WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs

[darjr]

I must admit that the two guards quote cased a double take for me. One of the best 'encounters' I have had the priveldge to game in was the guards at the gate of the keep on the border lands.

I almost thought that 'encounter' was almost iconic. I must have been wrong.

 

[Ydars]

I must admit that the two guards quote cased a double take for me. One of the best 'encounters' I have had the priveldge to game in was the guards at the gate of the keep on the border lands.

I almost thought that 'encounter' was almost iconic. I must have been wrong.

Oh you were wrong; BadFunWrong!! (joke)

Honestly; I had forgotten it was Wyatt who said that stuff online and in the DMG. It is certainly the statement that crystallised for me how far WoTC had taken D&D away from what I thought it was.

And yet he is still at WoTC!

Do Monte's ramblings worry anyone else? The noises coming out of WoTC about 5E seem to me to be just as confused and off base as some of the stuff that was said during the pre4E era,

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

For what its worth (i.e. not much), I agree with what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said on the subject. The problem is, most folks clearly won't think to that level on the topic, as evidenced by all the "all we have to go on is what's written" comments I've seen on the subject. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that most of the comments to that effect came from people who don't want to think to that level on it. They had already made up their minds about 4e, and this was just fuel for the fires of their growing ire for the product.

I think that's honestly a lot closer to the truth.

Most of us don't play the Gygaxian Way, and yet what he wrote didn't deter us. I don't share the opinions of Wyatt (if that's really his opinion, and not something he was told to write or the words of an editor). I do whatever feels right for my players, and whatever works for the type of game I want to run, and sometimes those things change from session to session, let alone campaign to campaign or even game system to game system.

So yeah, I tend to run 4e against the written advice, and so do the other DMs in my gaming group; what of it? It still works, it's still a great game to play (for us), and for the most part, my players seem to agree. I don't buy into that crap about 4e being a "bad choice" for some styles of play. The game is what you make it, and that applies to pretty much any game.

 

[Therise]

...I think that Wyatt, more than any other, was the source of the 'bad-wrong-fun' description that a lot of folks felt that WotC was trying to place on 3.X.

And I will be honest - I think that he said exactly what he wanted to say. He said the same things too many times for it to be otherwise - that he really did view 4e as being all about the combat encounter.

He was trying to limit the game to those things that 4e does handle well, and trying to play down what it did not handle well. He was not misplacing nuances, he was trying to tear down 3.X in the hopes that by doing so he would promote 4e. If so, then he was very wrong.

Mind, 4e itself would likely have turned off some of those same people that were angered by his statements, but adding what many saw, and still see, as needless insults really did not help matters. Insulting your customer base is not the best way to start things off.

And I think that there is little doubt that folks are using 4e for things far beyond just combat encounters, those statements weren't necessary. He would have been better served showing how those things can be done with 4e than by saying that they 'aren't fun' and that you were better off just not doing them.

Yet Mr. Baker is leaving and Mr. Wyatt is still there....

The Auld Grump, but at the rate WotC goes through people....

After a period of being intensely angry at how WotC nuclear-bombed the Forgotten Realms, reading words like this from Wyatt, and then hearing the uppity marketing messages of "4E is better in ways you can't possibly imagine, it's more fun than any previous edition... awesome, awesome, awesome!", I finally came to the conclusion that WotC was making a game that catered to their in-house tastes rather than anything that the community was begging for. The drastic gutting of the Realms? Primarily to make things easier for their in-house authors.

Initially, I was turned off from even trying 4E. Two years after release, I'd played it a couple times, but it never really stood out as being "awesome" as they'd claimed. It was okay, and a fine game for encounters, but not terribly memorable and nothing that made me want to invest in it. Beyond that, I don't think I'll ever forgive them for turning the Realms into a smoking husk of what it once was. There is no fixing possible of that grand mess, even if they pull off another RSE for 5E... and they will, because it's what they do. Adding more frosting to a bland cake, particularly when it's bad frosting, never actually improves the cake.

So to me, the WotC staffers ultimately made themselves a game that they loved. They changed the Realms to serve their own interests and to appeal to prior Realms-haters who didn't like all the complex "fluff". They left me and mine behind. Companies often change direction, and push toward newer visions, but usually companies try to go in directions that don't intentionally alienate the existing fanbase. I'd think that everyone in the gaming industry would want to broaden their customer base. WotC likes to do PR events and make announcements, but they're really awful in their PR delivery. Badwrongfun and "your old game cannot compare to the new awesomeness!" are perfect examples.

Add to this the fact that nothing -really- new has come out of WotC in terms of creative content... we're talking decades of rehashed older Realms sourcebooks... how many times do I need to see yet another version of Waterdeep, Menzoberranzan or Cormyr, just with a few "updated touches" to make it seem new? And I really have no faith in WotC's supposed creativity any longer. And Amazon just posted -another- Menzoberranzan from WotC for Aug 2012. I'm sure it'll have 90% recycled old content, and they'll throw in a few spellplagued and spellscarred things.

No thanks, WotC.

 

[Tilenas]

Do Monte's ramblings worry anyone else? The noises coming out of WoTC about 5E seem to me to be just as confused and off base as some of the stuff that was said during the pre4E era,

Do you mean "people want to play wizards because they blow things up" (paraphrased)? Other than that, most of their announcements had me very much looking forward to 4e: unified and balanced classes, restricted multiclassing, skill challenges, you name it. Seeing the final result left me really disappointed. Now, again, I am mostly in favour of Monte's musings on game design, and I believe he is actually capable of delivering.

