4e / GSL The Impasse

[Shazman]

I am not as naive as you think. I know that the corporations didn't create the economic crisis, but they sure haven't helped it. I have nothing against them making money. It's the means they use to get that money that I question. As you said, the focus on short term profits at the expense of everything else seems to be the current trend in corporate culture these days. In the end, it gives the CEOs some fat bonuses, but hurts everyone else. It ends up hurting the customer, the company, and the shareholders. Of course, the CEOs don't care about the economic destruction they cause because they have a golden parachute they can count on no matter how bad they mess things up. There seems to be no accountability for their actions. The problem I have with WotC/Hasbro is that they seem consumed with getting the short term profits of a new edition without regard for what it does to the game, the customers, or the company in the long run. D&D is different from most prodcuts. It is a game many people are passionate about. It has history and traditions that many players believe should be respected. WotC trambled all over that to get some WOW addicts to try their game for a short term increase in sales. That is what has angered a lot of D&D fans such as myself.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Fenes

The age-old (often subconscious, maybe genetic) wish to "follow the leader". You see it all around us - from fashion trends driven by stars to religious and political figures who can do no wrong in the eyes of their followers.
There's also the "group effect" you often see in families - you may think your father is a stubborn old fool, but you'll not accept an "outsider" call him that, and defend him.
Then, once something you like gets critiqued by someone you feel not close to - like a member of your "group" - it's hard not to slip into "full defense" mode.
And then the "he started it" effect comes up - people oppose criticsm because it's voiced by someone who fought them in the past, and they want to strike back. Bloodfeuds in olden times, internet grudges today.
I'd say humans are naturally driven to blindly defend things, and it takes work to remain objective and impartial towards something one likes, seeing their faults as well as their qualities, when others attack it.



Very common.

Originally Posted by Nymrohd

I'd say they are not so common here, though certainly common elsewhere. Certainly there will be people who use the "blind defender" card to ostensibly disqualify someone's arguments (call them "blind opposers"?). Doesn't change the fact that this behaviour exists. As for motivation, there is a sense of security in advocating what is sanctioned and official, one might be prompted to reactively defend anything that is attacked by people he percieves as separatists because he is predisposed to conservative thinking. It is a common pattern we are all familiar with, but maybe we are not apt or willing to identify it within our shared community. I am sure anyone with a degree in psychology or sociology can give you exact terms.

I would try to simplify this process in just the group effect. Groups create conflict and conflict creates the standards or leaders of each group. Yet the fighting ground is one. So it seems that we are destined to struggle, it is a natural law or something. The question or the problem is that we learn to choose the right battles. The battles for the less negative consequences possible for all of us.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

Er. You're being a bit naive here, I think.

It depends from the POV. An economic "system" may be considered something mechanic, something considered as a machine and corporations just a part of such system in the current capitalist economy. There are also various different mechanical structures or "machines" that can logically work. I am saying that in theory there are various economic systems.
Can they work perfectly from theory to practice? It highly depends on the conditions we are facing. Could they ever enter an auto-pilot and function in perpetuity? I highly doubt so. So what it remains to think about is the morality of the system itself. What kind of morality it looks like it needs or aspires to as its driving force.

[Rechan]

This is really getting off topic.

[tenkar]

Originally Posted by Rechan

This is really getting off topic.

I thought the topic was about marijuana smoking evil companies that overextended on loans and employed Golden Wyverns riden by Blind Defenders. Its not!?!

Damn...

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by tenkar

I thought the topic was about marijuana smoking evil companies that overextended on loans and employed Golden Wyverns riden by Blind Defenders. Its not!?!

Damn...

It might make a fine house rule.

[avin]

Originally Posted by Jack99

I think it has to do with a belief that gaming companies should exist only to make games for us, not to make money.

/Disagree.

