4e / GSL The Impasse

[Maggan]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

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

I didn't see or read one lie about the development of 4e, and no one, absolutely no one has been able to produce quotes to prove they did.

They skirted the issue and they engaged in some cunning corp-speak, and that led people to believe that they were saying they weren't working on 4e.

But they did never, as far as I know, flat out deny they did. So the lying bit is, again as far as I know, not accurate.

And if anyone has any proof to the opposite, I'd appreciate said proof presented. But I'm not holding my breath.

As for the other points ... yeah, statements lika that motivate me into defending WotC. Except for the errata thing, that was not a good thing in my book, and a serious letdown for me.

/M

[GMforPowergamers]

I was under the impression that people saying 4e was comeing were crazy...infact in the WotC board my sig said just that...I also remember (but have no qouties of developers fostering the idea that they were not...

I have not herd the direct lie, but I have since two gen cons's ago herd the complaint that they did...if they did I agree reason to complain...


I will say they did a good job convincing a big group of us on the web that they were not, how ever they did it...however about 4 weeks before the anouncment I do remember all the chatter and speculations...

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Shazman

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.

Well of course your opinion is as valid as mine. Problem is when you present your opinion as fact.

Anyway:

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.

Opinion, but at least you admit it here.

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.

Opinion / half-truth. The amount of errata is quite small. While skill challenges did get their share, most other errata was just minor stuff, less or at par with than most other companies produce. If they even bother.

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.

Personal opinion/exagerration. Far from all fans find it distasteful. In fact, this fan is once again a fan after 3.5 butchered my beloved FR.

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

They never lied. This has been proven about 100 times on these and other boards. It's a bit boring to keep hearing it.

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

Personal opinion/exagerration/false. While you may think of the quality as you wish, saying it is overpriced just makes you look silly. Also, by the way you have been posting about 4e since, well always, I am going to hazard a guess and say that it's fair to assume that you do not subscribe. Well, as someone who does, I can tell you the eDragon and eDungeon rocks, and that a vast majority of their subscribes are very to extremely satisfied with what they get (around 85% according to a poll here on ENworld).

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

This is not an insult.

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

Thats not what the book says. It says:

Originally Posted by Races & Classes, page 68

But when’s the last time you saw a PC make a Profession check that had a useful effect on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be. Sorry.)

It's called an exaggeration made to drive home a point. A hyperbole. Instead you chose to see it as a personal insult to your way of playing. I guess they overestimated the cleverness and maturity of their audience.

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.

After re-reading this, I am not even sure what you mean.

[Maggan]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

I have not herd the direct lie, but I have since two gen cons's ago herd the complaint that they did...

The existance of a claim of lying is not proof of lying actually having been perpertated.

I have read gamers on the Internet claiming 100% knowledge about gaming books and contents that they had no knowledge about. How did I know they were clueless?

I was writing the damn books, and only me and my editors knew the contents.

But not knowing will not stop some gamers from saying anything and claim 100% certainty. And accusing someone of lying is serious business, so any such claim should, IMO, be backed up by more substance than "I've heard some guy say it".

So to enable you to make a good and solid decision about this, those who accuse WotC of lying should present their evidence. It's as simple as that.

IMO, YMMV and all that.

/M

[Campbell]

Here's the thing - if you want to engage in any sort of fruitful discussion of 4e (or any game) with fans or designers of the game it's probably best to refrain from statements that are designed to provoke hostile reactions. I know that when I see someone enter a discussion in attack mode I'm disinclined to treat them with any level of seriousness.

It is possible to discuss 4e in a critical manner. Posters like Kamikaze Midget, Lizard, and Reynard do it on a regular basis. The trick is to show respect for the experiences and insights of your fellow posters even when you disagree with them. It also helps if your criticism of the game is informed criticism.

Examples of Informed Criticism

• 4e's lack of Profession, Perform, and Craft skills messes with my sense of immersion because it makes me feel like my character has no life outside of adventuring.
• 4e's monster stat blocks don't tell me enough about a creature's overall abilities to use that creature in a simulationist way.
• There aren't enough utility powers that have a use outside of combat.
• Rituals take too long to cast. This limits my ability to use magic creatively in tense situations.
• The 4e Monster Manual doesn't give me enough information to effectively use creatures, especially new creatures.
• KM's Wrought Paper Tiger critique.

Of course, that's assuming discussion is your aim.

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by Maggan

I didn't see or read one lie about the development of 4e, and no one, absolutely no one has been able to produce quotes to prove they did.

