Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

351 to 400 of 1,627 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:

Here is some of the advertisements that got people worked up against 4e.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Teaser (AKA Don't grapple the troll)

A 4th Edition Interview with a Red Dragon (and his cronies) (AKA Poop on the Troll)

Okay, the second one I can see people getting worked up over if they miss the point. The first one, though? No way. There is nothing in there to be offended by or get riled up over. What the heck, internet?

I think the problem with the first was as I alluded to, the whole grapple the troll thing. Basically it characterized all 3.x players as a bunch of noobs that couldn't handle multi-step game mechanics.

I think this also caused a bit of the view that 4e was for people that need things "dumbed down", because many 3.x players knew that they could handle the multi-step mechanics, so if 4e was being created to avoid that then it must be for less capable players.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Urizen wrote:
EDIT: Also, given those three aliases as examples - they've already set themselves up for potential derision as they're subtle jabs as a prelude of how they're going to lead their discussion.

Trollman is his given name. See here.

Even so, what about FatR, A Man In Black, Cartigan, and even myself? We've all said things very similar to what was said in the 4E marketing campaign. Why the difference?

I figured Trollman was a pseudonym and/or nom de guerre. Just because he was published and/or credited with that name in print doesn't necessarily make it his real name. A good example would be Stan! on his publishing credits.

I agree that the same may not necessarily be said for the others you just listed. I just made it an initial point of irony that the first group you did bring up did. I'm not the one who drew those names; you did. :P

P.S. Maybe it's me, but I don't perceive you in the same fashion as being grouped with the others you've listed. You've shown signs of playing nice with others in the community sense and at least you've participated with Kirth Gersen in putting up an extensive work of revision showing what works for your group (i.e. Kirthfinder). At the least, you put your money where your mouth is in the metaphoric sense. I'll give you credit for that. As for the others, some of them simply argue just for the sake of winning the Internet in an acrimonious fashion. You're also a subscriber, so at least you have some vested interest. Not sure I can say for the others.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, but being the most vocal they were the first to come to mind. I had to think to remember the others. :)

I'm kind of inconsistent with my forum posting. I like to taunt and tease people, sometimes very caustically. And I make the mistake of getting irritated with some people on here, to the point of malice.

But at the same time, I believe in doing unto others as I would like done unto me, and doing no harm. So I try to catch myself when I get in a bad mood.

I'm human, what can I say?


And show signs of humility enough to acknowledge that. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Urizen wrote:
And show signs of humility enough to acknowledge that. ;-)

This! :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It's all part of my insidious plan.

And as soon as I figure out what that plan is, I'll enact it!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
Okay, the second one I can see people getting worked up over if they miss the point. The first one, though? No way. There is nothing in there to be offended by or get riled up over. What the heck, internet?

3e: nothing but people looking awkward and not having fun because the DM had to look up the grapple rules

4e: Cue awesome action-flick soundtrack, animations of adventurers cutting trolls head off, everyone grinning and playing and having fun with their dice and laptops

"Out with the old and in with the new" is what they're saying. And yes, to the loyal customers who were throwing money at 3e right up until the end, that does come across as pretty scornful.

Imagine if they did that over in Magic: the Gathering: for instance, instead of talking about the things that would make Scars of Mirrodin awesome, they instead talked about how bad Alara was, and how great it would be to be rid of it, and who would want to play with that old crap anyway?
How many copies of Halo 3 would they have sold if Bungie/Microsoft had focused their (considerable) marketing thrust on poking fun at the old games? Shown adds of people trying to play Halo 1 and 2 and running afoul of all the obvious flaws in those games, faces knotted up in obvious unenjoyment, then BLAM! Halo 3 is here to save the day!! That's how you sell toilet brushes, not how you sell games.

You shouldn't have to rip on the old in order to promote the new. Especially when the "old" was actually ground-breakingly successful. And you were the one selling it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It's the same problem the 'Primer to Old School Gaming' had. Someone wrote a blog post about the 'rulings, not rules' part of that.

They made the point that the author wrote the 'new school DM' boring without cause. The dynamic description used in the 'old school DM' example was not exclusive to old school playing. You can have it just as much in the 'new school' alongside the rules.

