Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[Dausuul]

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.

QFT. Also note that there's no reason to suppose the playtesters have seen the version that got sent to the typesetters. They were almost certainly working with an earlier form of the rules.

 

[eleran]

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).

You're confusing "intent" with interpretation". I surmise this is being done on purpose. And therefore, since I believe it is your intent to be purposefully obtuse, how you actually meant it is irrelevant.

wow...just wow

 

[king_ghidorah]

The OP taked about using criteria that bugs were posted publicly and worked out in a development community. This did not happen under the OGF for core products.

Open products did develop in the way referenced above. 3.0 and 3.5 core rules (PHB, DMG, and MM) were not among them. They were developed in a closed environment and opened to use in making other open games.

Doug

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.

 

[PoeticJustice]

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.

I understand that Ari has a positive outlook on 4E, but his playtest report implies that he had generic clearance to talk about 4E--we didn't know what editorial controls he was under and I think he should have at least mentioned them.

I believe I would have had no problem nor would my opinion of his post been changed if he had said something to the effect of "I've been given permission to voice my support of 4E" or "I've been allowed to announce the positive experiences I've had playtesting this product".

I can't help but feel like Wotc is being disingenuous here. They shouldn't use a private blog as a marketing tool without telling us.

 

[RodneyThompson]

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.

Absolutely true. I was still making tweaks and changes to the Saga Edition core rulebook up through the day it was sent off to the printers.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I believe I would have had no problem nor would my opinion of his post been changed if he had said something to the effect of "I've been given permission to voice my support of 4E" or "I've been allowed to announce the positive experiences I've had playtesting this product".

But then, you'd get an outrage saying "censorship!". The result would probably very similar. Don't forget that some even approached WotC to allow them to comment. AND all had the option of saying nothing.

No matter what way, people would accuse WotC. And perhaps, the best idea was even to say nothing, it was only the rumour sparking that rage.

And even if that's obfuscation, the alternative would have been saying nothing, nada. So you're implying nobody should say anything until 4E is out?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Set]

But then, you'd get an outrage saying "censorship!".

Good thing they did it the other way and that didn't happen then!

Anywho, I think Ari saw that the design team wasn't doing the bestest-ever job of pointing out the exciting new stuff, and might have thought 'hey, I'm a professional writer, maybe *I* can talk about some of my positive experiences with the new system without crapping all over 3e and the customerbase!' and the powers that be said, 'sure, we'll let you talk up the game, based on your playtesting.'

And then there was a tempest. Right there in the teacup. Which has nothing to do with 3E, 4E, 'grognards,' 'haters' or any of that stuff. It has everything to do with internet drama queens running around with their hands in the air.

 

[PoeticJustice]

But then, you'd get an outrage saying "censorship!". The result would probably very similar. Don't forget that some even approached WotC to allow them to comment. AND all had the option of saying nothing.

No matter what way, people would accuse WotC. And perhaps, the best idea was even to say nothing, it was only the rumour sparking that rage.

And even if that's obfuscation, the alternative would have been saying nothing, nada. So you're implying nobody should say anything until 4E is out?

Cheers, LT.

Already said I would have no problem with Ari prefacing his post in the aforementioned manner. I stand by the comment. What other would people might engage in I will not speculate, but if people did say that Wotc was structuring private blog posts to paint a favorable picture of 4E, there would be basis. There is evidence indicating that bloggers were encouraged only to communicate positive experiences.

Let's get one thing straight though: I'm not outraged and I have no idea why you think I'm against people talking about 4E. If the company making it is going to allow their playtesters to post, they should admit beforehand that they have editorial control on that commentary. I think it is unethical to do otherwise.

 

[Mistwell]

Already said I would have no problem with Ari prefacing his post in the aforementioned manner. I stand by the comment. What other would people might engage in I will not speculate, but if people did say that Wotc was structuring private blog posts to paint a favorable picture of 4E, there would be basis. There is evidence indicating that bloggers were encouraged only to communicate positive experiences.

Let's get one thing straight though: I'm not outraged and I have no idea why you think I'm against people talking about 4E. If the company making it is going to allow their playtesters to post, they should admit beforehand that they have editorial control on that commentary. I think it is unethical to do otherwise.

There was no editorial control. Again, you should do what was asked, and re-read Andy's comment on this issue.

They did not control anything, they did not edit anything. There is no indication, AT ALL, that Ari self-edited to remove negative comments. He asked for permission to post his opinion. He was told that if he had something negative to say, then don't post at all. He did post, which means he did not have something negative to say. WOTC also said that everything Ari posted is what Ari wanted to post. There is nothing at all to indicate anything you are implying. "Nowhere did I ask folks to be deceptive about those experiences or suggest positive experiences where they didn't exist...Ari and a few other folks asked me specifically if they could talk about their positive experiences, and I said yes. Nobody here asked them to do it, and I'd never want to put Ari or any of the other fine folks who work with us in the position of feeling like extensions of our marketing department."

 

[Firevalkyrie]

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

The analogy here could not possibly be more false. In an Open Source project, the general public and the development team are (theoretically) one and the same. In a project like D&D, or like the next version of AppleWorks, the development team is the group that the company assigned to develop the project. The general public - who are NOT involved in development in any way at all - has neither need nor right to know what's wrong with the system-in-testing.