D&D 4E 4E WotC way of saying your fired?

[Imaro]

Well, you're not being paid to make decisions for the company, so I don't really see why this should be a problem (aside from a false sense of entitlement).

Right...because consumers are irrelevant...and what was the post originally about again? Nice snarky pro 4e comment there.

 

[hazel monday]

Well, you're not being paid to make decisions for the company, so I don't really see why this should be a problem (aside from a false sense of entitlement).

You're right. They're not paying me. I'm paying them. And if they expect me to continue forking over my hard earned money come May, I would at least hope they'd consider my expectations as a customer.
Or is wanting my money's worth from a purchase just another symptom of my "false sense of entitlement"?

 

[D'karr]

Hasbro purchased Wizards of the Coast one year before 3rd Edition was released.

WotC was sold to Hasbro in January of 2001 several months after 3rd Edition was released.

 

[The Little Raven]

You're right. They're not paying me. I'm paying them. And if they expect me to continue forking over my hard earned money come May, I would at least hope they'd consider my expectations as a customer.

That's the thing. You don't pay them for products designed by you. You pay for them products designed by them. If they aren't what you like, your wallet is how you vote. Expecting to be in on the development process (especially when you're taking a customer base in the hundreds of thousands) is just silly.

There is no reason you should be relevant to their decision-making process more than the hundreds of thousands of other people that play the game... except for a false sense of entitlement.

 

[The Little Raven]

Nice snarky pro 4e comment there.

My comment is about production in general. It applies to video games, movies, television shows, cars, computers, mp3 players and anything else that professionals research and design, then provide to consumers.

Just because I buy a company's products does not give me any relevance to their decision-making process as an individual.

 

[crazy_cat]

No, my decision on whether to buy the game or not is based on that.

D&D 4e could be the greatest game in all creation, but if they make Asmodeus a god then it takes the game to a place I can't go, and so I won't buy it.
*snip*
The reasons for my objection to this particular change fall under the "no religion" rule, so I won't discuss them here.

Don't agree with a word you're saying here. But, you have my respect for standing up and saying it.

 

[hazel monday]

That's the thing. You don't pay them for products designed by you. You pay for them products designed by them. If they aren't what you like, your wallet is how you vote. Expecting to be in on the development process (especially when you're taking a customer base in the hundreds of thousands) is just silly.

There is no reason you should be relevant to their decision-making process more than the hundreds of thousands of other people that play the game... except for a false sense of entitlement.

What I was saying boils down to (and I thought it was obvious, but I guess not) I feel like the products they're making and the decisions they're making are not in my best interests as a customer or a D&D player.
Canceling Dungeon and Dragon adversely affects me as a customer.
Relaeasing a new edition 4 years too early adversely affects me as a customer.
Making the mechanics of the game resemble "Final Fantasy"would adversely affect me as a customer.
I wasn't saying I wanted to be "in on" the development process.
I just feel that WOTC don't have my gaming group's best interests in mind when they make their decisions. My wallet will, of course, vote accordingly

 

[kenmarable]

How could the playtest possibly be a PR campaign when everyone involved in the playtest is under an NDA?

WotC employee #1: "Okay, we want everyone participating in this fake playtest to generate tons of good PR for us! How can we best make sure they do that?"

WotC employee #2: "We could make them sign legally binding documents saying they can't talk to anyone about 4E?"

WotC employee #1: "Brilliant!"

Because if there wasn't any outside playtesting, it'd be a huge PR blunder? The mileage isn't out of the individual playtesters, but out of the community knowing there is playtesting (not to mention the nice anticipation building of "Will I win the playtest lottery and be one of those randomly chosen few?!! whether intentional or not, is pretty effective marketing).

I'm not necessarily saying that is the case, of course, and I'm sure they are getting valuable playtest feedback. But also knowing typical publisher calendar's, I am very nervous about them starting outside playtesting this late. As stated earlier, it *looks* like either

a) things are pretty solid and the playtest feedback is mostly minor tweaks ("this spell needs work" as opposed to deep changes to classes, how skills are chosen, etc.)

b) things are still largely in flux, which for entirely new edition of the game, that's rushing it out the door

c) it's to assure R&D that the outside playtesting matches up with their math and internal playtesting and boosts confidence in the system (which raises the issue of what if it doesn't match up?), or

d) playtesting is mostly just for PR

It's probably some of all of them. But my guess is that A is the most likely primary focus of the outside playtesting. Individual spells, feats, etc. are being tweaked, but the cleric class won't be redone, for example. But I 'm sure that outside playtesting was considered a necessity both for R&D as well as purely business/PR reasons.

 

[hazel monday]

. But I 'm sure that outside playtesting was considered a necessity both for R&D as well as purely business/PR reasons.

I think a good PR move for WOTC would be to get a working model of the game into the Paizo Designers' hands. WOTC seems to be having the most trouble with "old school" type players. Paizo seems to have a lock on those types of players.
Also, on a more selfish note, I plan to convert to the New Edition only when and if Paizo does. If it's a good system, I'd rather convert sooner than later.

 

[kenmarable]

"I honestly trust and expect that 4.0 will allow us to do that, so my default assumption, to be frank, is that we'll convert whole hog to 4.0 at some point or another.

--Erik Mona"

That's a long rant just to come to this conclusion. 3.5 support until Feburary 2009? Looks like I won't be buying any Paizo product anytime soon. I really think that Paizo is hurting themselves by doing this. Many on the Paizo forums seem to be leaning to the anti 4e side, Erik seems to be swayed by this crowd (just by going off this particular rant for what it's worth). I know it's important to listen to your fan base, however I would like to think Paizo is listening to D&D as a whole rather than a few Grognards on their forums.

Actually, the "rant" was in response to maliszew's question of whether there was a possible scenario that Paizo would continue with 3.5 support in the long run. Erik was replying to that question (which he did vent during), but the "rant" didn't lead to his conclusion that a good 4e is the best option. It was mitigating it. Basically Erik said "I hope 4e is what we want it to be, but since you asked if there is a chance we will support 3.5 in the long term, then...."

And being a regular reader of the Paizo forums, I can say that it seems to be more anti-4e (or at probably more commonly 4e-worried than antagonistically ANTI-4e) than pro, but there are definitely supporters. And Erik has stated earlier on that same page and elsewhere basically "the rules sound great, but the flavor doesn't". I know because it largely echoes my same feelings.

So, that one "rant" was a response to a specific question. Don't read too much into Paizo's business practices and assume they guide the company based on "a few Grognards on their forums". From what I've seen from Paizo over the past several years is that they are pretty much guided by what their customers (beyond just the forums) want and what they really enjoy personally. On numerous occasions the Paizo staff has told the forum members "the general opinion might be one way here, but our sales figures pretty clearly say otherwise". So they are cognizant of the potential difference in opinions between active forum members and their entire customer base.

Oh, and 3.5 support until February 2009 was his worst case scenario given the length of the Pathfinder arcs, timing of when they need to start writing arc 3, and how early they need to see the 4e rules. Their GameMastery modules can convert at any point since they are monthly and disconnected. And hopefully Paizo will get the rules in time to make an informed decision about Pathfinder arc 3. So, again, don't read too much into a single forum post.