I need to find that blog post again.


TOZ: Yeap, I was just talking about this with Urizen.


Russ Taylor wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Okay, the second one I can see people getting worked up over if they miss the point. The first one, though? No way. There is nothing in there to be offended by or get riled up over. What the heck, internet?
The pretense that grappling in 3E's somehow so unplayable that it kills your game? I can see taking offense at that.

They didn't say that. They didn't even imply that. What they did imply was that grappling was convoluted enough that some players were fed up with it. That's not an interpretation. That's not one way of seeing it among many. That's what it was, and it was the truth. A lot of 3e players thought grappling was too convoluted.

The real question here is why did you take that short segment about a player being frustrated with 3e grappling rules as WotC telling you that grappling kills your game?

Russ Taylor wrote:
Mainly, the lameness in that commercial points to how bad Wizard's marketing campaign was: your old editions all stink, and got in the way of your fun. We know how you should have fun. Relax, and let Wizards decide.

You mean...kind of like how every edition change works? They showed a clip of a player getting frustrated with grappling. It was a good thing to illustrate, because it was a very real, very common concern. For some reason, you're seeing that clip as "WotC is telling me how I should be having fun." The interesting part is how you made that leap.


pres man wrote:
I think the problem with the first was as I alluded to, the whole grapple the troll thing. Basically it characterized all 3.x players as a bunch of noobs that couldn't handle multi-step game mechanics.

What? No. The very clear point of that clip was to point out that grappling rules were convoluted, period. If you think it was in any way a jab at 3e players for not being able to handle complex rules, you are straight up incorrect.


Hydro wrote:

3e: nothing but people looking awkward and not having fun because the DM had to look up the grapple rules

4e: Cue awesome action-flick soundtrack, animations of adventurers cutting trolls head off, everyone grinning and playing and having fun with their dice and laptops

So...they made it appear as though it's more fun to play the new edition than it is to play the old edition? Are you seriously telling me that WotC's marketing crime was making their new edition out to be better?

Hydro wrote:
"Out with the old and in with the new" is what they're saying. And yes, to the loyal customers who were throwing money at 3e right up until the end, that does come across as pretty scornful.

I was a loyal 3e customer throwing money at it right up until the end. It did not come across as pretty scornful, mostly because it wasn't scornful in any way and in fact is pretty much the accepted way of handling a new product release of any kind designed to replace an old product - explaining why it's better.

Hydro wrote:
Imagine if they did that over in Magic: the Gathering: for instance, instead of talking about the things that would make Scars of Mirrodin awesome, they instead talked about how bad Alara was, and how great it would be to be rid of it, and who would want to play with that old crap anyway?

Again, the fact that this is what you think WotC did is kind of incredible.

Hydro wrote:
How many copies of Halo 3 would they have sold if Bungie/Microsoft had focused their (considerable) marketing thrust on poking fun at the old games? Shown adds of people trying to play Halo 1 and 2 and running afoul of all the obvious flaws in those games, faces knotted up in obvious unenjoyment, then BLAM! Halo 3 is here to save the day!! That's how you sell toilet brushes, not how you sell games.

They would have sold a bajillion and a half copies because it was Halo 3. And, much like WotC, they would have had a diverse marketing campaign that spent way more time focusing on how the new product was awesome than how the old one could be improved.

Hydro wrote:
You shouldn't have to rip on the old in order to promote the new. Especially when the "old" was actually ground-breakingly successful. And you were the one selling it.

They didn't "rip" on anything. They highlighted aspects of each edition that demonstrated improvement over the last. 1e was shown as lacking immersive accessories (like minis), and 2e was shown as fixing that while at the same time having some confounding rules and occasionally sluggish gameplay. 3e was shown as fixing the sluggishness and removing arcane concepts like THAC0, except for a couple of instances like grappling where things got bogged down. And the theme tying the whole spot together was that no matter what rules were being used, the scenario every time was the same: the party has to kill a troll and everyone wants a piece of the action.

Liberty's Edge

Apologies to the apologist, but I was offended by that segment as well. Was there maybe an apology for offending so many and an explanation? My google fu seems week today.


