Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[AZRogue]

I can't believe this is still being discussed. It's surprising how desperate some people are to BELIEVE that they've been fooled somehow. But, hey, there are a lot of things I don't understand.

The only real consequence from all this is that I bet Andy really wishes that he wouldn't have let Ari or John post when they asked him. That probably means that other playtesters won't be allowed to do so in the future, which is a shame. Way to shoot ourselves in the foot. :/

 

[Delta]

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.

It sounds like we agree. In 2000 Dancey predicted that future D&D "development" would follow the model of Open Source projects with the general public. That didn't happen, and after Dancey left, WOTC followed the other, proprietary development path. The distinction you're making is precisely my point as well.

 

[The Little Raven]

It sounds like we agree. In 2000 Dancey predicted that future D&D "development" would follow the model of Open Source projects with the general public. That didn't happen, and after Dancey left, WOTC followed the other, proprietary development path. The distinction you're making is precisely my point as well.

The reason it failed is because the community didn't support it like the Open Source community has supported it's continued development. Hell, even the OGF site hasn't been updated in almost 5 years, and that was supposed to be the independent organization focused on the Open Gaming Movement as Dancey saw it (since he founded it). And actually, they followed that plan before Dancey even left, since he left in 2002 and there was almost no other OGC released (or much of a community response) at that time.

 

[JeffB]

Just wanna say to Ari, John and Owen , "Thanks" for posting and sharing your thoughts.

I'm sure none of you will do it again after all this BS, but I was happy to read it, even though I'm a fence-sitter as regards to 4E.

EDIT: Rephrase I appreciate the posts. Even as a fence-sitter, I felt it wasn't "corporate spew" and liked what I read.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

I am not sure how many newbie DMs and players are going to play D&D to discover the joys of opening up a Bakery.

We did this in a game, opening a tavern. But our DM didn't build a subsystem for Craft (Brewing). We didn't need it. We simply went with the mechanics provided - at the time it was 1e - and we enjoyed it.

 

[catsclaw227]

It sounds like we agree. In 2000 Dancey predicted that future D&D "development" would follow the model of Open Source projects with the general public. That didn't happen, and after Dancey left, WOTC followed the other, proprietary development path. The distinction you're making is precisely my point as well.

I think what WOTC has done since 3e - including 3e - was build a system first, then provide an OGL for other to produce games and supplements based upon the subsystem. This isn't really Open Source, and though Open Gaming was a neat idea, it wasn't well embraced by the general population.

With 4e, they are simply tightening the OGL so that products will need to require a 4e PHB (and possibly DMG, we'll see) to play. So we won't get OGL Conan anymore with 4e, but people can still develop games based on the original OGL.

Mongoose's Runequest was developed first and then made open, True 20 was just recently opened fully, so WOTC isn't the only "bad guy" in your eyes. I think you are in a very small minority regarding the outrage over WOTC not following Open Gaming as originally described by Ryan Dancy.

Personally, if I were to responsible for the decision, I could see seriously considering what WOTC is doing with 4e a good thing for business.

But more importantly...we don't know what the 4e OGL says, so how can we judge it yet? It might suck, and it might be quite open and fair.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

The interesting thing to me is that , in spite of having the OGL and through it access to everything in the SRD, Mongoose chose to do Runequest as a non-d20 system. I believe I also read on their forum somewhere that they were considering redoing Conan in the Runequest rules.

At first I thought they were doing this so they could keep RQ more proprietary. But then they released it with it's own OGL. So that doesn't seem to be the case.

I would have thought that the advantage of using a system widely understood by a million gamers would have outweighed the advantage of having an in-house system. But clearly, Mongoose decided otherwise.

Anyone know why Mongoose made this choice?

Ken

 

[Bluenose]

The interesting thing to me is that , in spite of having the OGL and through it access to everything in the SRD, Mongoose chose to do Runequest as a non-d20 system. I believe I also read on their forum somewhere that they were considering redoing Conan in the Runequest rules.

At first I thought they were doing this so they could keep RQ more proprietary. But then they released it with it's own OGL. So that doesn't seem to be the case.

I would have thought that the advantage of using a system widely understood by a million gamers would have outweighed the advantage of having an in-house system. But clearly, Mongoose decided otherwise.

Anyone know why Mongoose made this choice?

Ken

Because they own Runequest and can dictate how it develops themselves, would be my primary guess. But I suspect if they'd come out with D20 Runequest there'd be nothing but a pile of rubble where their headquarters stands. Most RQ fans aren't particularly fond of D&D - and if that doesn't win "Understatement of the Year" I can't imagine what will.

 

[dmchucky]

It's Marketing 101

Just a quick note. Everyone who has said that this is what every business out there does is 100% spot on. I've been working in marketing-oriented businesses for the last fifteen years and my wife is a director at a major ad agency. Even she says these types of NDAs are common.

What is marketing really? You are trying to convince people to part with hard earned money for something they don't really need. How often do you see ads for generic products? Why spend twice as much for Del Monte greenbeans when they probably came from the same farm as the generic ones? Because they're mmm mmm good. The advertising told you so. And do you really think Bill Gates is going to come out and tell you why Vista sucks?

Of course these guys are only allowed to say the good things and not the bad things. And of course a person will never say bad things about a company's product when he is on said company's payroll.

Having said all that; I find the practice to be unethical and immoral. It still pisses me off. Personally, I wish that they'd just keep quiet on the whole thing. I have nothing against Ari or Andy. They have made some great products. I know, I judged these products for MYSELF. I don't need them to tell me how cool the products are. So forgive me if I take Ari's comments with a grain of salt. Though he is most likely being totally honest here; he can't escape the fact that his future employment with WOTC colors any reviews he gives as unreliable at best to any discerning customer. And that is just the reality of the situation.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

You know, I had heard before that most RQ fans don't like d20. I really don't understand it.

I played RuneQuest pretty much exclusively between the time 2nd Edition D&D came out, up to the D&D 3rd edition launch. I was one of those players who 'came back into the fold' when 3E was released. So I guess I am the outlier...a long time RQ fan and Gloranthaphile (I even played in games with Ray Turney, for years in fact) who likes D20 and D&D.

Because they own Runequest and can dictate how it develops themselves, would be my primary guess. But I suspect if they'd come out with D20 Runequest there'd be nothing but a pile of rubble where their headquarters stands. Most RQ fans aren't particularly fond of D&D - and if that doesn't win "Understatement of the Year" I can't imagine what will.