|
From a Neverwinter write up on the official site. I have to admit I cried a little inside when I read this.
The quote- Regardless of what makes sense for roleplaying, sometimes it should take a back seat to what would be fun for everyone.
Seriously?
Not trying to troll, just opening up the topic for debate.
When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?
What I read... Now Jimmy, yes you play Triegnor the Bardic Dragon Slayer, but Bobby wants to play a dragon today and attacking him would hurt his wittle feelings. ???
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the context of the article I took it to mean don't be a douche. I mean really every group to a point has to do that. As a group decided what to play and make sure that the PC's will have reasons to stay together and go on adventures. Few things can kill a game faster than one player who insist on the lone wolf and runs off doing his own thing constantly and not being a team player.
While their example could have been better I think from reading it, that's what they was getting at.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note the word "sometimes".
Using the OP's example, if you're going for PvP, then that should be fine. If you're trying to build a party that will work together, then maybe one of them should consider playing a different character.
Ultimately, the game is about having fun, right? If not, what is the point? If roleplaying is fun for you, then by all means. But if you create a character who, when roleplayed "correctly", ends up just being a jerk to everyone else, then it's probably not going to be much fun for the rest of the group.
|
|
In the context of the article I took it to mean don't be a douche. I mean really every group to a point has to do that. As a group decided what to play and make sure that the PC's will have reasons to stay together and go on adventures. Few things can kill a game faster than one player who insist on the lone wolf and runs off doing his own thing constantly and not being a team player.
While their example could have been better I think from reading it, that's what they was getting at.
Nods and concurs... but...
Just the wording of that statement makes my skin crawl.
You took that quote waaaay out of context.
For context, here's how that part of the article starts:
"As you roleplay your character’s theme, avoid making choices that you think might annoy other players or make them uncomfortable."
In fact, here's how that last paragraph goes when we don't take it out of context:
Regardless of what makes sense for roleplaying, sometimes it should take a back seat to what would be fun for everyone. When you’re confronted with a situation in which you think your character should do something that you know the other characters will not like, think about how those characters’ players might react. Sometimes the mischievous, improper, or stupid thing you think your character should do adds to the fun of everyone at the table. Sometimes such an action only makes you the center of attention at the expense of making the game less fun for everyone else. Make sure you know the difference.
When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?
In my opinion, always.
My goal in playing an RPG is to have fun, not to 'achieve roleplaying'. If there was some situation where it would be more fun for my particular group to not roleplay in a given situation then I would hope we wouldnt roleplay. Of course, we actually enjoy roleplaying so I can't see how it might come up. But if it did - the fun wins hands down, in my opinion.
Having said that, I think the point of the article was much more 'Dont make a character who will ruin the fun you're all trying to have.' rather than suggesting some kind of inevitable concept between the two concepts.
The concept itself has been talked about in Dungeons & Dragon's, probably practically forever. However I recall it being a particularly common topic of discussion in early 2nd where the lingo was 'griefing'. So the ever popular, stick up the ass Paladin would grief the other players. Another archetype famous for griefing (Though here it was more of an annoying variant) was Kender. Its likely that the prominence that griefing obtained was in part because 2nd tried to be a 'high role playing' edition but also because the DM style was changing. In an 'us versus the DM' or an adversarial DM style of the game (so common in 1st) you almost never see griefing. The players are act more like a sports team building inter party team spirit and they have a common enemy...that scumbag peeking over the screen at the head of the table.
In 2nd there often seemed to be lots of arguments about the idea both pro and con but my feeling is that by 3rd the outright consensus was that griefing is pretty universally wrong with the exception of the high role playing group where players pretty much work out how this griefing is going to play out in the party dynamic ahead of time...in other words I'm not to make a character that griefs your character or the party unless we talk about it together first.
My personal experience with griefing or things that hint toward griefing is that it can be a really big red flag that the DM should probably take significant note of. If you see it right off the bat you usually have a player problem that should be nipped in the bud before it gets out of hand. If it was not there at the start but has developped then this is often a sign that the DMs game is not being as engaging as it could be and at least some of the players are looking to 'add entertainment' by introducing a new dynamic (exception here is a mature group which works out the griefing among themselves ahead of time). There may be various elements the DM might consider to head this off but the easiest and quickest is usually just up the difficulty...that alone will tend to push the players to act as a team.