Scott Betts wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Okay, the second one I can see people getting worked up over if they miss the point. The first one, though? No way. There is nothing in there to be offended by or get riled up over. What the heck, internet?
The pretense that grappling in 3E's somehow so unplayable that it kills your game? I can see taking offense at that.

They didn't say that. They didn't even imply that. What they did imply was that grappling was convoluted enough that some players were fed up with it. That's not an interpretation. That's not one way of seeing it among many. That's what it was, and it was the truth. A lot of 3e players thought grappling was too convoluted.

The real question here is why did you take that short segment about a player being frustrated with 3e grappling rules as WotC telling you that grappling kills your game?

Probably because it wasn't just some player being frustrated with grappling rules that made a video, it was WotC making this video specifically to sell a newer version of the game.


Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:
I think the problem with the first was as I alluded to, the whole grapple the troll thing. Basically it characterized all 3.x players as a bunch of noobs that couldn't handle multi-step game mechanics.
What? No. The very clear point of that clip was to point out that grappling rules were convoluted, period. If you think it was in any way a jab at 3e players for not being able to handle complex rules, you are straight up incorrect.

It was a jab at people that could handle it. As if me saying, "Grappling isn't that complicated after you do it a time or two." The ad made it look like I was some freakish outlier (and who knows, maybe I am). The grapple rules are not all that convoluted in 3.5, they are just unfamiliar because most groups don't use them a lot.

Now if they ad had one player say, "Check out page XXX, first you draw an AoO unless you have ..." That would have given a better impression.

Now I wasn't personally offended. As I said, the people playing (and I think some of them were 4e designers or some such) appear to be noobs.

Again, if people can't handle rules with multi-steps and have to plan a different system doesn't ultimately insult me, in fact it makes me feel better about myself because I can handle it.


People read way to much into advertising, unless you have some secret insider information that explicitly states the intent was to do harm, which I doubt. But if you are looking for information to fuel your like or dislike of any product, then don't let me interfere.

I would rather talk to some friends, kick the tires, and decide if a product on its own merit, is worthy of a purchase.


Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:
I think the problem with the first was as I alluded to, the whole grapple the troll thing. Basically it characterized all 3.x players as a bunch of noobs that couldn't handle multi-step game mechanics.
What? No. The very clear point of that clip was to point out that grappling rules were convoluted, period. If you think it was in any way a jab at 3e players for not being able to handle complex rules, you are straight up incorrect.

This is more a matter of opinion than right or wrong. It is also important to point out that the people on the 4th edition side of the ad(if it is indeed the ad I am thinking about, I can't access Youtube from work) weren't even getting into grapple rules in 4th ed- they were just having a good time gaming. This is a very common technique in advertising where you are indeed selling the sizzle and not the steak- a bunch of people sitting around laughing and enjoying the product you are selling-- while saying nothing specific about said product-- while those who use its direct competition are shown not having fun with it and indeed are grappling(no pun intended) with a known problem or issue with said competing product. It's marketing 101.


Freehold DM wrote:
Probably because it wasn't just some player being frustrated with grappling rules that made a video, it was WotC making this video specifically to sell a newer version of the game.

Yes. WotC used a very real, very common issue players saw with the 3e rules to illustrate that they were aware of the problem and that it was being addressed in their new game.

Again, those jerks.


Uchawi wrote:

People read way to much into advertising, unless you have some secret insider information that explicitly states the intent was to do harm, which I doubt. But if you are looking for information to fuel your like or dislike of any product, then don't let me interfere.

I would rather talk to some friends, kick the tires, and decide if a product on its own merit, is worthy of a purchase.

Bingo.

Liberty's Edge

Uchawi wrote:

People read way to much into advertising, unless you have some secret insider information that explicitly states the intent was to do harm, which I doubt. But if you are looking for information to fuel your like or dislike of any product, then don't let me interfere.

I would rather talk to some friends, kick the tires, and decide if a product on its own merit, is worthy of a purchase.

That's a really healthy attitude, honestly. One I think anyone should have regardless of what system it is that they use.

