then make out with those maenads!
At least until the maenads kill us and use our blood and flesh to enhance the grape harvest.

So, no hangover? Awesome!


John Kretzer wrote:
I was talking about influence and power of said church. The more people who worship a faith the more temporal power it will have. It is just common sense really. Saying they are unimportant in terms of PC is just shallow world building and a very disturbing lack of imagination in a game based on imagination.

A church can be mostly worshipped at the village level, by individuals leaving small donations at local shrines, without even a network of priests. That's the way people who worshipped/worship pantheons treat their agricultural deities. It doesn't imply significant temporal power to me.


I think it's a bad comparison to make between an rpg and a pizza. The acrimony I see with these "Edition Wars" is quite a bit closer to what I saw happen between the Spider-Man fan community when Marvel wiped out Spider-Man's marriage a few years back. In fact, I see a lot of similarities - except, in this case, there was an alternative for whatever flavor rpg you preferred. In that regard, the continued acrimony baffles me.


Talonne Hauk wrote:
I think it's a bad comparison to make between an rpg and a pizza. The acrimony I see with these "Edition Wars" is quite a bit closer to what I saw happen between the Spider-Man fan community when Marvel wiped out Spider-Man's marriage a few years back. In fact, I see a lot of similarities - except, in this case, there was an alternative for whatever flavor rpg you preferred. In that regard, the continued acrimony baffles me.

I'm not comparing RPGs to a pizza, except in the sense that they are both products. I'm comparing two similar ad campaigns to one another, and the difference in how reactions to both would be seen.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

John Kretzer wrote:


A car loosing value has nothing to do with consumer desire. It is a very simple fact. Mostly it is artificial in that car dealerships have to clear the lot for new cars( there ir most of the time little difference between a car from say 2009 and 2010 except when there is a new model...which Does not happen every year). But since they clear the space...they sell them for cheaper...thus the market price for cars of that year drop all over. Since most people relied on the trading in value of a car to buy their next car...a 2009 xar is not as attractive as said a 2010 car...because they will end up getting more for their 2010 car than their 2009 car. There is a reason why car dealerships are slow before that years cars are released...because people want a better value of their car.

Now this might cause a consumer to less desireable to buy a older car. But that is because the devalueing of the car. It is not because of the other way around...true this might look like a chicken before th egg type of statement...but it is a clear case of cause and reaction.

I'm sorry to thread-jack, but this is completely inaccurate. Fundamental economics is that desire, i.e. demand is what drives value. The fact that last year's model loses value as time goes on is directly due to people's desire for it. The new model release makes the previous year's offer less desirable and therefore forces the price to drop to realign with the demand for it. Consumers have a fundamental urge to own the newest, coolest thing since it is assumed to be an improvement on the previous version. Otherwise, people would continue to buy it and there would be no reason to lower the price. The value of an item, whatever the item may be, is directly proportional and affected by the demand someone has for it.

Of course, over an extended period of time, this trend can reverse, as in the case of "collectible." but that, of course, is a different topic altogether.
[/threadjack]


TwilightKnight wrote:

I'm sorry to thread-jack, but this is completely inaccurate. Fundamental economics is that desire, i.e. demand is what drives value. The fact that last year's model loses value as time goes on is directly due to people's desire for it. The new model release makes the previous year's offer less desirable and therefore forces the price to drop to realign with the demand for it. Consumers have a fundamental urge to own the newest, coolest thing since it is assumed to be an improvement on the previous version. Otherwise, people would continue to buy it and there would be no reason to lower the price. The value of an item, whatever the item may be, is directly proportional and affected by the demand someone has for it.

Of course, over an extended period of time, this trend can reverse, as in the case of "collectible." but that, of course, is a different topic altogether.
[/threadjack]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Markets have a nifty way of edging price artificiality out of the way, so even if prices in the primary (dealership) market were being artificially controlled (for whatever reason) by the dealers, secondary markets would expand and adjust to compensate.

My degree is not in economics, but this lines up with what little I do know of the field.


Bluenose wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
I was talking about influence and power of said church. The more people who worship a faith the more temporal power it will have. It is just common sense really. Saying they are unimportant in terms of PC is just shallow world building and a very disturbing lack of imagination in a game based on imagination.
A church can be mostly worshipped at the village level, by individuals leaving small donations at local shrines, without even a network of priests. That's the way people who worshipped/worship pantheons treat their agricultural deities. It doesn't imply significant temporal power to me.