Making money is one thing. Making money releasing poor products such as MM4E (compare it to MM3.5) is bad. Promising "INCREASED PAINTSTEPS" miniatures when reducing numbers and raising prices, showing an excellent Goliath then releasing a GREEN CRAP (sorry DDM guys, that Goliath is crap compared to what you showed before) it's insulting.

Defending that kind of decision is nonsense

[Shazman]

Edited. Refer to following post.

[Shazman]

Thank you Avin. Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous. Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended. Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended. Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended. Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended. Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended. Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming, or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended. Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended. Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended. In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.

[Burrito Al Pastor]

I like how all the people yelling "Blind defenders!" have an axe to grind about 4e.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Thank you Avin. Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous. Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended. Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended. Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended. Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended. Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended. Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming, or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended. Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended. Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended. In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.

Good thing that nothing in this wall of text happened then.

[avin]

Originally Posted by Shazman

In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.

Now it's my turn to disagree with you hehehe...

Fourth edition is a matter of taste, like it or not. Things such as Character Builder and Compendium should have been done for 3.5 era, so I can't agree that all that has been made is silly.

It is not.

PS. Wall of text crits you for 587359832479 damage hehehe

[Shazman]

Originally Posted by Jack99

Good thing that nothing in this wall of text happened then.

Really? If you believe that, then I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona and recommend you invest with a guy named Bernard Maedoff.

[Kamikaze Midget]

One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to "blindly" agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising. How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?

Well, that's probably because a lot of MMORPG fans (especially on the internet) make a lot of D&D fans seem like calm, rational, reasonable human beings. Being Blizzard's contact to the WoW forums has to be a much rougher job than even the craziest stuff the folks at WotC like The Rouse need to put up with.

I think some of the threads have put their finger on the issue: this is DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. If we were talking about Conan 2e or True20 or Mutants and Masterminds, then I don't think people would really be as bothered either way. But, this is the game that many of us grew up playing. for most of us, this was our first rpg. This is also THE rpg in pop culture. Most people don't know anything about roleplaying games, but they know DnD. So, when we see DnD go through some changes it becomes much more personal because we have much more invested in it.

I think this gets at it. For me, D&D isn't a tremendously emotional issue (but it is a very interesting one), but I think for a lot of fans it is.

I think one of the issues is that some people are associating DnD with WotC and some are not. I think those that associate DnD with WotC (whether consciously or not) are the ones that defend WotC the most adamantly even when WotC actions negatively affect them (albeit perhaps in minor ways). However, the folks who do not associate WotC with DnD (and I'm one of them) believe that the game or something like it would exist if WotC disappeared tomorrow. This belief may or may not be true, but I think it is what some people believe.

D&D is not inextricably tied to WotC or Hasbro or even books with "Dungeons & Dragons" logos on the cover. It's got its own deal.

So, I think many of these discussions related to WotC corporate decisions and edition wars are just people talking past each other. If you love DnD and you believe that DnD can't exist without WotC, then of course you have to love WotC too. However, if you love DnD and you believe that it is YOUR game and not theirs, then WotC is merely a custodian of a legacy. And, if you believe that the custodian is no longer acting in the best interest of DnD, then it must be time for a new custodian.

Eh...I'm not the biggest fan of 4e, but WotC has done a pretty awesome job of giving the game new life after 2e wound to a close. Which gives them bonus brownie points, even if I've got some problems with the direction they're taking currently.

This might seem like nothing more than mental masturbation, but I feel that it is important to understand someone's perspective when getting in these kinds of discussions which can sometimes get heated. And, my guess this is why some people will never be convinced one way or another.

For the record, I think associating D&D with WotC and defending all WotC actions is as narrow minded and sycophantic as criticizing WotC at every opportunity and claiming that what they're doing rejects the tradition of the game.

There's ample middle ground for rational people to disagree, here. Irrational mania on either extreme is just counter-productive to an actual conversation about the game.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Thank you Avin. Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous. Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended. Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended. Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended. Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended. Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended. Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming, or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended. Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended. Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended. In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.

