Challenge to WotC: Initiative

[Shadeydm]

I'm not at all convinced you're correct with such a flat statement.

Folks out here may choose to pass judgement, but I doubt any of them are really privy to enough information to know how much effort is going on behind the scenes. So, you may not think they are bending over backwards, when it sure feels like they are to them. It is not "spewing poison" to be working hard, but have someone else say you aren't.

Meanwhile, railing at them and raising bad opinion of them when you don't have the information to judge may or may not be poison, but it sure isn't nice.

Point of view alters perspective. And the Golden Rule applies, as always.

So are you implying that RC is in fact spewing poison here, because it doesn't seem particularly clear to me?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Point of view alters perspective. And the Golden Rule applies, as always.

No argument there. However, I am somewhat at a loss as to how else you answer "STOP SPEWING POISON" when you don't believe that a request for specific information is in any way, shape, or form even similar to "spewing poison".

I am neither railing at them nor "raising bad opinion". I fully expect that there will be a response. I may be wrong, but at the moment I am more than willing to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.

But let us say, for the sake of argument, that I was on the current thread about the DI Dungeon & Dragon. A lot of folks there are voicing disappointment. Is that railing, raising bad opinion, or spewing poison? I don't think so. I think it is perfectly reasonable to raise objection when you feel that there is something to object to.

For example, you just raised an objection to my post. Was that railing, raising bad opinion, or spewing poison? No. Obviously not. In fact, even if it reading your post made everyone on EN World hate me, it wouldn't be your fault. If everyone hates "Sense of Wonder" threads, and I post "Sense of Wonder" threads, then pointing out that I am posting threads everyone hates isn't "spewing poison". Maybe, just maybe, it will recall me to the consequences of my actions.

If I do X, and pointing out that I do X makes people have a bad opinion of me, it is my fault, not the fault of the one pointing my behaviour out. In fact, in this case, pointing my behaviour out may very well be a community service.

Easy example (and not a real example!): If I claim that I'll pay $100 to everyone who sends me their 3.0 PHB, and you send me your 3.0 PHB, and I don't pay you, your pointing out my bad behaviour is an asset to the community that may very well prevent others from sending me their 3.0 PHBs.

There is a simularity in this issue to Burden of Proof as well. If I want to convince you of something, I need to offer evidence that meets your threshold for burden of proof. It doesn't really matter what I feel, or what my own theshold is. Convincing you requires that I adapt to your threshold.

You could say "The existence of the Loch Ness Monster is proven" and I say "No, it is not" and neither one of us be wrong or lying. Your theshold for proof might be lower than mine. Similarly, if a game designer says "We're bending over backwards here" and I say "No, you're not" it is quite possible for us both to be correct given the contexts of our positions, but from any single context we cannot both be correct.

But not every context is equally important.

If I want to convince you that UFOs are alien spacecraft, then what you would accept as proof is what's important -- not what I would. If I want to convince WotC that they should use my Weapon Skills system for 4e, then what WotC would take to be convinced is what is important -- what I feel is not. If WotC wants me to believe that they are bending over backwards, then what I feel is important.....Likewise, if they want me to spend my money on their game, then what I feel is important.

I believe that WotC understands this. I believe (and I hope) that WotC will look at this "challenge" as an opportunity. Because if I am honest with myself, I want them to convince me that 4e is worth buying. I want them to convince me that 4e is worth the effort of re-house ruling for. I want them to convince me that 4e is great.

And since they're not doing that, I'm willing to lay down a trail of bread crumbs to lead them (if I am lucky) in what I think is the right direction.


RC

 

[Hairfoot]

Hairfoot, with a new core MM every year, how will you ever know that dolphins won't show up eventually?

Ah, but they won't be called dolphins. They'll be the ancient aquatic race of Squeenorg, or something, and have a loose alliance with aquatic elves and an ancient enmity with, oh, let's say locathah.

Or maybe they're just too intelligent to show up in an RPG. Even dolphins ostracise geeks.

 

[danzig138]

Sure. But I question the accuracy of calling my challenge a "dare".

Heck, as I said earlier, "challenge" really isn't a good word, either, because there is nothing challenging about it. It should be really, really easy for WotC to answer, and answering should cost them nothing.

RC

Truly, it should be easy. But if I was them, and you were you, I wouldn't bother responding to it. Why? Because if I was WOTC BOB, I'd look over at WOTC Other Cubicle Cuy and say "I bet you a shiny nickel that if we answer this and put it out, the next thread of his will be moaning about the new initiative system." There's no advantage to doing so for them.

 

[Kaffis]

Truly, it should be easy. But if I was them, and you were you, I wouldn't bother responding to it. Why? Because if I was WOTC BOB, I'd look over at WOTC Other Cubicle Cuy and say "I bet you a shiny nickel that if we answer this and put it out, the next thread of his will be moaning about the new initiative system." There's no advantage to doing so for them.

And, as Cadfan pointed out, to release any information about the initiative presents a de facto standard, or the impression that it is policy, to comply with "challenges" (which look suspiciously like demands).

