The Impasse

[Shazman]

I am not as naive as you think. I know that the corporations didn't create the economic crisis, but they sure haven't helped it. I have nothing against them making money. It's the means they use to get that money that I question. As you said, the focus on short term profits at the expense of everything else seems to be the current trend in corporate culture these days. In the end, it gives the CEOs some fat bonuses, but hurts everyone else. It ends up hurting the customer, the company, and the shareholders. Of course, the CEOs don't care about the economic destruction they cause because they have a golden parachute they can count on no matter how bad they mess things up. There seems to be no accountability for their actions. The problem I have with WotC/Hasbro is that they seem consumed with getting the short term profits of a new edition without regard for what it does to the game, the customers, or the company in the long run. D&D is different from most prodcuts. It is a game many people are passionate about. It has history and traditions that many players believe should be respected. WotC trambled all over that to get some WOW addicts to try their game for a short term increase in sales. That is what has angered a lot of D&D fans such as myself.

 

[xechnao]

The age-old (often subconscious, maybe genetic) wish to "follow the leader". You see it all around us - from fashion trends driven by stars to religious and political figures who can do no wrong in the eyes of their followers.
There's also the "group effect" you often see in families - you may think your father is a stubborn old fool, but you'll not accept an "outsider" call him that, and defend him.
Then, once something you like gets critiqued by someone you feel not close to - like a member of your "group" - it's hard not to slip into "full defense" mode.
And then the "he started it" effect comes up - people oppose criticsm because it's voiced by someone who fought them in the past, and they want to strike back. Bloodfeuds in olden times, internet grudges today.
I'd say humans are naturally driven to blindly defend things, and it takes work to remain objective and impartial towards something one likes, seeing their faults as well as their qualities, when others attack it.



Very common.

I'd say they are not so common here, though certainly common elsewhere. Certainly there will be people who use the "blind defender" card to ostensibly disqualify someone's arguments (call them "blind opposers"?). Doesn't change the fact that this behaviour exists. As for motivation, there is a sense of security in advocating what is sanctioned and official, one might be prompted to reactively defend anything that is attacked by people he percieves as separatists because he is predisposed to conservative thinking. It is a common pattern we are all familiar with, but maybe we are not apt or willing to identify it within our shared community. I am sure anyone with a degree in psychology or sociology can give you exact terms.

I would try to simplify this process in just the group effect. Groups create conflict and conflict creates the standards or leaders of each group. Yet the fighting ground is one. So it seems that we are destined to struggle, it is a natural law or something. The question or the problem is that we learn to choose the right battles. The battles for the less negative consequences possible for all of us.

 

[xechnao]

Er. You're being a bit naive here, I think.

It depends from the POV. An economic "system" may be considered something mechanic, something considered as a machine and corporations just a part of such system in the current capitalist economy. There are also various different mechanical structures or "machines" that can logically work. I am saying that in theory there are various economic systems.
Can they work perfectly from theory to practice? It highly depends on the conditions we are facing. Could they ever enter an auto-pilot and function in perpetuity? I highly doubt so. So what it remains to think about is the morality of the system itself. What kind of morality it looks like it needs or aspires to as its driving force.

 

[Rechan]

This is really getting off topic.

 

[tenkar]

This is really getting off topic.

I thought the topic was about marijuana smoking evil companies that overextended on loans and employed Golden Wyverns riden by Blind Defenders. Its not!?!

Damn...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I thought the topic was about marijuana smoking evil companies that overextended on loans and employed Golden Wyverns riden by Blind Defenders. Its not!?!

Damn...

It might make a fine house rule.

 

[avin]

I think it has to do with a belief that gaming companies should exist only to make games for us, not to make money.

/Disagree.

Making money is one thing. Making money releasing poor products such as MM4E (compare it to MM3.5) is bad. Promising "INCREASED PAINTSTEPS" miniatures when reducing numbers and raising prices, showing an excellent Goliath then releasing a GREEN CRAP (sorry DDM guys, that Goliath is crap compared to what you showed before) it's insulting.

Defending that kind of decision is nonsense

 

[Shazman]

Edited. Refer to following post.

 

[Shazman]

Thank you Avin. Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous. Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended. Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended. Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended. Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended. Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended. Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming, or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended. Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended. Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended. In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

I like how all the people yelling "Blind defenders!" have an axe to grind about 4e.