"The principal operative word in the exercise is GAME, not role-playing. If the latter term were to be considered paramount, then it would be an acting class, and likely a very badly performed one at that
Cheerio.
Gary"
When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?
What I read... Now Jimmy, yes you play Triegnor the Bardic Dragon Slayer, but Bobby wants to play a dragon today and attacking him would hurt his wittle feelings. ???
You might be asking the wrong question. When should you put aside the 'fun' in a roleplaying game for roleplaying?
When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?In my opinion, always.
This.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The quote- Regardless of what makes sense for roleplaying, sometimes it should take a back seat to what would be fun for everyone.
Seriously?
Seriously. In fact I am surprised someone is even questioning this. It seems to be an accepted part of roleplaying now that if you're being a dick and justifying it by saying "But its what my character would do" you're still being a dick.
When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?
You don't necessarily put aside the roleplaying, but try to find a way to roleplay in a way that doesn't annoy the other players. But, yes sometimes you have to put roleplaying aside completely if what you are doing would cause the game to crash and burn.
Basically if the extra fun the person not putting aside roleplaying is getting is less than the total amount by which the other players' fun is reduced, then roleplaying should be changed or put aside. The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one. :)
What I read... Now Jimmy, yes you play Triegnor the Bardic Dragon Slayer, but Bobby wants to play a dragon today and attacking him would hurt his wittle feelings. ???
The trouble is, Jimmy wants to roleplay his character at the expense of another player's fun, but likely doesn't expect the GM to enforce the full consequences of his characters actions.
Imagine this...
GM: Now Jimmy, yes you play Triegnor the Bardic Dragon Slayer, but Bobby wants to play a dragon today and attacking him would likely cause group problems and wouldn't be much fun for Bobby.
Jimmy: But its what my character would do. Triegnor attacks the dragon.
GM: Okay...
Other Players: We step in to protect our dragon buddy.
GM: Okay...
<fight ensues that results in other players and the dragon subduing Triegnor.
Other Players: Okay, there is no way our characters would continue to adventure with someone willing to turn on a member of the group with no real reason other than prejudice. We leave him unconscious and continue on with the quest.
GM: Okay Jimmy, Triegnor wakes battered and bruised but alive. However, although Triegnor will no doubt go on to have great adventures, they won't be with this party and thus won't be roleplayed out in this gaming group. Roll up another character.
Jimmy: But I want to play Triegnor, the others have to let me join the party!
Other Players: But we're just roleplaying our characters like you.
GM: What the matter Jimmy, has not getting to play Triegnor hurt your wittle feelings?
Putting aside the roleplaying to ensure everyone has fun is the good kind of metagaming. Its also one Paizo enforces in the Pathfinder Society Rules:
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s player. Even if you feel killing another character is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever.
The bit I bolded is pretty much exactly what that D&D article is saying - so does PFS make you cry a little inside too?
In the end, there is no specific formula to know when a player has 'crossed the line' into having a character that will cause trouble for the party.
I'd say that when someone pretty firmly insists their PC has a right/need to stab/rob/insult another PC just for showing up that you know they have crossed the line.
I had a player once completly railroad a whole section of an adventure based on what he called "Roleplaying". As a lowly 2nd level character, he created a fight in a bar and killed at least 3 patrons while scaring off the one patron the PCs were supposed to follow and then capture for information. By doing what he did, intentionally of course, he had ruined the fun everyone else at the table was having.
Not only that, but his roleplaying eventually led to him fighting the other PCs. Before he could be subdued, the town guard was on the scene and they took everyone into custody (causing yet more problems that further derailed the adventure).
And his reasoning for doing this was because he wanted the DM to "think" more and because it's fun do sometimes be a psychopath. Yea, he hasn't been back to our campaigns since.
Roleplaying, while fun to do and to get emeshed in, shouldn't take priority over the game when it directly effects other players in a negative way.
At least, that's the impression I got for the article.
In general? Yes.
