What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Oldtimer]

Thievery has been around longer than humans have: you're not ever going to stop piracy.

I am amazed that a lawyer doesn't know the difference between thievery and copyright infringement.

The REAL way to put a dent in piracy, though, is in ethics education, be it secular, religious or both.

This has nothing to do with ethics.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am amazed that a lawyer doesn't know the difference between thievery and copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement, like embezzlement, larceny and a lot of other nifty legal terms is but one of a subset of crimes that fall under the general definition of "theft." Theft, in its simplest formulation, is taking and/or using something that doesn't belong to you without permission.

As I've posted here elsewhen (one of several similar posts on this subject exist- many with more detail and some with case sites- but this is the first one I found):

From Black's Law Dictionary:
Stolen: Acquired, or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act or taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, and with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership (or possession) permanently.

So, by infringing on someone's copyright, you are stealing because:

1) One of the fundamental powers of owning a copyright is the right to distribute or to choose not to distribute by any legal means. If you obtain copyrighted material without compensating the IP holder, you've done so by not honoring the terms by which he has offered to distribute the IP. IOW, you have deprived the owner with at least one benefit of ownership- the right to sell (or not sell) it to you.

2) You have intentionally obtained & retained possession of the property without/beyond the permission of the owner.
<edit>

From Black's Law Dictionary:
Theft: The taking of property without the owner's consent...

The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking...

...it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession fo property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker's own use is guilty of a "theft"...

...any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over the property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to be stolen by another

Copyright infringement satisfies several clauses above, (a) at the very least (especially that "exerting unauthorized control over" language), and quite often in the age of file sharing, (d).

Even within the realm of the purely physical, theft doesn't require that the item to be stolen even be moved off of the owner's property. The crime of shoplifting is complete as soon as you pocket the item- letting you get out of the store is just the cherry on top that makes things easy. Moving something in a stockroom to a different location and locking it away elsewhere on the premises so that you can take it home after work is a complete theft the moment you shift that item with the intent to take it later.

So, if you're one of the types who believe that information should be free, and/or that its not theft if the person still has possession of the item stolen, please send me a message containing your real name, drivers license numbers, social security numbers, bank account numbers, pet names, parent's names- including maiden names- and anything else I'd need to steal your identity.

This has nothing to do with ethics.

This has everything to do with ethics.

 

[El Mahdi]

...

Off-topic, but I just noticed you've got that double "Community Supporter" thing going on also. Piratecat said it might be something in our User Settings that might be causing it, but I couldn't see any settings that affected it. He said he was going to take a look at mine and see if he could fix it. If he figures it out, I'll drop you a pm and either tell you how he did it or let you know he can fix it.

 

[MrMyth]

There is a huge difference between "is unsuitable", which I never said, and "one things provides more support than the other", which I did say.

There is a difference between the two games. Andy described a root cause.
If you can't see it, then fine, you can't see it. It makes no difference to me.
But if you say it isn't then, then, quite simply, you are wrong.

I know this is the thread specifically for sharing what you feel WotC can do to bring you back to their game. But this quote is why I think the specific opinion being shared here is useless to them - it takes the position that your personal view is absolute truth.

And I know it can seem like that, at times. But you need to realize this isn't the case. For me personally, 4E provides more support for Roleplaying that 3rd Edition did, and in some part due to the very philosophy that appals you - for myself, feeling like I can build a flavorful character without worrying whether my choices will hinder me mechanically gives me free reign to embrace roleplaying and flavor over mechanics and stats. Similarly, I find support in other areas - xp guidelines for roleplaying, quests, easier encounter develop giving more time to focus on story, etc - help me with RP as a DM.

At the same time, I absolutely recognize that there are other things it doesn't offer, that older editions do, which others might find more of a selling point. I'd love for 4E to really overhaul its background system into a secondary skill system that revitalizes crafting and professions and other elements of flavor. I can totally understand the concerns about certain narrative conventions in 4E breaking suspension of disbelief.

And I think that those things are what this thread should be about - providing specific examples of what you would want changed. So that WotC can find a way to work those elements in alongside other elements current players enjoy.

But stepping up and saying that '4E provides less support for roleplaying, and anyone who disagrees is wrong' is useless. Especially when the support for this argument is based on a philosophy that many 4E players find enhances roleplaying, rather than detracts from it.

