The Paladin and the Stirges

[Kynn]

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

It's entirely possible I'm wrong and I just haven't been convinced yet.

Those who have hinted at "any publicity is good publicity, since it keep people talking about D&D Next" may be onto something.

 

[Piratecat]

People get distracted by shiny objects. Your point is a good one; trying to extract rules from non-rule descriptions is problematic.

 

[Number48]

These blind guys need to stop feeling up that elephant.

 

[Ichneumon]

Like many, I know someone who's friends with someone who works with someone who knows one of the R&D people in WotC; can't remember who.

This acquaintance told me that due to gamers obviously not wanting a several week rest after a stirge attack, they're changing it to a different effect: killing a stirge leaves its scent on you, and on a random night up to a week after it happens, a large flock of stirges from a nearby nest will follow your trail and come to get you while you're asleep.

"The PCs cowering in terror while hordes of vicious little bloodsuckers bash on their inn room window, cracking it further with every strike, is exactly what we want to bring to D&D Next." said the unknown source. "Of course, this will be amenable to playtester feedback."

 

[Agamon]

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?

I think it's fine what they've done. It's got people talking...or venting, as the case may be. That will happen, regardless. Ragers gonna rage.

Could they have done it different? Sure. Would it have been better? Maybe, maybe not. I'm personally fine that the info will come out when they are ready to present it.

 

[Agamon]

It's entirely possible I'm wrong and I just haven't been convinced yet.

Those who have hinted at "any publicity is good publicity, since it keep people talking about D&D Next" may be onto something.

Did I just read that...on the internet?!?

*faint*

 

[Kynn]

I think it's fine what they've done. It's got people talking...or venting, as the case may be. That will happen, regardless. Ragers gonna rage.

Could they have done it different? Sure. Would it have been better? Maybe, maybe not. I'm personally fine that the info will come out when they are ready to present it.

I've updated the original post with an extra comment about my phrasing and an apology to Dave, if he comes back to read it.

 

[Cadfan]

To me the whole thing just shows that people are always ready to apriori hate an edition just because it's new or potentially varies from their super special unique way of playing.

Of course this applies to most things in life, not just D&D editions.

1. There's a group of people who really, really want D&D to have what they call "realistic healing." That is, if you get injured, you sit in a bed and rest for weeks until you're healthy again, unless of course you have access to magic. And generally people who advocate this want access to magic to be limited. There's also a group that wants injuries to sort of have... lets say, two levels. One level where its just hp damage and you shake it off, and another level where you get "realistic wounds" that have to be healed over time.

2. 5e is being billed as an edition for getting people like those mentioned in [1] to start playing D&D again (and also a number of other groups of people, its not just about the people in 1).

3. So when people saw that healing took someone weeks... they assumed that this was an example of outreach to people who want this sort of thing.

It wasn't a crazy assumption, although asking for details might have been a better move than just getting upset. My first thought when I saw that was, "Oh, no cleric? Weird for a playtest." Because that would be weird, wouldn't it? I figured that it was a weird, outlier because I figured there was no WAY that WOTC would cater to the "realistic healing" crowd very much, given how much everyone else hates so called "realistic healing."

But I can see how someone could make that assumption without being careless or stupid. It was presented that way. It was in a context where things of this sort are possible.

Actually, I think it has been pretty productive for them. For every one who complained about the stirges, I've seen just as many who were excited that it might be something that's in the game again. Haters are going to hate, regardless of what they do.

See?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

People get distracted by shiny objects. Your point is a good one; trying to extract rules from non-rule descriptions is problematic.

Yes. We routinely get incorrect rule ideas about 4E trotted out as fact, based on third-hand descriptions, and the thing has been out for, what, almost 4 years now? If having the actual rules available to be bought by anyone won't stop it, I'm not sure what kind of information release strategy could nip it even a little, before launch.

 

[Kynn]

Yes. We routinely get incorrect rule ideas about 4E trotted out as fact, based on third-hand descriptions, and the thing has been out for, what, almost 4 years now? If having the actual rules available to be bought by anyone won't stop it, I'm not sure what kind of information release strategy could nip it even a little, before launch.

LOL, you've convinced me with this.

I may not agree with everything WotC is doing, but I hereby rescind my thesis that they could have managed these particular types of problems with a different information release strategy.