But not always. Our tuesday game includes ... details on his party
From the information you provided none of those guys fought each other for showing up at the beginning of the adventure. If you want to role play a highly dysfunctional group that's one thing, the article, OP (seem to have been talking about) and my statement for sure regard PCs who attacks all (even other party members) drow/half-orcs/whatever on sight. So I stick by the idea that if you can't look at the other PCs who were rolled up according the normally allowed rules for the game/setting/AP/whatever you've crossed the line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Dying inside" is something one does when, say, watching a four-year-old be taken by cancer, not when reading a phrase in a @#$@#$ role-playing article. The language can only take so much abuse. :P
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
"Dying inside" is something one does when, say, watching a four-year-old be taken by cancer, not when reading a phrase in a @#$@#$ role-playing article. The language can only take so much abuse. :P
I died a little inside when I read your comment, Bugleyman. Of course, at this point, it's like a meat packing plant inside me... Minus the warm fuzzy feelings one gets when one stares at sides of yummy beef...
I'll just leave this here...
No, they fought eachother based on who their characters were and who the other characters were as individuals.
While this is nice in that it means no one made a violent racist (maybe--there are a lot of halfling jokes, so we could all be anti-hobbitites waiting for the right moment to set a circle-shaped door on fire outside his tent) it doesn't mean the characters get along.
True, but not relevant to the my statement that attacking other players on sight regardless of back story is obviously over the line.
Unwelcome behavior at the table is unwelcome behavior at the table is unwelcome behavior at the table, whether it's from the first moment or appears later, or if it's based on somethign outside of your actual character or even behavior from your actual character. Yes, it's more noticeable when the douchebaggery starts during character introduction, but that doesn't mean that it's okay when a player decides after six months of play that his character is going to stab you in your sleep while he's on watch and take all your stuff because he feels "you look a lot like an orc and might be a dangerous double-agent."
Again true, but not relevant to the my statement that attacking other players on sight regardless of back story is obviously over the line. They are other ways to create socially awkward situations with in character actions that obviously over the line. That doesn't mean attacking others on site are is not over the line, just that it is one among many.
If our warpriest were a semi-xenophobic dwarf, and our fighter was an arrogant son of an orc cheiftan, but both players enjoyed the rivalry and the other players found their antagonistic hijinks amusing rather than disruptive, then would that be immediately "over the line?" Every person at the table is now in violation of some sort of rule because we all condone and enjoy it? I don't think you'd say we were--I hope you'd just say "look at those guys having fun. I bet there's some neat stories going on at that table."
Also true, but not relevant to the my statement that attacking other players on sight regardless of back story is obviously over the line.
Roleplaying a rivalry isn't the same as attacking on site so it's not really relevant to the statement that it's over the line to attack other PCs on site. In fact a rivalry depends on both PCs being alive to have to compete against each other so if anything it shows I'm right.The goal doesn't shift. Your group enjoys playing a group that has less the perfect group harmony somehow shows it's okay to attack others on site? No. Everyone is on the same page and having fun? Great, super, yay. But that dynamic - less the perfect group that fights others together and then each other - isn't possible if the members of the group fight to the death on site. If you have a reason to think that it's reasonable to attack other party members on site with deadly force please do share. If you have a game you enjoy with PC who don't get along very well and barely manage to function as a group, it's good you are having fun but not evidence I'm wrong.
When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?
Always, at all times, under all circumstances. Fun trumps everything in a game of any kind, role-playing or no.
Your methodology may vary; sometimes it's fun for things to be creepy and unclear, sometimes it's fun to thoroughly dominate a tactical situation, sometimes it's fun just to explore and watch as an external narrative unfolds. No matter what your methodology is, the moment somebody is Not Having Fun Anymore, you need to re-examine either how good a fit the methodology is for the players, or how you're implementing it.
If you're running a horror game and everybody is creeped out and not sure what's going on and it's weird and scary and fun, fantastic. If one of the players is crying because they're scared and alone and Not Having Fun Anymore, your game is now Bad.
This sounds like just another example of an unclear statement from a company that has proven untrustworthy enough that people are examining every thing they say down to the individual line. It's unfortunate, and not overly helpful, when such reactions as the OP occurs, but given WOTC's history, I can see where the reaction is coming from, especially given the terminology used and how WOTC has used those words in the past. Using clearer terminology, as PFS did, or at least steering clear of words and phrases that could very easily be misconstrued would probably have been a better choice. Invoking "roleplaying" and "fun" in the same statement and in partial opposition to each other is sure to rankle somebody's feathers, no matter what the underlying intent of the statement is or who makes the statement.
