An open letter to Randy Buehler

[Vocenoctum]

Although, considering that this AP is also much longer than other Dungeon AP's, it's quite possible that the adventures really haven't been written in more than a very sparse skeleton and they want wiggle room to change things down the road, based on feedback.

If they put up a synopsis of the whole AP, they are locked into that single storyline for a long time. It could be a case of nerves.

I think that's probably the big reason. WotC has a lot of experience with authors submitting work that is somewhat different than the called for stuff.

Especially in a digital format, their books are probably all over the internet 10minutes before they hit storeshelves, so I can definitely see the very real possibility that the overview would be in players hands before the DM's even knew they were going to run it.

The flip side is that a player that wants the info is going to get it anyway, at the same rate as the DM, so it's not really a big help. It depends more on the players than WotC.

The usefulness of the guide far outweighs that risk IMO. The DM needs to see what is needed, and also to see if they even want to run the path. AoW-Overload was one of the major things that turned me off of Paizo with it's constant delays.

Another possibility is that WotC is worried that someone might see the summary and make some of the adventures before them, but I doubt that.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

As to who Randy is,

He's a former multiple Pro-Tour winner, inducted into the M:TG Hall of fame, and considered one of the greatest CONSTRUCTED deck builders ever.

He's coming from the M:TG side and other than taking part in the D&D sessions that WOTC employees do, he's never been part of the D&D side of the company.

He actually used to be much more active on the boards and used to write one of the most read columns on mtg.com ("Latest developments") so I don't think he "knows" D&D.

Sounds like a good resume for M:TG R&D. Now what are his qualifications for being VP of Digital Gaming? So far he has talked good but backing that up with results has been less successful.

 

[Maggan]

Rather strong words for being completely and utterly wrong.

And as he admitted he was wrong some few posts later, I won't hold it against him.

/M

 

[DaveMage]

(be honest, many of us would LOVE to work for WOTC and D&D)...

Yeah, but they don't pay enough.

 

[catsclaw227]

I've been chanting the "3e is constructed, 4e is limited" phrase for a while and I've actually had multiple people mention, "What's constructed/limited" and worse, nobody even comments in either agreement or disagreement.

Worse, is the DDM talk where I tell people about the awesomeness of Limited and why the booster packs HAVE to be randomized, pretty much nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about....

I don't really know what you are talking about either. As I said, I know very little about MtG and it's players.

I may have made the fatal error of assuming "familiarity with fantasy, must play rpgs".

 

[AllisterH]

Sounds like a good resume for M:TG R&D. Now what are his qualifications for being VP of Digital Gaming? So far he has talked good but backing that up with results has been less successful.

Because he's worked himself up FROM R&D to Digital Gaming. Randy started as a "tester/gopher" for M:TG cards, worked himself up to lead designer on a couple of sets, then became LEAD DEVELOPER of all M:TG.
The guy is a gamer made good.

My hunch, based on Randy's background, is that he doesn't "know" D&D.

Randy, like I said, is not intimately familiar with D&D. The idea of posting an overview for an adventure path that is supposed to run for a whole year is akin to mentioning/talking about the themes of a magic set that isnt intended to come out for a year. Something that MTGteam just doesn't do (hell, they don't even have card names or set names until the FFL gets ahold of the cards and that is still 3-4 months only).

As an aside, weren't we complaining a few weeks ago that WOTC and D&D had been possessed by suits and wasn't run by a gamer? NOW you're saying you don't WANT a gamer involved with it?

 

[davethegame]

Because he's worked himself up FROM R&D to Digital Gaming. Randy started as a "tester/gopher" for M:TG cards, worked himself up to lead designer on a couple of sets, then became LEAD DEVELOPER of all M:TG.
The guy is a gamer made good.

My hunch, based on Randy's background, is that he doesn't "know" D&D.

Randy, like I said, is not intimately familiar with D&D.

Randy was quite willing to back up his "D&D cred" at GenCon, first offering to tell us about his characters. I wouldn't be surprised if he posts about this issue specifically sometime soon.

 

[Fenes]

Randy was quite willing to back up his "D&D cred" at GenCon, first offering to tell us about his characters. I wouldn't be surprised if he posts about this issue specifically sometime soon.

I'd be more interested in hearing about his campaigns. This is a DM issue, not a player issue.

 

[Tervin]

I don't know Randy Buehler personally, only from things he has written and numerous live commentaries he has made from the MtG Pro Tour. The image I get of him is somebody who says a lot of things that seem less thought through than they should be, and shrugs it off when people are annoyed by it. Not an image I like, but he would not be where he is if that was truly all there was to the guy.

This reply from him fits way too well with that image of mine though. I sometimes feel that WotC give off an air that they as professionals understand their games and their business so much better than the rest of us, that we need not bother suggesting ways they could improve. With MtG it has been easy to prove that the public as a whole in the end knows the game best - I honestly think it is the same way with D&D, but it is harder for them to accept it.

On a side note... Myself I am a decent MtG player, clearly a Limited expert though, as Constructed tends to feel repetitive and boring. (Which of course could explain my D&D preferences.)

 

[AllisterH]

<double post Im blaming the server>