Where do you get this from? What is your proof that this 'That's the way people who worshipped/worship pantheons treat their agricultural deities.' Also who built the shrines?

Also as you have pointed out really world pantheons and D&D pantheons are two very separate things...I think you called insenseable(?) so why are you now going back to them to proove anything? Even though you are only partial correct in the historical reference...missing out on important details like who built the shrines...who spread the word....who collected the donations...?

Anyway I said I was done...so I just say I'll agree to disagree.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
The question, then, that I'm trying to get people to ask themselves is: Why is it not ridiculous to become offended by an ad campaign that calls its older product bad, given how that offended rage appears to others?

I think that's a good direction to bring the discussion in. For my own part, I said it in my first post on the subject, and I'll say it again: That's how you sell toilet brushes, not how you sell games.

If major series videogames were marketed based on the idea that previous titles in the series were bad, I think that that would be unwise, and would come across as scornful of the franchise's fanbase. If Wizards released a new Magic block, and tried to market it with ads focusing on the flaws of the block that was rotating out, I would consider that to be unwise and scornful of their fanbase. If Paizo announced Pathfinder 2.0, and tried to sell it by implying that Pathfinder was bad, I would consider that to be unwise and scornful of their fanbase.

Seriously, if you think that this whole thing is based on an audience already predisposed to hate Wizards, then consider that example. Make another thread about it if you want: ask Pathfinder fans how they would react if, at the announcement of a new edition (however many years down the road), Paizo ran an ad at GenCon which depicted a bunch of players sitting around playing Pathfinder and not having fun, then followed it up with some vague imagery of people having a blast with Pathfinder 2.0.
I'm going to take a guess right now at what the most common response would be: "Paizo wouldn't do that."

That's how I feel, and the reasons why I feel that way are certainly worth examining. I think a huge part of it is rooted in the very nature of games, of game design, and of the "science of fun": what makes good food is pretty subjective, but in my opinion, it isn't nearly as subjective as what makes a good game. No matter how conservative your new edition is (and 4e was hardly conservative) there are going to be gamers who find merrit in the 'flaws' that you have 'fixed', and so continue to prefer the older edition. The imporant thing to keep in mind is that the people who liked the old game are still fans and potential buyers, unless and until you alienate them, or give the impression that your idea of fun is no longer the same as theirs. Trying to slowly win them over to the new thing is much, much more productive than trying to make them dislike the old thing.

There's another, equally important factor which also ties into the nature of games: you can't destroy an old edition. When Dominos switches to a new crust, a customer's only options are to eat the new crust or to buy their pizza elsewhere. Don't like it? Tough. But if you're hyping up Mario Party 9 and you accidentally offend a fan of Mario Party 8, he doesn't have to buy your new game. He can keep playing the old one. You can't stop him. It doesn't matter how much you try to convince him that the old game is bad and the new one is better, because you can't tell him that his tastes are wrong, and it's frankly stupid for you to try.

And, yes, another factor at play here IS that geeks aren't like other audiences, and that they become more invested in the games they love than in the pizza they eat. You can call them 'ridiculous' or immature or oversensitive or whatever until you're blue in the face, but it is what it is.

Finally, and this is me getting really idealistic, but.. no, I don't think that games are the same as other products, and I don't think the market for them is the same as other markets. Games aren't just an everyday necessity that I pick up at the grocery store. Games are something I love and am invested in. You don't have to grab my attention with cheap salesmanship; you already have my attention because I love your game. All you need to do is level with me. You guys are gamers, I'm a gamer, if you think your new book is totally awesome there's a great chance that I'll agree, so just show me the goods and I'll buy them. Design diaries sell games. Previews and sneak-peaks sell games. Crappy snake-oil pitches don't sell games, and I think the most scornful thing about this add is that somebody at Wizards thought they would.

This add is a cheap informercial pitch made palatable with a candy shell of humor; I just find that to be very trite, and a symptom of a marketing department who don't 'get' or respect their audience. If the subject of the debate were a down-to-earth design blog talking about the exact same topic ("Hey, grappling is kind of a PITA, we're hoping to fix that in 4e"), I think that that would be completely different. Yes, it's still generally wise to focus on positives instead of negatives, but at least there would have been some level of respect for the reader. When I view this add I don't feel like they're leveling with me about a flaw in their game, I just feel like I'm being marketed at. I can't see past the informercial pitch.


