D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[GSHamster]

It is fundamentally impossible to give "unfiltered" opinion with diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of careful filtering.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here's a simple rule for developers to follow:

"Don't try to be funny."

I'd wager the vast majority of bad developer gaffes would disappear.

 

[FireLance]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here's a simple rule for developers to follow:

"Don't try to be funny."

I'd wager the vast majority of bad developer gaffes would disappear.

I disagree. I want the developers to continue to poke fun at their own creations and engage in self-mockery. I want to know who I should avoid gaming with in real life.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, "Don't try to be funny" when talking to fans is probably damn good advice.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Of course, when the developers *were* saying things like that, and being very diplomatic and PR-friendly, they were immediately bombarded with accusations of "not giving any useful information" and "talking like politicians."

This comment seems less than productive, to me. People were unreasonable when they said stuff that didn't deserve it, true. However, they shouldn't have said the things they did in this instance. Poor behavior from one side does not excuse it on the other, and those engaging in PR (developers or otherwise) have more responsibility in this area than most.

I agree. As I said - in most industries, the customer doesn't get to talk to the developer for this very reason. Developers typically don't have the skillset developed well enough that they don't occasionally suffer from foot-in-mouth disease.

But, you see, there's a rock and a hard place here. A large segment of the public seems to have really wanted the developers to talk. So, you got the result of that - which was a certain lack of diplomacy.

It was, in my opinion, a bit of an error. However, that error occurred more than three years ago. I also think it is time to stop belaboring that error.

I'm not offended by it. However, catastrophic and others have come into the conversation saying how irrational it was for people to feel something in reaction to someone bashing the Plane of Shadow. I think that's incorrect, and I've stated why.

It is fundamentally impossible to give "unfiltered" opinion with diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of careful filtering.

In the absolute sense of the word, you're basically correct. Of course, I think the fans were asking for unfiltered information on the course of the new edition, and you most certainly give that information unfiltered but diplomatically. Saying, "from the feedback we've gotten, not many people enjoyed something like the Plane of Shadow, and we're moving away from a design philosophy that embraces it" is actually more correct (I assume they got a lot of feedback, at least) than saying the Plane of Shadow is "the antithesis of fun."

One is your personal opinion of something from the past. That's nice and all, but I think D&D fans wanted to know where the game was headed. If you're looking for unfiltered information on that, the first statement is more than adequate. Yes, you're filtering your personal thoughts, but not the direction the game is heading, nor why.

You could even extend the comment to: "From the feedback we've gotten, not many people enjoyed something like the Plane of Shadow, and we're moving away from a design philosophy that embraces it. It looks like not many people were having fun, and so we're trying to make the game more fun to as many people as we can. Here's what we have planned:"

If you use the above statement, you can clearly see what they're doing, and why they're doing it. The reasoning is clear (they're basing it on feedback, with fun for the majority of players as their primary goal). When we talk about unfiltered information from developers, I don't think of it in terms of their opinions. I think of it in terms of shaping the future of the game, and why. And the paragraph above most certainly addresses that in an unfiltered way, but also diplomatically.

Yes, people will complain if something they like is being cut or altered. You can't stop that. You can most certainly get away from declarative statements about fun (or what is the "antithesis" of it).

As always, play what you like

 

[FireLance]

To be fair, "Don't try to be funny" when talking to fans is probably damn good advice.

With fans like these, who needs anemones air conditioners*?

* Or other devices designed to blast cold air at you.

 

[Hussar]

JC, you are perfectly correct. And, to be fair, the designers could have been far more diplomatic than they were. I looked at it as a couple of guys just kinda jacking around in front of the microphone and not a policy statement from a company.

To me, and I'm not saying that this is the one true interpretation or anything like that, it made the designers seem a whole lot more like a couple of gamers than professional suits.

 

[Kobold Boots]

1. Designers are not spokesmodels.
2. Expecting designers to be spokesmodels is the problem.
3. Throwing stones when we've all said things we'd like to take back.. not cool

Last, "being funny" is generally a coping mechanism used when people, especially young men, are nervous and when it manifests this way is usually involuntary with the desired outcome being acceptance.

Nuff said from me.
KB

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here's a simple rule for developers to follow:

"Don't try to be funny."

I agree that trying to be funny is a good way to run into trouble.

However, this does not change the fact that "unfiltered' and "diplomatic" are pretty much diametrically opposed. Stopping to consider how what you're about to say might come across is required for diplomacy, and it is a filter.

 

[rkwoodard]

atari

Hello,

So, do we think that the rumor of an announcement that was pulled and the Atari agreement regarding digital rights (see thread in industry forum) are connected?

RK

OH, there is a thread in this forum already discussing the connection.

 

[mudbunny]

This comment seems less than productive, to me. People were unreasonable when they said stuff that didn't deserve it, true. However, they shouldn't have said the things they did in this instance. Poor behavior from one side does not excuse it on the other, and those engaging in PR (developers or otherwise) have more responsibility in this area than most.

It's not, IMO, poor behaviour. What you appear to be saying is that designers can only express positive feelings towards something, or they should not comment at all on it. That is, to me, asking the developers to act intellectually dishonest.

If the devs don't like something, I feel that they should be free to say it. To expect a dev to like every part of every past bit of D&D that has come out is quite unrealistic. There will be parts of prior editions that they like, there will be parts of prior editions that they dislike.

I'm not offended by it. However, catastrophic and others have come into the conversation saying how irrational it was for people to feel something in reaction to someone bashing the Plane of Shadow. I think that's incorrect, and I've stated why.

I don't think that it is irrational to feel offended (my interpretation of what you and others feel, not trying to put words in your, or anyone's, mouth.) However, I am seeing people on both sides of the situation try to apply an objective decision (offended/not offended) to something that is clearly, to me, a very subjective situation.

I understand why people feel offended. I just don't think that is warranted.

*shrug*

I am not you, you are not me.