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

[JamesonCourage]

But that's what developers do. Developers are hired by a company to make a good game. And for each developer, the good game that they are making should be based around a central idea (or set of ideas) of what is "fun".

Yep, but they do not have to voice what an objective view of "fun" is. Saying something is "the antithesis of fun" is such an absolute statement on what fun is. It's not an "in my opinion" view. It's a declarative statement on what fun is for every group. That is what sends up red flags for me.

*nods*

And always keep in mind that someone's enjoyment of something you dislike should in no way have an effect on your enjoyment of something you like.

Trust me, people enjoying another game isn't making me enjoy my game any less. Then again, I made it

As always, play what you like

I don't think it's right to pretend you're being reasonable when what you're doing is extremly unreasonable- perpetuating the myth that people have a valid reason to be angry to the point of being unable to describe the individuals using anything other than curse words about an overtly trivial jab at overtly trivial game elements in a case where it is overtly clear that no offence was intended.

There's nothing pleasant, polite, or reasonable about the mindset you're defending. In a mature, grown up society, we actually do have the right to draw the line, and decide when somebody is taking offence in an unreasonable way.

And three years after a random, arguably errant gag about some imaginye place-name, i'm going to go out on a limb and say yeah, we're not the ones being unreasonable here.

I may not have made it clear before, but I'm not arguing about this with you. You're too hostile. I understand you have your views, and there may be someone else who will discuss this with you. You seem intent on refuting my feelings on this, which is pointless. If you want to discuss it, I would be interested in that. I won't argue about it with you. If you need me to point you back to my first post on this, here it is:

No offense, but I'm really not going to discuss this with you, because you seem more like you wish to refute rather than discuss. You did not address my post, and trying to refute it won't work. That's not how perception works. That's not how feelings work. You applying your perceptions of this being purely "vicious backlash against 4e" is understandable, but from the content of your quotes, I find your responses too hostile for me to have a productive conversation with on this topic.

As always, play what you like

As always, play what you like

 

[wedgeski]

But that statement shouldn't be made, and it's really not hard to say, "based on feedback, we're going a different direction."

At which point people on the other side of the coin queue up to tell everyone how the developers are emotionless corporate robots who clearly aren't gamers and shouldn't be in control of D&D. It's a classic lose-lose.

 

[JamesonCourage]

At which point people on the other side of the coin queue up to tell everyone how the developers are emotionless corporate robots who clearly aren't gamers and shouldn't be in control of D&D. It's a classic lose-lose.

This notion that unreasonable people will speak out somehow justifies it just won't convince me. Anyone fulfilling a PR role is held to higher standards than the public is.

Yes, there will be a section of people that complain about stuff no matter what. However, the people who are in the middle are going to be affected by what the presentation. And if that presentation is needlessly dismissive of what people found fun (and perfectfully reasonable fun at that), it's going to bug some people in the middle. That's easily avoided (by not being dismissive).

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Yes, there will be a section of people that complain about stuff no matter what. However, the people who are in the middle are going to be affected by what the presentation. And if that presentation is needlessly dismissive of what people found fun (and perfectfully reasonable fun at that), it's going to bug some people in the middle. That's easily avoided (by not being dismissive).

But how do we know that those who were outraged by the dismissal of the Plane of Vacuum, and Guardinals, are in the "reasonable middle"? After all, I think I'm pretty reasonable and in the middle, and I wasn't outraged. And I own a copy of the 1st ed AD&D Manual of the Planes, purchased upon its release, and I've designed a gameworld in the past that took elements of the Plane of Vacuum and incorporated them into its cosmology. (Guardinals, on the other hand, I'd never heard of until I opened the 3E Monster Manual. They didn't strike me as all that compelling.)

And for that matter, how do we know that dismissal of that plane and those celesitals is needless? Maybe it was perceived by the designers as needed, to try to undo what they believed to be the excessive infuence of a certain approach to canonical world building over D&D play.

In retrospect, it may be that the designers would have been better off saying something different. Or maybe, as others have suggested, something else would have been held against them. Who can tell? Personally, I'm glad that they signalled clearly what they regard as good and compelling design, and what not, and then explained (in Worlds and Monsters) how those views shaped their design of the 4e story elements. It's helped me to run a better game.

 

[Then]

Not quite. They all simply know (or can easily guess) more about WotC's business than WotC is willing to confirm.

Perhaps, or maybe what was once is now something different.