That said, many of my friends felt insulted by the advertising as well.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:


So...they made it appear as though it's more fun to play the new edition than it is to play the old edition? Are you seriously telling me that WotC's marketing crime was making their new edition out to be better?

No, the marketing crime was making their old edition out to be worse.

That add wasn't about the good things in 4e. They didn't say anything at all about 4e; the only thing they revealed about it was that there was going to be a digital character generator, which really isn't even connected to the narrative of the add. If the add had been about positives instead of about negatives (as you are incorrectly portraying it) I think it would have been taken completely differently.


Freehold DM wrote:
This is more a matter of opinion than right or wrong.

No, I don't think that it is. I think that if you spoke to anyone who worked on the spot, they'd say the same.

Freehold DM wrote:
It is also important to point out that the people on the 4th edition side of the ad(if it is indeed the ad I am thinking about, I can't access Youtube from work) weren't even getting into grapple rules in 4th ed- they were just having a good time gaming.

Yes, that's correct.

Freehold DM wrote:
This is a very common technique in advertising where you are indeed selling the sizzle and not the steak- a bunch of people sitting around laughing and enjoying the product you are selling-- while saying nothing specific about said product-- while those who use its direct competition are shown not having fun with it and indeed are grappling(no pun intended) with a known problem or issue with said competing product. It's marketing 101.

Yes, it is. And everyone does it, because it works. Now, it might have been a little suspicious if that were the only pre-release marketing they'd done, because it would have possibly foreshadowed an incomplete product, or a product whose quality they were unsure of. But that wasn't what happened. WotC put out tons of previews prior to the release.

Contributor

Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:

Here is some of the advertisements that got people worked up against 4e.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Teaser (AKA Don't grapple the troll)

A 4th Edition Interview with a Red Dragon (and his cronies) (AKA Poop on the Troll)

Okay, the second one I can see people getting worked up over if they miss the point. The first one, though? No way. There is nothing in there to be offended by or get riled up over. What the heck, internet?

And the point was what precisely? If you complained online about the lack of gnomes in the 4e PHB you were a troll the dragon would poop on and that the dragon only valued the opinions of his sycophants by whom he could do no wrong?

That's the point I came away with.

If 4e had struck me as absolutely fantabulous when my box set showed up on my doorstep, I might have let this slide as I was converted by the power of sheer awesomeness, but instead, aside from the criticisms the troll in the video was ranting about (which I still agree with) there were inane things like the dragonborn being the hornytoad folk with no horns, no tails, and the ridiculous dracomams airbrushed out at the last moment. Meanwhile, tieflings now had horns rivaling Darkness from Legend, tails that would do a crocodile proud, and a backstory where despite these fiendish traits, their ancestors were incompetent Satanists who somehow never actually had sex with the devils to pass these traits down to their children. Incompetent and prudish--wow, there's a backstory to be proud of.

And then there were minor things which were still lame, like the 4e lamia now being the bug lady.

Add to that the fact that the lamia and the green hag are still horrible monsters, but the dragonborn and the tiefling are regular Joe's you meet at the pub? Not a world that makes a lot of sense.

Sovereign Court

Haven't we had the marketing debate once or twice already? Personally, I think the only smart marketing move they made was getting the penny arcade people involved.


Hydro wrote:
No, the marketing crime was making their old edition out to be worse.

Yes, WotC made the truly appalling claim in a comedy internet ad spot that the product they were putting out to replace the old product was better than the old product.

Those jerks.

Hydro wrote:
That add wasn't about the good things in 4e. They didn't say anything at all about 4e; the only thing they revealed about it was that there was going to be a digital character generator, which really isn't even connected to the narrative of the add. If the add had been about positives instead of about negatives (as you are incorrectly portraying it) I think it would have been taken completely differently.

The ad's point was to illustrate problems with older editions, which makes clear that WotC listened to those complaints and was doing something about them, and then to illustrate that the game has been evolving for decades and yet you still have imagination adventurers slaying paper trolls around a dinner table.

It seems as though you're trying to portray this as a case of negative advertising. If you want to see negative advertising, I will be happy to provide you with some examples that illustrate very clearly that the gulf between smearing a product and identifying past problems with your own product is a wide, wide gulf.


