What Are You 12?

[DonTadow]

Do you mind listing these sites? I have trouble believing that anyone not hosting illegal WotC IP got a cease-and-desist. I'd be intrigued to see who you were thinking of.

I can't see why anyone would be susprised by this, considering this was a tactic byh tsr and in early 3e days.

I gotta wonder if the pro wotc moderation towards this issue has anything to do with enworlds financial endeavors tied up with 4e and wotc licensing.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't know what to say about this except that I know a LOT of graybeards convinced that game companies stole their ideas. Our local guy is convinced that he designed hald of Carmegeddon. We just nod our head when he talks, its best that way for everyone.

I've been wondering about this for a year or so, and I'm considering starting a new thread about claims to this effect. I've heard/seen enough of them to think there might be something going on besides simultaneous game design. However, I don't know if that would violate ToU here at ENWorld.

Could a mod clarify for me?

 

[Scribble]

The podcasts on WotC web sites are full of foul mouth expletives that I as a business owner would never have associated with my company. And half of the players on the podcasts appear to not know the rules at all.

I remember way back in the 90s TSR sent me this tape (remember tapes???) that was an ad for that new "first quest" line they were doing... On one side of the tape was what was supposed to be a "typical" group of players getting togetehr to start playing D&D.

OYE... man I was "cringing" in embarasment for the kids on the tape, and needless to say I didn't feel at ALL connected to those kids. It was unnatural and the tape ended up becoming basicaly a joke we played when we wanted a laugh. If I weren't already a gamer, and I heard that tape... I'm really not sure I would have wanted to try out the game if THAT was a group of the typical players.

The new podcasts, as others have said, feel more natural. They ARE my group, complete with foul language, missed rules, and goofy jokes. One thing I can say, is despite a few PR gaffs (a lot of which I think were way overblown and would have been taken wrong no matter what) the PR team this go around really seems to be trying to treat the audience like, real people, as opposed to just gamers, and the gamer stereotype.

 

[coyote6]

I can't see why anyone would be susprised by this, considering this was a tactic byh tsr and in early 3e days.

Eh, TSR isn't WotC, and 2009 is not 1997; I don't think WotC management even has any personnel in common with TSR management, do they?

I gotta wonder if the pro wotc moderation towards this issue has anything to do with enworlds financial endeavors tied up with 4e and wotc licensing.

That's kind of a cheap insinuation, isn't it?

I don't see the admins being particularly "pro-WotC" as much as they are "anti-jackass"; it just happens that the majority of posters seems to be rather upset with WotC currently, so there are simply fewer "pro-WotC" people being rude at the moment (because there are fewer "pro-WotC" posters ATM).

Actually, in the big ol' closed thread about the PDFs, I think the percentage of "pro-WotC" people moderated was much higher than the "anti-WotC" -- simply because the one "pro-WotC" poster I recall being moderated was something like 20-25% of the "pro-WotC" posters in the thread.

(FWIW, the quotes around "pro-/anti-WotC" are because some folks would probably balk at being labeled as pro- or anti-WotC; the labels are just shorthands for "people upset by WotC's decision" and "people not so upset or more upset by perceived anti-WotC vitriol".)

 

[DonTadow]

This is the truth I long expected. WOTC has honest gamers working for it, who wish the hobby well, but ultimately to keep their job they are beholden to the bean counters of Hasbro who care nothing for the spirit of the gaming hobby.

It sucks, but its the truth. That's why i see 4e as being the next Wizards and Warriors or any of the other mini rpg systems that have come out over the next few decades.

 

[DonTadow]

Eh, TSR isn't WotC, and 2009 is not 1997; I don't think WotC management even has any personnel in common with TSR management, do they?



That's kind of a cheap insinuation, isn't it?

I don't see the admins being particularly "pro-WotC" as much as they are "anti-jackass"; it just happens that the majority of posters seems to be rather upset with WotC currently, so there are simply fewer "pro-WotC" people being rude at the moment (because there are fewer "pro-WotC" posters ATM).

Actually, in the big ol' closed thread about the PDFs, I think the percentage of "pro-WotC" people moderated was much higher than the "anti-WotC" -- simply because the one "pro-WotC" poster I recall being moderated was something like 20-25% of the "pro-WotC" posters in the thread.

