WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs

S'mon said:

Ah, the tyranny of fun. One of the silliest paragraphs ever written in a D&D book.

Click to expand...

It's interesting to me because Wyatt, old hat that he is, probably doesn't follow this advice in his own games. I've got every confidence that he's quite the fine DM. And, the paragraph comes from the core of a good idea (namely, you don't have to spend time on things your group doesn't like).

But to any newbie DM encountering that paragraph, it's like he's saying that the only thing worth doing in D&D is a linear chain of combat encounters.

I think Wyatt's lines earned 4e more enemies than it probably deserves, just because it was evident from what he wrote that a game focused more on exploration or roleplay wasn't "D&D" anymore. D&D was a combat game, and if you were talking to guards and faeries and exploring dwarven strongholds, you weren't doing it right, since that is "not fun."

That isn't really true in 4e, though, especially as the game develops. I think this attitude is partially what's responsible for early 4e having noncombat elements that were so malformed. The first appearances of Skill Challenges and Rituals, the two things that handle all the noncombat elements in 4e, have problems that plague the edition to this day.

Anyway, that's a different thread. And if Wyatt really does believe a linear chain of combat encounters is the best way to play D&D, it might be good that he's working on board games, and not on the RPG. But it is curious that the only person helming 4e still employed by WotC is not even working with the RPG division anymore...

S'mon said:

The original 4e design philosophy (PHB-DMG-MM) seems to have been Wyatt/Slavicsek/Heinsoo, but not Mearls. Mearls seems to prefer an older aesthetic and was responsible for the change of direction with Essentials, which garnered a lot of criticism from fans of the 4e approach. I was initially enthusiastic about what Mearls was trying to do, but as time has gone on the original 4e approach has really grown on me (I've grown adept at working around the problems while getting the most out of the new, good stuff), whereas I've found that IME Essentials didn't really achieve its design goals, other than to give me a great monster resource with Monster Vault. Although a big problem with Essentials is the terrible online character builder; if they had updated the much better offline charbuilder with Essentials stuff then the E-classes would come over a lot better I think.

Click to expand...

I have to spread XP, but this post hit seveal "I agree" buttons, for me.

Kamikaze Midget said:

It's interesting to me because Wyatt, old hat that he is, probably doesn't follow this advice in his own games. I've got every confidence that he's quite the fine DM. And, the paragraph comes from the core of a good idea (namely, you don't have to spend time on things your group doesn't like).

Click to expand...

Yeah - I find it especially ironic that this topic is very much one that would be/would have been far better handled in the way Monte Cook is advocating in this week's Legends & Lore column. Change that quote to:
"If an encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun, tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. If niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. If long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun, move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!"
...and you might get many more folks to agree. Lay out several approaches to play, including this one, and indicate what sort of play each will favour and you get an even better response, I'll wager.

Kamikaze Midget said:

I think Wyatt's lines earned 4e more enemies than it probably deserves, just because it was evident from what he wrote that a game focused more on exploration or roleplay wasn't "D&D" anymore. D&D was a combat game, and if you were talking to guards and faeries and exploring dwarven strongholds, you weren't doing it right, since that is "not fun."

Click to expand...

Indeed - especially as I read his "talk to fairies" as trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to get accross a rather nuanced point: if all you are doing is "talking to fairies" with little aim or consequence, that is a fairly marginal activity; if, on the other hand, you are talking to fairies to try to find out what the fairy queen knows of the evil wizard who is plotting to steal Springtime, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish!

Kamikaze Midget said:

That isn't really true in 4e, though, especially as the game develops. I think this attitude is partially what's responsible for early 4e having noncombat elements that were so malformed. The first appearances of Skill Challenges and Rituals, the two things that handle all the noncombat elements in 4e, have problems that plague the edition to this day.

Click to expand...

Yep - 4E still desperately needs a more cohesive approach to non-combat challenges.

Has anyone started a Change.org or other online petition urging WOTC to stop laying off employees at Christmas? I mean, even if I disagree with a particular person being laid off, I understand it's a business and we are not going to be able to get them to stop laying people off from time to time. But we might be able to collectively put pressure for them to at least be more humane in how they handle these layoffs by not doing it before the holidays.

Wow...really sad to see Rich let go like this. I met him at GenCon back in the day while helping at the Birthright game in the TSR castle, and had many a good exchange on the AOL TSR boards about Birthright. Birthright is still my favorite campaign world and I have always enjoyed his work.
Rich, if you're reading this, I wish ya the best and am confidant you'll land on your feet.

I'm disappointed WotC.