Heh. So much for unity. I think that moment has passed, sad thought that is.

WotC can assuredly have some more of my money if they release the old edition PDFs again. I might even say something nice about them. I'd give them even more if they came out with products tailored to the older editions. It wouldn't be that hard, and they could really make bank with some of their former customers.

Until then, I will channel my RPG expenditures where customer service and excellent products have been a watchword since the beginning.

I vote with my wallet. It's the best method to foster good companies, really.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

And the point was what precisely? If you complained online about the lack of gnomes in the 4e PHB you were a troll the dragon would poop on and that the dragon only valued the opinions of his sycophants by whom he could do no wrong?

That's the point I came away with.

The point was that the spot was a satire of the edition wars. That's all. It made the anti-4e crowd out to be self-important grognards with inane complaints, and the pro-4e crowd out to be yammering sycophants content to praise the master no matter his actions (both were stereotypes, and both had a ring of truth to them). And, frankly, it was pretty funny if you'd been paying attention to the edition wars. Nonetheless, there were plenty of people who stopped their armchair analysis at the poop and somehow decided that the ad was a purposeful attack on the anti-4e crowd.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Urizen wrote:
EDIT: Also, given those three aliases as examples - they've already set themselves up for potential derision as they're subtle jabs as a prelude of how they're going to lead their discussion.

Trollman is his given name. See here.

Even so, what about FatR, A Man In Black, Cartigan, and even myself? We've all said things very similar to what was said in the 4E marketing campaign. Why the difference?

I have seen people get upset at Cartigan and MiB, but not to the extent as the others, mostly because they are more abbrasive. I do agree with you by the way. I was just pointing out that the 1st and 2nd list of of posters are not the same.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder honors the spirit of D & D, while 4e goes in an entirely different and poorer diection in both repect, marketing and, most importantly, gaming fun. Stop making such a big deal about this. Just let 4e slowly sink into the morass in which it belongs.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Pathfinder honors the spirit of D & D, while 4e goes in an entirely different and poorer diection in both repect, marketing and, most importantly, gaming fun. Stop making such a big deal about this. Just let 4e slowly sink into the morass in which it belongs.

Rad.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
Hydro wrote:
No, the marketing crime was making their old edition out to be worse.

Yes, WotC made the truly appalling claim in a comedy internet ad spot that the product they were putting out to replace the old product was better than the old product.

Those jerks.

Saying something good about 4e and explaining why that was an improvement would have been fine. You can keep on ignoring the difference between positive portrayals and negative portrayals in your posts, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. Likewise, threatening to come up with a more negative add doesn't help your case; this is still a classic "problem/solution" advertisement. The only thing missing is the grayscale filter which magically vanishes when they get to 4e.

I don't think that your own portrayal is completely wrong. I'm not flabbergasted or outraged that you see it that way. But I do think it's slanted. Again, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to see these things in a positive light, but I'm not surprised that you're in the minority on this one.


Hydro wrote:
Saying something good about 4e and explaining why that was an improvement would have been fine.

Right, they did plenty of that. Two ad spots received all the attention, though, out of the many more they put out, not to mention that lengthy developer discussions, interviews, and so forth.

The point of the edition-to-edition ad was to explain that although the rules go through evolutions based on the perceived shortcomings of the edition that came before, the game itself remains essentially the same. It's okay to think that they could have done a better job of getting that point across. But getting offended by that ad spot? And using it to decide whether or not to buy the game? That's ridiculous.


Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:
I think the problem with the first was as I alluded to, the whole grapple the troll thing. Basically it characterized all 3.x players as a bunch of noobs that couldn't handle multi-step game mechanics.
What? No. The very clear point of that clip was to point out that grappling rules were convoluted, period. If you think it was in any way a jab at 3e players for not being able to handle complex rules, you are straight up incorrect.

Disclaimer - I missed the edition wars because I was playing WOD and Shadowrun, and didn't give a s@%%. I have played of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5 and BECMI, I looked very hard at 4E and I tried to like it but it just did not appeal to me.

I watched the first advertisement.

In relation to the first clip (I wont discuss 3rd Ed portion as that is already being discussed) the first two were very unsublte digs at the old games I loved.

