D&D 5E Perfect example of the kind of interaction that I wish Wizards had with it's community.

[fjw70]

It's hard to argue opinions. You said you can cancel products that aren't announced. At what point is it considered a cancelation?

After an initial meeting discussing the new product? 2, 3, 4, or 5 meetings? After a few pieces are written for the product? After a cover mock-up is done? Unless the product is announced, at what stage of development is it considered canceled if not completed?

I am still waiting on this CCG "lie" they told.

I guess we should define bad interactions with the fans. The original quote that started this discussion is

Well, there's no one to blame for this except all the screaming masses that did nothing but rip WotC a new one over and over any time something wasn't released in the exact form they had mentioned months or years before.

I am sorry but WotC changing something in their product catalogue is no excuse to rip them a new one, and I consider that very immature behavior. So cancelling articles and changing directions on DDI is no excuse to act like a two year old.

So I stand by my statement that unless WotC staff is being rude or lying to the fans that they haven't contributed to bad fan interactions (in the sense this discussion is using that phrase).

 

[pemerton]

I wonder what ever happened to the 4e that does not require minis?

Do you mean "minis" literally?

Then I play 4e without using minis. We use tokens - mostly old boardgame counters that I have collected over the years.

Do you mean "without tokens of some sort"? Well, I don't use tokens and maps for every combat in 4e, and I know there are plenty of 4e players (but I imagine a minority) who don't use them at all.

 

[Shasarak]

Do you mean "minis" literally?

I guess you could play with Theater of the Mind "minis" but then you would not get the +2 bonus for using official WotC "minis".

 

[MerricB]

Lying about the Fortune Cards. They clearly were a CCG and WotC insisted they weren't. .

Here's Mike Mearls in an interview on Fortune cards: http://www.livingdice.com/5029/wiza...iew-part-2-of-2-dd-gamma-world-fortune-cards/

"MM: Similar to Gamma World cards, we are going to be doing fortune cards for D&D. They are collectible cards that give the same kind of random dramatic element to the game. The player can alter the action a little bit by using a random benefit. As a whole they make the game a little more unpredictable and makes things work out in an interesting new way.

"Also like the Gamma World cards, they aren’t designed to build an optimized deck to get a more powerful character. they are designed to be random and add chaos to the game."

Mike calls them collectible.

Here's part of the original press release: http://geek-news.mtv.com/2011/02/01/dungeons-dragons-fortune-cards-to-debut-february-2011/
"Available in 8-card booster packs with differing levels of rarity, D&D Fortune Cards serve as another avenue for excitement around the game table. Whether players collect them all, or just use two or three boosters to build a deck, a player’s tactical options for their character will change and expand in interesting ways."

Oh look - 'collect them all'.

 

[MerricB]

I wonder what ever happened to the 4e that does not require minis?

It came out, and we played a lot of it. Although my early play with 4E was mostly with miniatures, by the time I'd finished running two campaigns to 30th level, more of my play had been without minis than with.

But it certainly was a game where the rules were a lot easier to apply with miniatures on the table!

Cheers!

 

[Shasarak]

It came out, and we played a lot of it. Although my early play with 4E was mostly with miniatures, by the time I'd finished running two campaigns to 30th level, more of my play had been without minis than with.

But it certainly was a game where the rules were a lot easier to apply with miniatures on the table!

Cheers!

I wish I could have gotten a copy of that one. That will be a great collectable one day!

 

[MerricB]

I wish I could have gotten a copy of that one. That will be a great collectable one day!

One of the really interesting things about D&D is that, despite it being a game that is often played without miniatures, very few versions of the rules have given advice on actually running it *without* miniatures. (Is 5E the first?) AD&D has lots of rules that require exact knowledge of the relative position of the characters and monsters. Just check the rules on shield usage, although spells are the obvious first stop.

Cheers!

 

[Shasarak]

One of the really interesting things about D&D is that, despite it being a game that is often played without miniatures, very few versions of the rules have given advice on actually running it *without* miniatures. (Is 5E the first?) AD&D has lots of rules that require exact knowledge of the relative position of the characters and monsters. Just check the rules on shield usage, although spells are the obvious first stop.

Cheers!

The rules on shield seem to be pretty clear enough without needing to use miniatures - a small shield can be used against one attack per melee round, a normal sized shield against two, a large shield against three. Attacks against the right flank and the rear always negate the advantage of the shield (showing that DnD adventurers always use a shield in their left hand)

 

[MerricB]

It's the "right flank and rear" that require miniatures.

 

[Kramodlog]

It's hard to argue opinions. You said you can cancel products that aren't announced. At what point is it considered a cancelation?

When the team that worked/is working on it gets the news it won't be published? Considering WotC sent the cover art to a retailer three weeks before the cancellation was made public and the AP was officially announced, I would say the work was done by then.

I am still waiting on this CCG "lie" they told.

And you'll wait a long time.

I guess we should define bad interactions with the fans.

Sure.

The original quote that started this discussion is

I am sorry but WotC changing something in their product catalogue is no excuse to rip them a new one, and I consider that very immature behavior. So cancelling articles and changing directions on DDI is no excuse to act like a two year old.

Yeah, Defcon1's comment is a terrible starting point. It is the son of a strawman and a drunken hyperbole. It exist only by itself. Mearls response to the cancellation was the problem. Not the cancellation itself. Saying people acted like 2 years old is a personal attack, not an argument. Who acted like a 2 year old in this thread? DDI was aggravating because it didn't provide what it advertized to paying customers. That is a breach of confidence. A pretty clear bad interaction. If you want to argue otherwise, please explain why refunds were needed at one point. Cause too many paying customers were poopie 2 years old?

I responded to you who was responding to your question.

What behavior has WotC had in the past to promote bad interactions with the fans?

I provided a list of which only one point as been contested. Not too shabby.

And if we avoid acting like two years old, so what if we admit WotC had bad interactions with fans? The idea is not to make it go bankrupt. It is to share the displeasure generated and maybe prevent other butthurt. Butthurt is a serious condition that affect more and more Westerners, you know.

So I stand by my statement that unless WotC staff is being rude or lying to the fans that they haven't contributed to bad fan interactions (in the sense this discussion is using that phrase).

What is the sense it is being used?