The argument you are making is that 'by focusing on mechanics over story, they are providing less support for roleplaying'. But that's a useless statement. We've already seen that people disagree with that as an accurate interpretation of what the designer was even saying. If you want to genuinely give feedback on a change they can make, give us an actual example.

The Monk, in third edition, had various abilities that lent it excellent flavor - the ability to slide down walls, being an unparelled master of leaping and tumbling and acrobatic tricks, moving across the field with greater speed than anyone else, and developing such control over his body as to resist poisons and spells and even perform feats like teleportation. In combat, he fought with his hands by unleashing a flurry of blows, was adept at combat tactics like tripping his foes, and could even acquire special attacks that could stop an opponent's heart. He was adept at fighting without armor, relying on his natural insight and speed to avoid blows.

All of those are excellent elements of flavor. Yet the designer commenting on the monk felt the monk also had potential downsides - his reliance on multiple stats, his need for magical items or really focused builds and feats to keep his defenses viable, etc. Could you build an effective and potent monk? Absolutely. But it was also very easy to build one and discover that he wasn't actually all that good at dodging attacks, and that his flurry of blows was relatively inaccurate and didn't hit all that hard. He was still fast and agile, but so were rogues and rangers that were also quite effective at what they did, and might bring even more non-combat tricks to the party.

So, for me, the idea of being able to play a monk, embrace its flavor, and still feel effective at the table - that's a big selling point for me. And I'm confident that your argument isn't that this desire is a bad thing - you are fine with them making an effective monk. You just don't want them to sacrifice the story and flavor of the character to do so.

I can understand that. What I want to actually know... is how you feel they have done so. For me, the 4E monk still has all the old flavor. A master of agility and movement and acrobatics, who moves quickly across the field, scales buildings with ease, knocks enemies to the ground. Who has even more martial arts tricks, in many ways, and is adept at fighting without armor. Where do you feel they have sacrificed mechanics for story? He has abilities that let him purge his body of impurities, he can strengthen his will against magical assaults, and even attune his body to shrug off the most powerful of blows.

So - you feel that WotC has taken on a philosophy you disagree with. They set out to make a monk that they felt would be more balanced with the other classes. You view this as them having decided to sacrifice story for mechanics.

I want to know exactly how. Where do you actually feel they went wrong? What can they actually fix to bring you back?

I don't want - and I suspect they don't either - to hear some commentary about how 4E is like a tattered deck of cards, and it isn't as useful as one that would be fresh and clean. That doesn't tell me anything, other than that you don't like 4E - which is fine, that is an opinion you can have. But the point of the thread is to share actual reasons.

You feel people disagreeing with you are misrepresenting what you have said. I'm saying the problem is that you haven't really said anything. You've told us you want them to ditch a philosophy that you feel moves away from support for roleplaying. But you haven't actually shown that it does so - instead, others (and probably the designers themselves) might actually feel this philosophy supports roleplaying in many ways.

I can accept that you want more support for roleplaying. I can accept that you fear that focusing on balanced mechanics could come at the cost of the flavor and story of a class.

But just because you fear that result doesn't make it so. If there are actual changes they've made that have caused that fear, those are what you need to talk about. Maybe they will be changes too fundamental to the edition for them to do anything about - but maybe they won't be. Maybe there is a common ground. Finding what can be fixed, and leave everyone happy - that is what this thread is all about.

But just tossing out your opinion, and outright insisting that anyone who disagrees is wrong?

Sorry, but that's not going to do any good. And as long as that outlook is the one you have, it is pretty much certain that nothing WotC does - no matter how reasonable - will every win you back.

 

[Lanefan]

Off-topic, but I just noticed you've got that double "Community Supporter" thing going on also.

off topic

Check yer paypal statements - maybe it means you're paying twice.

/off topic

Reading this long and quite fascinating thread, it seems there's at least some general consensus that WotC could win back quite a few lapsed customers by doing at least one of:

• 1. re-releasing and augmenting older edition material in pdf form
  2. re-releasing and augmenting older edition material in print form
  3. designing and releasing a simpler, less rules-focused game in parallel with 4e and-or 5e
  4. supporting older editions in DDI, Dungeon, etc.

I can think of absolutely no good reason why they don't do #4 right now. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the cost of doing so would doubtless be covered and then some by the increase in subscription revenue, and assuming said support was generally any good the increase in goodwill value would be tremendous.

