Are we fair to WotC?

[Li Shenron]

WotC seems to be one of those companies that people love to hate/dislike/gripe about. Granted, one can make a pretty solid arguement about mistakes and mishandling of IP/bad PR moves that have upset the community, and that WotC have brought it on themselves.

Mistakes... a person sitting on a couch in front of a screen (TV or PC) is always an expert in economy, politics and sports, everybody knows that.

When talking about WotC or any other consumers' company, all I can say is my personal view as a customer. I am only one customer, but my opinion is just honest feedback on how I find their products or how I think I wish the next ones to be. I don't know any other way of being "fair".

 

[Dannager]

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.

As mlund has pointed out, the criticism is aimed at the behavior in question, and that criticism is deserved. And we're already back to the issue of having to address the fact that you consider it okay for people to criticize (oftentimes using radicalized or hostile language) game companies for their behavior, while at the same time holding that it is not okay for others to criticize those people for their behavior, hiding behind a paper-thin shield of "Opinions can't be wrong!" or "You're just being dismissive!" or "Don't act like my feelings aren't legitimate!"

 

[Dannager]

Here's the difference - the person criticizing the game (or company decision) is focused on a thing and their relationship to it

You don't have a personal relationship with WotC, or any other game publisher.

At least, not one worth talking about.

You are a consumer, and they are a business. You can buy their product, or you can choose not to buy their product. That's really about as far as your relationship extends. WotC doesn't even know you. And even if someone who worked there did know you personally, your actual interactions with the company itself (purchasing decisions) are essentially anonymous.

People are imagining a relationship with WotC - a relationship where their personal opinion actually matters, and carries significant weight - and that's causing all kinds of problems. You cast yourself in that position, and suddenly it starts to look like WotC should be catering to you personally. That's a ridiculous expectation (your personal opinion carries roughly the same weight as the rest of the hundreds of thousands of customers in WotC's potential market, which is to say very little; participation in the play test increases this weight slightly), but it's one that many people on these forums hold, whether they realize it or not. And it's precisely why people throw fits when WotC makes a decision that doesn't cater to them. Instead of being disappointing, it's a betrayal. Instead of being uninteresting, it's an insult. Instead of shrugging and moving on, they're offended. Heck, you see this all the time when new playtest packets are released. Someone inevitably looks through the new packet, discovers that the thing they wanted changed wasn't changed, and immediately takes to the internet to complain about how WotC isn't listening to feedback, as though their personal feedback was the only feedback WotC received, or was the only feedback that ought to have been listened to.

These are reactions, and you need to control them. If a proposed design decision in a fantasy board game makes you feel personally insulted, that's a problem, and it's not WotC's job to deal with it.

 

[amerigoV]

You don't have a personal relationship with WotC

True

You don't have a personal relationship ... or any other game publisher.

At least, not one worth talking about.

False. I have met, gamed, and dined with a number of the Savage Worlds people. And that is without even seeking them out. I am not saying we are BFFs, but its certainly beyond "they are just part of some faceless company." And like all people, there are some in that circle I like better than others. With the smaller publishers, I am sure a number of people develop a relationship beyond just "buy/don't buy". On the other hand, I have no expectation of that from the WoTC folks due to their size.

Back to the OP - I've got little against the Western Pointy Hat guys. Looking back, life changes moved me out of their target market about the time 4e hit. I think they took a bold step that needed to be taken, but it did not turn out well. I do not feel "insulted" by their attempt. I do scratch my head at this Beta thing - it made some sense with Pathfinder as they were just testing the market for someones 3.x houserules. But I wish them well for 5e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, we're unfair.

But we collectively pay their bills, so we get to be unfair. "It's not fair!" is the reaction of a child. Yeah, it's not fair. Consumers/users/fans are not really fair. They never will be -- they never are! Is it fair that Two and a Half Men has a series run longer than Firefly? Is it fair that east Africa is in the midst of a generational drought? Is it fair that your friend is better at Magic: The Gathering than you? Is it fair that D&D has so many more players than the Star Wars RPG?

Heck no!

What is fair is irrelevant. The world ain't an equitable place, and it's utopic to insist that it must be. One of the challenges of any company that wants to sell stuff is to figure out how to deal with the patently unfair environment they're selling stuff into.

It's not fair that some people will buy WotC's stuff no matter what. It's not fair that some people will always see something wrong with what they do. It's not fair. It's just reality. If they want to sell things to people, they're going to have to deal with unfair people, because people aren't automagically equitable in their treatment of others -- quite the opposite.

So "It's not fair!" is identifying something you don't like. What can you personally do to help address that problem? That's where I think some interesting conversation lies.

f 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.

This hinges on two things.

First, what you mean by "okay." Is it logical and rational? Not a chance. But it's not logical to feel like the thing in the pink box is more feminine than the thing in the blue box, either. So "being logical and rational" is really an irrational standard to hold any random person to (including any random person crying about how 5e is the devil on the internet).

So it is "understandable," in that this is demonstrably how people are. There is an emotional investment in a brand. That's part of the POINT of a brand, after all. It's part of our personal stories and our personal histories and these things get associated with strong emotions and so get expressed often in emotional terms. So is it permissible on, say, a message board about D&D, to post an emotional opinion about how you don't like 5e? Sure. It's "okay." Here at ENWorld, we take a bit of a dim opinion of overwrought venom and acrimony toward a given game, but this is mostly because it makes for lousy conversation, which is what the board is ostensibly about. It's not necessarily because people shouldn't think that way -- get a blog.

Second, the formation of that less-than-flattering opinion of the opinion implies that your own opinion is somehow more "okay" than the other. But, because people aren't logical and rational, that's probably a false sense of superiority. A passionate love of 5e is just as irrational as a biting hatred of 5e. It's not more correct or better researched or more defensible, so decrying others' irrationality is a vicious double-standard and a possible self-delusion. "Your opinion is dumb, my opinion isn't" is always false. We also take a pretty dim view of THAT here on these boards, for much the same reason: it's lousy conversation.

Personally, I think feeling personally insulted by 5e is fine because people feel personally insulted by things that call into question treasured memories. It's understandable. It's something that's legitimate. What it isn't is a dialogue. So I'm not personally very interested in your personal feelings of affrontery. I'm interested in what specifically about the actual written material you don't like, and why, explicitly you don't like that bit. That's a staring point for interesting convos about why this bit or that bit is important to you and what changes are possible or likely. By all means, feel your feels. But feels are not a conversation, because the only thing anyone else can say about them is "Yes, I too feel these feels," or "Your feels are invalid, my feels are better!" When you start describing why you have your feels, the convo gets better.

 

[Raith5]

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

Personally I agree with you. But I have seen enough on these boards to say that many folk do take it personally in some respects. I guess the nature of roleplaying game as distinct from other media or even computer games, is that players are more invested in it, at least in some ways. I also find it interesting is that WOTC support these various playstyles/markets then move on leaving these markets to other suppliers (pathfinder, 13th age etc).

 

[Ahnehnois]

FWIW I don't think dislike of WotC is really about editions. Even their late 3e stuff was rife with problems. Their sales were declining and they needed to do something. There were a lot of really poor products and bad decisions made before the 4e announcement. ToB, anyone? The late monster manuals, the second round of splats, even the 3.5 core books themselves (which I SRDed but didn't buy until after the 4e release). These things were all signs of a desperate company needing to make money but lacking ideas on how to do it. I stopped buying their stuff for a reason.

And the 5e playtest and the way they're handling it isn't exactly awe inspiring either.

On the other hand, I am a person who used to call the local WotC store before it was officially open to find out if the new MotW, ELH, and so on had come in. If they had kept things up, I would still be a fan.

Nor have I really switched to another company. I still play mostly with WotC-made material, albeit old stuff. I just wish they'd make some new stuff that I could actually use. The direction of this company has essentially removed me from the market.

 

[DaveMage]

WotC's problem is that they cannot be trusted.

They cannot be trusted to retain staff.
They cannot be trusted to fulfill commitments (see the DDI/VTT/4E conversion promises made in 2007).
They cannot be trusted to maintain an edition for a significant duration (5 sets of core books in 14 years - 3.0 [2000], 3.x [2003], 4.0 [2008], 4.Essentials [2010/2011?], 5.0 [2014]). (Granted, this may not be a big deal to some people. It is to me.)
They cannot be trusted to maintain content volume. (See the first online Dungeon "magazine" page count vs. page counts lately.)

Now for some people, the above doesn't matter. For me, it does. I don't trust them with the D&D RPG anymore.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

ToB, anyone?

Honestly, my favorite 3.x book. My group's favorite 3.x book. As [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] pointed out, your limited view doesn't make you an expert on whether this book was a good or bad decision. Were there people who disliked the book? Certainly. Other than that, you don't know enough about the factors beyond your own tastes. One of my main disappointments in 4E was that it didn't approach the game close enough to ToB. A system based on that book from ground up would have made a marvelous game, IMO.

 

[Wicht]

Since visible exp comments are not functioning, I just want to second about everything Kamikaze Midget said. Saved me the trouble of typing that all out.