 

[BryonD]

There is a well-known approach to RPG design and play that focuses on the situation as the focus of play, and that relies on (by traditional D&D standards) fairly robust scene framing as part of that.

<snip a bunch of stuff>

You said a lot. And I really don't have any dispute with what you said here.
But you seem to have gone to a lot of words to not actually answer the question that was asked.

If anything, you seem to be somewhat backpedaling with comments about how the statement was NOT well made. And you also strongly base your case on the implication that the previously discussed "if" qualifiers are understood. But from a straight reading that requires a very favorable spin. Which comes back to my point, the BEST case scenario is that it was written very poorly and neither James nor anyone else read back over and realized how poorly it was written.

You description of what makes for a good game is all well and good. Take the words in question and put them in front of 1,000 random people and then have a poll. Your interpretation won't come close to being the conclusion of what was said.


And, again, I don't consider it fair to judge 4E based on a few lines of advice. And I ABSOLUTELY concede your playing style and success with the system.

But I also consider the overall context to support that the implications of this text hits closer to the heart of 4E than your personal spin on 4E does. I think the qualities you create say more about you than they do about the 4E mechanics. (that is intended to be read a a compliment to you, just in case the tone was lost...)

 

[BryonD]

Of course, and I didn't write anything to the contrary.

OK, shrug.

You called "conspiracy theory". I dispute that claim.

I beg to differ somewhat. They had an effect, indeed, as any written word read by someone has. But to tell that they would have the effect to actually drive away people from 4e? Come on, guys. I expect roleplayers to be mature enough to evaluate the written word and decide what to use for their own game.

It isn't about "mature". It is about making value judgments.
And it is about doing EXACTLY what you said. A lot of people read that (and, very importantly, the mechanics and a lot of other comments for context) and concluded that the best thing to use for their own game was a system without that baggage.

So what? I feel free to run and play a 4e game different from the scenario James prescribes in these sentences. I don't feel obliged to remove roleplaying from th equation, though I have to admit that we have preempted the removal of shopping list gaming a long time before those words were typed.

But I felt free to run and play the original AD&D game completely different from what Gary Gygax envisioned and hinted at in many places. Frankly, we did give a damn about all that "official" remarks, the insinuations that to play non-official was bad.

Pray tell me, where's the difference?

That this is all a red herring?

I don't recall any AD&D advice saying that talking to the guards "is not fun". That is the issue being dodged here.

I fail to see a debacle, but it doesn't give me a headache to see other people seeing it differently. Fine that you find my stance funny, maybe I can give aou a laugh with my reply.

Ok, so you agree that other see it differently.

Wouldn't you agree that the specifics of exactly what it is that people are seeing differently is very significant to them and should to people who want to make customers of those people.

You seem to be making this about you and/or 4E fans. That completely misses the point. If I, or anyone, was saying that liking 4E or not caring one way or the other about these words was a personal failing, then I would be deeply wrong and your rebuttal would be sound.

But that wasn't what it was about. And, frankly, when you suggest that not moving to game that advertises itself this way is a marker of "maturity", then that challenges your claim of being ok with other points of view.

 

[Azgulor]

I beg to differ somewhat. They had an effect, indeed, as any written word read by someone has. But to tell that they would have the effect to actually drive away people from 4e? Come on, guys. I expect roleplayers to be mature enough to evaluate the written word and decide what to use for their own game.

Well, in this gamer, and former WotC's customer's case, it certainly helped drive me away. Would a single WotC employee's comments do that? No, but combined with the whole, it was pretty clear that what WotC envisioned for the game was not where my players and I wanted to be.

Yeah, I looked at the books when they came out and made up my mind. But in editions past, I probably would have bought the book to read at my leisure. Between the design previews & tidbits, the condescending marketing, and comments like James' that had the tone of "get onboard or you're doing it wrong", I wasn't willing to give WotC my money.

When you're spouting off with friends, you can say what you want. When you're speaking as a representative of your employer, it helps to either A) ask yourself if it's wise to word things a certain way, B) know your audience & what they'll tolerate, or C) do both.

 

[MrMyth]

It's interesting to me because Wyatt, old hat that he is, probably doesn't follow this advice in his own games. I've got every confidence that he's quite the fine DM. And, the paragraph comes from the core of a good idea (namely, you don't have to spend time on things your group doesn't like).

I've always gotten the sense that that point that was trying to be made was more, "Bypass mundane encounters. This doesn't mean you can't have an engaging discussion with gate guards or the like, but if you have a scene without any conflict and with the players not interested in it, its ok to fast-forward through it."

But that point wasn't exactly elegantly expressed and produced a lot of lines that sounded all the worse out of context.

 

[MrMyth]

Pemerton I don't disagree 4e can be played tgat way and I like GMing situationally as defined by Clash Bowley but I really think you are reaching here. He says point blank an encounter with two guards isn't fun. Doesn't qualify the statement at all. The big problem I have with the advice is it fails to acknowledge and describe the range of styles out there. It settles on a narrow approach to the game. Personally I think Wyatts words stand as some of the worst ever written for D&D.

Sure, but I think putting so much focus on two specific sentences, and ignoring dozens of other pages of advice in the book - and other sources - is a bit much. Short of him hopping in here and giving his own explanation, we aren't going to be able to know exactly what he meant. For my money, given the context of the statement and the rest of the book, I took the intent of it to not being saying, "Never run an encounter with two gate guards", and instead to mean, "Don't bother with a meaningless encounter with two gate guards."

Again, his wording was definitely poor and problematic. But the folks taking that as somehow defining his approach to the game - or extrapolating that as a summary of 4E in general, in defiance of every other aspect of the books - are putting way too much focus on a single line.