3 reasons why the design team shouldn't visit ENWorld

[carmachu]

Taking Dragon and Dungeon in-house had a specific and worthwhile reason... making sure product produced for it had been designed and vetted by the R&D department.

Bad reasoning. While Paizo had it I could very well have been just as good, given their track record. Further, what WOTC didnt count on was the outright backlash the cancellation caused(especially in light the fact wotc had to trot folks out with fond memories and calm the flames). It earned them alot more negative, then positive building up to the release of 4e.

That example shows exactly the reason why NOT interacting with your customer/fan base is a bad thing, not white noise.....

 

[Erik Mona]

Not that it really matters, but every issue of Dragon and Dungeon Paizo ever published was vetted by Wizards of the Coast as part of a formal approval policy complete with sign-offs and everything. I am sure that this is the case with all of their licensed properties, though it is also (of course) true that taking a project in-house results in more hands-on review and an easier lockstep with the department's (often unstated to licensees) future goals.

--Erik

 

[xechnao]

One thing that used to bug me about the WotC forums was that they'd come here to talk about stuff instad of on their own forums. I don't know why that was for sure, but I suspect that part of it was that the WotC boards weren't so kind as compared to here.

Beyond Mudbunny (who I realize is a WotC VCL and not a designer) I haven't see but perhaps one post from Mearls on this board in a few years it seems. Do they poke in on the WotC boards? I personally don't know as I haven't gone to the forums since they switched to the new boards.

In their forums Wotc are regarded as "the masters". As such it is harder for them to engage in efficient high level fan reaching marketing. This plus the gleemax outcome uncertainty -or any kind of outcome uncertainty. A healthy relationship with Enworld is a safe anchor point for any backlash due to any sort of failure.

Regarding the second part, it is because Wotc has decided that they should not be steering waters any further at this point.

 

[xechnao]

I read this when it was making the rounds a few weeks ago, and I've got to say that I completely disagree with this guy.

Too many creators are delicate flowers who cannot handle criticism of their material, and thus shut themselves off from all feedback. It takes practice to roll with the antagonistic BS and sift through the discussion for the nuggets of gold, but if you're any good at your job you're going to find some affirmation in the comments as well as the insults and misguided suggestions.

You're also going to discover why your products don't work for everyone, which is useful information when putting together the next one. Sure, you might choose to ignore that information, but it gives you an opportunity to address your product's perceived flaws and decide if you want to do anything about them.

I don't think building a wall between creators and customers is the way to build a successful company in the era of Facebook, Twitter, and (heck!) EN World. All it does is give the impression that you are aloof, uncaring, and too delicate to handle criticism.

Which, come to think of it, is often the case.

Basically I think creators need thicker skin and need to realize that they are doing what they are doing as part of a business.

A smart business listens to its customers.

Period.

--Erik

This guy is 100% correct. The pathfinder business is in the phase described by his last paragraph: "One last comment".

Of course Paizo marketed Pathfinder's launch as an open community test and this proved to be a brilliant marketing move.

But this guy talks from a totally different perspective.

 

[xechnao]

...an easier lockstep with the department's (often unstated to licensees) future goals.

--Erik

Exactly, like trying to launch a subscription based model for their business. I guess, if it were not for this Paizo would rather still be handling Dungeon and Dragon. But as things eventually turned out, this turn of events was rather for the better for Paizo.

 

[Erik Mona]

Sort of.

I'm not talking about limiting our listening to the Paizo.com forums, though. There are a few forums out there that are openly hostile to Paizo and Pathfinder, and I read those about as often as I read EN World, which is to say daily.

Also... how long is the grace period supposed to last? One year? Two? Paizo is now in its 8th year of operation. Is there still some timeframe during which I can expect our evil, supportive fans to turn on us? Should I be worried that 8 years of an active community is going to come back three-fold with 24 years worth of bad blood once we make a mistake?

I get what you (and he) are saying, but I'm not sure I buy it.

--Erik

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

He may have had a point, but he lost his case when he became the same type of person he's complaining about with his fry vat comment.

True, but he's only human.

And you have to admit . . . the fry vat thing *was* kind of funny.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Also... how long is the grace period supposed to last? One year? Two? Paizo is now in its 8th year of operation. Is there still some timeframe during which I can expect our evil, supportive fans to turn on us? Should I be worried that 8 years of an active community is going to come back three-fold with 24 years worth of bad blood once we make a mistake?

Whether you worry about it or not is a different issue from whether the phenomenon is real or not.

Surely you would agree that fans can be very fickle people? Take sports fans as a great example. The people who cheer you wildly one week can be booing you lustily the next (and yes, I was dying to use the word "lustily" this week).

As others have suggested, I suspect if Paizo completely changed Pathfinder and introduced a Pathfinder 2.0 with significantly different mechanics, you'd probably see some incredibly hostile backlash from once-supportive fans.

 

[xechnao]

Also... how long is the grace period supposed to last? One year? Two? Paizo is now in its 8th year of operation. Is there still some timeframe during which I can expect our evil, supportive fans to turn on us? Should I be worried that 8 years of an active community is going to come back three-fold with 24 years worth of bad blood once we make a mistake?

I get what you (and he) are saying, but I'm not sure I buy it.

--Erik

Pathfinder is the deal and I think 2011 should be the third year. Correct me if I am wrong.

But alas, time is mostly relative. I guess the real test for you guys will come when you will find out that you need to promote the update of Pathfinder and especially when/if some competitor for your market drops in the scene.

You must consider that the video games market is much more competitive for people's time and money that whatever Pathfinder will ever find ahead. Pay attention to that vitriolic post example that he chooses to pick up, one specifically talking about innovation.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, I pretty much disagree with the premise of the base article, in particular it seems to me that his comment 'The longer you are active, the more of your fans will turn on you, justified or not.' is in complete, and could more accurately be stated 'The longer you are active, the more of your fans will turn on you, justified or not, if they feel that you have not been considering their suggestions.'

Reading the forums is not enough, interacting in a manner that shows that the designer is giving the matter due thought is necessary.

Back before the third edition of Warhammer 40K it was not unknown for Games Workshop's designers to boast, in the pages of White Dwarf, that not only did they not listen to the fans, they did not listen to the playtesters when the playtesters disagreed with them.

They would then wonder why The Knights of the White Wolf did not sell very well. The figures were cool, right? Of course they were more expensive, both in terms of cash cost and points cost, than units that were more effective, but, hey, that doesn't matter, does it?

From some accounts WotC also neglected some of the suggestions of their playtesters, on such matters as skill DCs, when creating the rules for 4e.

TSR's leadership was much, much worse in this regard than WotC is right now, but isolating the designers from their audience does not seem like a good idea, at all.

If WotC's game designers are sheltering themselves from the cold winds of disapproval then they will only increase that cold wind.

Also, Spiderweb is a tiny software company. I won't say that not reading the forums is why they aren't a big software company. I think that they have a niche that they are happy with and aren't particularly trying to expand their fan base.

That said, I played Nethergate and, within its limits*, it was a whole lot of fun, in a Celts versus Romans sort of way. (On the woad again....) If you have an older machine that will run it I really do recommend the game.

The Auld Grump

* Technological limits - it was designed to run on machines that were far from cutting edge. The game itself was just fine.