Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[RigaMortus2]

I am guessing the OP has never beta tested anything before.

 

[Stormtalon]

So ... there is an ethical issue here.

Let's say that a drug company hires a number of companies to test out a new drug.

There are 10 companies. Five have overall positive results, two are negative, and three are inconclusive.

The drug company discontinues the testing at the two companies with negative results.

The remaining results are published. They are an inaccurate reflection of the testing results.

I have no sympathy for Wotc in regards to this issue. They know exactly what they are doing.

Bad analogy. Atrocious analogy even. The bolded portion is the problem -- WotC is not doing anything like that. What they are doing is telling all their "companies" (i.e.) testers that the best way to handle negative feedback is to send it directly to them where it can be properly addressed. There's no selective "discontinuing of testing" involved. It's not even remotely a similar circumstance.

Far as I'm concerned, WotC is acting properly, both in a business and an ethical sense.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This new commentary is the perfect demonstration of the reversal.

Dancey was referring to the game after it was released; Collins is referring to the game before it is released. I see a huge difference.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I've commented previously about how WOTC has turned its back on the Open Gaming movement ( http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/01/part-iii-promise-of-ogl.html ). There's been debate in the OGL forum about why WOTC is even bothering to call its new license "OGL" ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215975 ).

This new commentary is the perfect demonstration of the reversal. In 2000 Ryan Dancey wrote this about Open Gaming rules (still on WOTC site today):


Today Andy Collins says the opposite:


So we went from a philosophy of "work on problems in public" in 2000, to a clear-cut "work on problems in secret" that we have here in 2008. I find that to be a rather remarkable about-face.

Finally, you've got what Andy thinks is his coup-de-grace:


You do if it's Open Source. ( https://sourceforge.net/ )

But 4E is NOT OGL or Open Source. How can it be? It's not even out yet. Once it is out, then yes, it would be OGL, and then the first quote would apply.

 

[Khairn]

Watching the roll out of 4e is like watching a toddler trying to pick up a ball that he keeps kicking away every time he bends over.

Great analogy.

Granting only a limited number of playtesters the opportunity to speak about their 4E experience, and then limiting what they can say, is truly a bad decision.

It certainly brings a question of credibility to whatever WotC is telling us.

Given WotC's track record to date for managing their customers, I believe Maggan's comments above is what will happen. WotC will go into "bunker" mode and hope everything blows over.

 

[Set]

Andy's explanation sounded reasonable to me (then again, I've run a beta program before, so I totally get it). For all that he said 'this may be controversial' at one point, I think he's managed to make one of the most diplomatic posts ever from the 4E design crew.

I don't have any idea who the other two dudes are, but Ari's got tastes similar to mine, so I take his opinions seriously.

I still don't get the whole kerfluffle about it taking hours and hours to do character generation or run combats and 'feeling like homework' and 'being too hard,' but I guess it is a problem for other people, so they have to fix it for them. Obviously I can't support the company by myself.

 

[el_skootro]

From what we've heard, most of the rules at this point are pretty much done. So if someone felt overall the game is not as fun with the new rules, I don't see how that could be fixed at this point.

Yes, but the version that the playtesters would be commenting on are probably not the current version. For example, if a playtest group were given a copy of the rules that had dwarves as 8ft tall and firebreathing, and the design team had already changed that, what good would it do to tell the whole interwebs, "I can't believe that dwarves are 8ft tall! And they breathe fire!"

Stuff may be pretty much done at this point, but we don't know what shape the rules were in when any individual playtester saw them.

El Skootro

 

[abelan]

I understand positive marketing, but Andy Collins needs to understand that you don't air a public reprimand. He needs to stop the spin control and explain to the masses that he has limited those that can share their ideas in public to a select few. Forget the business of allowing only positive comments and telling us that. We didn't need to know, and he hurts his cause when he tells the world that he wants only the positives posted. The damage is done, and now we may question what aspects of the game may be a bit crunchy. The whole episode smacks of the Twilight Zone - "It's a Good Life" where everyone tiptoes around the young boy saying how good he is. They may feel differently, but they need to say the positives in front of the boy(public). The conversation at home may be different, but it's not in the public eye.

 

[Dragonblade]

Great analogy.

Granting only a limited number of playtesters the opportunity to speak about their 4E experience, and then limiting what they can say, is truly a bad decision.

No, in fact it is not.

It certainly brings a question of credibility to whatever WotC is telling us.

No it doesn't.

 

[jaer]

I'd rather hear the negatives later. What is the point of stating a list of negs and having them become irrelevent, and yet existing on and on on the forums, being quoted by people as reasons the system will be horrible...because we would never know if they were fixed.

Also, if one person says "I didn't like _____" and the other 50 people who playtested did like it but can't say so due to the NDA, all we have is one opinion, and plenty of people harking on that one.

Much better to have the negatives sent to the people who can fix it rather than be tosses out onto the forums where they do no good. If there are negatives and they end up in the final version, it will come out before release. Why hear about them before then?