4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Raven Crowking]

And what did he change?

From the context we can see, and from the fact that the blog entry is the same as the current, I would say it is very likely that he updated the blog entry in his quote, which would be a reasonable thing to do.

I am not saying that there is anything sinister going on here; I am saying that WotC needed better PR people to handle the 4e announcement than it had. And that not having those PR people has contributed to the current climate of debate around 4e.

Surely it is not such a leap to imagine that the 4e announcement & follow-up could have been handled better?


RC

 

[Umbran]

There is a psychology term called 'projection'. You might find it interesting if you look it up.

Yeah, and there's another called "passive aggressiveness".

Trying to paint a wide swath of folks with one brush in this manner is dismissive and rude in the extreme. Please don't do it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think that the proper way to apply any apples/oranges analogy is this:

"I don't like apples, and yet WOTC has begun making apples where before they were making oranges."

In addition, despite the fact that they are now clearly producing apples, they have chosen to continue to label the crates "Oranges".

I will agree that specifics are always better than just 'it doesn't feel like X edition', but I guess I'm not sure how you discuss what you don't like about a newer version of a product without at least the possibiity of discussing what you liked about the old version. To continue to use your fruit analogy but in support of your desire for specifics: perhaps you prefer the color orange, or the lack of a bitter core, or you like the smell of oranges. So I can see a reason to call for specifics. I don't like (for example) the ramped up first level power, the combat focus of ALL classes, the increased emphasis on tactical boardplay, etc.

And of course many wouldn't feel so strongly about any of this if WOTC had not tried to force everyone to produce apples and stop providing oranges, using their market share and resources to convince everyone that apples are indeed the only fruit worth having. If anyone chooses to provide apples, they are legally required to stop producing oranges...that's bound to upset people....

...and can lead to scurvy.

I don't think this is a good analogy. Mine would be this:

WotC produces fruit. They produce oranges, pears, peaches, grapes, and whatever, but most people mostly wanted the apples. During previous management, they put a lot of work into offering all varieties of fruit, and even allowed outside contractors to produce varieties of fruit that WotC didn't offer or neglected under the same roof. Still, most people wanted apples, and this prioritizing of bringing all fruit under the same roof lowered the quality of the apples. WotC is now under new management, and they have chosen that this time they will focus the business on the apples, which is what most people(though not all) wanted. Other fruits still are produced, but these are not a priority, and some fruits that were produced before are neglected or altogether missing. In addition, while the outside contractors haven't been run out, WotC isn't allowing them to produce under the same roof anymore, and isn't sharing their apples, though they offer a contract for you to produce apples to be sold with WotCs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Nice backtracking. It still stands that there was more than a small taste of agression in the original statement.

I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.

If we take a supers rpg and replace all the trappings with fantasy, but the PC's all still use superpowers, then its still a supers game.

If we take take a fantasy game, and leave the fantasy trappings in place, but replace magic with superpowers, then we have a supers game.

It takes more than PC's wearing robes and plate armor rather than tights and capes to make a fantasy game.

If using a supers system with fantasy trappings like 4E works then use it.

 

[phloog]

Because there are all sorts of associations with the word "wizard", for example. It's a powerful word. Like those Power Word spells (remember them?) Elf is similar - lots of associations and ideas spring to mind unbidden. The sort which trigger ideas for worldbuilding, adventures, and characters.

Eladrin? No signal. SNIP.

For me, the biggest problem with Eladrin, and Warforged for that matter, is that I can't just ignore what I know in my heart - that these names are 1) specifying things about the setting that ARE indeed totally different from what I want, but also 2) only in the form that they are so that they can be preserved as IP.

I realize that's likely petty of me, but I don't want to have races with funky names and 'flavor' that disagrees with my campaign in my core gaming books, particularly if it's only taking on the weird form or name so that WOTC can stop anyone they don't like from using it.

It's a bad precedent as well...D&D 6E will likely have the Grelpnor (TM) - who are short, with beards, a tendency to be dour, but they are NOT called dwarves!!!

They live in great jungle cities called Fippypucks (TM)..the good news is that they get the feat Triumph of Seven Puppies (TM) for free at first lavvel (TM), and are immediately thrumficient (TM) in multiple Weppinz (TM), including the Braggonfek (TM). (Playset and figures sold separately - - to use any of these words in casual speech please refer to the GSL v 3.4, noting that using these words constitutes agreement to never use OGL words again).

 

[Obryn]

From the context we can see, and from the fact that the blog entry is the same as the current, I would say it is very likely that he updated the blog entry in his quote, which would be a reasonable thing to do.

I find it less likely, but your orange re-quotes, just a few posts below it, also match the article. I'm going to guess that you quoted the most troubling passages, and would find it strange that Dave Noonan would edit the whole blog except for the most troubling parts.

I am not saying that there is anything sinister going on here; I am saying that WotC needed better PR people to handle the 4e announcement than it had. And that not having those PR people has contributed to the current climate of debate around 4e.

Surely it is not such a leap to imagine that the 4e announcement & follow-up could have been handled better?

RC

I think that's kind of a topic jump, but no, I don't think the PR campaign was done as well as it could have been. That's neither here nor there, though.

-O

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.

If we take a supers rpg and replace all the trappings with fantasy, but the PC's all still use superpowers, then its still a supers game.

If we take take a fantasy game, and leave the fantasy trappings in place, but replace magic with superpowers, then we have a supers game.

It takes more than PC's wearing robes and plate armor rather than tights and capes to make a fantasy game.

If using a supers system with fantasy trappings like 4E works then use it.

Equating personal opinion with truth I call agression. Its dismissive of other opinions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am going through the thread, examining the day Glyfair made his changes.

Post 199 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/3759367-post199.html) made at 3:46 was right before he made the changes to his OP, and right after visiting Mr. Noonan's blog.

I suppose I could give some effort towards finding other references to Mr. Noonan's blog on other sites, but as I am not suggesting malice on Mr. Noonan's (or Glyfair's) part, is there any real point?


RC

 

[phloog]

I do find it perhaps unfortunate that WOTC choose to use terms that are fairly close to MMORPGs...but I guess I'm glad they didn't call any class the 'Tank'...which IS from City of Heroes. Whether they did it because they are recognizing influences from MMORPGs or not, can't really say, but it does feed the speculation.

 

[vagabundo]

I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.

If we take a supers rpg and replace all the trappings with fantasy, but the PC's all still use superpowers, then its still a supers game.

If we take take a fantasy game, and leave the fantasy trappings in place, but replace magic with superpowers, then we have a supers game.

It takes more than PC's wearing robes and plate armor rather than tights and capes to make a fantasy game.

If using a supers system with fantasy trappings like 4E works then use it.

I suppose, if you want to look at it that way. Once you get passed third level all versions of DND start to look like a supers game.