Are we fair to WotC?

[KentDT]

WotC used to have catalogs that would tell you what was due out at least three months in advance, if not further. Do they still do articles of what's coming down the road or have they clammed up like Games Workshop (where you learn 3 days before they release new content, it seems)?

I don't understand this. Right on WOTC's web site there's always been a link to their product catalog. Right now it has products up until the beginning of December listed (and has since around May, I think. Meaning that they generally announce 3-6 months prior to release.) Admittedly, this year has been rather scarce on the new D&D front but they have always had an easily accessible catalog, well in advance of actual release.

 

[Dannager]

That is the very essence of the edition warring - highlighting everybody else's actions and complaints as if they somehow aren't as legitimate as your own thoughts and feelings. It's the dismissals, the declaration that opinions are wrong, that are at the heart of the edition war, not the criticism of the games or companies involved.

No, I'm pretty sure that the heart of the edition wars is the inability of some people to demonstrate how invested they are in a particular edition (or editions) of the game without taking a dump all over the editions they like less.

The rest is just normal debate. If you have an unsupportable opinion, such as the belief that it's okay to feel personally insulted by 4e, or by 5e, or by any company releasing a new game, (contrary to what many seem to believe, opinions are not invulnerable to criticism), and you share it publicly, you shouldn't be surprised when people have less-than-flattering opinions of your opinion.

 

[mlund]

No, I'm pretty sure that the heart of the edition wars is the inability of some people to demonstrate how invested they are in a particular edition (or editions) of the game without taking a dump all over the editions they like less.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

The uncomfortable reality is there's almost never a good reason to go off the deep end running down other people's games of choice. The nastiness stems from things ranging from trying to get the last word in to feel superior over to discourage support for competing products so you'll have more content and players to use for your own game of choice or even just base electronic tribalism. Nobody needs to stoop to that sort of thing to present civil criticism, extol the virtues of a system they love, or try to recruit more support for their game. It reminds me of those awful, childish adds electronics systems I've seen time and time again since I was a kid and they tried selling me on the Sega Genesis with the whole "You can't do this on Nintendo" and "Ninten-don't" series of adds.

The rest is just normal debate. If you have an unsupportable opinion, such as the belief that it's okay to feel personally insulted by 4e, or by 5e, or by any company releasing a new game, (contrary to what many seem to believe, opinions are not invulnerable to criticism), and you share it publicly, you shouldn't be surprised when people have less-than-flattering opinions of your opinion.

Society seems to have this weird current of thought lately that you can't argue or evaluate opinions in a critical fashion and that ever rejection of someone's opinion is a personal attack. That thinking (feeling, really, it's hardly rational) is, of course, a demonstrably false line of reasoning. It confuses arguing matters of personal taste ("I like the color blue," and "this tastes too salty for me") and an ordinary argument on the merits of an issue.

- Marty Lund

 

[billd91]

No, I'm pretty sure that the heart of the edition wars is the inability of some people to demonstrate how invested they are in a particular edition (or editions) of the game without taking a dump all over the editions they like less.

The rest is just normal debate. If you have an unsupportable opinion, such as the belief that it's okay to feel personally insulted by 4e, or by 5e, or by any company releasing a new game, (contrary to what many seem to believe, opinions are not invulnerable to criticism), and you share it publicly, you shouldn't be surprised when people have less-than-flattering opinions of your opinion.

Here's the difference - the person criticizing the game (or company decision) is focused on a thing and their relationship to it - whereas dismissing an opinion and alluding to them having some kind of inability to understand their own feelings is focusing on the person. One is considerably more acceptable to board rules than the other. I'll leave it to you as an exercise to figure out which is which.

 

[billd91]

Society seems to have this weird current of thought lately that you can't argue or evaluate opinions in a critical fashion and that ever rejection of someone's opinion is a personal attack. That thinking (feeling, really, it's hardly rational) is, of course, a demonstrably false line of reasoning. It confuses arguing matters of personal taste ("I like the color blue," and "this tastes too salty for me") and an ordinary argument on the merits of an issue.

