The Paladin and the Stirges

Umbran · Feb 6, 2012

mudbunny said:
I think rather that this is a PR win for WotC. I have read a number of different blogs and posts where people are recounting their experiences at DDXP. No matter the edition that these people favour, they almost all seem to come out feeling "this has the same feel as the edition I prefer."

I have to agree. Consider that we are a year or a year and a half out. WotC has the hard road of having announce (to get bodies for playtesting), and then maintain interest for a considerable amount of time.

Now, they could (and probably will) do a lot of the heavy lifting for that themselves. But, they don't have to. They let a few folks on the internet do some posting, and we get to chatter about it for weeks and months!

Might we come to some erroneous conclusions? Yes. But we'd do that even if it came straight from WotC's mouth. We do that even when the game is in our hands! And contention supports the discussion! WotC has a long time to correct opinions, and has the tools at hand to do that (by putting out playtest rules for everyone).

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Kynn · Feb 6, 2012

mudbunny said:
So, just to make sure I understand you Kynn.

You are claiming that this is a PR nightmare for WotC because random people on the internet are jumping to conclusions based on little or no information.

That's not entirely what it's based on, but I do think that when included with things like super-vague-to-the-point-of-pointlessness official polls, there's an argument to be made that WotC isn't doing itself favors and could handle things better.

Clearly, this is an issue of opinion and not fact, so as I said before, I'm okay with the idea that there will be people who disagree with me.

(I am sure, for example, that people who were at DDXP and/or included on the Friends and Family playtest lists, or otherwise are able to run their own games of #dndnext right now -- e.g. Dave Chalker, for one -- are going to have vastly different opinions on this than I do. People both on the inside and the outside are going to disagree with me. It's just an opinion.)

Kynn · Feb 6, 2012

catsclaw227 said:
I mistyped what I was trying to say. I apologize for that. I was referring to you calling it a PR Nightmare for WoTC and I didn't clarify. My Bad.

Okay, then we're just disagreeing about WotC's strategy, and I'm okay with not agreeing.

nedjer · Feb 6, 2012

Kynn said:
The approach they've taken with allowing certain high-profile bloggers, journalists, and visitors to a single con to playtest something and then talk about it "under NDA" is part of the process that I think is flawed.

It leads, for example, for gamers hungry for information about D&D Next to examine every dribble of information ("aha! there are DWARVES in D&D Next, we know that much!") as a potential clue to the system.

It would probably be better if they simply said either "talk about whatever you like, we're going to change it 137 times in the next week anyway" (i.e., no NDA) or had said simply said "don't talk about."

Instead there's this somewhat halfassed approached whereby many people who try to follow the topic are left confused as to whether stirges do Con damage that takes weeks to heal, or whether there's something odd about healing in general (as a few playtesters have reported), or if boss fights in 5e really take 5 minutes, or whatever.

Their releases of information on what they want to put in the system, from their seminars, have been okay -- but WotC is still being pretty deliberately tight-lipped about nearly everything, from the vague L&L columns on down. That doesn't seem like a great idea when you're (maybe?) 18 months out from a release; maybe they should be holding back less instead of dropping tantalizing clues, if they're not ready to even let anyone know when the "open playtest" is really going to be open? (So far it's all been an under-NDA playtest and not open.)

So yeah, I think WotC is handling this poorly in a way that isn't productive for them (putting aside whether people are speculating irresponsibly for a minute) and I think they could handle it better. It was probably premature to do a well-advertised playtest at this time, for example.

The fact that Dave's and Mike's posts ignited minor kerfluffles is proof there's a problem -- and yeah, part of the "blame" goes on those people who make assumptions.

(Which is why I thought it was appropriate to start this thread here and point out that faulty assumptions ARE being made when we interpret DM fluff decisions from DDXP reports as being something based in 5e rules.)

I'm kind of under the impression that the concerns being leveled at them are largely unfounded. Especially as they were criticised a great deal more last time round for not going early and a lack of consultation.

This time WotC seems to be going along the route Pathfinder took by letting stuff be seen as it happens. This may be tantalising, but does suggest a more meaningful consultation.

Current doom-mongering would seem a lot more justified if they'd waited another six months, dropped a 'no looking back' version out of nowhere and said 'like it or lump it'. Instead, they're saying 'we'll support the gameplay of all versions and check you're good with how we're going about it along the way.'

As for the select few - of course they're going to ask their most loyal troops to put a bit of light spin into the process. At the same time, they chose to hold an open event that didn't guarantee uniform feedback.

Kynn · Feb 6, 2012

catsclaw227 said:
As a potential solution, maybe the bloggers can state in advance that these are stories and not to try to glean any mechanics or rules from the blog post.

BTW, my original post that started this thread was meant to help clear up an issue and point out that assumptions about the rules based on NDA-cloaked play reports are likely to be bad assumptions. Did I really fail to convey that? I gave both Dave's original comment and followed it up by highlighting his post on his blog, setting the record straight.

Agamon · Feb 6, 2012

This obviously isn't the nerdrage that everyone is tweeting about (Kynn's been pretty good about stating his opinion, in my own opinion)...I'm guessing the WotC forums are on fire right now? I don't go there without my HAZMAT suit.

Kynn · Feb 6, 2012

Agamon said:
This obviously isn't the nerdrage that everyone is tweeting about (Kynn's been pretty good about stating his opinion, in my own opinion)...I'm guessing the WotC forums are on fire right now? I don't go there without my HAZMAT suit.

I'm not sure I'm doing a good job at stating my opinion, since a lot of people seem to be upset by it.

catsclaw227 · Feb 6, 2012

Kynn said:
BTW, my original post that started this thread was meant to help clear up an issue and point out that assumptions about the rules based on NDA-cloaked play reports are likely to be bad assumptions. Did I really fail to convey that? I gave both Dave's original comment and followed it up by highlighting his post on his blog, setting the record straight.

No, I think you made your opinion clear, but you followed Dave's quoted bit with this:

kynn said:
This makes a lot of the "system reports" we're seeing seem rather questionable, if that much detail is left up to the individual DMs at the 5e playtest tables. We may not actually be seeing any real rules at all, but just whatever a non-WotC DM like Dave Chalker sounded good at the time.

And then later in the post called it a PR Nightmare for WoTC.

I am simply disagreeing with the PR part and I disagree with the idea of coming to another forum (EnWorld) and posting that it's a PR Nightmare when I am assuming you knew that these were simply the experiences of people who played at DDXP.

I suppose we are just agreeing to disagree at this point.

Agamon · Feb 6, 2012

Kynn said:
I'm not sure I'm doing a good job at stating my opinion, since a lot of people seem to be upset by it.

Well, people are disagreeing with it. I do, too, but I don't think you shouldn't have it.

Kynn · Feb 6, 2012

catsclaw227 said:
And then later in the post called it a PR Nightmare for WoTC.

I am simply disagreeing with the PR part and I disagree with the idea of coming to another forum (EnWorld) and posting that it's a PR Nightmare when I am assuming you knew that these were simply the experiences of people who played at DDXP.

I suppose we are just agreeing to disagree at this point.

Would you prefer I said I think it's PR misstep? A PR unforced error?

Is there any way I can express an opinion that I disagree with WotC's strategies without making this a huge deal?

The Paladin and the Stirges

Umbran

Mod Squad

Kynn

Adventurer

Kynn

Adventurer

nedjer

Adventurer

Kynn

Adventurer

Agamon

Adventurer

Kynn

Adventurer

catsclaw227

First Post

Agamon

Adventurer

Kynn

Adventurer

Similar Threads