"I wildly misinterpreted this statement, but in my defense, the guys writing it are DICKS."
From a Neverwinter write up on the official site. I have to admit I cried a little inside when I read this.
The quote- Regardless of what makes sense for roleplaying, sometimes it should take a back seat to what would be fun for everyone.
Seriously?
Not trying to troll, just opening up the topic for debate.
When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?
What I read... Now Jimmy, yes you play Triegnor the Bardic Dragon Slayer, but Bobby wants to play a dragon today and attacking him would hurt his wittle feelings. ???
Nice strawman!
And frankly you should put aside roleplaying for fun. I mean - why wouldn't you? You are still playing a game aren't you? This sounds like someone who takes rpgs way too seriously.
Those two terms are just too loosely defined and too freely used any more to expect anything less.
Then WotC shouldn't bother rewriting already obvious articles to accomodate stupid people, and all is well.
Those two terms are just too loosely defined and too freely used any more to expect anything less.Then WotC shouldn't bother rewriting already obvious articles to accomodate stupid people, and all is well.
As long as they are willing to live with the consequences of their word choices. Personally, I consider people who react to that kind of statement stubborn and argumentative, which is not the same thing as stupid in most cases. Doing simple things to keep stubborn and argumentative people quiet like not feeding them terms they thrive on isn't that hard to do.
This sounds like just another example of an unclear statement from a company that has proven untrustworthy enough that people are examining every thing they say down to the individual line. It's unfortunate, and not overly helpful, when such reactions as the OP occurs, but given WOTC's history, I can see where the reaction is coming from, especially given the terminology used and how WOTC has used those words in the past. Using clearer terminology, as PFS did, or at least steering clear of words and phrases that could very easily be misconstrued would probably have been a better choice. Invoking "roleplaying" and "fun" in the same statement and in partial opposition to each other is sure to rankle somebody's feathers, no matter what the underlying intent of the statement is or who makes the statement.
It comes with multiple paragraphs of explanation, in fact if there is any weakness to this element of the article its that they are belabouring the point more then is necessary. I mean having to read three paragraphs that can be summed up as 'don't be a dick' is already pushing it as far as I am concerned.
Saying that they need to write articles more like a contract to avoid it being possible for some one to pick one sentence out of the article and then interpret it, out of context, in a wildly negative light is simply outrageous. They need to try and write good articles and ignore people that are trying to pick their words apart and interpret them negatively. They are unlikely to make product that is entertaining for some one that is determined to read their material negatively in any case and they absolutely should not be catering to them. Doing so is a waste of time that could be better spent crafting material that is valued by their fan base.
It comes with multiple paragraphs of explanation, in fact if there is any weakness to this element of the article its that they are belabouring the point more then is necessary. I mean having to read three paragraphs that can be summed up as 'don't be a dick' is already pushing it as far as I am concerned.
Saying that they need to write articles more like a contract to avoid it being possible for some one to pick one sentence out of the article and then interpret it, out of context, in a wildly negative light is simply outrageous. They need to try and write good articles and ignore people that are trying to pick their words apart and interpret them negatively. They are unlikely to make product that is entertaining for some one that is determined to read their material negatively in any case and they absolutely should not be catering to them. Doing so is a waste of time that could be better spent crafting material that is valued by their fan base.
While mostly I agree with you, there are certain words that should carry red flags warning a bit of caution might be warranted, especially when used with other red flag words. "Fun" used in conjunction with "role playing" whether in the same sentence or even the same article should always be handled with velvet gloves, especially by WOTC after the PR disaster at the release of 4E, but anyone who isn't careful is going to be inviting trouble.
While mostly I agree with you, there are certain words that should carry red flags warning a bit of caution might be warranted, especially when used with other red flag words. "Fun" used in conjunction with "role playing" whether in the same sentence or even the same article should always be handled with velvet gloves, especially by WOTC after the PR disaster at the release of 4E, but anyone who isn't careful is going to be inviting trouble.
I think you're imposing a pretty harsh standard here:
"Fun" used in conjunction with "role playing" whether in the same sentence or even the same article should always be handled with velvet gloves, especially by WOTC after the PR disaster at the release of 4E, but anyone who isn't careful is going to be inviting trouble.