Its goofiness like this that makes people who might like 4e think "WTF???" and be labeled as "blind defenders" when they try to dispute these apparently handed-down-from-on-high opinions. Think about it, if people with an axe to grind against 4e (the "blind attackers") didn't spew nonsense and vitriol, the "blind defenders" wouldn't have to defend anything.

Some of the complaints against 4e are pure BS. Things like "its an MMO", "4e is only a minis battlegame", "its impossible to roleplay in 4e", or "WotC destroyed what made it D&D" is patently untrue. If you truly believe these things, then I submit the problem and limitation isn't with the system, but with the player/DM. I have 9 months of story-rich, heavy RP with 4e to refute those arguements, so who is right? The answer? Neither of us. The game is what it is- its how the DM and players use the game that determines what it can be, and some systems appeal more to certain playstyles than others. I prefer a more freeform, less rules-regimented approach to gaming, so for me and my group, 3e was an inferior system that got in the way of playing due to system mastery and emphasis on builds. Other people might like the regimented nature of 3e, and find 4e's philosophy on gaming to be too "out there" for them to embrace.

Some aspects of 4e weren't handled as well as they should have been. WotC could have been more diplomatic in their marketing of the game, and explained the logic behind the new game design better to make current players more at ease. But 4e is a step forward in terms of being mechanically solid, conceptually and mechanically innovative, and modular- the system has a lot more potential than any previous version of D&D has if WotC decides to pursue it. And WotC has been VERY good at admitting mistakes and keeping up to date with errata and correcting those mistakes as they happen in 4e, in contrast to 3e, where the system was extremely broken right on release, and we got a complete revision of the game three years later. Also, while it was delayed, the DDI, the electronic magazines, character builder, and compendium are top-notch products and worth every penny- 3e should have been so lucky to be supported this well by WotC.

In the end, like or dislike of a game isn't an empirical or objective situation- its entirely subjective. 4e isn't perfect (no game is), but its also not going to cause the destruction of the hobby, and it doesn't deserve the vemon spewed at it and those who play it by bitter malcontents. For me and my group, 4e is an awesome game, and far more fun for us than 3e ever dreamed of being. Others may disagree with my opinion, and they are entitled to their own beliefs. Play whatever you like, but trying to stir up trouble and dictate "badwrongfun" is small-minded, pointless, and ultimately more stress and worry than its worth.

[GMforPowergamers]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Thank you Avin. Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous.

so is blindly bashing it...luckly I have my eyes wide open when I defend them...

Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended.

I still see a wonderfully rich diverse ropeplaying game...I just don't miss the 'tradition' of things just becuse they were always this way...(Example: fighters can't go toe to toe with wizards after level 8)

Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended.

so you would perfer they not listen, and learn...you want them to only produce perfection, or leave it as is??? I am not understanding this one bit...errata is fixing things so they work as intended...

Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended.

I will onlly say this...I like the new realms...but I wasn't a fan of the old one...

Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended.

agreed...they should have made no comments instead of lying..

Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended.

I like the new e mags better then I have likes the paper ones in 5 or 6 years...although late 80's through mid 90's dragons are my fav

Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming,

that is not insulting

or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended.

that is not what they said...they said you shouldn't have to spend resources that can be spent on useful things on RP only things...it creates a TAX on roleplayers and divides the fans...it is better if we keep RP and flavor away from costing usefulness...
Now if you disagree that is fine...but they didn't insult you...

Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended.

I would perfer for prices to never go up too, but I don't think that will ever happen...

Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended.

I am not to happy with that eaither...

In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.

In short, bashing all of WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly

[Shazman]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

so is blindly bashing it...luckly I have my eyes wide open when I defend them...





I still see a wonderfully rich diverse ropeplaying game...I just don't miss the 'tradition' of things just becuse they were always this way...(Example: fighters can't go toe to toe with wizards after level 8)

If the fighter and the wizard, start the fight in close proximity without the wizard buffing in advance, the wizard is toast.


so you would perfer they not listen, and learn...you want them to only produce perfection, or leave it as is??? I am not understanding this one bit...errata is fixing things so they work as intended...

