D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

In essence - any time someone says, "that thing you love *sucks*," be it a game, a playstyle or whatever, you should expect an emotional reaction from the fan.

I hear quite a bit from friends of my fellow gamers who feel the 4E Realms sucks. They're not afraid to say so, in person, without worry of whether they'll offend me.

Doesn't meant I jump down their throat. On the contrary, I welcome their opinion and then go about my business.

In general, anything a professional says in support of his or her own work (or against works that are in competition for the hearts of customers) is essentially marketing. Having a horse in the race implies a bias, such that professionals probably ought to stay out of the business of public critique of the competition.

This is just a bad idea all the way around.

That a bias exists doesn't mean a professional can't objectively look at other systems and critique them.

The concealed claim in your statement is that professionals--despite being professionals--can't tell the truth.

I don't buy it.

Professionals, being in positions of influence and control, are well-served to be very thoughtful of their audiences - writing without knowing the audience is a recipe for foot-in-mouth disease. If Schwalb was surprised by the blowback, that says to me that he wrote without understanding his audience, and whether he was edition warring or not, he takes some blame for that.

In general this is good advice.

The problem with it is the assumption that Schwalb should take some blame for the blowback he received, because that implies he shouldn't have written what he did in the manner that he did.

And that's just wrong. He's not to blame because the number of loudmouth jerks with bullhorns who like to hear themselves speak and don't bother to think before they post have multiplied over time on the internet.

WotC more generally should take a little heat for it, too - they *know* how some of the negative marketing they did was received last time around, and should have prevented team members from repeating the same mistake.

Schwalb parted ways with WotC back in April.

 

[MechaPilot]

Schwalb parted ways with WotC back in April.

That doesn't actually matter. Employers can restrict what contracted employees can say after their release as long as the contract has such a clause.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

That doesn't actually matter. Employers can restrict what contracted employees can say after their release as long as the contract has such a clause.

I'm aware, thanks. For example, I know what an NDA is.

Regardless, Umbran's idea is just bad. Prior discontent doesn't mean it's a good idea to muzzle former employees in order to keep the rabble from working themselves into a frenzy.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm aware, thanks. For example, I know what an NDA is.

Regardless, Umbran's idea is just bad. Prior discontent doesn't mean it's a good idea to muzzle former employees in order to keep the rabble from working themselves into a frenzy.

I wasn't specifically referring to an NDA or an NDA clause, and I wasn't specifically stating that it is a good or bad idea. I just intended to clarify that parting ways with a company doesn't mean they can't exercise some measure of control over what a former employee is allowed to say.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Fair enough. Apologies.

 

[MechaPilot]

Fair enough. Apologies.

No problem. I probably could have phrased it better in my initial reply.

 

[dd.stevenson]

While we might accept that it originated on certain Forums, the issue has grown somewhat beyond that initial scope. Edition warring now happens in-person as well, among folks who do not themselves even read certain forums. (snip)

Saying that "they're edition warring" is a silencing tactic, with a semantic value usually equivalent to "they should shut up about this and each talk about games they like instead". Does this silencing serve a useful purpose? Yes, obviously, it was developed out of necessity to curb large scale antisocial behavior within the D&D internet comment sub-subculture. This was essential, because the anti-social behavior was rendering certain venues unfit for any other purpose.

But what does it mean when we take this term out of our sub-subculture and apply it (say) to a blogger who's comparing his design work on 4E to his work on 5E? In this context the term is stripped of all the uses it has in keeping messageboards and comment sections usable. It isn't telling him to stop acting antisocially. As far as I can tell, it's just another, messageboard-slangy way of saying he should shut up.

And maybe "shut up, if this is all you have to say about 4E" is exactly the message some people would like to deliver to Schwalb, or whomever. That's not really my lookout.

But consider. Does the broader D&D subculture need a slangy synonym for "shut up about games you don't like"? Do we need a meme that allows us to silence each other?

My answer is: absolutely freaking not. Unless there's some reason why it cannot be tolerated, I believe strongly in people giving their opinion exactly as they please. That's why I support people remembering why the term "edition war" was coined, and not stretching it to tell people to shut up who aren't behaving antisocially or making online discussion venues less usable.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Lots of the 4e marketing was edition war salvos. (snip)

Calling the 4E campaign out for edition warring is a bit like calling out Sony's PS4 pre-launch marketing for console warring. It's not wrong, per se; just semi-literate, because we've taken the term outside of its usual context and put it in a place where, depending on how we split hairs, it's liable to be either tautologically true or tautologically false. To a less exaggerated degree, it's as if we were to accuse a motorist of jaywalking, or porpoises of racism.

