Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[Christoph the Magus]

With an intro like that, did you expect us to take your comment seriously?

Maybe you should, as you're one of the posters I'm referring to.

While the rest of your post was cute, the main difference between us is that I'm only going to offer my opinion on the subject once.

 

[pemerton]

It was the fact of an email sent out to possibly many playtesters that bothered me.

Am I right in inferring, from what Andy Collins said, that there was no such email?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe you should, as you're one of the posters I'm referring to.

I don't know whether or not I count as an unnamed "usual suspect", but I'll respond to your post, which I originally had let slide.

doing marketing things that feel a tad shady aren't improving my opinion.

This is not just a passing barb at an anonymous poster (which is par for the course on these threads). It's a real slur against known individuals, and thus warrants refutation (and repeated refutation, if it continues to be made).

There is nothing shady about someone asking "May I speak?" and being told "You may speak, if you have nice things to say." At that point the person chooses whether or not to speak, based on whether or not they have nice things to say.

So we know that Ari, Owen Stephens and John Rogers had nice things to say. How does it affect the content of their views, or their trustworthiness and/or reliability, that there may or may not be some other people who have different things to say, or nothing to say at all, or are still under a total NDA? Their views are what they are, and surely speak for themselves (unless you regard individual opinions simply as data points on some statistical spectrum of total public opinion).

In addition, and as I posted upthread, ARI WAS UPRFRONT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT IN HIS VIEW 4E IS NOT A PERFECT GAME, BUT IS MERELY EXTREMELY GOOD. In a comment on the game that is of necessity very general, what more were you hoping for by way of critique?

 

[JohnSnow]

In addition, and as I posted upthread, ARI WAS UPRFRONT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT IN HIS VIEW 4E IS NOT A PERFECT GAME, BUT IS MERELY EXTREMELY GOOD. In a comment on the game that is of necessity very general, what more were you hoping for by way of critique?

It's quite simple. There are a lot of people here who are absolutely sure that Fourth Edition will totally suck. Therefore, any opinion other than that is clearly the work of someone who is "biased" or "intentionally misleading" the public.

Obviously, people who hold this opinion won't accept they're getting an honest review of Fourth Edition until someone says, effectively, "this isn't D&D," or "I'd never play this horrible, steaming pile of bantha poodoo."

Personally, I hardly find that view "open-minded."

 

[Primal]

Well, Ari has already said that his comments weren't solicited by WotC and judging him by his conduct here for many years, I believe him. He may be biased by virtue of working with 4E, but I really do believe that his statements reflect how he feels.

It's really not cool to call the guy a liar when he's said that he made these comments of his own free will. Why is it impossible that he likes the game and isn't just blowing marketing smoke up our butts? Ari's always been a very straight forward, nice guy here at EnWorld.

I've also yet to see a WotC designer lash out at fans, if that what's implied by not "handling criticism". On the other hand, despite having one of the coolest jobs in the world (working on freakin' D&D and getting paid!), I'm actually starting to feel bad for the Wizards designers.

I'd hate to be working on a project I really love, only to have a few dozen people each day reacting like I ran over their dog. It'd be like walking to the office every morning and getting a public beating every morning before you got through the door.

I don't think I implied that he was lying? If I did, then I apologise -- that was certainly not my intention. I believe that he honestly likes the game. However, I just noted that considering how "touchy" the WoTC staff has been towards any sort of negative feedback about 4E, he might not want to express publicly any concerns he has over the system (especially considering that he he's a freelancer working for them). What I meant is that I suspect that Ari intentionally used strong expressions and even hyperbole, because that's what the WoTC designers do and probably expected him to do, too. Of course, that might not be the case. In any case I did not say that he lied about liking 4E.

I'd really like them (both the Designers and Playtesters alike) to "tone down" the language. We already know that the game will blow our heads off -- why keep repeating that? I'd much prefer to read something like "It's a good and solid system and X and Y work better than in 3E". And I'd also like to see more information about the "cool non-combat stuff" they've been exclaiming will be as much part of the system as the "fun factor" in combat ("More stabby! MORE STABBY!" :\ ).

I could give you some examples of WoTC designers and freelancers (not Ari, though) "lashing out" (on the WoTC forums) at the fans who dared to criticize DI and 4E. One of them apologised, but some of them didn't. Some of them, while not actually "lashing out" at anyone, have posted condescending and terse comments. Some have ignored the fans -- even polite questions directed at them. So, yes, they seem to be quite sensitive towards any negative comments about DI or 4E. I guess it's because they're so into 4E and cannot understand why not everyone realizes how much better and faster and whatnot the system is (when compared to 3E).

The key issue here is that you should *ALWAYS* be polite and diplomatic towards your customers -- even when they're not. Unless, of course, you don't care one whit about whether they'll buy your products or not. But then again, I'm fairly sure that WoTC has already labeled most of the "Old Guard" as "the former customer base who won't probably buy 4E anyway". Or maybe I'm just paranoid?

You think it'd be a "dream job" to work on D&D? I don't. I'd compare the work of a WoTC designer to that of an author or a graphic designer. First of all, there are the deadlines. Let's assume that you're going to write a 160-page module in six months -- that'd mean a page of finished text every day. And you'd probably be working on several projects at a time. Any day you feel uninspired or tired and can't get anything done, you're going to increase your next day's workload. Simply put, you'd have to be creative every day of the week. I worked as a graphic designer (my original "dream job") for a few years and in the end I had become so jaded and stressed and sleep-deprived that all silly notions of being a creative "artist" had faded from my mind. Eventually I just couldn't handle the daily deadlines and constant pressure around the clock -- so I quit. And none of my friends and colleagues in the industry work as ADs or graphic designers anymore either.

I don't mean this as an insult, but if you consider a verbal online criticism to a public beating, I don't think you're cut for the job either. I'd take a verbal assault over a single punch any day.

 

[Primal]

Let me understand -- Ari and John aren't average DMs, nor hard-working fellow gamers, and don't run games every week? I'm willing to bet they're all three, to the contrary.

Of course they might run weekly games and work hard on their campaigns, yet note that even Andy Collins emphasized in his post that he thought their comments -- as respected authors -- would be taken "more seriously" by the gamers. So, in that context I don't think they "qualify" as your average "Joe DMs".

 

[Mistwell]

Maybe you should, as you're one of the posters I'm referring to.

While the rest of your post was cute, the main difference between us is that I'm only going to offer my opinion on the subject once.

My posts may have a unified thesis that you find repetitive, but at least they show respect for my fellow users, and my posts don't insult them.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

primal, have you considered a part of this 'hostility' may be reactive?

They are also humans, and you know how fandoms can be.... creepy at times. Read on otaku and trekkies by example, if you never saw the extend of 'fandumbness'. Read on Evangelion and it's story behind the product.

I saw personal insults, trashing, perhaps evemn death treats by pm and email,. I bet. They face heat, bad heat. So, I am not surprised some lashe back, in despair and rage.

 

[jeffh]

Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).

Whether you're in a position to know what you're talking about is very relevant to the truth and accuracy of one's statements.

 

[jeffh]

Look, if you don't like what I'm saying, that's fine. Put me on your ignore list before you accuse me of not applying common sense to the situation. I don't really want to argue with you either.

If you can't distinguish between "not liking" what you're saying and giving reasons for thinking it rests on a series of factual errors, and easily-avoided factual errors at that, then you're right about one thing - you do indeed belong on my ignore list.