Same here. I do recall a quote from a WotC staff that they were not working on a 4th edition that would require the use of miniatures, but I can't find a link back to that quote either.

I've made a number of requests for links or other proof from people who claimed that WotC lied, but I've never received any responses.

[Shazman]

Originally Posted by Jack99

Well of course your opinion is as valid as mine. Problem is when you present your opinion as fact.

Anyway:

Opinion, but at least you admit it here.

Opinion / half-truth. The amount of errata is quite small. While skill challenges did get their share, most other errata was just minor stuff, less or at par with than most other companies produce. If they even bother.

Personal opinion/exagerration. Far from all fans find it distasteful. In fact, this fan is once again a fan after 3.5 butchered my beloved FR.

How in the world did 3.5 butcher it? It didn't alter the way magic works, kill most famous NPC's, or completely alter the geography of the setting.

They never lied. This has been proven about 100 times on these and other boards. It's a bit boring to keep hearing it.

Even if they just said they weren't working on a new edition that required the use of minis, that still is a patently false statement. The only way for 4E to be any more reliant on the use of minis would be if it stated that you "had" to use minis in the PHB. Besides, they were asked if they were working on a new edition of D&D and said they weren't working on a version of D&D that required minis. They sidestepped the question, and the intent of the answer was inteded to be interpreted as "We are not working on 4th edition at this time." when they had been working on it for over two years. The intent for deception to keep selling 3.5 products for a few more months was obviously there. That's as bad as a bold-faced lie.

Personal opinion/exagerration/false. While you may think of the quality as you wish, saying it is overpriced just makes you look silly. Also, by the way you have been posting about 4e since, well always, I am going to hazard a guess and say that it's fair to assume that you do not subscribe. Well, as someone who does, I can tell you the eDragon and eDungeon rocks, and that a vast majority of their subscribes are very to extremely satisfied with what they get (around 85% according to a poll here on ENworld).


This is not an insult.

Thats not what the book says. It says:

What part of "your games probably aren't as fun as they could be." do you not understand?

It's called an exaggeration made to drive home a point. A hyperbole. Instead you chose to see it as a personal insult to your way of playing. I guess they overestimated the cleverness and maturity of their audience.

After re-reading this, I am not even sure what you mean.

Whatever. The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by xechnao

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.

The problem with these complaints is that they are usually stated as absolute fact, and that to disagree with them someone would have to be woefully uninformed and ignorant, or a "blind defender"....which clearly isn't the case. Certainly some ideas from computer gaming, MMOs, and minis battle games were used in making 4e, but then again, that was true in 3e as well. This is good for the game- taking ideas that worked well in other games allows the game to evolve and stay current with the public's interests. But just because an idea or theme is used DOES NOT make the game simply an MMO or minis battle game. 4e does focus a lot on combat, but that doesn't mean that 4e can ONLY handle combat. 4e's design philosophy is that roleplaying doesn't need so many rules to handle character interaction as some other systems do, and that DMs and players should, you know, actually ROLEPLAY a situation rather than simply roll dice to solve the outcome.

Of course people are free to have their own opinions, but stating their opinions as incontravertible facts, then berating the game and its fans as sycophants of WotC shows their judgement and ability for rational discourse to be questionable at best.

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Whatever. The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.

So.... then.... basically you are saying that Jack99 is right, but "whatever". And then redirect to a "well, they do it to us more!" argument?

[DandD]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Whatever. The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.

Why are you saying that? Can you prove it at all? Why should irrational 4th edition haters be less irrational than the "irrational Wotc-defenders"?

Or was this only to throw a fit?

I would guess so...

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Whatever. The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.

Heh. This is highly amusing. Jack99 answered every one of your problems, point by point, citing examples where needed and you're dismissing him as "blind". You've made a very solid and convincing case for the existence of "blind h4ters". Priceless.

[tenkar]

So, Blind Defenders use which power source in 4e?

On that note, which 3.x splat book had 4ed Haters in it? Is it OGL?

Sorry, I can't make a serious comment when an argument comes down to the school yard equivalent of "I know you are, but what am?"

So, who'se up for a game of Rolemaster? We have Classic, Express, Fantasy Role Play, HARP, or should I dig out the original rules?

"One Game to Rule Them All, and in the confusion blind them"

[Rel]

Originally Posted by Campbell

Here's the thing - if you want to engage in any sort of fruitful discussion of 4e (or any game) with fans or designers of the game it's probably best to refrain from statements that are designed to provoke hostile reactions. I know that when I see someone enter a discussion in attack mode I'm disinclined to treat them with any level of seriousness.