(FWIW, the quotes around "pro-/anti-WotC" are because some folks would probably balk at being labeled as pro- or anti-WotC; the labels are just shorthands for "people upset by WotC's decision" and "people not so upset or more upset by perceived anti-WotC vitriol".)

But its no secret that wotc adapted tsr tactics during their first edition launch and in 2009 their doing the same thing as 1997. Wotc has gone as far as manipulate reviews of their products this year to skew a positive view.

And my comment isn't cheap nor insulting, its a fact that enworld has had a large chunk of revenue from the launch of 4e and now hopefully a relaunch of some failed or il performing previous products in the 4e brand. I have no problem with the skewed moderation, but moderators shouldn't be "posters" in threads that give the impression of biasness.

 

[kitsune9]

I have been noticing a trend with WotC that I find somewhat bothersome.

It's as if the company is being run by young teenagers.

Some examples:

1) A friend of mine created a submission to WotC and was denied. A few years later, WotC released a series of books with the major artifact from his submission with not only the same ability, but with the exact same name (and the name is the title of the book).

2) The podcasts on WotC web sites are full of foul mouth expletives that I as a business owner would never have associated with my company. And half of the players on the podcasts appear to not know the rules at all.

3) Any post that is anti-WotC and even slightly controversial on the WotC forums is locked down, often within a matter of hours. Free speech is practically denied if anything negative is said about WotC.

4) WotC seems to be threatening a lot of web sites with lawsuits if anyone creates anything useful as a 4E tool. I have a few web sites in my favorites list that no longer exist or have their useful tools available.

It just seems to me that a bunch of young punks are running the showWotC. Maybe I'm just an old grognard, but I am seeing quite a few things that make me go: hmmmm.

For #3, I read a lot of posts from people rant against Wizards about their botched DDI when nothing was coming out of the pipeline. Some of them were pretty funny with WotC being a bunch of keystone cops when it comes to programming. The only time I've seen WotC clamp down is when the ranters started getting personal or getting vicious like insinuating violence. I haven't been to WotC forums lately, but that's what I've seen and read.

 

[Cadfan]

I've been wondering about this for a year or so, and I'm considering starting a new thread about claims to this effect. I've heard/seen enough of them to think there might be something going on besides simultaneous game design. However, I don't know if that would violate ToU here at ENWorld.

Could a mod clarify for me?

I can't answer your question, but I can point out that when you clipped the quotation in your response, you mis-clipped and attributed something I said to Karinsdad. I don't mind, but he might not want to be associated with my ramblings.

 

[Piratecat]

But its no secret that wotc adapted tsr tactics during their first edition launch and in 2009 their doing the same thing as 1997. Wotc has gone as far as manipulate reviews of their products this year to skew a positive view.

And my comment isn't cheap nor insulting, its a fact that enworld has had a large chunk of revenue from the launch of 4e and now hopefully a relaunch of some failed or il performing previous products in the 4e brand. I have no problem with the skewed moderation, but moderators shouldn't be "posters" in threads that give the impression of biasness.

Okay, we're going to take this in several pieces.

1. Please state where WotC has manipulated reviews.

2. How precisely do you know the financial details of EN World? What do you consider a large chunk of revenue? And how much money do you think I have earned from EN World advertising here? (Here's a hint: none. We're volunteers, with no horse in this race.)

3. If you have a problem with moderation, the site rules specify that you email a moderator about it. You do not make accusatory, passive aggressive posts. Please do so in the future.

4. You must be confused if you think that I'm personally in favor of WotC's actions regarding pdf sales. I don't think you've been reading these threads if you think I am. But professionally, as a moderator, my job is to stop people from being rude and disruptive here at EN World - and that's true whichever side of the issue their opinion falls on.

You've managed to be extraordinarily offensive, frankly. I'm a little surprised and amused that you see me asking for proof on an unsupported statement as bias.

 

[Piratecat]

Upon reflection, folks, Don should email me if he wants to discuss this. I'd rather not get the thread off-track. Carry on, please.