The advertisement can be interpreted as first Ed players were too stupid to work out monster placement. In reality my group never used minis we would sketch out our positions on some paper and use our imaginations. The game flowed fast and it wasn't un fun like the clip is suggesting. The clip made me feel I was doing something inferior.

Same feelings from the second Ed part. The groups I played with could work out THACO in their sleep. It wasn't hard we still didn't use minis at most we would get out some graph paper. The only time we moved counters around on a map was C1 test of the Warlords and that was little multi coloured beads representing our Armies.

I can see how the advertisements would leave a rotten taste for people that loved their game. I also think WOTC started kicking their fan base, with cancelling licences and dragging products in-house. I knew a few guys that stopped playing any form of D&D in protest when they canned Dragon Lance. Coupling this with the attitude I am feeling from the adds then I can understand why people got upset.

The thing is LOTS of people are upset with WOTC/Hasbro (probably not with the 4E rule set as it is a good game and that has just become the focus of the anger). You can not discount the number of people that got pissed off by something. From all the anicdotle evidence the things the pissed people off was:

1. The attitude that playing the old games is for Lame and stupid people. Instead they could have taken a more positive approach. WoTC/Hasbro marketing has to answer for that one.
2. Not having the product good to go on release. There were a lot of problems with 4E both electronic and rules-wise. On release there weren't show stoppers but there were at least Sev 2 problems. It APPEARS that the fixes require multiple books.
3. Confusing there are so many books Essentials, Core, Red Box I have no idea and I cant be bothered tracking all the iterations.
4. Nuking well loved campaign settings from orbit. I could hear the nashing of teeth, wailing, pulling of hair and beating of breast from my Lasombra's hideaway in WOD the Dark Ages. D&D players that I knew at the time were blowing cookoo valves at what was done. I said that they could keep the campaigns the way they were and home brew. They said that the lack of follow up and support of the worlds as they used to be would be non existent and their games would die.
5. Something about Gnomes or Halflings (I thought this was a positive as I dislike both races) not being in the books, ticked a lot of people off. I thought it was funny but in combination with everything else I can see why it would add up for people to see it as a personal attack.
6. Killing Dungeon and Dragon, I got annoyed with this I still read the magazines. Hasbro/WoTC destroyed a great marketing base with this move and it made them look like they were shifting to the bad old days of T$R where they wanted to control it all.
7. Pulling all the PDFs, I was collecting all the old 1st, and 2nd Ed pdfs legally and Losing access to those PDFs made me very unhappy.

There are probably other reasons people were upset with WOTC and Hasbro but I think the anger was focused on the game rather than the company.

Like I said my view is as an outsider (at the time), I thought it was very funny watching the Nerd rage and what I was doing above was listing the main thing people complained about.

I think 4E is a good game. It doesnt appeal to me as I never use minis.

I would play Gamma World as that does appeal to me and from what I hear it is a great game and the same engine as 4E.

Also if people hate Pathfinder so much why are they on the boards?

Tri and Carigan I can understand as they believe that they are doing their best in their own unique ways to make Pathfinder a better game (I often dissagre with their methods) but applaud their goals. But other people who say there game is far superior than pathfinder why are they still here?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
Hydro wrote:
Saying something good about 4e and explaining why that was an improvement would have been fine.

Right, they did plenty of that. Two ad spots received all the attention, though, out of the many more they put out, not to mention that lengthy developer discussions, interviews, and so forth.

The point of the edition-to-edition ad was to explain that although the rules go through evolutions based on the perceived shortcomings of the edition that came before, the game itself remains essentially the same. It's okay to think that they could have done a better job of getting that point across. But getting offended by that ad spot? And using it to decide whether or not to buy the game? That's ridiculous.

You have stopped attempting to address the reasons why we find that add to be scornful (shifting your argument towards, "Well, it's only one add among many"), yet have not stopped asserting that your positive characterization of the add is correct that that it is ridiculous of us to claim otherwise.

There's not much else to say to you on this topic, except that if that's how you feel, then that's how you feel. Think me ridiculous. But I've defended my opinion well and I stand by it; I find the add distasteful, I think that other game companies wouldn't have run it, and I think that other (smarter) departments within the same game company wouldn't have run it either.