It is possible to discuss 4e in a critical manner. Posters like Kamikaze Midget, Lizard, and Reynard do it on a regular basis. The trick is to show respect for the experiences and insights of your fellow posters even when you disagree with them. It also helps if your criticism of the game is informed criticism.

Examples of Informed Criticism

• 4e's lack of Profession, Perform, and Craft skills messes with my sense of immersion because it makes me feel like my character has no life outside of adventuring.
• 4e's monster stat blocks don't tell me enough about a creature's overall abilities to use that creature in a simulationist way.
• There aren't enough utility powers that have a use outside of combat.
• Rituals take too long to cast. This limits my ability to use magic creatively in tense situations.
• The 4e Monster Manual doesn't give me enough information to effectively use creatures, especially new creatures.
• KM's Wrought Paper Tiger critique.

Of course, that's assuming discussion is your aim.

Ladies and gentlemen of ENWorld, I would encourage each and every one of you to read and then re-read Campbell's excellent post here. It is a succinct and insightful guide to the "best" way to post in matters such as these. If you do this, engage in mutually respectful debate, underpinned with polite and thoughtful crtique, you will never invoke the wrath of the moderators. And it matters not a whit where you fall upon the gaming spectrum regarding any edition of any game.

If you engage in personal insults, sweeping insults and petty jibes then things are likely to end poorly for you.

Read and re-read. Then think before posting. Thank you.

[SSquirrel]

I'm sorry, but there are a great chunk of companies out there that if you call them to ask about a rumored new product (or whatever), you will hear the token "Microsoft/Apple/etc does not comment on rumors". If you are releasing a new edition in 3 years, do you really go ahead and tell people then "Hey it's 2009, we're gonna have a new edition out in 2012. Not as backwards compatible as some would like, but we think it will be pretty fun. Oh yeah, keep buying our current edition the next 3 years. Kthxbai!". Sorry, that is just asking to never sell another product until you release your new one.

Rememebr, people started asking WotC "Hey are you gonan release a new edition next year" probably about 6 months after 3.5 went out the door. Do you really expect them to address that?

The shaking your fist comment wasn't an insult either. They could have said something like "There are certain inevitabilities in life. Death, Taxes, and a new edition of D&D. It will happen when it happens". The farmer shaking his fist at the sky is just an amusing image to me, one I've seen many times in various media. IMO, if you can read that and see it as an insult, it's possible that you may just be looking for something to be insulted by.

[ProfessorCirno]

You can disagree with someone or something or a vague decision without making it bad or evil.

Do I think the MM4e is a bad deal compared to the 3.5 ones? Sure. That doesn't make it bad or evil. There's tons of people who disagree with me, and they're the target audience, not I. If anything WotC is giving it's consumers exactly what it wants. That's not bad or evil. Quite the opposite; that's exactly what a "good" company should be doing.

Oh, and CEOs aren't all the Green Goblin. Nor do they have some bizarre divine mandate to do whatever they want with the company. Once again, they have a responsibility to the shareholders and consumers, and to the board of directors.

[Kzach]

Originally Posted by Shazman

Whatever. The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.

Hating an edition of D&D is just silly. Posting to a messageboard about how much you hate it is even sillier.

What you need, is a cookie.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Kzach

Hating an edition of D&D is just silly. Posting to a messageboard about how much you hate it is even sillier.

What you need, is a cookie.

We have cookies* on the d4rk side!

*If you bake them.

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by Shazman

I know that the corporations didn't create the economic crisis,

Not to get too political here, but actually, they did. This "blame the consumer" nonsense is white noise from those that got us into this mess through staggering greed and unrestrained gambling. Read up on the credit default swaps market.

Blaming undereducated Dave the factory worker because he believed his banker when the banker said "we've got the perfect program created just for families like yours!" is ludicrous. These programs were designed by the best and brightest highly educated financial minds in the world for the purpose of handing out high risk credit then trading and speculating with a balloon of fake wealth backed by air. At one point, the value of the default swaps exceeded the combined GDP of every nation on the planet. The more risky credit the banks handed out, the more "bets" they could place on default speculation, which they would then trade amongst themselves creating an artificial, completely unregulated market of fake wealth. Uncontrolled, rampant corporate greed, and the world governments that allowed this to go on (principally, but not solely, the US government) are where exactly all the blame lies.

