Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[Voss]

My take on this-
another oops marketing decision from WotC. As simple as that- they just handled it in a rather foolish way. Not from obscure ethical reasons, but because they know how their audience tends to react to even a hint of the idea that people are hiding things from them. Again they need to learn to keep their collective mouth shut.

Of more concern to me is the idea that the books aren't finished. Its almost February, guys. Time is ticking away and you'll need to get these beasts to the printers. 127 days to the release date...

 

[MarkAHart]

Of more concern to me is the idea that the books aren't finished. Its almost February, guys. Time is ticking away and you'll need to get these beasts to the printers. 127 days to the release date...

Read Bill Slavicsek's notes on the Design & Development article regarding the Pit Fiend (towards the bottom of the page).

"The Player's Handbook is in Typesetting, and we're poring over the galleys to make every last improvement we can before it goes to print. The Monster Manual is in its last two weeks of Managing Editing, the stage right before it goes into Typesetting. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is about to leave Editing and enter its Managing Editing stage."

Doesn't sound like there's a problem in this regard.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125

 

[Cmarco]

I really have no problem with the playtester commentary. Any negative comments would be forwarded to the 4e R&D folks in order to fix them.

Beyond that, I'm still stoked for 4e.

 

[The_Baldman]

Absolutely. I know the best feedback I'll get is when I get to play in a demo at one of those two cons.

I believe we will have LFR preview events at Origins but it will still be a 3.5 show.

Gencon will be entirely 4th edition from top to bottom and from an RPGA stand point we will have more 4th edition material scheduled then you can possibly play in the time frame of the show.

 

[eleran]

Whether WotC (or you) considers them to be reviews or not, *that is* what many (if not most) of the player-base that read them considered them to be. Incomplete reviews, yes, but still *reviews*. There was no hint in the posts that they were "censored". Legally, was WotC in the clear? I assume so. I cannot see how they wouldn't be. However, it was blatantly obvious that people would treat the posts as partial reviews, WHETHER that was the intent or not. Which means that they treat the "censorship" as just that, and respond as if WotC wasn't playing fair.

In short, given that people *would* treat the posts as reviews (and they did, shocker!), censoring them was *stupid*.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

You're giving all the power of intent to the readers. And as such you're speaking for the readers. I did not view it as a review, therefore it wasn't. They were merely a couple of people stating their opinions as to the parts of 4e they liked. Ari even mentioned that there were some things he was not so hot about. I think it would have actually been a great disservice for these folks to talk about what they didn't like, mostly I say that as hindsight because of all the Sturm und Drang generated by them not saying what they didn't like. It would have been exponentially worse if they had.

And the bottom line is....They didn't. Get past it. Move on.

 

[Kraydak]

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

You're giving all the power of intent to the readers. And as such you're speaking for the readers. I did not view it as a review, therefore it wasn't. They were merely a couple of people stating their opinions as to the parts of 4e they liked. Ari even mentioned that there were some things he was not so hot about. I think it would have actually been a great disservice for these folks to talk about what they didn't like, mostly I say that as hindsight because of all the Sturm und Drang generated by them not saying what they didn't like. It would have been exponentially worse if they had.

And the bottom line is....They didn't. Get past it. Move on.

The power of intent *is* in the hands of the readers. What the writer means something to mean is irrelevant. What the readers takes it to mean is the important thing. Understanding what readers are likely to take something to mean is crucial (hence smilies).

The existence of the Sturm und Drang was because people, predictably, viewed the posts as partial reviews. The editing schedule above says that viewing it as such *was entirely justified*. Talking about sending complaints about the PHB back to WotC, when the PHB is in typesetting, is laughable. The posts ARE partial reviews. The mechanics the posters know about ARE the final mechanics (except, maybe, for a few minor things in the DMG).

 

[Oldtimer]

But under these criteria, 3e and 3.5e core rules also weren't Open Games, either, no matter what Dancey evangelized in 2000. Development and play-testing was not communal, but in-house or closed -- just like 4e, despite the option to use OGC.

Are you refering to the Open Gaming Foundation criteria? They have nothing to do with Open Development. They are simply:

1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.

Under these criteria the 3e SRD and the 3.5e SRD were Open Games. We simply don't know about the 4e SRD yet.

 

[Stormtalon]

At issue is what role the playtesters are filling. Are they acting as reporters, or as WotC representatives? If they are acting as reporters, they have an obligation to avoid conflicts, and to report biases. As WotC representatives, they are can be expected to provide positive information, but then they are acting more as WotC salespeople.

They're acting as option C: interested 3rd parties who are bound by an agreement which limits what they can say and when. Neither reporters nor official representatives.

 

[WhatGravitas]

The existence of the Sturm und Drang was because people, predictably, viewed the posts as partial reviews.

The arguments began with the rumour of a e-mail. Not because it was seen as a review. Most negative arguments ONLY deal with that alleged censorship, not whether it was a review or not. Do you think anything would have been different, if Ari had said "these are first impressions, not a review"?

Talking about sending complaints about the PHB back to WotC, when the PHB is in typesetting, is laughable. The posts ARE partial reviews. The mechanics the posters know about ARE the final mechanics (except, maybe, for a few minor things in the DMG).

Typesetting = Layout nowadays. Changing things is entirely possible. In the worst case, it means it messes up the layout of some pages. Which means some poor souls are going to work overtime.

Furthermore, I think post people decrying these decision are already against 4E and WotC in general, people defending it (like me) are already liking either Ari, WotC and/or 4E. So it's not changing a lot and basically, the "Sturm und Drang" is mainly noise, I only see some people posting over and over again, on both sides. I don't think that's that big, I have to admit.

Furthermore, people savvy enough to read ENWorld and Ari's blog HAVE gotten this message as well (Collins' response). And readers can adjust their interpretation of intent, if new evidence occurs, as they have done it after the rumour popped up.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Delta]

I think you are confusing open licensing with open development practices. The OGL is about license terms, not development. I don't recall Dancey ever evangelizing open development practices, and I have to ask you to find a quote to support this assertion.

This is the article from 2000, still online at wizards.com, where Dancey says "D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people":
( http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e )

Torvalds creates a small computer operating system called "Linux" and releases it to the public via the GPL. Using his original code as a base, thousands of programmers all over the world begin to extend and develop the system, and in a few short years, it becomes as capable, robust, stable and usable as the best Unix versions. In fact, Linux takes a larger share of the worldwide server market share than Windows NT, despite everything Microsoft does to combat it...

There is now a new, viable model for creating complex systems, using standardized protocols and interfaces, that are shared by many people, with many independent sub-components that have to work together.

Like roleplaying games.

...The other great effect of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it is interactive -- someone figures out a way to make something work better, and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it into their products. Including us. So D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the Open Gaming derivative of D&D.

From July of last year you can see the Dancey recognizes a difference between to the original theory of Open Gaming and how it actually worked out at WOTC:
( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=201334 )

In theory I would have liked to have seen a much more aggressive use of OGC in D&D products, because I think that feeds the idea "pump" (the more likely someone thinks their work is to become "Dungeons & Dragons", the more likely they may be to make the complete effort required to thoroughly write up and distribute their ideas).

In practice I'm not too surprised at the lack of OGC use in D&D. There are several dozen people paid quite well to design & develop Dungeons & Dragons. You will remember that just after 3.0 shipped, Wizards went through 4 disastrous rounds of layoffs. The "survivors" (many of who also survived the Last Days of TSR) know how to keep their jobs...