It depends on how you do it. You're the one saying that people are going off the deep end. That's a judgment of the person, implying that they have a disproportionate reaction or some irrational opinion. It's entirely possible to say, in response to saying "this tastes too salty," that "I like salt! Salt it up more for me." That's expressing a contrary opinion without implying that the person holding the other opinion is insane.

 

[mlund]

I read this as being critical of the quality of what is written in a book / PDF / blog post by some corporate minion is OK, but being critical of what is written in an article / blog / message board post by a normal user is somehow verboten.

Hear lies the art of civil debate. Rest in peace, kind stranger. My generation hardly knew ye.

More seriously, though, I think the heart of the matter of the thread topic is what makes criticism "fair" or "unfair." Attempting to categorize is essential to the process, and yes, it means some opinions given at some time or another are going to be argued to be unfair criticism - or that the very assertion that trying to differentiate "fair" and "unfair" criticism is itself "unfair," - which is contradictory.

IYou're the one saying that people are going off the deep end. That's a judgment of the person, implying that they have a disproportionate reaction or some irrational opinion.

No. That's a judgment of the behavior exhibited. A stream of frothing, often-times self-contradictory and uncivil vitriol the likes of which generated the ban on edition-warring on this board in yester-years was "going off the deep end" and possible "beyond the pale" to use another convenient idiom.

- Marty Lund

 

[billd91]

I read this as being critical of the quality of what is written in a book / PDF / blog post by some corporate minion is OK, but being critical of what is written in an article / blog / message board post by a normal user is somehow verboten.

Then you read with an incorrect inference.

 

[mlund]

Then you read with an incorrect inference.

"highlighting everybody else's actions and complaints as if they somehow aren't as legitimate as your own thoughts and feelings"

When people exhibit uncivil behaviors and self-contradictory / irrationally elucidated complaints, no, I don't see those actions and complaints as having the same legitimacy as a civil, well-composed, rationally constructed argument. Sorry, I'm not here to validate anybody's feelings or legitimize their thought-process. Some attempts at argument are just terrible on their technical and/or social merits.

See also: raging out on the company / game you dislike / compete with for market share or even meta-trolling people who object to such rants or campaigns.

- Marty Lund

 

[Raith5]

A pattern of not learning from mistakes puts a target on your back.

WotC keeps repeating basic mistakes. They don't know how to market. They offended large swathes of their audience when making 4e (losing a lot of fans to Pathfinder), and now they're insulting their audience when making 5e (4e fans can go elsewhere is the attitude I'm getting from them). It's not the same set of fans being insulted, but you don't need a marketing course to know that this isn't a good move. .

I think this hits the nail on the head - even if the sense of being insulted is just a subjective impression held by some. I think WOTC, and us fans as consumers, dramatically understate the various ways the games they make create us as players (via the playstyles of various editions). While DDN claims to be making a game that connects to/enables/replicates existing playstyles, after a more than year of playtesting I am still not sure if this has been enough or how it is going to work.

 

[mlund]

I think the perceived insults aren't well-founded. It's business, not personal. TSR/WotC didn't have a business plan for OD&D/AD&D/2E/3.X/4E that would generate sufficient sales revenue (and they traditionally milk the long tale of supplements for quite a while) so they created a business plan involving a new edition.

That business plan may or may not be a good one on the merits. It may or may not benefit you or I personally. That doesn't make it a complement or an insult. It may feel like a rejection of you as a customer, and maybe that stings but taking it personally I can't reconcile with. Personal insult is when your g/f breaks up over text message and refuses to return any of the clothes or dvds she borrowed. Taking insult from a company supporting a new product instead of your old favorite is like one degree away from accusing the ocean of trying to drown you.

- Marty Lund