Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[catsclaw227]

My knee jerk reaction to this situation is this: WOTC shouldn't give any playtester special permission to comment on the new edition. I want to hear unrestricted comments from both positive and negative sources before I decide to buy into 4E. I already don't like the direction the game is going with DDI, and doing marketing things that feel a tad shady aren't improving my opinion.

First, there's nothing shady about the email Andy Collins was referring to, and there was nothing shady about how the playtesters that commented about 4e handled things.

Second, everyone seems to be forgetting one seriously blatant fact. We will get LOADS of both positive and negative criticism about 4e in one month. After D&D Experience, there will be plenty of people willing to spew forth their opinions, either informed, ill-informed or uninformed. That will be 3 months prior to the launch of 4e.

How much more open can a publicly held company (Hasbro) be about an unreleased product still in development. In other vertical markets, shareholders would have a lot to say about this, gagging the company completely.

I say, take what we can get, because it doesn't have to be this way.

 

[PoeticJustice]

Where and how does [Ari's Blog] imply [generic approval]?

I've finally been told that it's okay to talk about my opinions in a little more detail.

As most of you already know, I've been both playtesting and working on 4E material. I can't say what, of course. But it does mean that I've had the rules for months now, and have been playing in an ongoing 4E campaign with a group of NDAed playtesters.

He didn't say positive experiences. That's what I was referring to.

Especially if, as my previous post to this thread suggested, you apply an ounce of common sense to the situation. What would possess WotC to give the kind of blanket clearance you imply here? Why do you think they're obligated to take such bizarre and unprecedented measures? How is WotC putting limitations on what people who are under an NDA can say out of line or even remotely surprising, given what an NDA is?

Look, if you don't like what I'm saying, that's fine. Put me on your ignore list before you accuse me of not applying common sense to the situation. I don't really want to argue with you either.

I think disclosing the particulars of what may and may not be discussed from the very start would be appropriate in this case. It doesn't detract from what Ari's saying to preface his report by saying that he's been allowed to break NDA by saying a few words in support of 4E.

The behaviour you're demanding would benefit neither WotC nor the gaming public, for reasons that have been discussed in this thread far too many times to be worth repeating yet again.

Maybe, but it would make me feel a lot better.
EDIT: I'm not demanding. I'm disappointed. Like I said in my first post on this thread, the experience leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

While I may regret stepping into this:

I'm trying to give an overall impression of my opinion of the game. That overall impressions is positive. I have no -overall- negative opinions.

There are specific elements I like more and those I like less. I can only comment on specific elements if they're already common knowledge, whether I liked them or not. I like dragonborn, for example. I sometime walk the line a bit, and say I like how races are presented. But, sadly, I can't tell you -why- I like that yet.

There are things (like a lack of gnomes or bards in the PHB), that I see as non-issues, because those options will be available soon enough. If I thought there would never be playable gnomes, I'd have a different opion. As it is, that's not a game-system question, that's just order of presenations.

Even when there are things I don't like, they fall into two categories. There are things I don't personally like, but aren't going to bother me in a way that detracts from the game. Many of these are green/blue type issues. I might prefer my car be blue, but it's green. When talking about how good my car is, I'm unlikely to mention its color at all. If my car were bright yellow poka-dots on plaid, I'd have to mention that.

Other things are specific items, not yet in the public eye, which are subject to change anyway. I can't talk about them in any case, and even if I could I wouldn't because they may change. I have no interest if having people form opinions from my input based on things that may not be in the final version, good -or- bad. Once -I- see the final version, I can comment on specifics, and likely will.

I mainly want to talk about my 4e experiences because a: I have friends overseas who have asked me to keep them as up to date as I can, and my blog is the easiest way to do that and b: it's good for my freelance career for companies to know I'm already familiar with 4e.

So, my vague, detail-free, overall opinion is that I like 4e, and I'm pretty sure I like it better than 3e/3.5e. YMMV, obviously.

And just to set the record straight, while my public opinion probably is for sale, no one in their right mind is going to meet my price.

 

[pemerton]

He didn't say positive experiences. That's what I was referring to.

Maybe you missed the part I quoted upthread, where he said that there were some things that he would do differently if he were the designer, but overall he likes it a lot.

And to reiterate the early point that Mistwell hsa made and I've repeated above:

It's not that he shared only his positive experiences. Rather, given that his experiences were positive, he shared them.​

I just don't see how it affects the content of what he said, that had he had different experiences, he wouldn't have said anything at all. As a result of the designers having designed the game as they have, Ari didn't have a different sort of (ie negative) experience.

 

[Mistwell]

If that's what you're getting from my posts I'd ask you to reread them.

I guess I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that as I'm done with this topic.

You're right, you didn't call their credibility into question. However, the people whose position you seemed to be defending did do that, and I mistakenly lumped you in with the company you were keeping. Sorry I painted you wish such a broad brush.

 

[Mistwell]

Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

You inferred that, but I don't see how he implied it. He said he assumed the OP didn't have playtesting experience. That doesn't imply a lack of qualification to have an opinion. But it's relevant to evaluating his opinion. It's not a characteristic or belief, and it is on-topic. We are talking about the opinions of playtesters, and the OP's experience as a playtester is a natural subject of conversation and not an ad hominem in that context.

A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).

Indeed, however nobody called him a scoundrel, or questioned his characteristics or beliefs. You have created a strawman. Nobody made a claim about someone's characteristics or beliefs, but you have now repeatedly claimed they did and then attacked that position that was never claimed.

 

[Mistwell]

I haven't read most of the entries in this post, as most of it is just the usual suspects showing up shouting, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I going to keep rewording the same general argument 3 or 4 times each page until you either agree with me or go away."

My knee jerk reaction to this situation is this [Repeat of the same old general argument already made 3 or 4 times each page because this poster didn't have enough respect for his fellow posters to read most of the entries in this thread before making a hasty generalized insult about them].

With an intro like that, did you expect us to take your comment seriously?

 

[Stomphoof]

*eyes the thread*

An NDA Means that you agree to the terms specified in it. If those terms are "NO TALKIE BOUT PRODUCT!" then you don't talk about it. If you ask and they give you permission to talk about the product in a positive light if you wish and you do, thats your choice.

I don't see what the big fuss about all this about.

Also, I have no idea about these comments cause I missed em. And I have no idea who Ari or any of these other people (other then Collins) is.

 

[zoroaster100]

As the original poster on this thread, I have to say that I am feeling sorry I started the thread. Chances are someone else might have started a similar thread if I did not, but still, I started it.

Even though I still think WOTC made an error in judgment in sending out "that email", after my initial anger at feeling somewhate snookered calmed down, I decided that it's not a huge deal.

In fact, I think if WOTC had merely verbally authorized Ari and one or two other playtesters to speak about their experiences and had verbally asked them to please not get into specific criticisms in public at this stage, that would not have offended me even if I somehow learned of it. Of course, in that case I probably would never have heard of it. It was the fact of an email sent out to possibly many playtesters that bothered me. But its not a huge deal.

If WOTC produced a great product and doesn't try to price gouge us for it, I, as a customer, will forgive this incident, which I consider ultimately minor in the big scheme of things.

 

[fnwc]

Make the game the best it can be, show us some real rules info, and then let the game and the players speak for themselves.

Which you shall surely get, once 4th Edition is officially launched and available. After all, how can the game be "the best that it can be" and have "real rules" when it isn't even finished yet?

Alternatively, you can wait a month for the reports back from the public playtest -- although I think some of what's shown here might be subject to change.