D&D 5E Perfect example of the kind of interaction that I wish Wizards had with it's community.

[Shasarak]

Why would it not be a good idea for Designers to be open and honest?

 

[Hussar]

Why would it not be a good idea for Designers to be open and honest?

Because the last time they were open and honest, they got absolutely crucified for it. Every little thing they said was analysed to the nth degree. When David Noonan made a comment about "cloud watching" that was fairly innocuous and innocent, meaning that fans should wait a bit and see more of the system before making such strong opinion statements, people went ballistic. When it was pointed out that what they were complaining about didn't actually appear in the article, they accused WOTC of editing that article after the fact to remove any contentious statements. When THAT was proven to be false, they went back to their chants of WOTC Sucks.

Let me rephrase that in point form:

1. Dev makes fairly innocuous comment
2. "Fans" go ballistic, twisting quotes and outright misquoting the comment to fuel fires.
3. It's definitively proven that the "fans" were flat out wrong and nothing they were complaining about actually was said by WOTC
4. "Fans" go right on misquoting, to the point that years later, the same issue gets brought up again and again as evidence of how bad WOTC is.

Or take the quote about "D&D isn't about traipsing through fairy rings" from one of the 4e preview books. People used that as a rallying cry for how 4e was abandoning its fans. Completely ignored the other 5000 words in the book, as they weren't, apparently, important. No, it was a single line from a sidebar that mattered.

No thanks.

See, people bring up Paizo. But, there's a difference. People who play Paizo Pathfinder talk about Pathfinder. People who don't play Pathfinder, don't talk about Pathfinder and couldn't care less about what the Devs are saying, generally. However, people who don't play D&D STILL care about what WOTC Devs say and will endlessly kvetch and complain, and whatnot, about a game they don't play in, apparently, an attempt to force everyone else to not play the game they don't like.

 

[Shasarak]

Some people like being talked to by a mealy mouthed politician who can talk forever without actually saying anything but personally I prefer the honest approach.

If the internet rages then really it is only doing exactly what it was designed to do.

See, people bring up Paizo. But, there's a difference. People who play Paizo Pathfinder talk about Pathfinder. People who don't play Pathfinder, don't talk about Pathfinder and couldn't care less about what the Devs are saying, generally. However, people who don't play D&D STILL care about what WOTC Devs say and will endlessly kvetch and complain, and whatnot, about a game they don't play in, apparently, an attempt to force everyone else to not play the game they don't like.

The DnD Designers have stated that the people who go on the DnD Forums are about 1% (maybe less) of the total population of people playing DnD. So even if what you said was true and some guy on the internet managed to convince everyone on the forums to quit playing, the vast majority of players would not even realise what had happened.

 

[Hussar]

The flip side of that is true too though [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]. If Internet forum users are only 1% of the gaming population, why would you bother wasting your time talking to them? What would be the point? It's a complete waste of time. Certainly a waste of time to actually argue with anyone.

And, I'll ignore the ad hominem there. Is that really necessary? Or perhaps your comparing Paizo to the mealy mouthed politician. I'm not sure what the point of that aside was.

 

[Shasarak]

Yup that is true - how many people are you really getting through to when you send a tweet? What is your cost benefit ratio compared to all those people sending you their inane questions?

And I am not sure why mealy mouthed politician would be an ad hominem if you do not want honest communication. Would a spin doctor be a better comparison?

 

[Shasarak]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] : So I just thought, maybe you were not comparing honest communication with dishonest communication, maybe it was comparing honest communication with no communication.

Personally I do not imagine that a successful company would have absolutely no communication. I know I missed a whole edition of Shadowrun because wherever they were communicating their products was not any where I was paying attention to.

 

[pemerton]

People who play Paizo Pathfinder talk about Pathfinder. People who don't play Pathfinder, don't talk about Pathfinder and couldn't care less about what the Devs are saying, generally. However, people who don't play D&D STILL care about what WOTC Devs say and will endlessly kvetch and complain, and whatnot, about a game they don't play in, apparently, an attempt to force everyone else to not play the game they don't like.

