WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs
Balesir
Adventurer
I would say it's circumstantial. All other things being equal, making the 10 happy could be considered better, but, if the 10 already have 6 suitable games to make themselves happy with and the 3 people have none, then I would say that making the three happy is very distinctly superior. Making the 10 happy might be "better business" (assuming they all still have money left in the budget after buying the previous six games), but I don't take profit as the *only* criterion for "better".
Edit: Oh, and "better" is neither opinion nor fact - but it can be claimed as either. Saying the use of the word "better" clearly marks a statement out as "opinion" is, well, just incorrect.
BryonD
Hero
Um, ok. I'm not sure that your hypotheticals here really have much relevance. But ok.
I'm not in any way limiting my position to profit. Yes, that adds to it. But I'll still stick to making 10 people happy is better than making 3 people happy. It probably makes more money *ALSO*. But for the topic of a GAME, making a little money on 10 people could easily be called "better" than making a boatload on 3 rich people.
As you said "it's circumstantial". If you want to join in imposing words I didn't say into my comments, then there is nothing I can do about it. But if you would simply stop and consider both the larger context AND the entirety of the two sentences, you would see that my position is entirely reasonable.
There is one sentence about 4E that seems to be hitting raw nerves. But there was an IDENTICAL sentence about AD&D. When I left AD&D for "better" games, AD&D was THE ONE AND ONLY gold standard of RPGs. Whether you are counting profits or counting happy fans or counting pretty much any other objective quantifiable measure, AD&D would easily come down as better. Thus the only possible rational way for me to say other games were "better" is the obvious context of "in my own, personal, subjective opinion."
So, bottom line there is no basis for concluding I meant objective truth and to conclude that demands a biased reading. One could state that the comments were ambiguous if they read it briefly and didn't really consider either context or the full statement. But I'd think that a sense of fairness would expect benefit of the doubt in that case. Or a thoughtful reading would conclude the correct response. It is up the the individual to choose which of those stands they will embrace.
It is also interesting that even having clarified the intended point multiple times, the ability to accept that explanation is not forthcoming. Which, to me is simply further evidence that it is more of a raw nerve, knee-jerk situation than a thoughtful one.
BryonD
Hero
Yes it does,
You said:
That pretty much exactly says that the 4E experience is not different than the experience of any others who enjoy the hobby. When you reject that other could enjoy the hobby without sharing the same experience as your 4E experience, you are proclaiming your experience to be universal.
I'm not saying you are not welcome to respond. I'm thrilled. How else can I enjoy the arguing if no one else plays along. But you put your response in terms as if my comments had been directly to you personally. I was simply commenting on that.
To which I, obviously, agree 100%.
Just that you are simply the next in a line of 4E fans that have been making comments about popularity not being important. Not that I'm putting words in your mouth. You absolutely have made no concession of 4E's popularity or anything of that nature. But the frequency that I keep seeing this mindset lately just amuses me.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
Cool post, bro.
It is also interesting that even having clarified that folks should not continue making the discussion personal, you continue to refer to persons and their motivations. To me, this is further evidence that you should be removed from this conversation.
Folks, this thread has some facets that can make it contentious. I ask you all, then, to be extra careful to keep yourselves in-bounds.
Last edited:
Remus Lupin
Adventurer
Well I just went back and re-read it. I stand by my original statement that there is nothing anti-capitalist in it per se, unless you insist that any criticism of the tendency within modern business to reduce everything to the bottom line and quarterly earnings statements is necessarily anti-capitalist, in which case we simply have a fundamental disagreement on terms. Unless capitalism is subject to critique, it can't be improved as a social and economic system.
I try to remember that Adam Smith insisted that capitalism was only possible in a world where people were motivated first by virtue. I fears we're far from that position today.
Yeah, "all business accounting is false accounting" is just a criticism of a tendency...
And out of curiosity, with respect to "all activity should be audited based on its effect on society and on the environment", no, nothing anti-capitalist about that. After all, folks like Marx knew how to put business (& prosperity, & economic mobility, & freedom, etc...) it its place.
And I'm pretty sure I just hit the wall on politcal limits for ENWorld, so we'll just agree to disagree.
I'm all for virtue first leading to better business principles & practices. But the statements I quoted above were talking in absolutes (see "all business" above) & positing anti-capitalist fantasy as the solution.
Remus Lupin
Adventurer
Yeah, let's just leave it there. I think you're reading too much into the rhetoric in the first case, and misreading what's being proposed in the second, but it's a conversation for another forum, I'm sure.
easier?
Yeah, heavens forfend that the writing be easier for the damned WRITERS!
And [MENTION=6683949]Therise[/MENTION], it actually is important (within the narrow band of very low universal importance that this whole thread occupies!) to recognize that 4e was misunderstood and ignorantly slagged off by an enormous number of fan-nerds, mainly for being 'not really D&D,' whatever that means -- and a whole lot of D&D players have since come around to evaluating the game on its own merits, for good or ill.
There's more design innovation in 4e than D&D had seen in a long long time. You don't have to like its direction to see that it was purposeful and (arguably) admirable.
It's good, too, to remember that the Realms weren't revised to cater to older players. Those players, after all, could trivially convert old material to the new system if they wanted. The new Realms were for new work and new players. You were one of those, once.
As for James Wyatt's comments -- they poorly make a vitally important, should-be-obvious point that a hell of a lot of gamers don't get. He needed to write adult advice (figure out what's important in the game and stick to it; the world isn't important except insofar as it supports actual game activity; the rules engine doesn't do everything well, so be aware of where its borders lie and strengthen or speed yourself accordingly to deal with its limitations; etc.) for children. He could've done better, as others in this thread have pointed out. But his words certainly had impact. Ho hum.
Yeah, heavens forfend that the writing be easier for the damned WRITERS!
And [MENTION=6683949]Therise[/MENTION], it actually is important (within the narrow band of very low universal importance that this whole thread occupies!) to recognize that 4e was misunderstood and ignorantly slagged off by an enormous number of fan-nerds, mainly for being 'not really D&D,' whatever that means -- and a whole lot of D&D players have since come around to evaluating the game on its own merits, for good or ill.
There's more design innovation in 4e than D&D had seen in a long long time. You don't have to like its direction to see that it was purposeful and (arguably) admirable.
It's good, too, to remember that the Realms weren't revised to cater to older players. Those players, after all, could trivially convert old material to the new system if they wanted. The new Realms were for new work and new players. You were one of those, once.
As for James Wyatt's comments -- they poorly make a vitally important, should-be-obvious point that a hell of a lot of gamers don't get. He needed to write adult advice (figure out what's important in the game and stick to it; the world isn't important except insofar as it supports actual game activity; the rules engine doesn't do everything well, so be aware of where its borders lie and strengthen or speed yourself accordingly to deal with its limitations; etc.) for children. He could've done better, as others in this thread have pointed out. But his words certainly had impact. Ho hum.
Similar Threads