Kamikaze Midget;5751984Curious.[/quote said:

Windjammer said:

James Wyatt

Click to expand...

Innnnnnteresting. If I remember correctly (and I may not), he's working more with the board game side of WotC at the moment? At any rate, he wrote some of the most...polemical...words in 4e.

Words like...

James Wyatt said:

An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!

Click to expand...

and

James Wyatt said:

D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people.

Click to expand...

IIRC, he moved to board games in last year's little shake-up, when Mearls got promoted.

Curious.

Click to expand...

Ye gods, reading those made me growl again, just like the first time.... He had me hating 4e even before it hit the shelves... then add the GSL, and I felt like a kid getting a dead puppy for Christmas.

The Auld Grump, not freshly dead, neither, things was a movin' under the fur....

Kamikaze Midget said:

Innnnnnteresting. If I remember correctly (and I may not), he's working more with the board game side of WotC at the moment? At any rate, he wrote some of the most...polemical...words in 4e.

Words like...


and


IIRC, he moved to board games in last year's little shake-up, when Mearls got promoted.

Curious.

Click to expand...

Balesir said:

I have to spread XP, but this post hit seveal "I agree" buttons, for me.

Yeah - I find it especially ironic that this topic is very much one that would be/would have been far better handled in the way Monte Cook is advocating in this week's Legends & Lore column. Change that quote to:
"If an encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun, tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. If niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. If long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun, move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!"
...and you might get many more folks to agree. Lay out several approaches to play, including this one, and indicate what sort of play each will favour and you get an even better response, I'll wager.

Indeed - especially as I read his "talk to fairies" as trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to get accross a rather nuanced point: if all you are doing is "talking to fairies" with little aim or consequence, that is a fairly marginal activity; if, on the other hand, you are talking to fairies to try to find out what the fairy queen knows of the evil wizard who is plotting to steal Springtime, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish!

Yep - 4E still desperately needs a more cohesive approach to non-combat challenges.

Click to expand...

Those 'If's would have made a difference - But he did not use any 'if's. Instead he made blanket statements, and his statements did not get curbed before seeing print, and formed the basis for many people's belief that 4e was not going to be the game for them.

I think that Wyatt, more than any other, was the source of the 'bad-wrong-fun' description that a lot of folks felt that WotC was trying to place on 3.X.

And I will be honest - I think that he said exactly what he wanted to say. He said the same things too many times for it to be otherwise - that he really did view 4e as being all about the combat encounter.

He was trying to limit the game to those things that 4e does handle well, and trying to play down what it did not handle well. He was not misplacing nuances, he was trying to tear down 3.X in the hopes that by doing so he would promote 4e. If so, then he was very wrong.

Mind, 4e itself would likely have turned off some of those same people that were angered by his statements, but adding what many saw, and still see, as needless insults really did not help matters. Insulting your customer base is not the best way to start things off.

And I think that there is little doubt that folks are using 4e for things far beyond just combat encounters, those statements weren't necessary. He would have been better served showing how those things can be done with 4e than by saying that they 'aren't fun' and that you were better off just not doing them.

Yet Mr. Baker is leaving and Mr. Wyatt is still there....

The Auld Grump, but at the rate WotC goes through people....

Auldgrump, I agree. Wyatt's statement was a major turn off for anyone who prefered less combat and gamey styles of play. Right or wrong it came off as an offifial statement on badwrongfun. It felt like we were being told for the very first time by the makers of D&D that some styles were welcome and others weren't. And it wasn't just the substance of the statement, it was also the insulting tone.

TheAuldGrump said:

He was trying to limit the game to those things that 4e does handle well, and trying to play down what it did not handle well. He was not misplacing nuances, he was trying to tear down 3.X in the hopes that by doing so he would promote 4e. If so, then he was very wrong.

Click to expand...

So you assume to know his intent? Sorry, but in conjunction with statements regarding the effect of these sentences I feel witness to the birth of a Conspiracy Theory.

Heh

There is no "conspiracy" nor is there any "theory".

James wrote those words. That is fact, not theory.
They had the described effect all on their own. No conspiracy support was needed.

You can debate intent all you want. But, frankly, in the context of "who has WotC kept so far", the best case scenario is that they kept a guy who meant something different than what he said but both did an amazingly poor job of saying what he meant and ALSO didn't have the awareness to realize what the words actually meant when presented on their own. The worst case scenario is that he actually meant it.

Either way, if someone wants to not only try to say that debacle was not a problem but go further and try to point the finger at those who honestly observe that it happened, then that is just funny.