To do #3 would take time and resources but if time and resources are going into 5e design anyway (now or in the future), why not design two games at once?

#2 is my own little pipe dream as I *far* prefer books to pdfs; while I have a printer here I do not have an in-house bookbindery, and thus it's just not the same.

And #1 has been hashed to death - WotC have to have heard the uproar by now and one can only assume it'll happen at some point, whenever the stars align just right...

Thoughts?

Lanefan

 

[I'm A Banana]

I will say that I don't think it's realistic to expect WotC to maintain any sort of ongoing support for older editions.

They can sell you PDFs. They can sell you a searchable database. They can not just sit on a mountain of stuff that they could be getting people to buy. That seems theoretically possible (barring aforementioned piracy paranoia and DDI backlog)

But I really don't think that WotC would spend anything on ongoing support for older stuff. For that, your best bet is the community. And one of the great things about D&D of every edition so far is that it has a marvelously generative community. So you're not loosing much.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I will say that I don't think it's realistic to expect WotC to maintain any sort of ongoing support for older editions.

They can sell you PDFs. They can sell you a searchable database. They can not just sit on a mountain of stuff that they could be getting people to buy. That seems theoretically possible (barring aforementioned piracy paranoia and DDI backlog)

But I really don't think that WotC would spend anything on ongoing support for older stuff. For that, your best bet is the community. And one of the great things about D&D of every edition so far is that it has a marvelously generative community. So you're not loosing much.

Beyond the possible inclusion of submitted articles dealing with "D&D Classic" being included in the DDI/Dragon/Dungeon/whatever, I don't think anyone realistically expects real support for older editions of the game.

For most, I think the pdfs & database, etc. would be a significant resource by itself.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I see folks getting nasty in this thread. I see people people invoking the language filter, getting snippy, and otherwise trying to "win".

Please stop it. It isn't constructive. Whatever your side, being a jerk about it won't win anything for you. This is the internet, and being rude doesn't get anyone else to back down. So, there's no point to such behavior.

I'll thank you all ahead of time for your sterling comportment form this point on.

 

[BryonD]

QFT.

I once stated that 4Ed for me was like GURPS- a reasonably well-thought out system that I just don't happen to like much. And because of this (and like GURPS), I won't be buying 4Ed products to run a game (which I'll never do) but I will buy products to play in a game.

I agree completely.

(except I like GURPS...)

 

[BryonD]

I know this is the thread specifically for sharing what you feel WotC can do to bring you back to their game. But this quote is why I think the specific opinion being shared here is useless to them - it takes the position that your personal view is absolute truth.

And I know it can seem like that, at times. But you need to realize this isn't the case. For me personally, 4E provides more support for Roleplaying that 3rd Edition did, and in some part due to the very philosophy that appals you - for myself, feeling like I can build a flavorful character without worrying whether my choices will hinder me mechanically gives me free reign to embrace roleplaying and flavor over mechanics and stats. Similarly, I find support in other areas - xp guidelines for roleplaying, quests, easier encounter develop giving more time to focus on story, etc - help me with RP as a DM. .

No, you are failing to understand the point I am making.

I don't doubt for a second that 4E provides you with the same roleplay support that 3E provided to you.

But it doesn't do all the things that 3E did. Just as it DOES do some things that 3E didn't do.

If the kind a roleplay support that a player (such as myself) is looking for is roleplay support that puts first "imagining what could exist in the D&D world" and "assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done", as Andy directly stated prior editions did and 4E does not, then 4E is not going to provide that. And that isn't a subjective assessment. That is the way the game was designed.

Whether or not that is a GOOD THING is, of course, absolutely, subjective.

If I liked football more than baseball, I might say that it is better because you can tackle guys in football. You could, mistakenly claim that I'm presenting my opinion as an "absolute truth", when if fact, I simply stating the absolute truth that, you really can't tackle guys in baseball. Agreeing with my opinion that this makes it better is completely up to your tastes. But it is true no matter what your opinion may be.

If you step back and look at what I'm actually saying, you will see that I fully understand the difference between the objective differences and opinions on those differences. If you think I'm stating a personal view as truth, you've misunderstood.

There isn't a drop of badwrongfun in 4E. 4E is designed with certain goals in mind and an excellent job was done in meeting those goals. But, those goals are different than the goals of some other games, 3E being one example.

They are different. And there are pluses and minuses.