Hydro wrote:

Seriously, if you think that this whole thing is based on an audience already predisposed to hate Wizards, then consider that example. Make another thread about it if you want: ask Pathfinder fans how they would react if, at the announcement of a new edition (however many years down the road), Paizo ran an ad at GenCon which depicted a bunch of players sitting around playing Pathfinder and not having fun, then followed it up with some vague imagery of people having a blast with Pathfinder 2.0.

I'm going to take a guess right now at what the most common response would be: "Paizo wouldn't do that."

Mmm, I wouldn't go about it that way, since the respondents would be primed to examine their reaction ahead of time simply by virtue of being asked the question. A better way to do it would be to produce a very similar (albeit fake) ad, but with Pathfinder 2.0 (or whatever) at the end and let fans watch it (mind you: only fans who had not seen the WotC ad), then ask them how they feel about the ad afterward. I really do wonder if we'd see the idea of the ad being offensive catch on or not.

That aside, your post is my favorite in this thread so far. Well-examined, thorough, and by and large extremely reasonable. Hat's off.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
pres man wrote:
I do find it interesting how people keep telling Scott he is wrong for suggesting people are making a big deal out of nothing. And yet when I suggest that a PF supporter with loose ties to the company has insulted me as a 3.5 player/GM, it is described as fantasy. Pot...kettle?

You suggested he was directed by Paizo to do so.

Perhaps you could actually, you know, tell the truth?

Actually Brian if you are going to boldly lie as such, I would think you'd try to do it somewhere we couldn't go back and actually look at the statements.

I said:

pres man wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."
PF contributor thinks that the 3.5 grapple rules were borked, and if a DM didn't think so they were not competent. Got it.

Kevin is a PF contributor, surprise surprise it says so right by his name. There is no falsehood in my statement, nor did I say Paizo put him to it. But someone did claim I did say that, who was that again, oh yeah:

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.

From what I can gather, he's implying that Paizo directed Kevin to make statements that people are incompetent.

So, basically, he's constructing fantasy, as usual.

So Brian, you are the one presenting falsehoods. I would suggest that you step back and see truth that is there.


TwilightKnight wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


A car loosing value has nothing to do with consumer desire. It is a very simple fact. Mostly it is artificial in that car dealerships have to clear the lot for new cars( there ir most of the time little difference between a car from say 2009 and 2010 except when there is a new model...which Does not happen every year). But since they clear the space...they sell them for cheaper...thus the market price for cars of that year drop all over. Since most people relied on the trading in value of a car to buy their next car...a 2009 xar is not as attractive as said a 2010 car...because they will end up getting more for their 2010 car than their 2009 car. There is a reason why car dealerships are slow before that years cars are released...because people want a better value of their car.

Now this might cause a consumer to less desireable to buy a older car. But that is because the devalueing of the car. It is not because of the other way around...true this might look like a chicken before th egg type of statement...but it is a clear case of cause and reaction.

I'm sorry to thread-jack, but this is completely inaccurate. Fundamental economics is that desire, i.e. demand is what drives value. The fact that last year's model loses value as time goes on is directly due to people's desire for it. The new model release makes the previous year's offer less desirable and therefore forces the price to drop to realign with the demand for it. Consumers have a fundamental urge to own the newest, coolest thing since it is assumed to be an improvement on the previous version. Otherwise, people would continue to buy it and there would be no reason to lower the price. The value of an item, whatever the item may be, is directly proportional and affected by the demand someone has for it.

Of course, over an extended period of time, this trend can reverse, as in the case of "collectible." but that, of course, is a different topic altogether.
[/threadjack]

Of course the above is true...not saying it is not. But to think this is the only effect on economic is just silly....companies to artificial control the prices. Again the value of a cars drop faster. Desire of the consumer adds to this but it is not the only factor. And by lowering the value they are creating a lesser desire to buy it.

Do a experiment...if you ar right it should be cheap to do....go buy a car...drive it for a month...then take that car and see what the value is? Cunsumer desire is a factor in setting the price but to suggest that it is the only factor and that it can't be manpulated is just not true...or do you think diamonds are really as rare as their price would entail?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
Hydro wrote:

Seriously, if you think that this whole thing is based on an audience already predisposed to hate Wizards, then consider that example. Make another thread about it if you want: ask Pathfinder fans how they would react if, at the announcement of a new edition (however many years down the road), Paizo ran an ad at GenCon which depicted a bunch of players sitting around playing Pathfinder and not having fun, then followed it up with some vague imagery of people having a blast with Pathfinder 2.0.