We-ell, I was not present when Morrus received this information but I was at GenCon, and the rumour certainly fit in with the overall atmosphere of anticipatory silence on the announcement front from pretty much everyone (except Margaret Weis). I was fully expecting a 5e announcement at GenCon; I've been on record here with that forecast since last fall and have now been proven wrong, though perhaps I didn't miss by much.

Lan-"I am not the source"-efan

I never got the vibe at all, but then again I wasn't expecting a 5e announcement either.

 

[catastrophic]

I may not have made it clear before, but I'm not arguing about this with you. You're too hostile. I understand you have your views, and there may be someone else who will discuss this with you. You seem intent on refuting my feelings on this, which is pointless. If you want to discuss it, I would be interested in that. I won't argue about it with you.

You are arguing whether you admit to it or not, and you're labeling me as hostile because you resent that I am assertive in a way you don't find gratifying, and arguing counter to your viewpoint.

You're trying to frame the discussion in a way that suits your viewpoint and excludes or devalues the viewpoints of others, while promoting yourself by adopting the trappings of more reasonable discussion, but you're clearly arguing with dubious logic, and the details of your argument- the 'bytopia outrage'- are not reasonable.

I can understand why you'd find resistance to that to be frustrating. But it's still gonna happen.

Nobody is being reasonable, or personable, or conciliatory, when they act as an enabler on an issue like this, and label people as 'hostile' for disagreeing in ways that don't suit your script.

You can repeat yourself as often as you like, but your presumed role in this discussion is quite transparent, I assure you.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

But how do we know that those who were outraged by the dismissal of the Plane of Vacuum, and Guardinals, are in the "reasonable middle"? After all, I think I'm pretty reasonable and in the middle, and I wasn't outraged. And I own a copy of the 1st ed AD&D Manual of the Planes, purchased upon its release, and I've designed a gameworld in the past that took elements of the Plane of Vacuum and incorporated them into its cosmology. (Guardinals, on the other hand, I'd never heard of until I opened the 3E Monster Manual. They didn't strike me as all that compelling.)

And for that matter, how do we know that dismissal of that plane and those celesitals is needless? Maybe it was perceived by the designers as needed, to try to undo what they believed to be the excessive infuence of a certain approach to canonical world building over D&D play.

In retrospect, it may be that the designers would have been better off saying something different. Or maybe, as others have suggested, something else would have been held against them. Who can tell? Personally, I'm glad that they signalled clearly what they regard as good and compelling design, and what not, and then explained (in Worlds and Monsters) how those views shaped their design of the 4e story elements. It's helped me to run a better game.

The problem is that the dismissiveness was not constrained to this one podcast, or to one post in a forum, or even to a single printed book. Nor was it just one developer, it was a number of them who seem to have decided that talking up their new edition was not sufficient, that it was necessary to talk down the previous editions. It was something that the folks speaking for WotC did over, and over.

In all, I think that their approach alienated quite a few people. I know that I was one of the folks that was annoyed by this. It was like they had decided not to raise the grade but instead to lower the standard. 'The new game may not be any good, but it's better than that! Bah.

I hate to say it, but they should have left marketing to the marketing department.

The Auld Grump

 

[catastrophic]

Frankly, I don't recall any such mentality in any real sense. I think it's an artifact of 4e bashing, not any genuine set of behaviour.

They explained their reasons for making the changes they did, in a genuine and well intentioned effort to comunicate with the comunity, and pepple retconned it into some sort of mean jerkfest, to justify their own poor behaviour.

 

[wedgeski]

This notion that unreasonable people will speak out somehow justifies it just won't convince me. Anyone fulfilling a PR role is held to higher standards than the public is.

So by implication your perceived slight is "reasonable" whereas those who complain about corporate robot-speak are not? They can't be diplomatic to both sides of that divide and still call it "marketing".

 

[Crothian]

You know the one where 'you also heard the same thing from multiple sources' 'you were there talking to Morrus when the text came through' 'you personally know the source and wont reveal it'.
You know that conversation. It's strange because Morrus never mentions you anywhere. He never vouches your assertion of 'being there' even after posting in this thread multiple times.

I've only heard things from Morrus. Morrus doesn't mention me but he also doesn't mention anyone else he told.

After all of this he still feels compelled to post the rumor?

Why?

I'm not Morrus, I have no idea.

What possible good would this do but start up yet another round of Edition Wars?

You have no idea how funny that comment is. In the end this is just some silly internet rumor that will soon die. At some point the name of the source will be known or at least suspected. Right now this is just entertainment. I always enjoy it when people speak out about things they don't know about on the internet especially people new to a community. It seems to be what it is for.