These things happen, and as long as you don't hold my ridiculous opinion against me in the future it's really no big deal. :)


Studpuffin wrote:
Apologies to the apologist, but I was offended by that segment as well.

I saw this clip at Gencon 07. I just watched it again. Twice.

I still don't see anything offensive.

And before you write me off as an "apologist," I am firmly of the belief that WotC mismanaged 4E right into the ground. Pulling the PDFs, the GSL fiasco, failure to deliver on major DDI components, etc., etc. etc. There are plenty of reasons to be disappointed with WotC and their handling of D&D.

But saying this ad is offensive? I just don't get it.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Also if people hate Pathfinder so much why are they on the boards?

Who is hating on Pathfinder?


bugleyman wrote:
But being offended by this ad? I just don't get it.

Can I be offended at the bad acting and production values? I mean its no Jami Gertz D&D commercial from the 80's.


Dragonsong wrote:
Can I be offended at the bad acting and production values? I mean its no Jami Gertz D&D commercial from the 80's.

Yeah, it was pretty bad. So was the "sophisticated" accent. It was definitely amateurish.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Coupling this with the attitude I am feeling from the adds then I can understand why people got upset.

First off, just a quick thing that is bothering me. People it is "AD" and "ADS", not "ADD" and "ADDS". It is based off the word advertisement, which you will find only has one D in it.

Sorry, not an attack on you Dwarf, just saw it in your comments and thought I had to respond as I have seen it in several others. To me, it was getting to the point that it is for others when they see "rouge" instead of "rogue".

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Also if people hate Pathfinder so much why are they on the boards?

I'll field this, though I don't hate Pathfinder. I play 3.5, didn't quit for WotC, ain't going to quit for Paizo. So, if I don't play PF, why come to these boards? First off, this site is not only for a game company but also for an online store. I on occasion purchase items from that store, so I consider myself a customer of the store, if not of the game system.

Also as a game site, you hear discussion of many different kinds of games and not just the PF system. One would have to ask, if someone was so in love with PF, why would they explore a thread about articles from another company that produces another game system?

Finally, there are lots of other types of threads that Paizo hosts here, off topic, movies, television, books, etc. Frankly, if this site only discussed PF and that was it, I wouldn't bother visiting.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Also if people hate Pathfinder so much why are they on the boards?

If you're not with us...

Grand Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
But getting offended by that ad spot? And using it to decide whether or not to buy the game? That's ridiculous.

I see that my old edition war rival is still waving the 4e pom-poms with vigor and enthusiasm, but the important thing I came away with from those wars was that people expect different things out of their game than I do...

I no longer feel the NEED to defend my game of choice, nor attack the merits of the others...

People in this thread have obviously seen into those ads (and the marketing of 4e in general) as a slight to their game of choice, why even bother calling them out on it? Does it really bother you that much that they would (be or feel offended)? So they were offended? And?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Just another battle in the long war. :P

Quote:
I no longer feel the NEED to defend my game of choice, nor attack the merits of the others...

Amen. Hopefully Scott and the rest will decide the same someday.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

I had never seen the first link. I thought it was pretty funny, for an RPG advert. Not great, but not terrible.

Honestly, the part of the marketing campaign that turned me off was the run-up to 4e, when a lot of articles appeared on Wizards.com with the tone of "Of course we HAD to make a new edition, because how could you enjoy the current one, what with all the broken bits?!?" It was a poor choice on their part and alienated a lot of people. If they had approached it with the tone that "We took a game you love and made it even better!" it would have made the transition smoother.

That said, I played 4e. I still play in a PbP using it on these boards. But it just didn't hit the notes I wanted it to hit in my game. So I didn't play it anymore. I don't care if you play it, I don't care if it's doing well or not; just stop getting so darn offended that I don't play your edition, whoever you are! If you want to get offended, go watch those poor buggers who play RIFTS. Sad, sad buggers. ;)


Dragonsong wrote:
Can I be offended at the bad acting and production values? I mean its no Jami Gertz D&D commercial from the 80's.