 

[pemerton]

the idea of a secondary role. This was introduced after launch, some time before the PHB2 where each class has a primary role but their choice of subclass allows them to dabble in an aspect of another role.

PHB2 formalises the notion of "secondary role". But it is clearly present in the PHB. For instance, paladins are secondary leaders (having healing and buffing). Fighters can be secondary strikers (having access to high-damage weapons and powers plus many ways to get extra attacks) and also can be built as martial controllers (especially with Polearm Gamble). Warlocks are secondary controllers. Etc.

The absence of the label doesn't entail the absence of the phenomenon.

The fact that one NAD lags behind (by as much as 3 points) is a flaw in the execution of math.

As I said in the "weak saving throw" thread, it depends. What are the consequences of being hit? Damage, obviously, but damage is not the issue. It's about effects. 4e is relatively light on save-or-suck (some well know exceptions apply, of course, like the MM dracolich) and has a range of ways to grant a free off-turn save.

they deal damage. On average, they deal identical amounts of damage each Encounter.
The how is irrelevant and only the execution varies.

It puzzles me why the "how" would be irrelevant. It seems to me that, given that it is a good chunk of the play experience, it's actually quite crucial. I mean, in AD&D both a specialist fighter's attacks and a thief's backstab do damage (and nothing but damage), but I've never seen anyone assert that this makes them functional equivalents in combat.

Yes but every single monster table you rolled on did not produce a fair encounter. Many games at the time had weak, moderate, and too powerful encounters.

By "fair encounter" do you mean "moderately easy encounter"? If so, nothing in 4e suggests that all encounters should be fair either. (Others can, and have, commented on 3E.)

In classic D&D (especially Moldvay, but also Gygax), the main point of balance that they emphasise is risk/reward - ie how much treasure the monsters are guarding. That is a big deal in XP-for-gold systems. In 4e, where treasure (by default, at least) is handled in a completely different way, that sort of balance is almost irrelevant.

 

[Jester David]

PHB2 formalises the notion of "secondary role". But it is clearly present in the PHB. For instance, paladins are secondary leaders (having healing and buffing). Fighters can be secondary strikers (having access to high-damage weapons and powers plus many ways to get extra attacks) and also can be built as martial controllers (especially with Polearm Gamble). Warlocks are secondary controllers. Etc.

The absence of the label doesn't entail the absence of the phenomenon.

But not every build has a secondary role in the PHB1. The wizard, rogue, ranger, warlord, and cleric don't have strong secondary roles. And either class had a secondary role (paladin) one build had a secondary role but not the other. Secondary roles were almost accidental.
On average, the classes were really focused on the single task. They were optimized to focus on a single activity.

This isn't a shot at the edition. I'm not saying this is bad. It's just how the edition was designed: classes had roles. Rather than individual characters having roles or players maybe trying to fill a role. The game optimized classes for certain tasks.

It puzzles me why the "how" would be irrelevant. It seems to me that, given that it is a good chunk of the play experience, it's actually quite crucial. I mean, in AD&D both a specialist fighter's attacks and a thief's backstab do damage (and nothing but damage), but I've never seen anyone assert that this makes them functional equivalents in combat.

When comparing what two strikers do in 4th edition, how different they are is huge. Because you"re comparing two similar things. It becomes "spot the difference."
When you compare a 3e sorcerer with a 3e rogue things are very different as the what had how becomes very different depending on build. The rogue could have no combat focus and instead be a diplomancer or a skill monkey. The sorcerer could be an illusionist or polymorphing shapeshifter. The characters could have very different focuses, being more or less useful in or out of combat.
But in 4e, both classes are suddenly equally effective in combat and out of combat. They both deal damage, and while they may not be identical, they both operate in the same "striker range" of damage, which should be higher than the other roles. The classes as always optimized for damage.

 

[pemerton]

Saying that "they're edition warring" is a silencing tactic

<snip>

maybe "shut up, if this is all you have to say about 4E" is exactly the message some people would like to deliver to Schwalb, or whomever.

Maybe I've missed it, but I don't see people telling Schwalb to shut up. They're saying that he's wrong. (And I guess that implies that he shouldn't have said what he said, in the sense that everything else being equal people should say things that are true rather than false. But virtually all disagreement carries that sort of implication.)