Next thing you know, five boards on the Internet flood with new challenges, and they may as well just release the playtesting docs at that point, or else look like they're going against policy, which would, of course, start all kinds of new speculation and whatnot.

They can't start responding to individual requests. They must be free to speak about what they want to speak about, without looking like they're catering to anybody in particular. This is why the dev blogs and playtester blogs proceed as they do; it's a method of releasing only the information they feel like (or keeping information they have to talkabout in a roundabout way vague and unspecific), thus avoiding setting up any false expectations.

Thus, issuing a challenge has added to the list of topics they can't acknowledge without setting up (in one poster's mind, at least) expectations they cannot live up to reasonably. Far more productive, I think, to discuss topics we'd like to see discussed on their terms, if your goal is merely to inform them about what we're eager to learn more about. This doesn't put them into any kind of corner if they choose to satiate our curiousity, like talking about initiative now would.

 

[Raven Crowking]

They can't start responding to individual requests. They must be free to speak about what they want to speak about, without looking like they're catering to anybody in particular. This is why the dev blogs and playtester blogs proceed as they do; it's a method of releasing only the information they feel like (or keeping information they have to talkabout in a roundabout way vague and unspecific), thus avoiding setting up any false expectations.

That's perfectly reasonable. If that is what they are doing, though, they shouldn't tell us that they are bending over backwards to release information, or get upset when someone complains that information is being released too slowly (or that real information is next-to-nonexistant).

I am a big believer in DM authority. When I run a game, it is "my way or the highway" (although you might be able to change what "my way" is. ). I'm cool with that. But I am not cool with a DM who claims to run a "your way" game that is not.

WotC absolutely has the authority to release whatever information it wants, however it wants, whenever it wants. Absolutely. I'm cool with that. But I am not cool with WotC playing "my way of the highway" while claiming to run a "bending over backwards" game.

If that is the strategy that they want to use to build up hype, I see no reason to play along. I see no reason to aid them, either by going "woo hoo!" or remaining silent. There's a lot of stuff about 4e that, if delivered on, looks good. The sales pitch we are getting, OTOH, and if you are right, looks far less than stellar.

When 3.0 was released, WotC had no qualms about answering individual questions and concerns. I am still hoping for some sort of official response. Hell, "We are not ready to release this information at this time" would at least be a response.

RC

EDIT: Of course, they might decide that this is a call to release something solid, but don't want to release initiative. Could the doomspore mechanic (the first truly solid 4e mechanic released that I know of) have appeared because of the obvious response to not releasing initiative?

 

[am181d]

Does someone have a source for this "bending over backwards" quote?

I think it's pretty clear that the designers would love to tell us everything they know about 4e except they know that would be dumb. Instead, they've put together a sensible information release plan that takes into account considerations like "must not reveal too much too early," "must keep the stream steady," "must not undercut product releases (i.e. the preview books)," "must not reveal too much about things that haven't been locked in yet," "must not blow the big reveals," "must not set unreasonable expectations about the rate that things will be revealed," and so on.

By the time 4e actually comes out, everyone who wants to will know everything they need to know to make an informed decision about whether they want to purchase the new books.

Speculating based on limited information can be fun, but complaining that we don't have enough information to speculate on is kind of lame.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Does someone have a source for this "bending over backwards" quote?

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3836287&postcount=62

Speculating based on limited information can be fun, but complaining that we don't have enough information to speculate on is kind of lame.

Sure. I'm just not a big fan of mixed messages. "We're listening to you; you have a chance to have input" but "nothing you say will affect the clouds you're watching" (and, yes, those are loose paraphrases at best).

RC

 

[Deset Gled]

Does someone have a source for this "bending over backwards" quote?

The exact quote is:

"It kills me that we are bending over backwards to give out as much information as we feel is in the best interest of keeping people engaged and excited 8 months before the launch when we are still playtestsing and we get crapped on for doing what we do.

Never in my years working in marketing have I seen a company be this interactive and responsive to a community and we still get blamed for being "corporate" and "faceless". I bet if we gave these same people a one hundred dollar bill they would complain because it wasn't two. "

Emphasis mine. In context, Scott's basically complaining about threads where people think they are entitled to more information, and demand more. You know, kinda like this one

So here's my challenge to WotC: Don't tell us how Initiative will work in 4e until the complete release. Revealing that will obviously tell us key information about how the entire combat structure works, and shouldn't be released until with have the full combat rules, so we don't over-react and judge it in a vacuum.

There, WotC now cannot possibly fullfill both of our requests, so we'll have to just sit back and see who they love more.

 

[Fifth Element]

So here's my challenge to WotC: Don't tell us how Initiative will work in 4e until the complete release. Revealing that will obviously tell us key information about how the entire combat structure works, and shouldn't be released until with have the full combat rules, so we don't over-react and judge it in a vacuum.

There, WotC now cannot possibly fullfill both of our requests, so we'll have to just sit back and see who they love more.

Deset Gled FTW, I think.

I thought I asked this earlier in the thread, but it appears not: How is "challenging" the same thing as "asking"? A challenge implies an adversarial relationship from the get-go. It can also imply a sense of entitlement, though that may not have been the intent.