Mat Smith's Writing is Unpleasant [RANT]

[Knight Otu]

I don't hang out at the Wizards.com boards and I may not be that informed, but if WotC put a monster in Fiend Folio, how 'official' does that make it? My understanding is the any sourcebook, from WotC or otherwise, outside the three core rulebooks is 'none-core'.

In other words, is there a difference between 'official' rules and 'core' rules?

The official core rules are just the three Core Rulebooks, the PHB, the DMG and the MM. Any other WotC D&D books are official, but not core.

Anything released by third parties is not official, and often shunned by some people on the WotC boards. (At times, though, it might be "core" material. )

 

[Psion]

have you hung out at the wizards boards much? official means a disturbing amount to some people. There was a bunch of angry 'i don't care if its in tome of horrors, i want an official monster, WotC have stabbed my in the back' rants over there

Well, I only hang out at the ELH and Psionics boards there. However, I do remember quite a few discussions on the general boards from people for whom its official or nothing -- even house rules are out. All I can tell you is that in more ways that one, I am not playing the same game these people do.

 

[Qlippoth]

He's the Rikki Rachman (or however that guy spelled his name) of gaming. Remember "Headbanger's Ball" on MTV? The whole "I'm kewl because I rub elbows with all these kewl people" attitude that permeates the "in the works" column really reminds me of ol' Rikki. The mindless trend-following, too.

Remember when Rikki went "punk" by cutting & spiking his hair? I think at that point Motley Crue was trying their hand at Sex Pistols covers. Ugh.

 

[Regdar]

have you hung out at the wizards boards much? official means a disturbing amount to some people. There was a bunch of angry 'i don't care if its in tome of horrors, i want an official monster, WotC have stabbed my in the back' rants over there

Bah, actually Regdar thinks that the argument has merit. Conversions are NOT official, and some want that. A lot of the conversions do not seem to mesh well at times with others, either being grossly over or under developed. Regdar thinks that it is taken too far, for example the "Bullywug," comment.

 

[barsoomcore]

You pay for the R&D people who thought that a D&D movie was a good idea, and then got the worst people they could find to make it.

Just to set the record straight: WotC had NOTHING to do with the D&D movie. That movie was a product of a very enterprising young man who managed to get the film rights to the trademark from TSR as that company was plunging into the abyss. He then spent the next several years trying to raise the money to make the film. WotC did not get involved at all, probably because they couldn't get control of the project back. No doubt without corporate backing Mr. Solomon had some trouble finding people to invest in his film, but he managed to get it done and released. I don't believe he has the right to do any more films. I suspect that now that he's released his film the rights have reverted back to the trademark owner, WotC.

So if there's ANOTHER D&D movie you can blame WotC for that one. But they're in the clear on the previous one.

(and I really liked the D&D movie. It pleases me immensely and I'll buy the DVD when I find a copy on sale at Future Shop. I dunno, it just reminds me of how we used to play the game when we were teenagers.)

 

[Mulkhoran]

(and I really liked the D&D movie. It pleases me immensely and I'll buy the DVD when I find a copy on sale at Future Shop. I dunno, it just reminds me of how we used to play the game when we were teenagers.)

You played with magic dust and pathetic mindless dragons?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Since someone mentioned Jacky Harvey, let's try an impression.

And #3, since when does "official" mean that much to DMs wanting nasties to spring on his players? "Official" is an empty accolade AFAIAC.

Considering the quality of some of the WotC offerings, "Official" is about all they have to hang their hat on in many cases. Or is that hang their "hate" on. HA!

Mat Smith's articles are not targeted at gamers who are savvy and in tune with the industry, they target the other 95% of gamers.

Have you seen that Gary Gygax lately? I tell ya, tie dye is the fashion for this year's convention season.

Ad men always talk like this. They think like this. It all started when Dudley Moore was hired to do PR for TSR in the late 80s, as seen in the award-winning documentary Crazy People.

Can you say Webtacular? I can, and WotC's new look is sending chills up my spine. Andy Warhol, are you listening?

 

[Enceladus]

So if there's ANOTHER D&D movie you can blame WotC for that one. But they're in the clear on the previous one.

Most likely thanks to him there never will be.

 

[Desdichado]

barsoomscore, you are wickedly funny. I like you. However, as much as I find we seem to have tastes in common in general, I find it deeply disturbing to hear you praising the D&D movie. That movie set back the cause of fantasy geeks everywhere. If Lord of the Rings hadn't almost immediately redeemed it, we'd be a lot worse off than we were.

 

[Oni]

Oni opined:

WotC is selling you their books, not their website. Their website is a freebie, a perk, an extra. You may not like their website, or the content found there in, but you are not paying for it either. Just like eratta, WotC doesn't have to do these things. When you buy a book, you buy the content that is contained between the covers, nothing more.



Then I point out:

Wotc is a company endeavoring to make a profit. When you buy their books you pay for many things, you pay for the books, you pay for the advertising that got you to buy the books, you pay the salary on the nice underpaid receptionist, you pay for that huge space at GenCon, you pay for the R&D people who thought that a D&D movie was a good idea, and then got the worst people they could find to make it. You also pay for "free services" like the website. Mat Smith gets paid, he is not writing that ad copy for free. Yes, I called it ad copy, because that is what it is, it is not a review column, it is not news, it is ad copy. Wotc uses that space to promote sales, not actually inform the public. Because of the volume they do, Wotc has rudely low printing costs on a per book basis, this lower cost does not get passed on tothe consumer because they also have a much larger infrastructure than a small publisher like MEG or LI. The price of the books has to cover the price of that infrastructure and still leave enough left over to pay a profit to the people that own the company. They are not actually interested in your opinion of Mr. Smith's writing unless it actually affects how much money they make. The people who own that company are not gamers, they are businessmen. If the people running the company don't make them money, the people who own the company will find other people to run the company. It's that simple. Mr. Smith's campy ad copy is not going to become an economic issue to Wotc. Wotc still employs him even after it's layoffs because he is cost effective. They have research that tells them that spending X amount of dollars on advertising will increase the sales of their products by X+Y where Y>1. Mr. Smith is a small cog in that X. That being said, taking the point of view that when you buy a company's product the product itself is all you are buying is not entirely accurate. If you buy products from a compamny that tests it's products on animals, or makes their product in sweatshops with poor conditions, you are in effect endorsing that behavior with your sheckels, lucres, steel pieces what have you. No, having a company shill writing an inspid column is not the moral equivalent of animal testing or sweatshops, but it is a service you are paying for, even if indirectly.

Personally, if you realize that the column is a shill for the company, I don't see how you can get mad at the style. If you don't like it, don't buy the book it's hyping, and tell Wotc that is why you aren't buying the book. If a number of people do this, and the number does not have to be high, the column will be written differently.

I think you completely missed my point. When you go out and say buy a dnd book, thats what you get a dnd book. You put down your money and you got that in exchange. Just because you bought that dnd book, and perhaps even buy them regularly doesn't make the company beholden to you to provide a certain standard of quality on their website for example. You didn't go into the store and buy a dnd book and quality web articles. That is not what you paid for. You paid for a book. What the company does with the money you gave them after that point is their business. If they take that money and put up a bad webarticle that doesn't give you any right to complain because you bought their book. You didn't buy the web article. Does this make sense?