Are people still mad about . . .

[evildmguy]

evildmguy, your good. You can't help it if feels flare on both sides(and they do) or what other people say or do. You asked some things it's not your fault if people (myself included here) sometimes get out of hand with it

I don't think you are trolling or asked anything wrong at all. Wotc make a lot of bad blood and offended a lot of folks (rightly or wrongly does not matter) So folks like to vent is all

Thanks!

And I still disagree with you on the evolution of the Realms and how safe it is. But I do agree that since 3E, the maps for it were not the same as what came before. The 3E maps don't even match up with the FR Atlas, which I consider the definitive source on maps for the Realms. Too bad they still don't do those!

edg

 

[Mournblade94]

I've seen lots of D&D ads in comic books over the years. And while many comics are assumed to be "kids" stuff, the fact of the matter is that there have always been a lot of adults who read them. And unlike Adults who watch Lost, Adults who read comics has a fairly reasonable cross section with adults who might play D&D. Posters on the comic store wall, books on the shelf, and ads in appropriate periodicals are the the old school mainstays of D&D marketing. None of these can be objectively proclaimed as aimed at children only.

I read comics as fanatically now as I did in the 80's. Have you seen comic ads recently? Honda, Kia, and insurance angencies. There are the younger ads, but advertisers have definitely seen that comics is largely an adult market compared to kids.

 

[Mournblade94]

They didn't say your games sucks.

They said some things that people interpreted that way. Others did not interpret them that way. Everyone agrees they never used the words "your games suck".

No they just used more politically correct ways of saying it. Their phrases did not come out literally as "your game sucks", that is obvious.

 

[billd91]

The designers were willing to describe their thought processes, how they work, what their goals were. But people seemed to have taken offense by what the designers where thinking, what their goals were.

I'd like to interject here that doing this sort of thing isn't necessarily a bad idea. I like designer notes and sidebars in the rulebooks. But there are ways to go about it that make for better marketing. Podcasts, as popular as they are, make for terrible marketing compared to carefully edited writings. People say things inartfully and BAM there it is. Taking the time to write it allows you to work over your nuances.

Mind you, putting it in writing isn't foolproof as we've seen a number of people get kind of upset about a blanket statement of what D&D is not. But it gives you more opportunities to rethink and edit.

I'd even say that podcasts are even worse than open seminars because at least there people can ask questions and ask the designers to elaborate on what point they're making which, I think, leads to a better mutual understanding.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Thanks!

And I still disagree with you on the evolution of the Realms and how safe it is. But I do agree that since 3E, the maps for it were not the same as what came before. The 3E maps don't even match up with the FR Atlas, which I consider the definitive source on maps for the Realms. Too bad they still don't do those!

edg

I found they matched up pretty well, the difference is in the artstyle which is more modern and less detail then the old massive maps. But it's just a style difference unlike the 4e maps which are vast changes to the landscape not just different style of map making


I agree on the atlas, but to much detail was a "flaw" of the setting it seems. I never thought so myself

 

[Scribble]

I dont think that I literally heard that "3.5 sucked". But it was the tone at the time that rubbed me the wrong way coming from some of the developers and the marketing. The idea that the game that I liked and played was irrevocably broken and the I would play the new one because it was D&D, really, REALLY rubbed me the wrong way. And even then I bought the gift set and ran a few games to give it a fair shot. Still, it was things like the video I posted earlier that kind of annoyed the crap out of me.

A little while back everyone in my department had to take this training class that, among other things, dealt with written interactions.

One of the things they taught us was that a lot of how we interpret the "tone" of an email, letter, article, etc... is heavily influenced by our own current mood., and heavily so when our mood is one of intense emotion.

If we're really angry, for instance, something as simple as "Hey, how are you?" can be misread as an attempt to belittle our feelings. We'll picture the person sarcastically saying it with a smirk on his face- laughing as they watch our reaction. When really, all they wanted was to know how we were doing (or at worst it was just a formality and they had no real involvement with the statement one way or the other.)

