Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[PoeticJustice]

Huh? Andy Collins said that Ari and John had specifically asked permission to comment about 4th edition:

"To sum up: 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."

The cynicism runs high here...

I understand that. I understand that the whole ball of was was probably initiated by the playtesters. I still think they should have said they were instructed not to say anything negative about the game. If they wanted follow that up with a statement effecting that they had no criticism of 4E, that would be fine (I'd still find it a little unbelievable that everything about their experience was positive, but it would have been a non-issue).

Apologizing after the fact is good, but they should never have been in the position to begin with. The testers should have said that, after asking permission and understanding that they weren't to criticize the game, they were allowed to announce their support of 4E.

 

[Mistwell]

I understand that. I understand that the whole ball of was was probably initiated by the playtesters. I still think they should have said they were instructed not to say anything negative about the game. If they wanted follow that up with a statement effecting that they had no criticism of 4E, that would be fine (I'd still find it a little unbelievable that everything about their experience was positive, but it would have been a non-issue).

Apologizing after the fact is good, but they should never have been in the position to begin with. The testers should have said that, after asking permission and understanding that they weren't to criticize the game, they were allowed to announce their support of 4E.

Why is it relevant for these particular circumstances that they say first that they were "instructed not to say anything negative about the game"? Why is it an appropriate standard to hold WOTC or Ari to? Connect the dots between the action or lack of action and the harm.

 

[Voss]

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

Actually that is true. At some point you just settle for 'good enough to publish'. You never get to a state where there are no flaws.

But my point was you don't change things based on feedback and then call it done. You have to at least try out new suggestions and make sure they don't break the game. It would essentially add an additional playtesting cycle on top of current time constraints.

 

[Vaegrin]

What's the harm here?

What's the harm here? If the NDA and positive-only rule went all the way up until the day after release day, then people might end up purchasing the new edition without the benefit of impartial reviews. There would actually be some harm in that scenario.

But as it stands, the NDA will expire with more than ample time left for any and all playtesters to voice both positive opinions and negative. There will be plenty of time for consumers to make informed decisions.

Even if the playtesters being allowed to speak were from a tiny minority who actually like the game, which is a relatively unlikely scenario, the rest of the playtesters will be allowed to speak long before release day. Even if the playtesters were being asked to lie, which is an absolutely ludicrous notion, the truth would come out soon enough.

Even in the worst-case scenario, absolutely no harm is being done to consumers. And consumers would get absolutely no benefit if playtesters were allowed to gripe about the new edition on message boards. In fact, consumers would be more likely to be harmed by that scenario than anything else.

There is no justification whatsoever for being upset or angry about this. The only explanation I can think of is that those who are upset or angry over this simply enjoy being upset or angry.

 

[Primal]

I don't know about you, but I would have personally preferred to see honest comments from your 'Average Joe DMs' than established authors (one of which also happens to be a freelancer working for WoTC). They probably thought that Ari and John have more "street credibility" among the gamer community, but as an "average" DM myself, I would have liked to see opinions from more "non-biased" and hard-working fellow gamers. Is it that hard to tell them that "You may post info about these details but do not reply to any questions"? And these guys who run games every week or so couldn't "handle the pressure"? :\

Anyway, I don't think that Ari is as "non-biased" as he may want to appear -- if he had remained silent or expressed negative opinions about 4E, I think it might have made reflected on his future assignments (or that may be what he feared?). I'm not saying that it would have, or that he thought it would, but so far I've not seen WoTC designers (except Rich Baker) handling criticism (even when it has been expressed in a polite and constructive form) very well.

I also have an issue with overly-positive reviews which seem to follow a very strict and "codified" format: "It's awesome, it's cool, it's faster, it's better and I'll never play 3E ever again!". I've seen such claims in every designer blog so far, and I already *BELIEVE* that "my head will explode with all the awesomeness" (as Logan Bonner, I think, said in 'Races and Classes'). Why not tone down the "awesomeness factor"? Why not just say that you and your group liked it because of X and Y and Z, without going into mechanical details?

And what's with the "fun and exciting non-combat stuff each class will have"? We were more or less *promised* that 4E would have them. Will it just be house-ruled or handled case-by-case (as we did with the Secondary Skills)? And will there be rules for the "Social Encounters/Combat"? I *think* I saw an interview in which it was said that they couldn't make it work, so it's not going to be in PHB or DMG? I might be wrong, thought. And didn't Ari and/or John remark that only the "essential mechanics" (i.e. combat) are presented in the game, and they had to house-rule stuff (checks) on the fly?

