Part of me died a little inside...


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dark_Mistress wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Where's the OP?
If you threw a rock at a hornets nest, would you stay around after it fell out of the tree?

You haven't paid much attention to my posting history, have you?

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Where's the OP?
If you threw a rock at a hornets nest, would you stay around after it fell out of the tree?
You haven't paid much attention to my posting history, have you?

I meant you as in the general rather sane you of people. Not you as in the actual you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dark_Mistress wrote:
I meant you as in the general rather sane you of people. Not you as in the actual you.

You think I'm insane? Why thank you! :D

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
I'm not taking to task the article itself (I can't because I haven't read it) but rather the fact that people seem baffled that such an interpretation is even possible.

You say that you are not taking the article to task, however it appears like you are taking WotC to task (that may not be the intention but that is my perception of your posts).

And you are doing that without having even read the article - seriously, I think you need to read the article in full to see why some of us are "baffled that such an interpretation is even possible"; and by interpretation being that the article isn't saying something like "roleplaying shouldn't be at the expense of the fun of the players".

sunshadow21 wrote:
based on what I've seen others comment about the article, it definitely sounds like the usual case of sloppy writing.

Again, I ugre you to go and read the article. Besides which other comments about the article other than the OP's make you think this is sloppy writing. My impression of this thread is that most posters after the OP are indicating that they clearly understand what the article is trying to say and agreeing with it.

sunshadow21 wrote:
I don't agree with the OP, but I also don't agree with those who simply dismiss the OP or any who even hint at the possibility that he may be at least half way correct.

I hope you don't feel I dismissed the OP, I stated that I disagreed and gave a full explanation of why and what I believe the article is talking about.

Also, which other posters hinted of the possibility that the OP may be at least halfway correct? I need to read the thread again because I don't recall any poster making such hints. If you can point them out I can check who dismissed them as I obviously missed something.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Sloppy writing and poor vocabulary may not be the end of the world, and it probably doesn't reflect the actual product, but it is still sloppy writing and poor vocabulary, and for a corporation in WoTC's position to do it so consistently in their public announcements, especially in the RPG industry, is not something that should be encouraged or completely ignored.

I agree, but I really don't think this article is an example of that.

So if we're going to take WotC to task for poor use of terminology and phrasing in this thread even though the focus of this thread isn't an example of it, then can I start taking to task Paizo for their use of the "3.5 OGL Compatible" logo on Pathfinder RPG products that are not 3.5? Or are we only allowed to criticise WotC?

Sorry if that comes off a bit snippy, but for someone who admits to not even reading the article this thread is about you seem to just be wanting to have a go at WotC.


When I'm told they are spending 3 paragraphs to support a statement that most people here can rephrase in one sentence that generates a lot less room for negative feedback, that's sloppy writing. I don't need to see the article to know that. As for when Paizo does similar stuff, I generally expect a similar response.


sunshadow21 wrote:
When I'm told they are spending 3 paragraphs to support a statement that most people here can rephrase in one sentence that generates a lot less room for negative feedback, that's sloppy writing. I don't need to see the article to know that. As for when Paizo does similar stuff, I generally expect a similar response.

In all fairness, I've watched you spend several months worth of posts to say "I really dislike WotC and all of their products, articles, wrting, games, and I don't seem to be too fond of the people who play their games or have a difference of appreciation of their work, either."

The difference is, I've genuinely read your posts, while you have not read the things you constantly criticize. I'm pointing this out based upon your actual posts as opposed to constantly shifting criticisms based on speculation and zero practical observation.

Someone has already summed up your entire position, and they didn't require months of posts to belabor the point. It's called "Green Eggs and Ham," although in our case, I suppose we can skip the gripping finale, yes? ;)

You're quite welcome to have the opinions you wish, and even constantly spread hatespeech across the internet, I just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy involved.


I try not mention exact material without having something to base it off of, and while I tend to be critical of the extremes pro 4E supporters go to, I'm equally annoyed by those who take the other extreme as well; it's just that most of those people don't stick around on any portion of these forums to argue back so it doesn't show as much.

WoTC's announcement writing is consistently of a style that leaves room for those looking for faults to find them with little to no effort, and it has been since the days of 3.0; 4E just tends to amplify it by putting most of what was argued about during 3.x behind a firewall where most people can't see the details. The material from what I've seen is more or less fine now that they have the kinks worked out of their new systems, but if most of what the public sees is the kind of sloppy decision making that typify WoTC announcements (and I have read many official WoTC marketing attempts, in both the 3.x and 4E era, even if I haven't read this one in particular), its going to be hard to bring in new customers because the marketing really doesn't do the actual products justice.

I will pan the actual products when they deserve it, but I will also give credit to products that deserve it as well. From what I've read here courtesy of other posters, the development team has turned 4E around rather nicely, DDI finally seems to be getting the attention it needs to be successful, and my experience with the last random minis set was quite positive.

WoTC has a lot going for it, but writing publicity has never been one of their stronger points; they have, and to an extant still do, relied too much on the product selling itself, and they don't know really how to push something that requires an actual effort. Pointing out that they can't coast any more isn't necessarily a negative, it's simply pointing out a basic fact of survival. Reworking how they approach announcements and official statements is simply one of the more visible aspects that are only now becoming apparent.

EDIT: I also don't pretend to be an expert writer and know full well that I would never make it as a professional writer or in the marketing department of a corporation. It usually takes me several counter arguments to refine the words in my own head, which is part of why I tend to be aware of that particular shortcoming when I see it elsewhere; I am very familiar with it.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:


WoTC tends to combine poor word choice with a writing style that is often not particularly appropriate to the subject, and the overall effect is that those who want to find fault can usually find it without much effort.

EDIT: To be fair, it's not a problem unique to the 4E era; none of the 3.x era announcements did much better. The only difference is that as they put more of the actual product behind a firewall, the announcements tend to be in the spotlight longer.

You might be right - but are you counting instances like this (which you haven't read) as evidence for your position?

I don't really disagree (nor agree) with your views on WoTC. This particular instance just isn't a symptom of what you're talking about, IMO. The language was fine and appropriate - I find it puzzling that you'd spend so much effort in this thread without actually reading the "offending" piece.


Because sometimes the response to an OP like this one is worth responding to. In this case, I believed it was; whether or not others agree is entirely up to them.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Because sometimes the response to an OP like this one is worth responding to. In this case, I believed it was; whether or not others agree is entirely up to them.

Fair enough, I just don't understand in that case.

If you were commenting on the responses here or the "anti-anti 4E crowd" or something then I don't see the relevance of quoting the words in the publicity. If you're making some point about the publicity, it seems reasonable to expect you to read it first.

I don't really mind (you're always reasonable and polite) I just don't see the point.


As much to increase my own understanding of the situation as a whole as any thing else. How people respond to me reveals a lot. I like to hope that other people get something positive out of it, but exactly what is up to them.


sunshadow21 wrote:
WoTC's announcement writing is consistently of a style that leaves room for those looking for faults to find them with little to no effort, and it has been since the days of 3.0;

But that can be said, honestly, of just about anyone. No matter what the reputation or background of a company, if somoene is out to misinterpret what you say, they'll be able to do so. WotC advising folks not to be jerks is them 'stomping on roleplaying'. Paizo selling random minis is them 'abandoning their customers and selling out'.

You are placing fault in the wrong place, I think. And I do understand the core of your point - there are some folks who aren't out to misinterpret things, and WotC should take care to not offend them. That's a reasonable position. Just... not one at all relevant to this discussion, because WotC did not say anything actually problematic.

Now, I'm not saying that Ravenbow was an unreasonable person for interpretting things differently. Sometimes, no matter what you do, folks will sometimes get the wrong idea. (Especially when bias comes into play, especially when looking at quotes out of context).

But... most of the responses weren't "no, you're wrong!" They were calm explanations of how that wasn't what WotC was saying. In fact, the very first person to criticize the OP (rather than calmly discuss the point) was Bugleyman (not known for being a 'WotC defender', by any means).

After that, the real start of heated debate was when you offered what seems like an intentionally inflammatory post, simultaneously calling WotC "unclear" and "untrustworthy" on the matter despite - again - not having actually read the article in question.

sunshadow21 wrote:
WoTC has a lot going for it, but writing publicity has never been one of their stronger points; they have, and to an extant still do, relied too much on the product selling itself, and they don't know really how to push something that requires an actual effort.

Yeah, but even if your goal is simply 'constructive criticism' for WotC, it loses all impact - any appeal at all to sincerity - when offered in such a haphazard fashion. When offered without any actual foundation in the facts, and when your position on what they are doing wrong so rapidly changes from one criticism to its direct opposite.


If people think my sometime feeble attempts aren't worth responding to, then they shouldn't respond to them. I'll be the first to admit that not every post I write is going to be well written and worthy of further comment. I learn from those just as much as from the ones that are worthy of comment.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
When I'm told they are spending 3 paragraphs to support a statement that most people here can rephrase in one sentence that generates a lot less room for negative feedback, that's sloppy writing. I don't need to see the article to know that.

I think you do need to see the article if you are going to criticise it for sloppy writing personally. I wouldn't say that Paizo's writing in a Pathfinder RPG book was sloppy without having read it.

Anyway, having actually read the article the paragraphs support that statement in different ways with only a little repetition.

Here is the relevant part of the article

Neverwinter Themes article wrote:
As you roleplay your character’s theme, avoid making choices that you think might annoy other players or make them uncomfortable.

This is the main paragraph that makes the point and does it quite succinctly and with perhaps a more refined touch than our "don't roleplay your character in such a way that you're a dick!" :)

Neverwinter Themes article wrote:
For example, your character might be an eladrin Iliyanbruen guardian who, due to your sheltered upbringing in the Feywild, believes the drow to be a wholly evil race. However, if you use that as an excuse to immediately attack your friend’s character, a drow member of Bregan D’aerthe, it’s not likely to make for a good play session.

First supporting paragraph is an example of the type of roleplaying choice that may annoy other players. I think any RPG player will admit that a concrete example is a good thing and can help understanding - and it is no difference here. I don't see any sloppy writing here.

Neverwinter Themes article wrote:
Think about the fact that your eladrin has just come into a wholly new world and therefore might be unsure about the cultural norms. If everyone else seems okay with a drow in their midst, your character is probably confused by what it means. It could be that drow in this world are unlike those in the Feywild, or it could be that the other people in the world are as evil as drow, and thus everyone might be dangerous. Even if your character encountered your friend’s drow character alone in the woods, choosing to watch and follow that drow (who might have allies nearby or be involved in some larger, dark plot) seems a wiser decision than attacking on sight. Then after you and your friend’s character get to know one another, it will make sense that they become allies (if not friends).

Second supporting paragraph actually goes beyond just reiterating the initial point, but shows (again by using an example) that there are likely other roleplaying choices, no less valid than the original choice, that would allow the game to progress without annoying the other players.

Again, I can't fault this for sloppy writing as it actively expands on the point and makes it clear that it isn't actually a choice between roleplaying your character or not, but a choice between different ways of roleplaying your character.

Neverwinter Themes article wrote:
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.

Third supporting paragraph. Now the first part of this is pretty much reiterating the initial point, and could be argued to be sloppy writing, but that isn't the word that springs to mind - "unnecessary" perhaps, "belabouring the point" at most.

However the second part of that paragraph does add something by saying that sometimes a roleplaying choice will involve your character doing something improper or stupid but actually won't necessarily reduce anyone's fun. I.e. its saying "this article isn't saying don't ever have your character do dumb things, just don't have your character do them if it will spoil the fun".

The point it is making is just to be sure you can assess whether your roleplaying choice will add to the fun or reduce it - if its the former, then go with it and do the improper thing, but if its the latter then think twice and try to find another roleplaying choice that will be fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Context is everything, and I think it's a little disingenuous for the OP to take that statement out of context.

Entirely on it's own, the statement is indeed pretty dumb when actual critical thought is applied.

"Regardless of what makes sense for roleplaying, sometimes it should take a back seat to what would be fun for everyone."

Sure, that's a wonderful and obvious position and in a kumbaya world everything would be lovely and grand. It's also highly unlikely. The actual probable situation is that roleplaying is fun for a number of people, and thus an end state of "fun for everyone" simply won't be achieved... it'll be "fun" for some people, and not others.

But, that's not how the statement was made. The statement was generally about not being a jerk, and if you're using "roleplaying" as an excuse to be a jerk, you're doing it wrong.

And that is ALWAYS right.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
[snip]
You are placing fault in the wrong place, I think. And I do understand the core of your point - there are some folks who aren't out to misinterpret things, and WotC should take care to not offend them. That's a reasonable position. Just... not one at all relevant to this discussion, because WotC did not say anything actually problematic.

Why do you even answer? He has stated on this very forum that he hates 4E and considers himself a 'foe of 4E'. What do you expect will come out of this?


sunshadow21 wrote:
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 don't hate the OP or anything like that.

But he didn't just draw "wrong comparisons." He took one quote grossly out of context just so he could get riled up about it.

His opinion is wrong.

You are also wrong for continuing this. I don't hate you! I mean, I think hating things in general over D&D is pretty sad overall! But you're very purposefully taking something out of context to and just to be irate about it.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
His opinion is wrong.

At least you have the guts to come out and say it.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post and the replies to it. Deliberately misquoting someone isn't cool, even if you bold your changes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a quick note.

The game truly boils down to the social contract of the table, and each table is going to be different. I personally would not last long at a table of players who clearly do not like each other, nor would I last long at a table of players who do like each other but do not play well with others (and I mean this in a strictly kindergarten way).

Fun should be the centerpiece of the table's social contract. Fun is why we get together, drink beer and roll dice. The goal of each player should be to support the others in a mutually beneficial goal within the lives of the characters.

I agree with the article, and many of the posters interpretation. A player taking an action of which that action is not beneficial to all, either by being adversarial, or deceitful, with the excuse of "because this is what my character would do," at a table which is conceived under the contract that all work together toward a common goal, truly adds nothing positive to the experience. If the table chooses a social contract where backstabbing, infighting, treachery and deceit between players is acceptable behavior, then please, enjoy your game. I do not wish to play that way. If I wanted an experience like that, I would just go to real life, instead of my fantasy realm with my friends.

I agree with WotC's right to point this out. The Neverwinter campaign setting is ripe with factions of opposing viewpoints and different mechanical aspects tied into their themes. During character creation, it would be very easy to pick a theme which is contrary to themes chosen by other players. Unlike other campaign settings with opposing factions, Neverwinter is very small geographically, and these factions will interact with each other, much like gangs in any city. A slight “push” from the Dungeon Master should be enough to prevent such issues at the beginning of the campaign.

In conclusion, WotC is not trying to tell anyone how to play the game. What they are saying is be cognizant of the choices you as a player make, to fulfill your duties of the social contract in effect at your table.

This was neither quick nor just a note.

Silver Crusade

The Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide points out pretty much the same problem in the Player Types section. Check out the entry for Antagonist.

Now if you get mad at WOTC over that article you have to get mad at Paizo as well.

WAT DO?

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Arazyr wrote:

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.

What I tell new players in my game is pretty much that "My character is a jerk" is NOT an acceptable personality choice.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Where's the OP?
If you threw a rock at a hornets nest, would you stay around after it fell out of the tree?

+1

Liberty's Edge

Mikaze wrote:

The Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide points out pretty much the same problem in the Player Types section. Check out the entry for Antagonist.

Now if you get mad at WOTC over that article you have to get mad at Paizo as well.

WAT DO?

Not going to happen imo. There are posters who treat both companies equally yet more often than not Paizo is put on some sort of pedastel. Whereas when it comes to Wotc any and every excuse is open season to find something wrong. They could mispell dragon as dragoon and their would be a thread calling them out on it. Im all fine for having a difference of opinion yet now it's anything and everything. It's like posters imo have nothing better to do except scour the net for anything bad about Wotc.


memorax wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

The Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide points out pretty much the same problem in the Player Types section. Check out the entry for Antagonist.

Now if you get mad at WOTC over that article you have to get mad at Paizo as well.

WAT DO?

Not going to happen imo. There are posters who treat both companies equally yet more often than not Paizo is put on some sort of pedastel. Whereas when it comes to Wotc any and every excuse is open season to find something wrong. They could mispell dragon as dragoon and their would be a thread calling them out on it. Im all fine for having a difference of opinion yet now it's anything and everything. It's like posters imo have nothing better to do except scour the net for anything bad about Wotc.

To be fair the vast majority of the PF fans that showed up took one look at this and said 'this complaint is dumb' and moved on.

The Exchange

There's an annoying minority, though.


Solely for the sake of being a pedant:

Quote:
To be fair the vast majority of the PF fans that showed up took one look at this and said 'this complaint is dumb' and moved on.

To be accurately made, this statement would have to be based on how many people viewed the thread, who those people are, (although on a Paizo site, I suppose we can assume the majority are indeed PF fans without too much inaccuracy) and also some sort of mind-reading device and/or exit survey.

I would personally prefer to believe that it is accurate in scope, however.

Liberty's Edge

I am not expecting a majority to come and voice their displeasure about this thread. I am annoyed though that all it takes is for a press release to have the word dragon mistaknely spelled dragoon to get an "omd did you see what Wotc did!" type of thread. I'm not sayiong Wotc is perfect far from it. It foes fell that some posters go out of their way to find anything to start some sort of anti-4E thread. And no I do ot consider the wording of a press release worthy of a thread. To me that is someone with way too much time on their hands imo.


memorax wrote:
I am not expecting a majority to come and voice their displeasure about this thread. I am annoyed though that all it takes is for a press release to have the word dragon mistaknely spelled dragoon to get an "omd did you see what Wotc did!" type of thread. I'm not sayiong Wotc is perfect far from it. It foes fell that some posters go out of their way to find anything to start some sort of anti-4E thread. And no I do ot consider the wording of a press release worthy of a thread. To me that is someone with way too much time on their hands imo.

To be fair, people on these boards do the same thing to Paizo announcements when they make such slip ups. Both companies are going to have every word they publish in an official form heavily scrutinized by somebody, and complaints will quick to appear on forums throughout the internet. You can complain about fairness all you want, but life isn't fair, and when your standard response is defending 4E and WotC to the death rather than brushing it off and ignoring it, you aren't helping the situation any. I don't claim that there aren't truly 4E haters here, but far too often, though it is getting less, the response from the 4E crowd to anything that even hints at not being entirely positive about 4E is unnecessarily defensive and any challenge is seen as an attack. I don't pretend to be a saint, or anything even close to one, but I get tired of people who claim that they are simply defending their position as they feed the fire they claim to dislike.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
To be fair, people on these boards do the same thing to Paizo announcements when they make such slip ups. Both companies are going to have every word they publish in an official form heavily scrutinized by somebody, and complaints will quick to appear on forums throughout the internet. You can complain about fairness all you want, but life isn't fair, and when your standard response is defending 4E and WotC to the death rather than brushing it off and ignoring it, you aren't helping the situation any. I don't claim that there aren't truly 4E haters here, but far too often, though it is getting less, the response from the 4E crowd to anything that even hints at not being entirely positive about 4E is unnecessarily defensive and any challenge is seen as an attack. I don't pretend to be a saint, or anything even close to one, but I get tired of people who claim that they are simply defending their position as they feed the fire they claim to dislike.

I basically agree with you that most of the time the best response is 'meh' or perhaps a flag in particularly egregious cases. Nonetheless, there's an asymmetry in that these are Paizo boards. As such almost everything WoTC or 4th edition related ends up here and those tiny minority who are interested in stirring up 4th edition fans just for kicks come here relatively often. That's kind of annoying for those of us who are fans of both companies who are genuinely not interested in debates about who's a nicer company or who's going to be selling more product in ten years time or any of the other themes which crop up all-too-frequently.

There are so many Paizo subforums that the rules discussionboard doesnt get filled up with derogatory comments about Paizo or Pathfinder. I come here to listen to what those Paizo fans who play D&D think about the 4th edition ruleset. I'm particularly interested in those who convert Paizo adventures to 4th edition - since that's precisely what I do and my understanding of RPG rules can most charitably be described as 'loose' and more accurately as 'vague and largely incorrect'.

On this site, any anti-Paizo posts are drowned out by the rest of us who love their work. The same cannot be said of anti-WoTC posts. I think that means one should be more cautious of criticising WoTC than of Paizo - just as I think one should speak more carefully when criticising any individual when they are not able to defend themselves. FWIW, I would level a similar charge against the anti-PF crowd on WoTC's site, were I involved there. They should leave the Paizo fans on WoTC's forums to their presumably small and infrequent discussions without jumping in with "I don't mean to inflame any feelings, nor start an edition war, but..."


Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW, I would level a similar charge against the anti-PF crowd on WoTC's site, were I involved there. They should leave the Paizo fans on WoTC's forums to their presumably small and infrequent discussions without jumping in with "I don't mean to inflame any feelings, nor start an edition war, but..."

If you were involved there you would likely note that the largest amount of "edition war" and flamebaiting comes from individuals who just cannot stand to see a community who's enjoying 4e or WotC and its products. I appreciate that I can create a thread here about how much I appreciate Paizo's efforts and their work if I like without it filling up within half an hour with a dozen (literally) individual posters all screaming at me for being so idiotic as to like what I'm buying, and how I should buy stuff from the competition because this game is crap, and doing their absolute best to instigate a rancorous edition war.

I cannot do that on the WotC boards without having the exact opposite happen.

There are a large contingent of fans of both companies on both forums, and while there are some soundly notable exceptions, I think you'd find there are lots of people who give Paizo (at the very least!) lip service for the quality of their products and designs, even if they do not care for the systems they use in them.

You might also notice there are many fans who regularly point to Paizo as having pretty good adventure paths, some excellent fluffy concepts, etc. and point people towards those, or even steer the odd player towards Pathfinder (without any bitterness in tone) when their interests lie in that direction.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
RedJack wrote:

If you were involved there you would likely note that the largest amount of "edition war" and flamebaiting comes from individuals who just cannot stand to see a community who's enjoying 4e or WotC and its products. I appreciate that I can create a thread here about how much I appreciate Paizo's efforts and their work if I like without it filling up within half an hour with a dozen (literally) individual posters all screaming at me for being so idiotic as to like what I'm buying, and how I should buy stuff from the competition because this game is crap, and doing their absolute best to instigate a rancorous edition war.

I cannot do that on the WotC boards without having the exact opposite happen.

Really? How peculiar. I can't imagine hanging out on the forums of a game I didn't like. Nonetheless, my position above wouldn't really change - WoTC are perfectly capable of defending themselves over there and can delete/ban anything which is too much. Here they can't so (in my view) one should tread more lightly when discussing the pros and especially the cons of WoTC and/or 4th edition.


4E is in the situation that even if you don't play it, you can't completely ignore it, as the brand name is still the dominant one in the industry as far as nongamers are concerned, and thus how 4E does effects the rest of the industry, whereas those who don't play PF can mostly ignore it with very little consequence to themselves. Because of WotC's position, there will be a lot more people who don't use WotC products watching simply because for better or worse, how WotC does and how they do it will have an impact on the other publishers. White Wolf (and in the MMO industry, SOE) was in a similar position, which is part of why the backlash they faced when they made one too many mistakes/overcorrections was so harsh, and it made the fall to their current position a PR disaster. The parsing that is typically going to be found in any system is going to be amplified, and the fact that many of those doing it are going to be doing it from outside of the system is simply going to have to be accepted. People on both sides have to be more careful to avoid extreme positions in that regard to that parsing, and any company in the middle of that level of attention is going to have to be prepared accordingly. WotC and/or Hasbro seem to be getting better at anticipating trouble spots, but still has a lot farther to go than I would typically expect, given how long they have had that spotlight on them.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
4E is in the situation that even if you don't play it, you can't completely ignore it, as the brand name is still the dominant one in the industry as far as nongamers are concerned, and thus how 4E does effects the rest of the industry, whereas those who don't play PF can mostly ignore it with very little consequence to themselves. Because of WotC's position, there will be a lot more people who don't use WotC products watching simply because for better or worse, how WotC does and how they do it will have an impact on the other publishers. White Wolf (and in the MMO industry, SOE) was in a similar position, which is part of why the backlash they faced when they made one too many mistakes/overcorrections was so harsh, and it made the fall to their current position a PR disaster. The parsing that is typically going to be found in any system is going to be amplified, and the fact that many of those doing it are going to be doing it from outside of the system is simply going to have to be accepted. People on both sides have to be more careful to avoid extreme positions in that regard to that parsing, and any company in the middle of that level of attention is going to have to be prepared accordingly. WotC and/or Hasbro seem to be getting better at anticipating trouble spots, but still has a lot farther to go than I would typically expect, given how long they have had that spotlight on them.

Again, I don't really disagree - but that's about what WoTC should do or how they should behave and what they should expect.

In terms of how we behave, on the subforum Paizo provide in order for us to be able to discuss 4th edition without insulting other RPG companies... I think we should be careful not to be dismissive or rude towards someone not here to defend themselves.

Further, as one of the minority of Paizonians who like coming here to discuss 4th edition, I wish the "Paizo/PF are/is better than WoTC/D&D" threads would remain in the other forums - in the interest of maintaining a decent signal/noise ratio if nothing else.


Steve Geddes wrote:
In terms of how we behave, on the subforum Paizo provide in order for us to be able to discuss 4th edition without insulting other RPG companies... I think we should be careful not to be dismissive or rude towards someone not here to defend themselves.

I said both sides for a reason; I've seen posters on both sides, myself included, who mean well get carried away with little effort due to forgetting that everything written in this particular forum has an especially strong focus that can make perspective difficult to maintain.

The Exchange

There is some of that - I've done it myself too, more than once. But there are a very few posters at Paizo - and it is very few, maybe five or six - who really can't hold back from trolling 4e discussions and amplifying anything negative. Or promulgating stuff that is simply untrue. And it gets annoying. And then you have fly-bys like the OP here.

I don't think it's about whether WotC is here to defend itself. That's not the issue for me, I don't frequent the WotC website or, indeed, many other websites. The issue is that it is sometimes difficult to have an adult conversation about 4e without one of the usual suspects popping up to be disruptive. I really don't care about WotC's reputation, I'm simply interested in playing a game I enjoy and discussing it with likeminded people.

I appreciate that this is a website dedicated to the products of a system that is, to all intents and purposes, a rival to WotC. I appreciate that 4e is not everyone's cup of tea. I appreciate that some people feel that the original marketing of 4e was a bit dubious (to say the least). I appreciate that a lot of people are here because they have turned away from 4e in favour of PF. However, Paizo also sells 4e through its shop, so seeing Paizo as an anti-WotC is wide of the mark. Anyway, Paizo's stated policy has always been one of covering all games. Rehashing the events of a few years ago seems such an empty pastime when both 4e and PF is are vibrant, living games which many people will continue to play for years to come.


sunshadow21 wrote:
I've seen posters on both sides, myself included, who mean well get carried away

It might be a good idea to refrain from posting on the 4e subforum until you feel that you can control yourself and won't get carried away anymore. What do you think? Do you agree?


Steve Geddes wrote:
Really? How peculiar. I can't imagine hanging out on the forums of a game I didn't like.

There are some very misguided people who think that the only way to promote what you appreciate is to constantly slander anyone who disagrees, or people who aren't bright enough to understand that if you just talk about the things you love and why you love them, it elevates the hobby as a whole instead of making everyone look like a bunch of tools.

Also, remember that WotC is a large company part of an even larger multi-national corporation. Its policies on what it can and cannot do as far as moderation and community management are not as... free as they are here. As an arm of a much smaller corporation, Paizo has a lot more personal say in what its moderation policies are without having to check every 5 minutes with Legal, Community Management, PR, Branding, and 15 other large local departments, in addition to corporate offices, and that's something that has certainly worked in their favor on a number of issues. :)


Malaclypse wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
I've seen posters on both sides, myself included, who mean well get carried away
It might be a good idea to refrain from posting on the 4e subforum until you feel that you can control yourself and won't get carried away anymore. What do you think? Do you agree?

Same could be said for a lot of people, regardless of what side they are on, mboth myself and yourself included. And the key part you conveniently cutoff was the ease that it can happen. The rest of the forums usually at least take a few people to fan the initial spark before it explodes into flame; for some reason, this subforum doesn't usually require additional fanning, it just needs the spark.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
I've seen posters on both sides, myself included, who mean well get carried away
It might be a good idea to refrain from posting on the 4e subforum until you feel that you can control yourself and won't get carried away anymore. What do you think? Do you agree?
Same could be said for a lot of people, regardless of what side they are on, mboth myself and yourself included.

I don't think there are 'sides' here. This is no conflict or war, and I don't want to be on the other side of whatever border you feel is there just because I like 4e and you hate it. We are here together to discuss 4e.

sunshadow21 wrote:
for some reason, this subforum doesn't usually require additional fanning, it just needs the spark.

Why would you possibly want to fan or spark a flamewar?

The Exchange

sunshadow21 wrote:
Same could be said for a lot of people, regardless of what side they are on, both myself and yourself included. And the key part you conveniently cutoff was the ease that it can happen. The rest of the forums usually at least take a few people to fan the initial spark before it explodes into flame; for some reason, this subforum doesn't usually require additional fanning, it just needs the spark.

The reason being, if you don't play 4e, you have very little reason for being here. Virtually all people with a genuine interest in 4e (as opposed to an interest in telling us how crap 4e is) want to talk about the game as it is played, or maybe developments thereof. If you don't play 4e, it should be of fairly little interest. Sure, there can be some intellectual interest about other systems you don't play, but then showing up with hard and defined views about the subject would also seem to be inappropriate if you are trying to learn about something.

I'm not picking on you specifically. But, as far as I can tell, you don't play 4e. You don't want to play 4e. And you dislike WotC as a company. You are, of course, not alone in those views. With all due respect, you can post where you like - but hanging on a sub-forum where most of the people will disagree with you is a recipe for conflict. And it's not like the arguments haven't been heard before - and either debunked, or consigned to irrelevance by the passage of time.


Malaclypse wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
I've seen posters on both sides, myself included, who mean well get carried away
It might be a good idea to refrain from posting on the 4e subforum until you feel that you can control yourself and won't get carried away anymore. What do you think? Do you agree?
Same could be said for a lot of people, regardless of what side they are on, mboth myself and yourself included.

I don't think there are 'sides' here. This is no conflict or war, and I don't want to be on the other side of whatever border you feel is there just because I like 4e and you hate it. We are here together to discuss 4e.

sunshadow21 wrote:
for some reason, this subforum doesn't usually require additional fanning, it just needs the spark.
Why would you possibly want to fan or spark a flamewar?

Thank you for proving my point. I was simply talking about the process, not any specific example, and you took the worst available interpretation as if it had to be right simply because of what you think I am trying to do. You don't understand my ulterior reasons anymore than I understand your's, and if you look for the worst, you will usually find it.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Same could be said for a lot of people, regardless of what side they are on, mboth myself and yourself included. And the key part you conveniently cutoff was the ease that it can happen. The rest of the forums usually at least take a few people to fan the initial spark before it explodes into flame; for some reason, this subforum doesn't usually require additional fanning, it just needs the spark.

Which may be a reason to carefully measure your own approach to these forums. You say that the best response is often to let 'edition warring' slide, and that is usually what I aim to do.

Sometimes, though, some posts are hard to let slide - usually posts that are not just critical, but outright present misinformation. That sort of thing only poisons the community further, and so will often receive a response to try and correct such false claims.

Unfortunately, your own posts often seem to fall into that category, as you have admitted to typically posting based on assumptions rather than actual knowledge of the situation. As in this thread - note that most of the the 'edition warring', etc, that truly emerged was in response to your own posts.

You say folks shouldn't just mindlessly defend WotC. I agree. There is plenty to be critical of them about. But your posts tossed one allegation at them (without reading the article), and when it was refuted, reversed gears and tossed a completely opposite attack at them (again, without any foundation in the actual article itself.)

Are you really surprised that heated discussion will emerge from that sort of behavior, which seems explicitly designed to fan the flames?


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Same could be said for a lot of people, regardless of what side they are on, both myself and yourself included. And the key part you conveniently cutoff was the ease that it can happen. The rest of the forums usually at least take a few people to fan the initial spark before it explodes into flame; for some reason, this subforum doesn't usually require additional fanning, it just needs the spark.

The reason being, if you don't play 4e, you have very little reason for being here. Virtually all people with a genuine interest in 4e (as opposed to an interest in telling us how crap 4e is) want to talk about the game as it is played, or maybe developments thereof. If you don't play 4e, it should be of fairly little interest. Sure, there can be some intellectual interest about other systems you don't play, but then showing up with hard and defined views about the subject would also seem to be inappropriate if you are trying to learn about something.

I'm not picking on you specifically. But, as far as I can tell, you don't play 4e. You don't want to play 4e. And you dislike WotC as a company. You are, of course, not alone in those views. With all due respect, you can post where you like - but hanging on a sub-forum where most of the people will disagree with you is a recipe for conflict. And it's not like the arguments haven't been heard before - and either debunked, or consigned to irrelevance by the passage of time.

I respectfully disagree with that. I may not play any of WotC's products, but their position guarantees that people who don't play their product will be watching because their success or failure, and the reasons for it, will have a ripple effect that very few other companies in this industry will have. If DDI succeeds, that matters because other companies are more likely to consider that model; if it fails, other companies are less likely to consider it. Same with Essentials, the timing of their release schedule, and anything else that they do. You can't claim that WotC is still the industry leader and expect the only people to comment being those currently actively playing. I don't dislike WotC because they are WotC, I dislike their policies because while they work for WotC or Hasbro fine, I really don't want to see very many of them spread any farther because they would not be good for the industry as a whole. I come with no preconceived notions about the system, or even the effects it has on the industry, but when people disregard the potential negative aspects, especially in a fairly new system like 4E or when dealing with a large company like WotC, and think that only those directly effected has a right to speak up, I tend to get worried.


sunshadow21 wrote:
I come with no preconceived notions about the system

Really? Great. Just recently you mentioned on this very forum that you hate 4E and that you consider yourself a foe of 4e. What made you change your mind?

sunshadow21 wrote:
You don't understand my ulterior reasons anymore than I understand your's

Exactly, and that was why I asked. You didn't answer, though. You also didn't answer to the first post, regarding your impression that there are 'sides'.

But it's not that important. I hope you find whatever it is that you are looking for on this subforum.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Same could be said for a lot of people, regardless of what side they are on, mboth myself and yourself included. And the key part you conveniently cutoff was the ease that it can happen. The rest of the forums usually at least take a few people to fan the initial spark before it explodes into flame; for some reason, this subforum doesn't usually require additional fanning, it just needs the spark.

