D&D General Bob World Builder Recreates WOTC's "Do You Like Me?" Survey!

[DEFCON 1]

Well, that's not really true. Our collected feelings on their prospective changes to the OGL mattered. They walked back form the precipice. They have not then gone to the exact places some folks wanted, but they did step back.

That may be in part because we were largely united in the "No!", but not united in the "Do this instead" portion of our collected reaction.

That's really my point. No one individual person makes a difference and can change things in a specific way. Only by combining all voices together can people as a collective inspire WotC to change their decisions. But even then, they may change, but it will be a change to something they are comfortable with, not a change that any one specific individual has put forth.

Which is why a person saying that WotC has lost their business until X thing happens is a waste of breath. Because even if by some chance WotC does change, it will virtually never be in the way that one person wants.

It's exactly like how the playtests went. If a singular person hated some potential rule, all they could do was add their voice to the collective tens of thousands of people saying "don't use this", but their individual feeling did not matter. Because even if the person did not submit their survey, the results that came out of it would have been the same.

So if a person makes a choice for themselves, that's cool. But they shouldn't ever think their individual voice has impact. It doesn't. Only when the voice joins in on the chorus can it be a part of the giant group that sees * something * happen. But nothing specific to them.

 

[Maxperson]

It just seems like you are emotionally invested in this and I was wishing you well.
Enjoy your time with whatever game makes you happy.

Emotionalpy invested in the sense that I really dislike what they did. I'm not all emotional about them fixing it or not. If they do, they do. If they don't, I have plenty of 5e 3PP. And I have enough 3e stuff to last me the rest of my life without it getting old.

 

[Umbran]

But if we're supposed to make sure a lot of people are sending the same message, shouldn't we still have that meeting in the cafe to get our message straight?

Then do that! All I'm really noting is that griping to each other with no follow through isn't constructive, and a note that there shouldn't be any expectation that parties not here are going to figure it out.

And aren't we still entitled to publicly air our grievances in addition to said actions?

I am not generally big on folks feeling they are "entitled" to things. Rights come with attendant responsibilities, but "entitlements" usually do not.

I don't see how anyone has had their ability to publicly air their grievances limited. If you want the entitlement to do so without any feedback, well, this is a discussion board, so you're in the wrong place for that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That is... certainly a way to take my use of the word 'entitled'.

I'm out.

 

[Umbran]

Which is why a person saying that WotC has lost their business until X thing happens is a waste of breath.

But, the aggregate doesn't speak unless all the individual do.

 

[KYRON45]

Emotionalpy invested in the sense that I really dislike what they did. I'm not all emotional about them fixing it or not. If they do, they do. If they don't, I have plenty of 5e 3PP. And I have enough 3e stuff to last me the rest of my life without it getting old.

Best of luck to you either way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But, the aggregate doesn't speak unless all the individual do.

Sure, but anything that is spoken only matters in the aggregate. And at that point, the specifics (the specific feelings from each and every person individually) are lost. The really tight, concise, specific voices get washed out into a much more generalized, overarching "feeling" or "groupthink". No one person's voice is any more important than any others, and nothing that one person says has any weight beyond their agreeance to the general consensus. And we know this because that one individual's voice could be removed from the consensus and replaced with an entirely different voice, and nothing in the aggregate will have changed.

Yes, individuals need to contribute their voice to increase the size of the consensus to the point where that size is determined to no longer be able to be ignored... but anything specific by any one individual beyond their agreeance to the consensus does not have an impact or change anything.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

She's always struck me as the opposite of cynical and pessimistic. Just curious what subjects you think she is that way on?

The clearest example I can think of is her interview with Kyle Brink, especially compared to her more recent interview with Jeremy Crawford.

But I see no point in digging further into this, especially since her more recent videos haven’t struck me in that same way, and I’ve enjoyed them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or just because it's tedious to have to explain what an RPG is to newbies constantly, instead of saying "sure, it's D&D. We'll worry about the details later."

Yeah AFAIC im playing D&D when I play the Star Wars rpg, or The One Ring, or Alternity, or Vampire, or Monster of The Week, kids on brooms, or my own game, or an impromptu game with a paragraph of rules*.
I don’t care about the precise terminology or whatever. It’s all windex.

* “make a backstory and goals, here’s some questions to answer about who you are. When you do soemthing that needs resolution you roll 2d6. 5 or less fails, 6-10 is a mixed result or success with a cost or hard choice, and 11-12 is total success. If it’s soemthing your character should be good at, roll 3d6 and keep 2 highest dice. If it’s something where you’re relying on luck or have adverse circumstance, you do the same but keep the two lowest dice.”