D&D 3.x A message to the 3.5ers

[Wormwood]

I'm not saying you have to be a "Wormwood", here -- you don't have to think most 4e changes are the Bestest Thing Evar to participate --

Please don't do that.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think this is a problem.

Look, online manners tend to involve what can loosely be termed a presumption of good faith, but also includes a certain degree of a presumption of intelligence as well.

Won't argue with that... But just because a designer is a designer doesn't make him or her perfect.

Look at how that plays out in normal conversation. If someone tells me that they've basically eliminated character death in their game, I have two ways I can respond. I could say, "Oh, really? How do you motivate your players, and what do you do for drama?" and then we could have a discussion. Or I could say, "WHAT?? I'm glad I don't play in YOUR pathetic excuse for a game! That's like the worst of rpgs and video games combined! You just sit there and knock down enemies that can't even threaten you? What a bunch of wusses."

Do you see the problem with the second post? It presumes an awful lot, all of the presumptions are uncharitable, its insulting, and it leads nowhere.

Again, like I said, directly attacking a person isn't constructive at all, and the person doing so is acting out of turn, but it doesn't make the concerns any less valid.

I try not to do this to other people. But remember, the charitable presumptions of good faith and intelligence are just presumptions. Once someone writes a post like that, I know that they're either not speaking in good faith, or they're idiots. Either way, I could do with less of them on the forum.

There are two types I see on the board. Trolls or people who are upset. The trolls I ignore. They want to start trouble and will do so. The people who are upset I forgive. Emotions, like I said, make people say things they might later regret, or make them unable to convey the true meaning of their concern. By labeling them an idiot, you're, in my opinion, doing more to fan the flames of an edition war. You're simply stating your concerns are invalid, go away.

Sadly, a lot of people who probably wouldn't consider acting this way towards other forum members happily do so towards WOTC. Posts like, "Fireball has a critical chance now? THE GAME IS BROKEN!" are worthless. Posts like, "Fireball has a critical chance? That could cause some problems. I wonder if they've done anything about them? Here are some ideas I've got," are awesome.

When I was in a screen writing class we had to critique each others work. A lot of the critiques would come across as, I didn't like it. It's boring, or that's lame. Sure I could have ignored them and said, they're just idiots... But what would be the point in that? Granted, it would be nice to have a full critique of what they thought was lame or boring, but that's not their job. As the writer it was MY job to sell them on my latest work. Some people just aren't good at explaining why they feel a certain way.

The same is true for WOTC. It's not our job to give them a full run down of what's bad. It's their job to give us something cool. Again, it will make their job easier if we give them more constructive feedback... But still if enough people simply say "this sucks," it still sucks.

If enough people say fireball has a crit chance now THE GAME IS BROKEN!!! Maybe WOTC needs to do a little more to address the issue, and calm the fires.

We need more of the latter, and less of the former. And as the former have squandered my presumption of good faith and intelligence, I am free to hope they get eaten by a gru.

Great, so does the world. But WOTC, as a business, and as a creative force, needs to pay attention to ALL critiques no matter how eloquently stated or simply put. People are people.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I have no problem with critiquing elements of 4e.

I'm just tired of sanctimonious anti-4e posts that add nothing to a discussion.

And I'm just as tired of the 4e rocks posts that add nothing to the discussion. Take both of those type posts out and this forum would be empty.

 

[The_Baldman]

I think WOTC is partly to blame for those posts... They release a snippet of rules, and give no indication that they HAVE considered the impact if rule Y is not accounted for. They simply say "Isn't that COOOOOLLL??????"

I'm willing to give the designers credit and say they have thought them through. But until they give some indication that they have I can understand why people feel simply saying a rule is cool, or really cool, isn't going to cut it. It's always possible that they simply missed something as well.

IMO Wotc is in a position of lose/lose for at least a 4-6 month period from the time of announcement.

On one hand they have to announce a change to the core system ahead of time as 3rd party publishers, distributors, and players in general need to know. That announcement had to come at Gencon to give almost a years notice to release.

On the otherhand even though the announcement is made the product is not done. It's still being playtested internally and externally as we speak. Changes are happening based on that playtesting as well I am sure as opinions and posts on lists like these (Wotc people read these boards - lots of them in fact).

So we as gamers want to know everything now. It's our nature. We love our game and we love our rules. We want what they cannot give us. They are not ready to give us all the answers. Heck I am sure they don't even have answers for some of what is being asked. So they are giving what they can when they can to keep us strung along until they can show us all the cool bells and whistles of 4.0 (and trust me they want to show us - they want to wow us with what they think is a great product and get all those on the fence off it onto the 4.0 side).

Some will say 'Well they should have waited until they were ready to announce it" which of course would have been even worse. We would then have people screaming about not enough notice, D20 publishers would have things in the pipeline for a rule set that would soon be replaced, and the sense of betrayal by the player base would have been even greater.

They could be saying nothing. They could have made the announcement and then shut-down. A boxed text reply to everything asked of them "4.0 is currently being worked on and will premiere next year - thank you" would have doomed them from the start.

So while the presentation of 4.0 so far is not what I would call grade A I would at least give them a B on it. These are game designers and organized play people who are excited about a project trying to share it with you. They are not marketing reps or sales trying to spin tar into gold or blow brightly colored prismatic sprays up your backside.

So I think most people are hopefully optimistic about 4.0 - that does not make them fanbois or Wotc stooges. They honestly care about this game and the community that comes with it and hope that the new version moves things forward not backwards. It's not wrong to be hopeful that something you like succedes.

At the same time there is nothing wrong with constructive criticism. There is nothing wrong with stating you do not like a certain thing as it has been presented. There are things I don't like as well and I have let them know about them. Don't attack them though (it's a game - hate the game don't hate the writer). Don't attack others who are optimistic just because you are not. Realize that everything is changing constantly and half the stuff I see argued about on here is oft-times a rumor started by somebody else, stated as fact, and then ranted on for 4 pages.

Take everything with a grain of salt and join the optimistic group. We have a lot more fun over here (and we have cookies).

Dave C
Somebody Nobody

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

...Tell you what, Son of Thunder. Please go reread my post #27 in this thread -- you remember, the one about not being a jerk to people -- then tone down the hostility in the future. Most of your post is great, both apropos and interesting, but it sure could have been said without the angry dismissiveness of that last line.

You're correct. My apologies.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

I read this as asking for a "safe haven" for undisturbed 4e happy, happy talk.

Isn't that available over at the Wotc official forums (Wizards or Gleemax or whatever it is nowadays) where one can suckle rich, milky 4e goodness directly from Wotc's teat?

If perchance even the Wotc official forums offer no relief from grumbling/complaining about 4e, I think that should tell you something.

You sir, take a laugh point if you collect 'em.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I've always considered ENWorld something like a big family.

A family of over 50,000 strangers who mainly post under fictional identities?

 

[Shortman McLeod]

So they are giving what they can when they can to keep us strung along until they can show us all the cool bells and whistles of 4.0 (and trust me they want to show us - they want to wow us with what they think is a great product and get all those on the fence off it onto the 4.0 side).

Please, please, pretty please don't call it "4.0". I had hoped that we were past the whole decimal nonsense with "3.5".

 

[Wormwood]

A family of over 50,000 strangers who mainly post under fictional identities?

I'm considering an Ignore function for my family.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I'm considering an Ignore function for my family.

Which actually *would* make it like many peoples' families.