Sorry to get "political" in the thread, but this "blame the blue collar worker for wanting to own his own home and trusting the slick banker in his 3-piece suit and for not being an expert on international finance" thing really pisses me off. It's a smoke and mirrors act engineered by the people responsible for this mess to try and redirect blame, and disseminated by people who still believe an unregulated market is self-correcting. That's been soundly, terribly, and abruptly disproved. Unless by self-correcting you mean - spirals out of control until it bursts, plunging the world into an economic crisis that was easily avoidable with a bit of regulation.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread... um, WotC good. Fire bad. As long as D&D is made by gamers, we are in good hands, as far as I am concerned.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

This is good for the game- taking ideas that worked well in other games allows the game to evolve and stay current with the public's interests. But just because an idea or theme is used DOES NOT make the game simply an MMO or minis battle game. 4e does focus a lot on combat, but that doesn't mean that 4e can ONLY handle combat. 4e's design philosophy is that roleplaying doesn't need so many rules to handle character interaction as some other systems do, and that DMs and players should, you know, actually ROLEPLAY a situation rather than simply roll dice to solve the outcome.

Of course people are free to have their own opinions, but stating their opinions as incontravertible facts, then berating the game and its fans as sycophants of WotC shows their judgement and ability for rational discourse to be questionable at best.

Yes, but even yourself you are presenting the premise I have highlighted above and what you expand on it as a fact. In my opinion this has not been good for the tabletop game. The choice of the source of influence that is. Some MMO are popular but perhaps the reason they are popular is because of their level of optimization for their medium and its capacities-personal computers online. Tabletops are another medium and have different strengths. Perhaps choosing a different source of influence, even one found in a video game but that its strength was some more general or universal idea of entertainment could be more appropriate. For example "the sims" is a game that such ideas could be found. Similarly in MMOs one could look for more universal things as for example research the fact that people like to form guilds. You would have to see what kind of people engage in this sort of activity and why, for what reasons. Research the engagement nature of the hardcore gamer and the casual gamer seperately. See then what game you want to build -with what kinds of various natures regarding the engagement or experience it offers. But this is something deep and not that simple as just trying to grab the most relevant on first impact gameplay mechanic of a game of a different medium that happens to work wonders there and try to import it to your game. IMO and IMO this has been a fail of 4e.

Take original D&D. How it was developed. Yes, the original D&D game was developed through a different process. The research on its sources of influence was different -much more connected to the nature of the final product IMO.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by xechnao

Yes, but even yourself you are presenting the premise I have highlighted above and what you expand on it as a fact. In my opinion this has not been good for the tabletop game. The choice of the source of influence that is. Some MMO are popular but perhaps the reason they are popular is because of their level of optimization for their medium and its capacities-personal computers online. Tabletops are another medium and have different strengths. Perhaps choosing a different source of influence, even one found in a video game but that its strength was some more general or universal idea of entertainment could be more appropriate. For example "the sims" is a game that such ideas could be found. Similarly in MMOs one could look for more universal things as for example research the fact that people like to form guilds. You would have to see what kind of people engage in this sort of activity and why, for what reasons. Research the engagement nature of the hardcore gamer and the casual gamer seperately. See then what game you want to build -with what kinds of various natures regarding the engagement or experience it offers. But this is something deep and not that simple as just trying to grab the most relevant on first impact gameplay mechanic of a game of a different medium that happens to work wonders there and try to import it to your game. IMO and IMO this has been a fail of 4e.
Take original D&D. How it was developed. Yes, the original D&D game was developed through a different process. The research on its sources of influence was different -much more connected to the nature of the final product IMO.

Do you imply that WotC did not research their audience and just "blindly" (to use the operative word in this thread) picked up everything from MMOs or CRPGs and tried to force it into D&D?

I doubt that. I don't feel like that was the case.
I think they looked at aspects that lead to interesting and engaging gameplay in games, and some examples of that can be found in MMOs or videogames, but a lot also exist in traditional RPGs. There are differences between these mediums, but that still does not mean that nothing can be transplanted. I am pretty certain that most RPG designers - including those at WotC - understand their medium pretty well.

Stories can be told in movies or novels. You will have to adapt the story. Likewise, you can import mechanics from an RPG to an MMO or vice versa. You need to adapt the details of the implementation, but if the basic idea is sound, it is possible. (Whether your specific implementation works - just as with story adaptions to different media - is another matter.)