What if they want to say their roleplaying game is fun?
I didnt experience any of the 4th edition furor, but it seems to me there has to come a time when they can be allowed to move on without worrying about whether what they're writing is going to inadvertently provoke a response from people they upset four years ago.
I think you're imposing a pretty harsh standard here:
"Fun" used in conjunction with "role playing" whether in the same sentence or even the same article should always be handled with velvet gloves, especially by WOTC after the PR disaster at the release of 4E, but anyone who isn't careful is going to be inviting trouble.
What if they want to say their roleplaying game is fun?
I didnt experience any of the 4th edition furor, but it seems to me there has to come a time when they can be allowed to move on without worrying about whether what they're writing is going to inadvertently provoke a response from people they upset four years ago.
Than say it and move on to other points and use other terms to make other points. A lot of the problem WOTC has is that at least in the past, they have been rather more loose with certain terms than is good for them.
Personally, I think they should be more careful with their terminology even if they hadn't had past issues. A company in that position of industry leader is going to have their words scrutinized more than other companies will. If neither WOTC nor Hasbro has figured that out yet, they, and unfortunately their fans, don't have a right to complain when sloppy use of vocabulary gets attention. It may not be particularly fair, but that's how life works.
Than say it and move on to other points and use other terms to make other points. A lot of the problem WOTC has is that at least in the past, they have been rather more loose with certain terms than is good for them.Personally, I think they should be more careful with their terminology even if they hadn't had past issues. A company in that position of industry leader is going to have their words scrutinized more than other companies will. If neither WOTC nor Hasbro has figured that out yet, they, and unfortunately their fans, don't have a right to complain when sloppy use of vocabulary gets attention. It may not be particularly fair, but that's how life works.
It came with four paragraphs of explanation! How much more explicit do they need to be? Six paragraphs? two pages? I mean how much clarification would ultimately be enough?
Personally I didn't need or want four paragraphs, really one would have been sufficient but WotC is already doing what you feel is important here - bending over backward to make their points blindingly clear...and yet here we are having this ridiculous conversation.
They don't need to write with a huge list of 'red flag' words and a users bible full of rules 'not to use word X with word Y'. The very concept is madness. If some one is hell bent on misinterpreting them there is nothing within the realm of reasonable they can do to stop that.
It came with three paragraphs of explanation! How much more explicit do they need to be? Six paragraphs? two pages? I mean how much clarification would ultimately be enough?
Personally I didn't need or want three paragraphs, really one would have been sufficient but WotC is already doing what you feel is important here - bending over backward to make their points blindingly clear...and yet here we are having this ridiculous conversation.
They don't need to write with a huge list of 'red flag' words and a users bible full of rules 'not to use word X with word Y'. The very concept is madness. If some one is hell bent on misinterpreting them there is nothing within the realm of reasonable they can do to stop that.
Sounds like they beat the horse to death with that much explanation, which doesn't help any. WOTC isn't the only company to do so, by any means, but really at this point they should know better than to have as many problems as they do in the writing department. Some problems are to be expected, but basic writing isn't that hard.
The concept may be madness, but its the reality in many industries already, and only becoming more important for someone in WOTC's position. Even if they didn't have angry ex-fans picking their words apart, others would, and how well their announcements hold up against those higher expectations matters, whether or not you agree with those higher expectations.
Personally, I think they should be more careful with their terminology even if they hadn't had past issues. A company in that position of industry leader is going to have their words scrutinized more than other companies will. If neither WOTC nor Hasbro has figured that out yet, they, and unfortunately their fans, don't have a right to complain when sloppy use of vocabulary gets attention. It may not be particularly fair, but that's how life works.
I dont think they were sloppy in their vocabulary. As I said in my first post, in my opinion one should always abandon roleplaying in a roleplaying game if doing so would be more fun (not that I can imagine that ever coming up) - this is because people play RPGs to have fun, not to 'produce an amount of roleplaying'.
I don't think your characterisation of WoTC's comment is correct - I think the only people 'offended' or 'dying a little inside' from these remarks are people who are not going to like anything WoTC write. Sure one can dig through any release and find something objectionable if you quote it out of context, but should we really be agonising over every utterance in case somebody reads us uncharitably? Life's too short, imo - no matter how prominent in the marketplace we are. I suspect that their intended audience got the point, some people who dont like WoTC products may cite it as 'another example...' but who should Wizards be writing for?