Was this what happened here? I don't know- I think maybe in a lot of cases it was.

(I also think Wizards kind of inadvertently fueled the fire with some of those videos... I don't think they intended to insult anyone though. I think they were going for a "We're all gamers here, so we can tease ourselves" thing- but combined with the above, it just didn't work.)

 

[Mournblade94]

Clearly there is a division between people who don't like 4E and found statements offensive and those who did like 4E and can't see it. I do not claim this is everyone. I don't much care for 4E, but I don't think the term offensive applies. To me it is more just clear evidence of a stark divergence in game philosophy.

But, still the don't like and offended vs. like and not offended division holds rather true. And some on the like side are claiming that the offense is just sour grapes from people that don't like the game. In effect they are saying that the dislike for the game is a cause and taken offense is a resultant effect.

This is the core of the matter there. Good job. Obviusly people that are in line with the philosophy of 4e would not take offense.

 

[Gothmog]

"I'm not looking to be offended."

QFT. This single incisive comment cuts the to the core of the issue. I personally subscribe to a similar outlook on life as you do Vartan- it just makes life so much more enjoyable. Someone might come up to you and say "You're an incompetent idiot with no fashion sense." My response depends on whether I'm looking to be offended. If I am, I'll have an emotional response that likely results in me getting in the person's face about their comment, and potentially things can get ugly. If I am not looking to be offended, then I just shrug, say "thats your opinion", step around them and walk on past.

What really boggles my mind is that during the 4e rollout, not ONCE did the 4e designers attack any single individual personally, as the example phrase above did. Instead, they said they found problem areas in the game, and tried new workarounds to remedy them. Some people would like their solutions, others might not- I think they knew that. Yes, they tried to be cute about some of their criticisms, with the attitude that we, as gamers, can laugh at ourselves. While that decision was questionable (as was the assumption that people wouldn't become offended), they were trying to highlight what had been pointed out by people at conventions and in the online community as problems and flaws in the existing system. Now, I can sort of understand getting offended if someone attacks you personally, but for criticism of a game rule or a playstyle? Really? A GAME is the most important things some folks have to be concerned about in their lives? Kinda puts things into perspective.

No game system is perfect, and there is a high degree of subjectivity in what works for each individual. Valid criticism of a game or its rules is fine- criticism in and of itself can be a good thing if it is done rationally and ideas are exchanged- thats the model for how ideas, theories, or in this example a game system should evolve over time. But when emotionally laden arguements like "they totally screwed the multiverse model", "wizards suck because they aren't like they used to be", "they dumbed the game down for the MMO crowd with the attention span of a gnat", "WotC betrayed the D&D legacy" etc. are tossed around we go from valid debate and criticism of an issue to simple trolling. No discussion of ideas are possible because some people are simply looking to vent emotionally and be agitators.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, I don't think WotC really opened up the design process with 4Ed...they did it with 3Ed.

I still remember them doing visible market research for that edition. I never saw any of the stuff for 4Ed.

Well, more accurately, I have no recollection of having seen it. The first I remember hearing of 4Ed, it was nearly a done deal.

 

[BryonD]

No discussion of ideas are possible because some people are simply looking to vent emotionally and be agitators.

Can you offer an example of an idea that could not be discussed?

I'm certainly in a group that finds 4E less appealing because "the math works" and "easy to DM" were the trumps of the design approach.

I've seen plenty of emotionally venting and agitation flow toward 4E. But just try to start a conversation about removing the negative consequences of these issues and every bit as much emotional venting and agitation comes flowing back the other way.

(And no, I'm not interested in starting the conversation over at this point. I'm not mad about anything at all. To the contrary, I'm really happy with the alternatives I have.)

All I'm saying is, one way to know for certain that you are wrong, is if you are saying it is all the other side's fault.