This is a very essential issue for me, as my group had concentrated more and more on "non-combat stuff" since 3E came out (and had rules for things like Crafting and running your own guild or shop). Funnily enough, we never thought about how much a character with 'Gemcutting'-NWP would make per month, but as we've now gotten used to having mechanics for 'fluffy' skills such as this (and making a living with these skills outside adventuring), I think my players will not be satisfied if it feels just like a "hobby" without any impact in the game. Besides, how many such "freebies" can your characters have? How much control do the players have over them? Is it valid to state that your character is a 'Master Armorer' at 1st level, if you can work that into your backstory? Or even the best in the world? And how much GPs will such a talented individual make per month? Or can a Master Armorer craft a full-plate at 1st level? Of course, a DM can always say that "Your Master Jeweler-skill/trait gains you X number of GPs per month, period." or that "You can only be a 'generic' Jeweler or an apprentice", but my players would feel cheated.

I can house-rule stuff on the fly, too, but how about newbie DMs without any points of reference? And I could always just refer to the 3E rules (e.g. concerning Craft and other 'fluffy' skills if my players want their characters to have them), but that would probably make me feel that 4E is "flawed" for my group's purposes.

 

[BadMojo]

Anyway, I don't think that Ari is as "non-biased" as he may want to appear -- if he had remained silent or expressed negative opinions about 4E, I think it might have made reflected on his future assignments (or that may be what he feared?). I'm not saying that it would have, or that he thought it would, but so far I've not seen WoTC designers (except Rich Baker) handling criticism (even when it has been expressed in a polite and constructive form) very well.

Well, Ari has already said that his comments weren't solicited by WotC and judging him by his conduct here for many years, I believe him. He may be biased by virtue of working with 4E, but I really do believe that his statements reflect how he feels.

It's really not cool to call the guy a liar when he's said that he made these comments of his own free will. Why is it impossible that he likes the game and isn't just blowing marketing smoke up our butts? Ari's always been a very straight forward, nice guy here at EnWorld.

I've also yet to see a WotC designer lash out at fans, if that what's implied by not "handling criticism". On the other hand, despite having one of the coolest jobs in the world (working on freakin' D&D and getting paid!), I'm actually starting to feel bad for the Wizards designers.

I'd hate to be working on a project I really love, only to have a few dozen people each day reacting like I ran over their dog. It'd be like walking to the office every morning and getting a public beating every morning before you got through the door.

 

[jeffh]

I understand that Ari has a positive outlook on 4E, but his playtest report implies that he had generic clearance to talk about 4E

Where and how does it imply this?

Especially if, as my previous post to this thread suggested, you apply an ounce of common sense to the situation. What would possess WotC to give the kind of blanket clearance you imply here? Why do you think they're obligated to take such bizarre and unprecedented measures? How is WotC putting limitations on what people who are under an NDA can say out of line or even remotely surprising, given what an NDA is?

The behaviour you're demanding would benefit neither WotC nor the gaming public, for reasons that have been discussed in this thread far too many times to be worth repeating yet again.

 

[jeffh]

Actually that is true. At some point you just settle for 'good enough to publish'. You never get to a state where there are no flaws.

But my point was you don't change things based on feedback and then call it done. You have to at least try out new suggestions and make sure they don't break the game. It would essentially add an additional playtesting cycle on top of current time constraints.

Your first paragraph contradicts your second one, though. As you say yourself in the first paragraph, at some point, you have no choice but to "change things based on feedback and then call it done". (What else are you going to base changes on?) I don't see why you seem to think it's an a priori truth that this isn't the right time to do that.

 

[Hussar]

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.

This NEEDS repeating. Got buried a few pages back.

Think about it for a second. The level of vitriol over the agro mechanics was astounding. The threads multiplied like rabbits and achieved a Golden Wyvern Adept level of hatred.

Now, imagine that Ari pipes up and says, "Hey, they are going to do X. I really don't like it, but, hey, they do." So, you get a completely one sided argument, which no one can respond to because they're NDA'd out the wazoo, and the collective nerd apoplexy causes the simultaneous instantaneous combustion of twenty different posters.

All for something that is actually NOT going to appear in the game because it got changed yesterday and Ari hadn't seen the latest draft.

How could that possibly be a good idea?

 

[Henry]

I don't know about you, but I would have personally preferred to see honest comments from your 'Average Joe DMs' than established authors (one of which also happens to be a freelancer working for WoTC). They probably thought that Ari and John have more "street credibility" among the gamer community, but as an "average" DM myself, I would have liked to see opinions from more "non-biased" and hard-working fellow gamers. Is it that hard to tell them that "You may post info about these details but do not reply to any questions"? And these guys who run games every week or so couldn't "handle the pressure"? :\

Let me understand -- Ari and John aren't average DMs, nor hard-working fellow gamers, and don't run games every week? I'm willing to bet they're all three, to the contrary.