No. I actually expect the to have some degree of competence in publishing RPG material, and to actually have playtested said material as thoroughly as they claimed they did.



I will onlly say this...I like the new realms...but I wasn't a fan of the old one...

I despise it, and don't even want to read Realms novels anymore. The last two I've read mention the Spellplague and makes me lose my desire to ever read Realms novels again.


agreed...they should have made no comments instead of lying..


I like the new e mags better then I have likes the paper ones in 5 or 6 years...although late 80's through mid 90's dragons are my fav

that is not insulting



that is not what they said...they said you shouldn't have to spend resources that can be spent on useful things on RP only things...it creates a TAX on roleplayers and divides the fans...it is better if we keep RP and flavor away from costing usefulness...

They did say that if you used profession and craft skill in your game, then your game probably isn't that much fun. That wasn't just in a blog. That is in print in their 4E preview book: Races and Classes. I have the book, so please don't insult me by saying they didn't say that. They were actually so arrogant and disrespectful that they put it in print. They weren't saying that PC's shouldn't have a tax for roleplayers. They were saying that if you actually role played enough in a D&D game to care about background skills, then your game probably wasn't much fun. It doesn't get much more insulting than that.

Now if you disagree that is fine...but they didn't insult you...

I would perfer for prices to never go up too, but I don't think that will ever happen...

I understand the need to raise prices, but they should at least make the attempt to maintain quality instead of letting it slide to the point where it actually hurt the product line, and help speed the demise of DDM.

I am not to happy with that eaither...



In short, bashing all of WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly

Maybe silly to you, but it seems like a natural consequence of the horrible way they have handled killing the print mags, reinventing the Forgotten Realms, and making a completely new RPG with the Dungeons and Dragons label slapped on it to me.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Really? If you believe that, then I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona and recommend you invest with a guy named Bernard Maedoff.

You could try, but it would amount to the same results as spreading the twisted version of the truth that you did in your previous post.

Not much at all.

Some of your claims are based on your personal opinion, not facts, some are flat out wrong, and the rest are gross exaggerations. The only one that is anywhere near the truth is the last one, about the miniatures. Perhaps. But I think I will reserve judgement until we actually see the miniatures in the stores.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

Some of the complaints against 4e are pure BS. Things like "its an MMO", "4e is only a minis battlegame", "its impossible to roleplay in 4e", or "WotC destroyed what made it D&D" is patently untrue. If you truly believe these things, then I submit the problem and limitation isn't with the system, but with the player/DM. I have 9 months of story-rich, heavy RP with 4e to refute those arguements, so who is right? The answer? Neither of us. The game is what it is- its how the DM and players use the game that determines what it can be, and some systems appeal more to certain playstyles than others. I prefer a more freeform, less rules-regimented approach to gaming, so for me and my group, 3e was an inferior system that got in the way of playing due to system mastery and emphasis on builds. Other people might like the regimented nature of 3e, and find 4e's philosophy on gaming to be too "out there" for them to embrace.

As you point out not everyone is educated to play the same way and to have the same standard of preferences or expectations. So why are those complaints BS? To some people 4e may feel like this and they are free to state so and their opinion is respectable -as it is your opinion about the merits you see in the game.

[Shazman]

Originally Posted by Jack99

You could try, but it would amount to the same results as spreading the twisted version of the truth that you did in your previous post.

Not much at all.

Some of your claims are based on your personal opinion, not facts, some are flat out wrong, and the rest are gross exaggerations. The only one that is anywhere near the truth is the last one, about the miniatures. Perhaps. But I think I will reserve judgement until we actually see the miniatures in the stores.

Yes, some are opinion. Others are completey true to the best of my knowledge. Which ones that aren't "only my opinion" are not true? Besides as Xechnao stated, my opinions are just as valid as yours.