No Dice <Nerd Rage>

[Mark CMG]

There's no "truth" in that to be quoted.


"More dumb?" I think stifling discussion of a bad result from a decision based on not having complete accounting information ranks up there. It implies that those who have access to the books definitely look at them, factor them into a decision, and cannot have make a bad decision because of that knowledge. It ignores the obvious downside of the result. It presumes that someone should always agree with the decisions of people who have more information regardless of the outcome of a decision.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That's why the spam irritated me. It's supposed to be an olive branch? A way to expand the hobby by bringing in more players? I find it sickeningly ironic that I'm being handed an olive branch by the same people that chopped down the tree in the first place.

WotC's policies regarding PDFs and the GSL serve one purpose and one only- hedge out other businesses (and previous editions).

What's made me mad is WotC's overly aggressive advertisements and policies. Or should I say, hostile policies? Cause they seem to be hostile to promoting any kind of gaming community, whatever the ads themselves might say.

You are acting like someone is claiming WotC wanted to snub fans as opposed to having just made a poor decision that had the result of angering fans. (I personally take them at their word they they are interested in reaching out to fans old and new.) I think your mischaracterization is meant to marginalize some of the people with views opposed to yours and I would like you to stop that, please. I think as people who game together several times a year for a half dozen years or so now, you and I can be a bit more civil to one another than that. If you feel I have impugned your character or mischaracterized your posts in a similar fashion, please just say so and you will have an apology forthcoming.

I do believe some (as quoted above) are making this more than just an issue of perceived poor business decisions and reacting as if this were a personal snub against themself, previous editions, and the gaming community respectively. But I was quoting your post and I apologize if it seemed I was characterizing your posts in such a light. I only meant to comment on the accounting aspects I disagreed upon with you and instead continued into my general thoughts related to this thread.

I don't think so. If I owned a store, and was basically required to spread promotional information by a producer else lose the privilege of selling the product, my hands would be tied.

I meant to comment on this earlier. This comment is just plain false. I am close friends with a store owner who does not participate in the Encounters program (or any other WotC-sponsored program for that matter), but still is quite able to sell their product in his store. No policy is tying his hands to sell the product he wishes to sell. I would also be curious to hear from the other store owner I know that does participate in Encounters to see if he feels his hands are tied by WotC's so-called "hostile" policies.

 

[Mallus]

I have a simple policy when it comes to buying products: if it looks like a good one, I buy it. I try not to let the companies other business dealings affect my decision, unless it comes to my attention said company uses child labor overseas, or deals in blood diamonds, or is involved in arms shipments to unsavory foreign governments.

Saves me a lot of needless angst, this does.

As for WotC recent marketing attempts/gamer outreach... good for them. Seems like a smart move.

I don't mind unsolicited email, especially from people I gave my email address out to. They're just a fact of life in my part of the world. There are worse things to have to deal with. For instance, cranky child soldiers armed with Kalashnikovs.

 

[Shazman]

At this point, should any of us be surprised when WotC makes a business decision that seems stupid, alienates it's customers, and seems to be guaranteed to cost them business? Come on, they are pros at it by now.

 

[Crothian]

At this point, should any of us be surprised when WotC makes a business decision that seems stupid, alienates it's customers, and seems to be guaranteed to cost them business? Come on, they are pros at it by now.

That's a lot of hyperbole. Care to back any of it up?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Honest question: If they did that (and just that), would it recover YOUR goodwill towards WOTC?

Yes.

But, then, I am already converting 4e adventures to my own system, so my goodwill might be easier to recover than that of some others.


RC

 

[Shazman]

Let's see
1) killing the print editions of dungeon and dragon
2) lots of thinly veiled insults at previous editions, fans of previous editions, and certain playstyles in the hype leading up to 4E
3) hyping a product that will never be (virtual table top)
4) the GSL
5) laying off D&D employees every six months even though 4E is supposedly doing great
6) designing the newest edition around an excruciatingly slow combat system that makes playing the game almost unfeasible
7) stopping legal sales of all pdfs
8) an astonishing amount of errata and rules updates that invalidates physical books very quickly and is nearly impossible to keep up with
9) killing DDM which has resulted in nearly killing the entire minis line

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's no "truth" in that to be quoted.

"More dumb?" I think stifling discussion of a bad result from a decision based on not having complete accounting information ranks up there. It implies that those who have access to the books definitely look at them, factor them into a decision, and cannot have make a bad decision because of that knowledge. It ignores the obvious downside of the result. It presumes that someone should always agree with the decisions of people who have more information regardless of the outcome of a decision.

"You must spread some XP around, etc."


RC

 

[MrMyth]

1) killing the print editions of dungeon and dragon

A tough choice, but a great many people find the current versions of them to be the best the magazines have been in ages - with not just decent content, but content that is just as usable in a game as in any printed book.

2) lots of thinly veiled insults at previous editions, fans of previous editions, and certain playstyles in the hype leading up to 4E

Yeah, I don't think these were ever truly the 'insults' some felt they were...

3) hyping a product that will never be (virtual table top)

They definitely screwed up there. And have since come out with some decent products, and adopted a policy of not announcing new products until they are definitely on track for completion.

4) the GSL

Could definitely be better, sure.

5) laying off D&D employees every six months even though 4E is supposedly doing great

You know, just like they did through the life of 3rd Edition. I'm not a fan of the corporate culture behind such turnover, but I don't think it is reasonable to consider it a bad business decision or a sign of the company doing poorly. They regularly release employees and bring in new ones when they need to amp up production - that's how the company works. I don't like it, but it also doesn't fit in this list.

6) designing the newest edition around an excruciatingly slow combat system that makes playing the game almost unfeasible

Yeah, this just isn't true. Combats have the potential to go long, but they also avoid a lot of the pitsteps that slowed down combats in the last edition. And they have continued to demonstrate a willingness to try and provide options to fix what issues some people have.

7) stopping legal sales of all pdfs

I again disagree with their decision to do so, but don't think it was malicious, nor do I think we have the data to judge whether it was a terrible business decision or not.

8) an astonishing amount of errata and rules updates that invalidates physical books very quickly and is nearly impossible to keep up with

1-2% of a book received errata doesn't "invalidate" the book. An update every other month, posted freely on their website and incorporated into the character builder, is not "nearly impossible to keep up with."

Some don't like the errata - I think it is fantastic, and many agree that WotC being willing to work to keep the game balanced is a genuinely good decision for the company to make.

 

[Mallus]

But, then, I am already converting 4e adventures to my own system, so my goodwill might be easier to recover than that of some others.

Really? Which ones are you converting? I've heard most of the them are pretty bad... we've been running 4e exclusively for almost 2 years and none of our DM's have used a published 4e adventure.

Actually, the current adventure my buddy Steve wrote is kinda brilliant. It would make a fine first mega-module for the Port setting -- if we ever get our act together a do a proper, publishable --or give-away-able-- write-up.