Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[jeffh]

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.

If that's the conclusion they came to, then that conclusion was uninformed and poorly thought out. That's their problem, not WotC's.

Andy didn't say anything that wasn't already obvious to anyone prepared to apply an ounce of intelligence, and indeed, accurately predicted by multiple posters here and elsewhere. He shouldn't have needed to say anything at all.

Intent is not wholly in the eye of the beholder, or else communication would be impossible.

 

[Voss]

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

Sounds like a problem to me if they're still willing to make changes suggested to them by playtesters. Because, guess what? You have to playtest any changes you make based on those suggestions. And certain changes can cause a cascade of other changes...

Then you have to go back in and adjust the typesetting...

 

[PoeticJustice]

When and how did the news break that Wotc encouraged certain playtesters to post their positive experiences?

If it happened before Ari posted, I find it deeply unethical. We are currently unaware of the system. All we have is what they tell us, and while we expect bias, "letting" bloggers sing the praises of 4E without letting us know they're being encouraged to only report one side of the story is pretty bad.

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. When Ari posted my hopes were high. I wasn't sold, but I was thinking about it. Now I'm not so sure...

I am also disappointed in Ari Marmell. He should have made it clear at the beginning of his post that he was only allowed to speak positively about 4E. I really like his work, but this makes me

 

[Delta]

Well, this is where we disagree... Are they all evil empires that have tossed out Open Source on it's ear? No, they are doing business in the way that they see fit to find profit.

I suggest that people don't comment on how WOTC is walking away from the open gaming movement until they look at the 4e OGL. Only then will they have an informed opinion. Otherwise it is just fire-fanning and rumor-mongering.

Actually, I think that we agree. 4E is not Open Gaming, and WOTC has decided to toss the principles "out on its ear". I agree with all that. They have the right to change their mind like that, but personally I found it disappointing back in 2003 when that became clear.

The nature of the new so-called-OGL is not merely rumor-mongering. WOTC has a page up about it here ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a ). They've had a public conference call about the changes and notes from participants are posted here ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215976 ).

 

[jeffh]

Sounds like a problem to me if they're still willing to make changes suggested to them by playtesters. Because, guess what? You have to playtest any changes you make based on those suggestions.

By that logic, it is impossible for playtesting to ever end. Clearly this is not true. Try again.

 

[Bishmon]

I'm not a fan of this, but I'm not gonna get worked up about it. I just don't like it when companies try end-arounds like this to try and drum up my excitement.

 

[AZRogue]

The release date is soon. There is (if they intend to hit the release date) a *lot* of stuff that can't get changed. Therefore a lot of the negative feelings that exist are about things that will hit the shelves. Fundamental disagreements about design philosophy, for example, are negative feedback issues that I am interested in and which, by now, are unchangeable.

We aren't in alpha any more. Feedback is of little use to WotC (no time to change anything major), and for the same reason of lots of use to us (with no time to change anything major, feedback can be thought of as fairly accurate reviews).

Accordingly, by selecting what information goes out, they are turning the people who get to leak stuff into (unpaid) partisan reviewers. Which annoys my "fair play" sensors.

Not true. Any negative feedback that may exist may be regarding something that WAS fixed. They are playtesters, not R&D. Whatever specific issue they may have had may have been clarified, tailored, or corrected.

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, this doesn't take away from the positive words given by the playtesters we've heard from so far. Maybe there are some things they don't like (naturally) but not saying what those are doesn't invalidate the other things they said.

A moot point, though, since these playtesters thought well enough of the game to ASK to be allowed to share their impressions. They weren't begged, they asked. They would hardly have asked for the privelage if they thought it was a bad system.

 

[mhensley]

You guys take this waaay too seriously. I'm amazed that anyone at wotc takes the time to post anything on the internet. Why bother? They catch crap for anything they do.

 

[AZRogue]

I am also disappointed in Ari Marmell. He should have made it clear at the beginning of his post that he was only allowed to speak positively about 4E. I really like his work, but this makes me

Wow. That's harsh and uncalled for. I'm insulted for Ari. He gave his honest review the best he could. Nothing that has happened has invalidated his words. I think you should re-read Andy's post a bit, as well as John's after. Geez.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How differently would it have been perceived if these reviewers had made Andy's policy clear up front.

"WotC has encouraged us to share some of our positive feedback on the game with the public. As playtesters and avid gamers, we naturally found room for criticism, but we were asked to leave that in the hands of WotC so that they can incorporate our feedback into the final product, and we agree with that arrangement. That being said, [insert Wahoo here]."

Well, hindsight and all that.