Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, I had heard before that most RQ fans don't like d20. I really don't understand it.

I played RuneQuest pretty much exclusively between the time 2nd Edition D&D came out, up to the D&D 3rd edition launch. I was one of those players who 'came back into the fold' when 3E was released. So I guess I am the outlier...a long time RQ fan and Gloranthaphile (I even played in games with Ray Turney, for years in fact) who likes D20 and D&D.

Maybe you're (and people like you) are the reason why RQ fans don't like d20 - d20 took all their good players!

 

[Fifth Element]

ENWorld: "Why oh why won't WotC give us more information about 4E?"

Well-Respected Playtester: "I've played it, and it is fun like they say it is."

ENWorld: <outrage and moral indignation> "I can't believe WotC would release information like that. It's so unethical!!!" </outrage and moral indignation>

Le Rouse: "WTF?"

 

[RigaMortus2]

I think this thread is cool

 

[Delta]

But more importantly...we don't know what the 4e OGL says, so how can we judge it yet? It might suck, and it might be quite open and fair.

Or it might be entirely nonexistent. ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218031 )

Kind of like I predicted earlier. ( http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/02/no-ogl-for-4e.html )

So apparently there were clues by which we could in fact judge it.

 

[Fifth Element]

So apparently there were clues by which we could in fact judge it.

Those clues being what, that they changed the name? Not much to go on at this point.

 

[catsclaw227]

Yea, the Game System License is still not public yet either, and I am not sure if anyone has had a chance to see it yet.

For what it's worth, when I referred to the 4e OGL, I was referring to whatever the 4e license is supposed to be. i.e. the doc that the 3rd party publishers will receive when they sign their NDA, and prior to ponying up the $5000.

I am guessing that it will allow for 3rd party publishers to build adventures and supplements, using 4e mechanics as a basis for creating new stuff (classes, races, adventures, splatbooks, environment books, monster books, etc) for the 4e system, as long as it requires the 4e PHB (and/or 4e DMG)

 

[Mistwell]

Having said all that; I find the practice to be unethical and immoral. It still pisses me off. Personally, I wish that they'd just keep quiet on the whole thing. I have nothing against Ari or Andy. They have made some great products. I know, I judged these products for MYSELF. I don't need them to tell me how cool the products are. So forgive me if I take Ari's comments with a grain of salt. Though he is most likely being totally honest here; he can't escape the fact that his future employment with WOTC colors any reviews he gives as unreliable at best to any discerning customer. And that is just the reality of the situation.

Let's talk about Owen's comment on his playtesting experiences then, which are nearly the same as Ari's, but which are 100% free of the supposed taint you are painting Ari with (which is not accurate by the way - you said Ari's employment with WOTC :\ ).

Owen had no incentive at all to be dishonest in his opinion. He has a regular office job unrelated to RPGs, does not need the work, and was not at the time necessarily seeking out any work in that field. He playtested it, he likes it, and NOW he is open to being hired to do freelancer work (and specifically freelancer work for companies that are not WOTC by the way) because he likes it. So how does this color his opinion?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Never mind.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Basically, they've been given clearance to give only positive opinions on their experience thus far. Although I don't buy into the entire anti-4e skepticism, it's still fairly biased. I'd rather hear constructive criticisms about the generic aspects of the game as a broadstroke, as opposed to nothing but "allowance" to give positive opinions only.

 

[ruemere]

Ari,
thanks for sharing information.

To those who liked the fact that Ari shared information:
Positive attitude always counts.

To those who did not like WotC policy on sharing information:
You have no position to argue really, since:

1. No news at all is bad news.
2. All opinions, both positive and negative, are merely opinions, and therefore biased. It's not a bad thing, since opinions of industry veterans are something you can rely on.
3. Discouraging people from voicing their opinions by trying to undermine their credibility is clearly bad manners. If you need to argue, try to question actual information. Bashing one's views by attacking one's potential (with emphasis on "potential") allegiance smacks of prejudice.

IMHO, mods here should delicately (delicately as in "ton of bricks falling on one's head") remind people involved in this discussion that informed opinions are more welcome than innuendos.

My personal take on this:
- I am seriously concerned with supposedly closed format 4E license. It may actually delay indefinitely my adoption of 4E rules due to supposedly unfriendly attitude toward 3rd party electronic tools.
- I like the system so far, and I understand the need for simplification of creature statblock design process. Of course, it still tells me that 4E mechanics are not capable of supporting unified and universal inner game logic (i.e. one system to govern all types of creature generation), but I'm fine with that. There are few systems that do that, and even fewer which do that well.
- I'm applauding the fact that 4E continues the trend of 3E of yielding more action options to characters (especially those of non-spellcasting type).
- I'm indifferent to deepening reliance on squares and minis (see units used in statblocks). I did not like 3E metrics so there is actually even a bit of progress (for me at least).

Regards,
Ruemere

EDIT: errors.