Yes, you can absolutely be offended by the acting. Oh my god, yes.

bugleyman wrote:
Yeah, it was pretty bad. So was the "sophisticated" accent. It was definitely amateurish.

I think they were going for "stereotypical overexcited French documentary-maker". Or something. It's pretty tough to tell.


Digitalelf wrote:
waving the 4e pom-poms with such vigor and enthusiasm

Really?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
But other people who say there game is far superior than pathfinder why are they still here?

I often ask myself that self same question. I mean I dont go onto the WOTC board to defend 3.5 and Pathfinder, yet there are people here who just relish being the staunch defender of all things 4E.

Here's what bugs me about it though...do guys like Scott really think that they're going to change peoples minds by constantly calling other peoples view points ridiculous and saying that his way to view something is really the ONLY WAY to view something?

I'm sorry, but I remember how I felt when I saw those promo pieces. I was expecting something that would inform me about the new game, not take relatively mean spirited swipes at the game that I really liked and was still playing? Tell me what's great about 4E without telling me that my game was not fun. That's how I interpreted those pieces.

Scott on the other hand, believes that anyone who didn't take those pieces as anything less than overwhelmingly positive is oversensitive and ridiculous. Which in as of itself is also a pretty obnoxious and poisonous view point to have. Did I think those pieces offensive enough for me to not touch the game with a 10ft pole? *looks over at the 4E giftset on his shelf*

Apparently not. I tried it and didn't really care for it. And that was that.

But I'll pretty much never forget how those pieces made me feel. The tone of those pieces were intentional, they had to know that they were going to alienate a certain segment of thier population. I dont think that they cared much about that, because as many of the 4E proponents on ENWorld (and here to a smaller extent) were so fond of saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, "who cares if you dont play? If they've replaced you with new gamers who needs you?"

They were right. They dont need me or the money that I spend on my RPG and AP subscription here. Or the money I spend on cards and map packs. Admittedly, I've bought the Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon boardgames to play with my son, but that's the only money that I've thrown WOTC's way in about 3 years.


bugleyman wrote:
If you're not with us...

Yeah, seems like it sometimes.

Don't mistake someone defending their game of choice for hating on other games. I've played Pathfinder, and I'm a huge fan of the setting. It's a good game made by good people.


Sorry, Scott, but nuanced doesn't fly in edition wars. :(

Have good one...whichever game you're playing.


Hydro wrote:


No, the marketing crime was making their old edition out to be worse.

That was weapons-grade stupid in addition to be insulting to those who actually enjoy that "crappy old game".

Who advertises their new product by tearing down the old?

"Hi, we're Toyota. You shouldn't drive our old cars any more. They're DEATH TRAPS! The BRAKES TOTALLY BLOCK AND YOU DIE!

So please buy our new cars, which don't have those glaring errors. We promise."

Who would buy something from a company who goes out of their way showing how badly they think of their old product, how bad it was?

I can see the "It was great for its time but now it's starting to show its age!" approach, and the "The old was good, but the new is so much better!" approach.

I definitely don't see the "All we did before was rubbish" approach working. Maybe, just maybe, you might have some chance with it if you acknowledge your shortcomings in the past and try to make people believe that you've learned from past mistakes. But that's still risky, since you'll draw attention to your past shortcomings.

They didn't even do that. They went on and on about how crappy their past product was. I won't buy anything from someone like that.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
If you're not with us...

Yeah, seems like it sometimes.

Don't mistake someone defending their game of choice for hating on other games. I've played Pathfinder, and I'm a huge fan of the setting. It's a good game made by good people.

See, I'm not hating on 4e either. There are quite a few things from it that I think are neat and incorporate into my games (variant skill challenges for one). I'll use whatever is fun for my players and hope my GMs would do the same.

I just wasn't happy with my shared demographic being the brunt of what I thought was a bad joke to market the game. It's not like it's the end of the world or anything to say that I was offended by what IMO is a bad marketing decision for a game that has its merits.

On the other hand, I had hoped there was at least an attempt to understand what was up with that commercial. I can't seem to find anything explaining the choices made in the commercials, and if there are complaints about it where and how they're addressed. :\

351 to 400 of 1,627 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards