Come on guys, the war is over. Who cares if any company succeeded or failed in whatever subjective perspective. We have a chance at playtesting the latest iteration of D&D AND the awesomeness that is Pathfinder. Even if you have no interest in either of these on the horizon, there's still new material coming out for 4e over the next year, and a complete 3e collection available. The edition war is over.
You'll almost never disprove an opinion. And even if you do, there's no prize for doing so.
Flag it and move on.
Bugleyman, your post was just an excellent lead in to make my point, I was really directing my comments towards Aubrey, not you, so I apologize that it appeared I was rebutting you.
But you are right, I have allowed myself to get into an argument where both sides are now more trying to make the other side look wrong than adding anything to the discussion.
I think the point has been made. Clearly there are those who won't accept the point no matter how clear it is.
Apologies again.
Just came back and looked at my post -- sorry for jumping down your throat there.
|
@ Adamantine Dragon: thought they did that when they made the fighter good at something, the rogue be effective in combat, remove save-or-die spells, and made other healing classes besides the trope cleric in 4E? Guess all the complaining I heard in the not so distant past about the game at the time was just all my imagination.Diffan, there have been numerous reports from 4e beta testers that WotC totally ignored their comments. Too numerous to ignore.
Except, of course, by you, Scott and other WotC apologists.
I haven't ignored it. In fact, I responded directly to it when it was brought up earlier.
The difference is that I gave it a bit of thought. When a tester provides feedback, they do so blind. They don't know what the sum total of data looks like. They only know what they themselves said. There are any number of reasons why a bunch of testers could provide feedback and request changes and not see those changes come to pass - perhaps many more groups provided opposing feedback, or perhaps the designers changed other aspects of the system in order to address an underlying issue rather than the superficial one the testers recognized. The reality is that the testers are not in any position to say whether or not their feedback was ignored.
It's like someone voting in a presidential election, and then whining, "They ignored my vote!" when the other candidate ends up winning. It's unbelievably arrogant to imagine that your personal feedback is so much more important that the hundreds of other testers out there. Provide good feedback, and accept that you are one voice among many and that you don't get to make unilateral decisions on what is or isn't right for the game.
Except this does not take into account the fact the Mike Mearls himself admitted that they pretty much ignored the playtest results. It's not, "They didn't make the changes I wanted, so they totally ignored my playtest comments." It is one of the designers saying, "Yeah, we ignored the playtest comments." That's a huge difference. One is an opinion. One is a fact.
|
Except this does not take into account the fact the Mike Mearls himself admitted that they pretty much ignored the playtest results. It's not, "They didn't make the changes I wanted, so they totally ignored my playtest comments." It is one of the designers saying, "Yeah, we ignored the playtest comments." That's a huge difference. One is an opinion. One is a fact.
Citation please
|
|
Here it is. It's directly from The Escapist article by Greg Tito
and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here it is. It's directly from The Escapist article by Greg Tito
... and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
So what you are saying is that you have no first person account of Mr. Mearls saying that, just hearsay evidence from an admittedly disgruntled member of the playtest group. That makes you case circumstantual at best. Do you have any other sources to back up this claim?
|
|
Forget what Tito said about his groups' feedback. Look at the part that says that Mike Mearls admitted that they ignored essentially all the feedback from the 4E play test, which means that Mike Mearls admitted it to Tito, or that Tito is deliberately lying, which I find hard to believe because it would be easy for him to be called out for doing so in an online article.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ack, I hate defending 4.x :P
Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
Two problems I have with this...
1) How do we know it is true? What documentation did the author get? Right now this is hearsay.
2) 'summarily ignored' My arguments to keep concentration a skill in PFRPG didn't get it kept. My arguing that Ninja is an archtype not worth a seperate class didn't make it so. Should I assume my input was summarily ignored? Or would it be more likely that it was read and decided that wasn't the route that the design team wanted to take.
What this is, is a 'he said she said' argument.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I develop math test items for ACT. Every item on the tests goes through at least three layers of outside content reviewers (active teachers in the subject area) and a round of field testing. If you like, you can think of these as playtesters.
We get a lot of comments in, and we collate those comments and track them. They end up part of each item's permanent banked history. But do we implement every suggestion? No. (In fact, there are some reviewers who rarely give us actionable feedback, but we use them because they provide an articulate representation of a particular position and because their advice, when it is useful, is advice that nobody else would ever give us.)
I'm not surprised that any one particular playtest group and its 30-page annotated list of suggestions didn't get all of its recommendations through. Given the significant changes between 3.5 and 4th Edition, I would guess that several playtesters might have been more conservative than the development team. 30 pages of "don't do that" aren't helpful in the particular.
Now if those 30 pages included "the probability equations behind skill challenges doesn't work", and the developers ignored that along with the rest of the feedback, that was unfortunate.
An article about the announcement of 5E is going to be scrutinized by everybody in the gaming community. Greg Tito is not going to risk his credibility by putting words in Mike Mearls' mouth.
Be that as it may, paraphrase != quotation. Blurring that line benefits no one.
Now if those 30 pages included "the probability equations behind skill challenges doesn't work", and the developers ignored that along with the rest of the feedback, that was unfortunate.
This is essentially what I believe happened. I didn't comment on the 4e team just randomly ignoring feedback. I was very clear that I had heard and seen comments from testers who specifically pointed out issues with 4e which I believe led to it's failure and that was ignored.
I don't care if they ignored meaningless stuff. My concern is that according to what I've heard, they ignored substantive stuff that ended up being the stuff they SHOULDN'T have ignored.
Of course even then there's still a "he said/she said" component to this. I haven't read the actual playtest reports, and no doubt there are some playtesters who originally provided glowing playtests with maybe a minor comment here and there who now claim to have beaten the designers bloody with their report...
But still, since the things that I think hurt 4e were readily apparent to me within an hour of playing the game, I put quite a bit of credibility in the comments that reports of those things were ignored. They are too obvious to have been missed. They HAD to have been ignored. The only other explanation is that the playtesters were as blind as the designers.
The thing with the math behind skill challenges was really, really bad. I'm no math whiz, but I can easily run the numbers in my head to figure out that was borked.
I did, and it looks really great. But I don't expect any content beyond those two boxes and I wouldn't want to play in that world. And I quite enjoyed a large number of the D&D books from all editions.I'm not a huge fan of any current iteration of D&D either. I'm enjoying Dragon Age right now, you might be interested in checking that out.
I'd buy that game because I don't really like any versions of D&D.
However, I dislike 3.5e and Pathfinder less than all other fantasy RPGs. If someone shows me something better than that, I am all for it. And the bar isn't really set that high. Being able to play a game as complex as 2nd Edition with based on the basic d20 system and it having decent official support would probably be all I want.
Kobold Quarterly has some great articles on Age, including an article in #13 from Chris Pramas giving Age backgrounds for Freeport. Open Design's forthcoming Midgard setting book will have a Age appendix with backgrounds, spells, and specializations. There's also an Age Midgard Bestiary from Open Design (Disclaimer: I contributed three of the monster conversions.) Josh Jarman's Dragon Hack has rules for Pathfinder races and classes in Age. There's a really good Mystara Dragon Age pdf. Not to mention that the playtest for Set 3 is coming.
I myself have no interest in the official Dragon Age world. But they game is a great framework for easy hacking. My next campaign will be Kingmaker set in Midgard using the Age rules. There may not be tons of support for Dragon Age, but there's quite a bit more than just the first two boxes.
He seems to be addressing the player's issues.
What about the GM. I do not like the 4e style of adventuring. I don't like the powers. I don't like the attempt at hyper balance. I don't want to run a game like that.
So I have some players wanting 2e style characters, and a few that want 3rd edition style, now comes the guy who wnats a 4e style character.
I am sure it will be addressed, but if I do not want the 4e power mechanics in the game now I have by default just excluded a portion of the player community.
If the solution is well they are there if the player wants them, so run them, well I have Pathfinder now so no thankyou.
I am finding myslef incredulous that you can have a DM running ONE game that accomodates all styles of edition play. If on the other hand the GM can choose the edition style he wishes to play will that be supported?
Imagine something of the quality of the 3rd edition forgotten realms book. The fluff of course could be unchanged, but now comes the crunch. I imagine several pages added to that.
Further, what about support? If I choose the 1st edition style of play, will that have supplement support? Will I have to convert? Ignore?
Diffan also brought up a good point above, I am happy with my players 1st ed style ranger. Now he sees that johnny's ranger is alot cooler and chooses those options.
It just seems like they make a skeleton with add ons. It might lead to unity but I wonder what it will cost in quality of support material. What if you are into organized play? How will you be able to maintain the game that you want to play?
If Paizo was not in the field, I would really be looking forward to this. Now I have a game I liked as much as 1st through 3rd, I am over the D&D 'Brand' name so that Pathfinder and D&D are interchangeable. Inorder for me to lend my hobby dollars to WOTC they have to release something far above standard. I find this hard to beleive with an edition of "go ahead and choose." It seems like one style will be the norm, and the rest are just kind of token support.
Like in the 2e days you technically had support for greyhawk. If you were a fan of greyhawk you took a backseat to Forgotten Realms.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The thing with the math behind skill challenges was really, really bad. I'm no math whiz, but I can easily run the numbers in my head to figure out that was borked.
I can tell you that the playtest group I was in never got a copy of the skill challenge rules to test. We only got stuff from the PHB and prewritten adventures that did not include skill challenges. I make no claim that this is true for all groups, obviously.
I am finding myslef incredulous that you can have a DM running ONE game that accomodates all styles of edition play. If on the other hand the GM can choose the edition style he wishes to play will that be supported?
I assume, as with every RPG ever produced, the GM will be free to add, remove, or adjust things to their taste. When a group comes together, they've got to have a consensus about what style of game they want to play. I can run a combat heavy dungeon crawl which would bore some types of players. I can run a high drama courtly game that would bore others. System doesn't matter.
They are saying they want to give the tools to allow a lot of different kinds of games. I will remain cautiously optimistic until I see they playtest information.
As it is, I've already seen a game with simple characters next to complex characters. Open up your classic Basic D&D box and compare the rules for fighters with the rules for wizards.
I can tell you that the playtest group I was in never got a copy of the skill challenge rules to test. We only got stuff from the PHB and prewritten adventures that did not include skill challenges. I make no claim that this is true for all groups, obviously.
Wouldn't shock me if it were -- something that egregious seems unlikely to have made it through playtesting.
The goal of any RPG is to be successful based on popularity, or by the failure of other games. I think everyone agrees 4E was not a smashing success, so either WOTC ignores that lesson, or embraces it to review what can be improved. Since WOTC owns the D&D license, there is no reason they can not look at every version of D&D. Where WOTC went a little to far with 4E to abandon previous editions of D&D, Paizo did not do enough to remove the failings of 3.5. So I will call it even, until I see the next version of D&D.
|
|
Forget what Tito said about his groups' feedback. Look at the part that says that Mike Mearls admitted that they ignored essentially all the feedback from the 4E play test, which means that Mike Mearls admitted it to Tito, or that Tito is deliberately lying, which I find hard to believe because it would be easy for him to be called out for doing so in an online article.
Actually there is a third option that you are missing, that Mike said something to Tito and that Tito took it to mean that he was saying that they ignored the playtest input. This is actually the most likely scenario.
Forget what Tito said about his groups' feedback. Look at the part that says that Mike Mearls admitted that they ignored essentially all the feedback from the 4E play test, which means that Mike Mearls admitted it to Tito, or that Tito is deliberately lying, which I find hard to believe because it would be easy for him to be called out for doing so in an online article.Actually there is a third option that you are missing, that Mike said something to Tito and that Tito took it to mean that he was saying that they ignored the playtest input. This is actually the most likely scenario.
Then by now there should have been a retraction or a correction. In the absence of such, and the high visibility of the conversation, I'll conclude that Mike Mearls said something that could be reasonably interpreted as them paying little attention to playtest results, and Tito reported it in such a way that Mike Mearls feels no need to clarify his intention, suggesting that it is accurate enough to not require clarification.
That seems by far the most likely scenario.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then by now there should have been a retraction or a correction. In the absence of such, and the high visibility of the conversation, I'll conclude that Mike Mearls said something that could be reasonably interpreted as them paying little attention to playtest results, and Tito reported it in such a way that Mike Mearls feels no need to clarify his intention, suggesting that it is accurate enough to not require clarification.
That seems by far the most likely scenario.
I don't believe anyone is going to begrudge you your decision to interpret matters however you prefer. On the other hand, if you expect others to accept that interpretation as empirical evidence (which you seem to), I'd prepare for disappointment.
TLDR: Hearsay is hearsay.
So I have some players wanting 2e style characters, and a few that want 3rd edition style, now comes the guy who wnats a 4e style character.
I am sure it will be addressed, but if I do not want the 4e power mechanics in the game now I have by default just excluded a portion of the player community.
If the solution is well they are there if the player wants them, so run them, well I have Pathfinder now so no thankyou.
Is it really such a big deal to let a player play a character with 4e-style powers? Assuming that the character "works" at the same table with everyone else's character, what's the problem?
Sooooo.......does this mean we'll to have to buy the 2e books if we want to add the 2e 'module' to gameplay? Same for 1e, 4e, AD&D, ect?.....
No, it just means that Cook should just shut up and leave the talking to Mearls.
5th Edition will not be compatible with any other edition. It is its own set of rules that have optional rules which you can select from to make your game more similar to a 2nd Edition, or a 3rd Edition, or a 4th Edition in regard how much effort character creation and combat takes.
When Mearls explains things, it makes perfectly sense. When Cook is trying to get people exited, he's just talking stupid things that make people get distorted impressions.
I don't believe anyone is going to begrudge you your decision to interpret matters however you prefer. On the other hand, if you expect others to accept that interpretation as empirical evidence (which you seem to), I'd prepare for disappointment.
TLDR: Hearsay is hearsay.
How are you interpreting "by far the likeliest explanation" as "I was there, saw it and it is empirical fact!"
When someone is quoted or statements are attributed to them in the press, and they don't challenge them, then they either don't care (think of the implications of that one) or they don't feel they are inaccurate enough to challenge.
You disagree?
How are you interpreting "by far the likeliest explanation" as "I was there, saw it and it is empirical fact!"
When someone is quoted or statements are attributed to them in the press, and they don't challenge them, then they either don't care (think of the implications of that one) or they don't feel they are inaccurate enough to challenge.
You disagree?
The claim was made that Mearls said something. However, the actual quotation offered in evidence was of someone else saying that Mearls said something. That's the definition of hearsay.
Speculation about why Mearls didn't challenge what was written is irrelevant.
I've always been wary of Mr. Cook since the, in my opinion, god awful McWOD. I'm a fan of the White Wolf games, not of that... thing.
McWOD sounds like a new McDonald's sandwich. :P
I've always been wary of Mr. Cook since the, in my opinion, god awful McWOD. I'm a fan of the White Wolf games, not of that... thing.
I don't really take anything from him since he explained the existance of awful feats in 3rd Edition as that they did them make awful on purpose to reward players who figure that out and avoid them.
Who was he trying to fool?
Monte Cook's World of Darkness (McWoD) :)
Ah, yes...I sorta guessed from context, but I haven't read it -- honestly it seemed rather pointless to me.
Speculation about why Mearls didn't challenge what was written is irrelevant.
So, I can't decide what is "more likely" but you get to decide what is "irrelevant".
I don't think so bugleyman.
It's relevant. Mearls was interviewed. He said things. He knows that what he said was reported on and published to the audience he is supposed to be designing a game for. And you think it's irrelevant to speculate on what he said or meant?
So why was he interviewed again? Since what he says or means is, you know, "irrelevant" after all.
Oh, and what someone publishes in an article is not "hearsay". It's "reporting." Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is "irrelevant" too?
Speculation about why Mearls didn't challenge what was written is irrelevant.So, I can't decide what is "more likely" but you get to decide what is "irrelevant".
I don't think so bugleyman.
It's relevant. Mearls was interviewed. He said things. He knows that what he said was reported on and published to the audience he is supposed to be designing a game for. And you think it's irrelevant to speculate on what he said or meant?
So why was he interviewed again? Since what he says or means is, you know, "irrelevant" after all.
Oh, and what someone publishes in an article is not "hearsay". It's "reporting." Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is "irrelevant" too?
Given how "so-and-so said _____" takes on a life of it's own in gamer circles, I believe the distinction between "quotation" and "hearsay" is important. You are free to disagree, but i have no more to say on the topic.
Given how "so-and-so said _____" takes on a life of it's own in gamer circles, I believe the distinction between "quotation" and "hearsay" is important. You are free to disagree, but i have no more to say on the topic.
Well, I've got one more thing then.
You assert that this is "hearsay" vs "quotation." I disagree completely. When a reporter writes an interview article in a publication and attributes a statement to the interviewee, then if that interviewee did not say what was attributed this is not "hearsay" this is a fundamental violation of the reporter's ethics and a blow against that publication's credibility.
It is not some guy in a bar saying "I ran into Mike Mearls." It was a reporter writing an article for a publication that presumably adheres to something called "journalistic standards."
What you say, if true, essentially destroys the entire concept of reporting and reduces it to man-in-the-street commentary.
The simple fact that this is being discussed so much on boards like this proves how relevant the article is.
It is not some guy in a bar saying "I ran into Mike Mearls." It was a reporter writing an article for a publication that presumably adheres to something called "journalistic standards."
Except isn't the quote in question not from Mike Mearls, but a quote from a third person talking about him?
If there is some other quote under discussion, I may have missed it.
|
|
Well, I've got one more thing then.
You assert that this is "hearsay" vs "quotation." I disagree completely. When a reporter writes an interview article in a publication and attributes a statement to the interviewee, then if that interviewee did not say what was attributed this is not "hearsay" this is a fundamental violation of the reporter's ethics and a blow against that publication's credibility.
It is not some guy in a bar saying "I ran into Mike Mearls." It was a reporter writing an article for a publication that presumably adheres to something called "journalistic standards."
What you say, if true, essentially destroys the entire concept of reporting and reduces it to man-in-the-street commentary.
The simple fact that this is being discussed so much on boards like this proves how relevant the article is.
I have not seen the article in question, but the excerpt that was printed as evidence did not appear to be out of an interview article. Greg Tito said that his group's input was summarly ignored and the Mike Mearls said that this was the case for most of the feedback. He did not present a first person account of Mike saying that he just asserted that it was something that he said. It really as the journalistic equivalent of saying "hey I just met Mike in a bar and guess what he said." If you or the original person who metioned the article would like to post a link to it, I would be happy to read it and reevaluate my position based on the context. However, at this point is is the textbook legal definition of hearsay and should be treated as such. As for why Mike Mearls did not dispute it, maybe he never saw the article or maybe he did dispute it and you did not see that article. The on-line gaming press is a big place and even someone as parinoid as Kevin Semida cannot see everything written about them. Guys like mike Mike Mearls are too busy trying to design games that they hope we will all enjoy to constantly police the internet looking for every instance of someone saying that they said something.
Here is the paragraph from Greg Tito's article on his interview with Mike Mearls:
Previous editions of the game had play testing periods, but Wizards restricted access to freelancers or those connected to the company and those tests were ineffectual at best. I was in a play testing group for 4th edition back in 2007, and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
The article in question is online here:
It took me a single google search (on "Greg Tito Mike Mearls Interview Playtest") to find it.
This is not some barroom conversation related over a beer to a stranger.
This is an interview, by a reporter published in a magazine that presumably believes it has some journalistic standards. The bolded, italicized section above is known in journalistic lingo as an "attribution" meaning that it is a paraphrase of what the attributed person said. There is no logical or literary difference between "admitted" and "said". In fact "admitted" implies that Mearls was directly challenged on the point and explicitly admitted it occurred.
I'm done with this. You either understand the difference between attribution and hearsay or you don't. You either acknowledge the importance of journalistic integrity and credibility or you don't.
Either Mike Mearls publicly said, in an interview he knew would be relayed back to RPG fans that WotC ignored playtester feedback or Greg Tito is a hack with no journalistic ethics and Mike Mearls has a legitimate case of libel on his hands.
Believe what you like.
|
|
I develop math test items for ACT. Every item on the tests goes through at least three layers of outside content reviewers (active teachers in the subject area) and a round of field testing. If you like, you can think of these as playtesters.
We get a lot of comments in, and we collate those comments and track them. They end up part of each item's permanent banked history. But do we implement every suggestion? No. (In fact, there are some reviewers who rarely give us actionable feedback, but we use them because they provide an articulate representation of a particular position and because their advice, when it is useful, is advice that nobody else would ever give us.)
I'm not surprised that any one particular playtest group and its 30-page annotated list of suggestions didn't get all of its recommendations through. Given the significant changes between 3.5 and 4th Edition, I would guess that several playtesters might have been more conservative than the development team. 30 pages of "don't do that" aren't helpful in the particular.
Now if those 30 pages included "the probability equations behind skill challenges doesn't work", and the developers ignored that along with the rest of the feedback, that was unfortunate.
I guess you haven't been listening. This isn't one group upset about their play test feedback being ignored. This is a designer admitting that essentially all the play test feedback was ignored.
|
|
Forget what Tito said about his groups' feedback. Look at the part that says that Mike Mearls admitted that they ignored essentially all the feedback from the 4E play test, which means that Mike Mearls admitted it to Tito, or that Tito is deliberately lying, which I find hard to believe because it would be easy for him to be called out for doing so in an online article.Actually there is a third option that you are missing, that Mike said something to Tito and that Tito took it to mean that he was saying that they ignored the play test input. This is actually the most likely scenario.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Like adamantine dragon, I could tell from the first time I played it, that 4E had some major issues. The insane length of combat encounters was the first thing that jumped out at me. I can't see how that was overlooked by play testers. I think it's not too hard too imagine that they had lots of complaints about this and several other major components of the game, and instead of doing something to fix it, they just turned a blind eye to it. They may have had good reasons to do so, like the deadline to release 4E, but it still seems like they missed a huge opportunity to make 4E a better game, and for one reason or another didn't act on it. They are acting like they learned their lesson. I hope they truly did.
|
|
The article in question is online here:
It took me a single google search (on "Greg Tito Mike Mearls Interview Playtest") to find it.
Okay lets start with this. In a forum such as this, if you put a statement out there and say it was from such and such an article, the burden is on you to provide the source. That is why most scholarly journals and all courts will reject any unsourced material. In persuasive writing the onus is on the persuader to provide the evidence; it is not on the pursuaded to go an find it.
This is not some barroom conversation related over a beer to a stranger.
This is an interview, by a reporter published in a magazine that presumably believes it has some journalistic standards. The bolded, italicized section above is known in journalistic lingo as an "attribution" meaning that it is a paraphrase of what the attributed person said. There is no logical or literary difference between "admitted" and "said". In fact "admitted" implies that Mearls was directly challenged on the point and explicitly admitted it occurred.
No it is not an interview, and it never claims to be one. In fact Greg Tito says that the discussion he had with Mike Mearls occurred while they were sitting around playing a game of D&D. How is that not the equivalent of sitting around the bar having some beers? More to the point, the article is billed as an editorial. An editorial is, by definition, a statement of the author or editorial board's opinion on something. And this smacks of opinion in it's purest form. As for there being no difference between saying the Mike Mearls said something and that he admitted something, take one fact into consideration. Every other statement attributed to Mike Mearls is accompanied by a direct quote. We have Mike Mearls actual words. However, in this one instance we do not we are only told that he admitted to something but we are not told what he actually said. Considering the format the rest of the article takes that is odd, and it would be even more odd if it were an interview.
I'm done with this. You either understand the difference between attribution and hearsay or you don't. You either acknowledge the importance of journalistic integrity and credibility or you don't.
I do understand the difference, and I do acknowledge the importance, but I also realize that this does not exceed the threshold of hearsay. In fact, if we were in court, the statement in question would not be allowed because Mike Mearls is not present for cross examination or to defend himself and we do not have his exact words before the tribunal.
Either Mike Mearls publicly said, in an interview he knew would be relayed back to RPG fans that WotC ignored playtester feedback or Greg Tito is a hack with no journalistic ethics and Mike Mearls has a legitimate case of libel on his hands.
Believe what you like.
Actually, no he doesn't. Because Mike Mearls is a public figure and the article was an opinion piece, which by definition editorials are, he could not sue for libel unless he could prove actual malice within the context of the statement. Without the ability to prove that this was anything other then the grumbling of someone who took a statement out of context, but believed the interpretation to be true, there can be no libel. Moreover, there is arguably no damage to Mike Mearls reputation or the reputation of WoTC from the statement since most people made up their minds about 4th Edition long before 11 days ago. Anyway, I am done beating a dead horse. Haters gotta hate and I am not gonna convince you to change your point of view.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there, folks.
Greg Tito was one of the playtesters for 4th Edition. His group sent in playtest feedback. The feedback wasn't used. Mike Mearls said something, somewhere, either in person or in writing, that got back to Tito and that suggested to Tito that the development team for 4th Edition didn't use any playtest advice.
(Did Mike say it to Greg when Greg was touring Wizards? He doesn't say.)
Greg wrote an article for the Escapist on the new playtesting for the edition under development, and passed along this belief about 4th Edition's playtest.
This wasn't an interview with Mike Mearls. Greg isn't a reporter, bound with journalistic ethics to make sure that his facts are correctly double-sourced. If the Escapist is in any way analogous to a newspaper, Greg's article functions like an editorial.
When Greg reports that his group delivered a 30-page playtest report, that's not hearsay. That's reliable testimony.
But Greg never gives a source where Mike's words might be read, or when Mike explained this in a panel or a private conversation. That's what makes it hearsay. It may be even less than that, just rumor; Greg never asserts that Mike Mearls told him anything first hand.
Peace rest on you all.
However, in attributing that statement to Mike, Greg is subjecting himself to legal issues were Mike to see it and insist he did not say so. That, I believe, is the point that others are making about "legal" -- not in terms of whether it's acceptable testimony, but rather, the fact that you can't publish "Bob admitted x" if Bob didn't actually do so without being guilty of libel.
I can believe that the bulk of the playtest data wasn't used. Truth is, it doesn't matter.
First, that stage of playtesting was late in the process. So the basic structure was already set. They weren't looking for feedback that told them to restructure the whole system. They are looking for tweaks. Is this power doing a little too much damage? Is this monster too hard for its level? Is there a typo? That sort of stuff.
Here's a secret: Paizo only uses a fraction of the playtest information it gets. Public playtests generate a lot of data. In the end, the designer still has to make tough design decisions. Some of those decisions will be counter to the majority opinion of the playtesters (see Ninja, Gunslinger, etc.) That's just the way the development process goes.
This time around, they are going to gather a lot more playtest data earlier in the process. That seems like a good step to me.
see Ninja, Gunslinger...
Must I?
*rimshot*
|
|
I don't think anyone expected them to use all the play test information they got or essentially have the entire game based on play test data. It would have been nice, and probably better for the game and WotC's bottom line to at least take the play test data into consideration and make the appropriate changes based on that. To say, "Here play test this and tell us what you think.", and then completely ignore that input is useless. It reeks of a lame PR stunt just so they could claim they play tested the game.
An interesting article, but IMO the author does come off as a bit of hack by the way he reads things into some WotC statements that don't seem there at all.
For example, in the article he quotes Mearls as saying, "This project has one goal - to create a base set of rules that cover the entire breadth of D&D's history," "We want a game that anyone who has played any version of D&D can recognize as D&D and find the things that drew them into the hobby celebrated and supported."
From that the author somehow gets, "For the first time, the creators of D&D are setting out to create a role playing system that is compatible with - and takes inspiration from - every previous edition of the game."
Nowhere has Mike Mearls said that the new version will be compatible with previous versions of the game. Suggesting that is the case IMO is really misinterpreting his words.
Or later in the article he again quotes Mearls,
"We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition."
Then the author says, "In other words, Wizards vows it's not replacing 4th edition, but merely adding another layer of rules that will cater to the people unhappy with the latest edition's changes."
How do you get "vows it's not replacing 4E" from "exploring ideas for conversion tools" ???
All I can say is that WotC better be smart and get some actual real info out about the new system ASAP because articles like that don't do much other than spread misinformation and build up unwarranted expectations that won't be met.
Here is the paragraph from Greg Tito's article on his interview with Mike Mearls:
Previous editions of the game had play testing periods, but Wizards restricted access to freelancers or those connected to the company and those tests were ineffectual at best. I was in a play testing group for 4th edition back in 2007, and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.The article in question is online here:
It took me a single google search (on "Greg Tito Mike Mearls Interview Playtest") to find it.
This is not some barroom conversation related over a beer to a stranger.
This is an interview, by a reporter published in a magazine that presumably believes it has some journalistic standards. The bolded, italicized section above is known in journalistic lingo as an "attribution" meaning that it is a paraphrase of what the attributed person said. There is no logical or literary difference between "admitted" and "said". In fact "admitted" implies that Mearls was directly challenged on the point and explicitly admitted it occurred.
I'm done with this. You either understand the difference between attribution and hearsay or you don't. You either acknowledge the importance of journalistic integrity and credibility or you don't.
Either Mike Mearls publicly said, in an interview he knew would be relayed back to RPG fans that WotC ignored playtester feedback or Greg Tito is a hack with no journalistic ethics and Mike Mearls has a...
More info about the game will be coming out at the Expo. They're letting us stew with few tidbits thrown out.
Their goal seems to be to allow the guy who doesn't want a lot of extra bells and whistles to play at the same table with a guy running a more complex character and still have them balanced (maybe kind of like an essentials vs non essentials 4E character).
It sounds nice enough, but I have a lot of difficulty imagining how this game would actually look in play. I'm looking forward to seeing how they attempt to pull it off.
I can't help but think of the expression, "If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one." If fear with this new version of the game that is what might happen. At least with 4E they had the guts to design as a system that is much different than the previous one. Sure a lot of people hate it, but the people that do like seem to like it a lot.
I think it's possible IF one player is fine knowing that he'll be simple and not flashy (if that's their thing) yet can still contribute. If players are looking for that simplicity, it stands to reason that they're not looking to be super complex or feel compelled to use all sorts of bloated rules like Feats, Powers, Skills and just enjoy the story with their small amount of options.
Where I see this being the BIGGEST problem is for DMs and having to cope with varying players of varying options with varying outcomes and trying to remain within the "mean" of those options. These alternative options are easy enought to incorporate with published adventures, yet not entirely true with homebrew ones. Imagine this: The PCs come up to a locked door. They'll be a small side note saying~ "If the players have skills, they can use Open Lock/Thivery. If they don't, and you have X race, they can use this feature. If they don't have skills or that race, then they can use X-spell found in page Y of the PHB. If they lack all of these aspects, put a Monster of level X in front of the door as guardian and make them solve this riddle with no mechanical requirement..." WTF is that? And how does a DM go...
I don't think a competent GM will have much trouble with this.
When I was stationed in Germany I ran an ongoing game with several people from my unit (some who outranked me, others whom i outranked). The campaign was written for AD&D 2E, but we had some old 1E and OD&D players that wanted to play their way, and i had some skills and powers folks.
So when it came down to it, some of the guys rolled their d20 and added some numbers to it, while others rolled and tried to get less than the relevant ability score.
In the end, it was ultimately up to the DM to adjudicate action and determine results, and possibly convert rulings.