This.

 

[delericho]

Another good example of great company interaction .... is Paizo. They are always letting fans know what is going on and even posting playtests of new rules (like the Mythic Adventures rules) for us to download for free and playtest.

Paizo are indeed great, but it took them a whole lot of effort (and therefore cost them a lot) to get to that point.

It's also worth noting that Paizo are also not perfect, and there is a double standard at work. In March/April, Paizo's shipment of subscriptions has been delayed significantly. The reason for the delay was completely beyond their control (something to do with a port shutdown). However, unlike most times when this occurs, there was not an email to subscribers about it. Instead, I found out by digging into their message boards and tracking down a post that explained what was going on. That's not their usual level of communication, and is a failure on their part.

But... partly because this is very much an outlier (again, there is usually an email if there's a delay), and partly because Paizo's message boards are populated by their fans, the reaction to all of this amounted to "oh well."

Contrast this with the reaction when WotC tell us the conversion documents are delayed due to jury duty. Again, a factor completely beyond their control, but here they were open and honest, and we didn't have to go digging for the information (admittedly because Morrus did it for us). Yet WotC were blasted for it - how could they not have enough people for someone to pick up the slack; how could they possibly release 5e without the conversion documents all ready to go; and, indeed, there were questions raised about whether this was even the real reason.

So, yeah... I'm a fan of Paizo, and I'm even more of a fan of the way they do things. And, in general, I think Paizo are well ahead of WotC when it comes to engaging with their fans and with communications generally. But that doesn't mean that they're perfect - and it doesn't mean the overwhelmingly negative reactions to WotC's communications are fair. (And in the face of that unfairness, is it any wonder they choose to disengage?)

What would be so wrong about WoTC being more open and thorough? Answering fan questions honestly?

Good communications are hard, and expensive to achieve. Given their skeleton crew, and given also the corporate pressures from Hasbro about how communications are to be handled (such as, for example, never talking about a product that hasn't been announced - even if the details have already been leaked), they probably can't communicate better without tasking a dedicated person with it, and thus delaying... whatever it is they're actually working on.

It's not impossible, of course. Back in 2006 or so, WotC did have a generally good relationship with their fans (although there were always significant numbers of doubters - even as far back as the OGL, which some people thought was a massive IP-grab on their part!). They had it before, and they could have it again. But it would be really hard, really costly, and probably take several years to even start getting traction. I can't say I blame them for asking if it's worth the effort.

 

[Kramodlog]

Because the last time they were open and honest, they got absolutely crucified for it.

Yeah, not blowing things out of proportion one bit. Designers are victims, plain and simple.

On a serious note, they did say some pretty terrible things. The whole "bullet to the head of..." is a very good example of that. They had terrible marketing too (e.g. that vid that denigrated players and every edition of D&D prior to 4e). Yeah, they earned the critics they got. The design of 4e wasn't great, the motivations behind it ignored players and communications were terrible.

Now they they get praise and they earn those too. Works both ways I'm afraid.

 

[Wicht]

In March/April, Paizo's shipment of subscriptions has been delayed significantly. The reason for the delay was completely beyond their control (something to do with a port shutdown)

Contrast this with the reaction when WotC tell us the conversion documents are delayed due to jury duty. Again, a factor completely beyond their control,...

Eh, I'm not sure those two things are completely comparable as being "beyond their control."

The Port Delay represents product in transition being carried by a third party. And savy game shoppers have, I think, become more aware of the vagaries of such things.

The Jury Duty represents a missing member from within one's own group, and is a problem that could potentially be solved through temporary internal restructuring. While there may be factors which preclude such an internal activity, it is still internal and only marginally related to the activities of a third party.

My only point is that these two examples do not of themselves represent a complete double standard as there is a different of kinds in the problems.