Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6670157" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm not sure about this &quot;everyone&quot; thing.&nbsp; I think it is a handful of people who have a particular axe to grind that are dog piling.&nbsp; I mean, if this poll is anything to judge by, the number of people satisfied by WOTC interactions outnumbers those who are dissatisfied by 3:1.&nbsp; I think it might be better to simply speak for yourself and not try to claim any broader numbers.&nbsp; The evidence is not in your favour.Why?&nbsp; All of these things are actually, apparently, true.&nbsp; Jury Duty did hold things up.&nbsp; Note, that just because someone comes back from jury duty wouldn't automatically mean that he'd start where he left off.&nbsp; Things get prioritised.&nbsp; Meaning that a free conversion document might, just maybe, be a lower priority item than interacting with the other companies that you're collaborating with to produce the next adventure path.The outsourcing thing has had two other freelancers step up and say that Jeremy Crawford is right.&nbsp; And it's not like these guys were penny ante players, they have numerous pretty hefty books to their names.&nbsp; But, apparently, having the word from the horse's mouth, backed up by other industry individuals, isn't enough to convince people of their absolute rightness.&nbsp; It's rather sad.They had that in 4e with Scott Rouse and it was a THOUSAND times worse.&nbsp; When WOTC was completely transparent, during 4e, and, while you might not have liked the message, the message was always very clear, people went absolutely berserk.&nbsp; See, what I'm seeing here is, &quot;Well, when they communicate about products that personally appeal to me, then they are fantastic at communications.&nbsp; When they make things I don't like, they are bad at communicating.&nbsp; See, even in your last bit about the tail end of the 5e playtest - they are still being 100% transparent and trying to keep fans in the loop.&nbsp; Just because you don't care for the message doesn't mean they are bad at communicating.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6670157, member: 22779"] I'm not sure about this "everyone" thing. I think it is a handful of people who have a particular axe to grind that are dog piling. I mean, if this poll is anything to judge by, the number of people satisfied by WOTC interactions outnumbers those who are dissatisfied by 3:1. I think it might be better to simply speak for yourself and not try to claim any broader numbers. The evidence is not in your favour. Why? All of these things are actually, apparently, true. Jury Duty did hold things up. Note, that just because someone comes back from jury duty wouldn't automatically mean that he'd start where he left off. Things get prioritised. Meaning that a free conversion document might, just maybe, be a lower priority item than interacting with the other companies that you're collaborating with to produce the next adventure path. The outsourcing thing has had two other freelancers step up and say that Jeremy Crawford is right. And it's not like these guys were penny ante players, they have numerous pretty hefty books to their names. But, apparently, having the word from the horse's mouth, backed up by other industry individuals, isn't enough to convince people of their absolute rightness. It's rather sad. They had that in 4e with Scott Rouse and it was a THOUSAND times worse. When WOTC was completely transparent, during 4e, and, while you might not have liked the message, the message was always very clear, people went absolutely berserk. See, what I'm seeing here is, "Well, when they communicate about products that personally appeal to me, then they are fantastic at communications. When they make things I don't like, they are bad at communicating. See, even in your last bit about the tail end of the 5e playtest - they are still being 100% transparent and trying to keep fans in the loop. Just because you don't care for the message doesn't mean they are bad at communicating. [/QUOTE]

Verification