Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[Toryx]

I think the only real mistake WotC has made in this aspect of the playtesting is allowing Ari and some of the others to make any comments at all. That's clearly opened the door to madness and now that they've seen the results we can be sure that it won't happen again. They were letting people talk about their enjoyment of the game to give the public a little treat. That bit them on the ass (rightfully so, I think) and if they're half as smart as I think they are, they'll learn from the mistake.

 

[zacharythefirst]

No, in fact it is not.



No it doesn't.

Care to expound?

Honestly, I do not envy anyone trying to make changes to any beloved IP. These guys are gamers, designers, but generally not PR folk. So in a situation where every statement they make (as well as the tone of that statement) is going to be filleted, processed, digested, and re-digested, you can expect stuff like this to happen.

 

[zacharythefirst]

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?

Why, then, hear about the positives beforehand? Don't they have potential for change before the final version as well? Wouldn't the same reasons you listed affect them as well?

I don't think for a second there was a single malicious or false intent in letting some of the playtesters share info early--as a player who is still on the fence (until I get to play in a demo or two, at least, and see how it's all come together), I thank them for any attempt to shed any new information on the game. But given the circumstances and criteria for that release, and the resulting stink, perhaps it would have been better in this particular instance not to allow that particular sharing.

Remind to buy the entire 4e dev team some "liquid courage". I know I'd need it at times.

 

[WhatGravitas]

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.

Problem with that analogy: The negatives are not facts. Repeat after me: Every you can criticise is not a fact, because it can be fixed, is already fixed, or is a product of the new design paradigm.

Only in that last case, the criticism actually applies, in the former two, the criticism is moot, pointless, useless.

I mean, if a playtester finds something negative, let's see the following courses of action:

He posts his criticism on the internet only: Bad form, that's only to stir rage, and doesn't allow WotC to fix it.
He posts it on the web and to WotC: Stirs rage, but will be fixed anyway, so no point.
He only posts it to the web: No rage, it will be fixed, we're all happy.

See why it should remain contained, until the the final PHB is finished and set in stone? That's because we're not dealing with facts or a finished product, we're dealing with a draft.

Unfinished things and playtest material SHOULD be criticised, it's the whole point of'em to avoid criticism at the finished product.

Why, then, hear about the positives beforehand? Don't they have potential for change before the final version as well? Wouldn't the same reasons you listed affect them as well?

Considering that good feedback also involves praise about positives... this will probably keep it in. Furthermore, that's the reason why no specific crunch should be revealed. Not that all three comments on the game are about the "general feel", not about specifics. I don't think they'll rewrite the whole game, hence the general feel should remain similar.

Cheers, LT.

 

[vagabundo]

Care to expound?

Honestly, I do not envy anyone trying to make changes to any beloved IP. These guys are gamers, designers, but generally not PR folk. So in a situation where every statement they make (as well as the tone of that statement) is going to be filleted, processed, digested, and re-digested, you can expect stuff like this to happen.

At the end of the day they would really have to do something crazy (from a PR POV) to not make people buy the game.

I see the chain of events and the logic behind what they have done and I really appreciate them allowing some people to take about their experience, even in a limited way. It is not a review, they will come soon enough by the truckload.

With the lack of information we have at the moment every event is magnified tenfold. Every sentence is a controversy.

I don't think they need to worry too much about these things, the alternative is a Hasbro information officer approving everything, filtering out anything that could be controversial.

My meandering point, I suppose, is that they should not worry about upsetting a few Internet Conspiracy Theorists who believe they are the devil incarnate looking to butcher their past and destroy their RPG future (not talking about anyone on ENWORLD necessarily).

 

[DaveMage]

I don't have a problem with Andy's comments or the reasons he gave. It's all marketing right now anyway.

I think we'll get the best feedback at Origins and GenCon, from non-playtester gamers and playtesters alike once NDAs are no longer an issue.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Well, what if the opposite happens? Something the playtesters voicing their opinion liked needed to be changed because other playtesters hated or found a critical flaw in it.

I don't see that as likely, but it can be used as a counterpoint.


I guess the step of allowing some playtesters to voice their opinion was neither bad nor good, it was just, overall, meaningless.
People that don't like the idea of D&D 4 will use this e-mail as a proof that WotC is all trying to dupe us, people that like the idea of D&D 4 will use the playtester posts as proof that D&D 4 is the best thing since sliced bread.

The only thing at this point that will change opinions overall is the actual release and people actually playing the game, then reporting their feedback. The D&D Experience will hopefully do its best here.

--------

Oh, judging from what I heard from two playtesters on the interweb, D&D 4 will probably turn out to be the best thing since sliced thread.

 

[zacharythefirst]

I think we'll get the best feedback at Origins and GenCon, from non-playtester gamers and playtesters alike once NDAs are no longer an issue.

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

 

[jaer]

Why, then, hear about the positives beforehand? Don't they have potential for change before the final version as well? Wouldn't the same reasons you listed affect them as well?

I don't think for a second there was a single malicious or false intent in letting some of the playtesters share info early--as a player who is still on the fence (until I get to play in a demo or two, at least, and see how it's all come together), I thank them for any attempt to shed any new information on the game. But given the circumstances and criteria for that release, and the resulting stink, perhaps it would have been better in this particular instance not to allow that particular sharing.

Remind to buy the entire 4e dev team some "liquid courage". I know I'd need it at times.

Quite honestly, the bits I read from these playtesters didn't sway me one way or the other. I don't know them, and have no investment in what they say.

Playtesting reports and the Design releases were helpful (even if not necessarily conclusive since things could change) because they give an idea of what direcion WotC is going in their changes. It takes away the "we want to do this" and shows me how they are attempting to do the "this."

So allowing some playtesters to say "hey, i liked it. It spend up combat, just the way WotC said it. I made things easier, the way WotC say it would." is in no way different to me than WotC saying "we made it better, faster." I don't doubt the statements from WotC, so hearing them from other people doesn't effect me either.

I guess I just don't understand why people care that we weren't able to hear the "I didn't like this," but for me, "I didn't like this" and "I did like this" mean the same thing: nothing. Those are someone else's opinions, and only a few. When I can get actual info about the game, then it becomes important.

 

[tresson]

Anyone remember what happened when the developers mentioned they had tested agro mechanics but had decided NOT to use it? Remember the mass rage and nashing of teeth?
Over a mechanic that had already been canned?

Now can you imagine what would happen if a playtester said the didn't like x ability or spell or whatever but didn't know it had already been fix/changed? Yeah pretty ugly and there wouldn't be much the devs could to to calm it down.