Which may be a reason to carefully measure your own approach to these forums. You say that the best response is often to let 'edition warring' slide, and that is usually what I aim to do.

Sometimes, though, some posts are hard to let slide - usually posts that are not just critical, but outright present misinformation. That sort of thing only poisons the community further, and so will often receive a response to try and correct such false claims.

Unfortunately, your own posts often seem to fall into that category, as you have admitted to typically posting based on assumptions rather than actual knowledge of the situation. As in this thread - note that most of the the 'edition warring', etc, that truly emerged was in response to your own posts.

As for the article itself, to include that kind of material in any kind of detail in an official announcement at all, in any shape or form, was dumb and sloppy on WotC's part. It doesn't have any place in that kind of communication; the fact that WotC hasn't figured that out yet despite being an industry leader is what caught my eye, the exact content is largely unimportant in this case.

If my own posts fall into that, it's because I, like most people, want to get the information with as little work as possible, and the sad reality is I get more information out of those kinds of posts than when I tried to be ultra polite. I'm sorry if it's easier to start an argument than a debate, but that seems to be the only way to get much out of people here.


Malaclypse wrote:
Really? Great. Just recently you mentioned on this very forum that you hate 4E and that you consider yourself a foe of 4e. What made you change your mind?

I don't recall using those particular words, and if I did, it was probably in the context of the bigger picture, and not wanting the novel concepts to spread before we fully understand the full implications of them.

The Exchange

sunshadow21 wrote:
I respectfully disagree with that. I may not play any of WotC's products, but their position guarantees that people who don't play their product will be watching because their success or failure, and the reasons for it, will have a ripple effect that very few other companies in this industry will have. If DDI succeeds, that matters because other companies are more likely to consider that model; if it fails, other companies are less likely to consider it. Same with Essentials, the timing of their release schedule, and anything else that they do. You can't claim that WotC is still the industry leader and expect the only people to comment being those currently actively playing. I don't dislike WotC because they are WotC, I dislike their policies because while they work for WotC or Hasbro fine, I really don't want to see very many of them spread any farther because they would not be good for the industry as a whole. I come with no preconceived notions about the system, or even the effects it has on the industry, but when people disregard the potential negative aspects, especially in a fairly new system like 4E or when dealing with a large company like WotC, and think that only those directly effected has a right to speak up, I tend to get worried.

But that has little to do with this subforum. This subforum is about playing 4e. It very rarely touches on issues of broader Hasbro policy. And this thread has nothing to do with broader Hasbro policy either - it's about someone misquoting an anodyne article on the Wizards website and trying to make something out of it. So why are you here? At a very basic level, this sub-forum is not intended to be a place for industry-watchers, but for gamers who play 4e - a very different constituency.

So I think you are being disingenuous if you are suggesting that you watch this forum and contribute to it for insight into broader industry issues. It is fine to discuss games you don't play. It isn't fine to come up with the same old tropes that anyone who plays the game knows are false, and then attempt (repeatedly) to argue from a position of wilful ignorance, and to then expect to be taken seriously. And your talk of "potential negative aspects" really seems like a smokescreen for negative preconceptions rather than anything much to do with the future of gaming.

The Exchange

sunshadow21 wrote:
I respectfully disagree with that. I may not play any of WotC's products, but their position guarantees that people who don't play their product will be watching because their success or failure, and the reasons for it, will have a ripple effect that very few other companies in this industry will have. If DDI succeeds, that matters because other companies are more likely to consider that model; if it fails, other companies are less likely to consider it. Same with Essentials, the timing of their release schedule, and anything else that they do. You can't claim that WotC is still the industry leader and expect the only people to comment being those currently actively playing. I don't dislike WotC because they are WotC, I dislike their policies because while they work for WotC or Hasbro fine, I really don't want to see very many of them spread any farther because they would not be good for the industry as a whole. I come with no preconceived notions about the system, or even the effects it has on the industry, but when people disregard the potential negative aspects, especially in a fairly new system like 4E or when dealing with a large company like WotC, and think that only those directly effected has a right to speak up, I tend to get worried.

But that has little to do with this subforum. This subforum is about playing 4e. It very rarely touches on issues of broader Hasbro policy. And this thread has nothing to do with broader Hasbro policy either - it's about someone misquoting an anodyne article on the Wizards website and trying to make something out of it. So why are you here? At a very basic level, this sub-forum is not intended to be a place for industry-watchers, but for gamers who play 4e - a very different constituency.

So I think you are being disingenuous if you are suggesting that you watch this forum and contribute to it for insight into broader industry issues. It is fine to discuss games you don't play. It isn't fine to come up with the same old tropes that anyone who plays the game knows are false, and then attempt (repeatedly) to argue from a position of wilful ignorance, and to then expect to be taken seriously. And your talk of "potential negative aspects" really seems like a smokescreen for negative preconceptions rather than anything much to do with the future of gaming or the reality of 4e.

In fact, if you were genuinely interested in all of this stuff, you would be on the WotC forums.

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Part of me died a little inside... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.