I dont think they were sloppy in their vocabulary. As I said in my first post, in my opinion one should always abandon roleplaying in a roleplaying game if doing so would be more fun (not that I can imagine that ever coming up) - this is because people play RPGs to have fun, not to 'produce an amount of roleplaying'.
I don't think your characterisation of WoTC's comment is correct - I think the only people 'offended' or 'dying a little inside' from these remarks are people who are not going to like anything WoTC write. Sure one can dig through any release and find something objectionable if you quote it out of context, but should we really be agonising over every utterance in case somebody reads us uncharitably? Life's too short, imo - no matter how prominent in the marketplace we are. I suspect that their intended audience got the point, some people who dont like WoTC products may cite it as 'another example...' but who should Wizards be writing for?
While they probably shouldn't be trying for the truly "anti WoTC" crowd, I don't think that crowd is as big as some people make it out to be. The larger crowd that should concern them is the "don't care either way, but am open to good reasons" crowd. Believe it or not, not everyone who makes a comment against WoTC is actively trying to burn that brand down. Many are seeing an industry leader that didn't live up to expectations, either personal or professional, and don't believe that ignoring the deficiencies helps either the company or the product.
On the bigger issue of writing, writing professionally, whether it be as an author or a person preparing documents that will represent a corporation, the rules are different than for you or I on a public forum. In those cases, apathy and disinterest are just as big of a problem as outright anger, since all of those conditions lead to the product not being bought, and consistent sloppy writing in announcements and articles can lead people to believe that the actual products are written equally sloppy, encouraging apathy and disinterest. WoTC seems past the "angry crowd" stage of reaction, except for a few hold outs, which is an important step, but apathy is still a problem, even if it isn't one that actively draws attention to itself.
The biggest problem I have is that many of the posters here seem to be discounting those who can see where the OP is coming from, even if they don't agree with the OP's ultimate reaction. Saying there is enough merit in his points to deserve discussion, even if that discussion ultimately shoots down the original points, is not saying I hate 4E, WoTC and anything associated with them.
While they probably shouldn't be trying for the truly "anti WoTC" crowd, I don't think that crowd is as big as some people make it out to be. The larger crowd that should concern them is the "don't care either way, but am open to good reasons" crowd. Believe it or not, not everyone who makes a comment against WoTC is actively trying to burn that brand down. Many are seeing an industry leader that didn't live up to expectations, either personal or professional, and don't believe that ignoring the deficiencies helps either the company or the product.
On the bigger issue of writing, writing professionally, whether it be as an author or a person preparing documents that will represent a corporation, the rules are different than for you or I on a public forum. In those cases, apathy and disinterest are just as big of a problem as outright anger, since all of those conditions lead to the product not being bought, and consistent sloppy writing in announcements and articles can lead people to believe that the actual...
Yeah I pretty much agree with you in general regarding care with word choice - I just dont think this particular instance is 'sloppy writing' at all. "When you're choosing how to roleplay, make sure the game stays fun for everyone" seems like solid advice to me and the meaning was pretty clear and well spelt out in the article.
You make relatively frequent reference to various behaviours of WoTC in the past and it might just be a case of different histories between us (since I missed out on all that). As an example, I read some of the Paizo customer service threads with incredulity. When I see threads basically saying: "You idiots messed up my order! You better gimme my money back!" it seems like a totally unreasonable 'opening salvo' - but that's no doubt because they've had poor historical customer service whereas I buy almost exclusively from Paizo so know the high standard one gets here.
The biggest problem I have is that many of the posters here seem to be discounting those who can see where the OP is coming from, even if they don't agree with the OP's ultimate reaction. Saying there is enough merit in his points to deserve discussion, even if that discussion ultimately shoots down the original points, is not saying I hate 4E, WoTC and anything associated with them.
I dont know if that meant me, but I dont consider any critical comment against WoTC to be blasphemy (I regularly criticise them for the quality of their adventures, for example).
In this specific case I think the OP is jumping at shadows - the fact that there may be legitimate grievances with WoTC is not really relevant to whether this complaint merits attention (I dont think it does).