I'm going to take a guess right now at what the most common response would be: "Paizo wouldn't do that."

Mmm, I wouldn't go about it that way, since the respondents would be primed to examine their reaction ahead of time simply by virtue of being asked the question. A better way to do it would be to produce a very similar (albeit fake) ad, but with Pathfinder 2.0 (or whatever) at the end and let fans watch it (mind you: only fans who had not seen the WotC ad), then ask them how they feel about the ad afterward. I really do wonder if we'd see the idea of the ad being offensive catch on or not.

That aside, your post is my favorite in this thread so far. Well-examined, thorough, and by and large extremely reasonable. Hat's off.

Fair point, fair point; "go make a thread" was probably reaching too far. But I do feel that this would get a negative response no matter who did it, for all the reasons above. And thank you for giving my point of view a fair shake. :)


John Kretzer wrote:
Do a experiment...if you ar right it should be cheap to do....go buy a car...drive it for a month...then take that car and see what the value is? Cunsumer desire is a factor in setting the price but to suggest that it is the only factor and that it can't be manpulated is just not true...or do you think diamonds are really as rare as their price would entail?

Diamond prices are kept high and stable by the monopolistic control of the world diamond supply (and demand, to a more arbitrary extent) by the DeBeers corporation. Notably, these monopolistic practices have been curtailed by state policy changes in the last decade, but the world diamond market does not respond as fluidly to policy change as commodities that are consumed (rather than preserved).

Cars, on the other hand, exist in a highly competitive marketplace featuring relatively stable competitors on both the domestic and international stage.

Diamond prices do not fluctuate because they can be easily controlled (and, indeed, they are). Car prices respond to market influences because they are not subject to monopolization.


Scott Betts wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Do a experiment...if you ar right it should be cheap to do....go buy a car...drive it for a month...then take that car and see what the value is? Cunsumer desire is a factor in setting the price but to suggest that it is the only factor and that it can't be manpulated is just not true...or do you think diamonds are really as rare as their price would entail?

Diamond prices are kept high and stable by the monopolistic control of the world diamond supply (and demand, to a more arbitrary extent) by the DeBeers corporation. Notably, these monopolistic practices have been curtailed by state policy changes in the last decade, but the world diamond market does not respond as fluidly to policy change as commodities that are consumed (rather than preserved).

Cars, on the other hand, exist in a highly competitive marketplace featuring relatively stable competitors on both the domestic and international stage.

Diamond prices do not fluctuate because they can be easily controlled (and, indeed, they are). Car prices respond to market influences because they are not subject to monopolization.

Indeed, if I am going to bother purchasing a used car, I want to get a reasonably cheap one. The reason I pay more for a new car is so I don't have to sit in a seat that someone else already farted up and spilled their drinks and fries all over.


pres man wrote:

Actually Brian if you are going to boldly lie as such, I would think you'd try to do it somewhere we couldn't go back and actually look at the statements.

I said:

pres man wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."
PF contributor thinks that the 3.5 grapple rules were borked, and if a DM didn't think so they were not competent. Got it.

No, sir.

You said:

pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.

Remember this? Care to lie about this again?

pres man wrote:
So Brian, you are the one presenting falsehoods. I would suggest that you step back and see truth that is there.

Who's presenting falsehoods?

You suggested that someone was "having their contributors" do something. Who is the "they" in "their"? Well, since the contributor Kevin, "they" would have to be Paizo.

So, pres man, if you are going to boldly lie as such, I would think you'd try to do it somewhere we couldn't go back and actually look at the statements.

You are the one presenting falsehoods. I would suggest that you step back and see truth that is there.

Cut and paste is fun. Not only can I cut and paste your statements that you deny making, I can turn your argument right back on you.

Care to lie some more?


pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.

Got me. Yeah, saying "having" wasn't what I was going for I should have said "letting", but I did say it. Still my point was the contributors were not being respectful. I agree I stated that poorly. It was pretty clear that I was address contributors specifically, the "you contributors" is the key to that. But yup, I did use having instead of letting. I still think you put words in to my mouth, but I will say that I did a poor job saying my statement that let you do it.

You got me.

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Cut and paste is fun.

Indeed it can be. I'm glad you figured it out, the first time was a bit hard to read.


Woah, I have been summoned again!!!

Brian, Pres Man, I am here for you. Your love for each other warms my heart, feeds my soul, and makes me grow more powerful with each post.


EDIT: removed snark...

551 to 600 of 1,627 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards