Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 3482732" data-attributes="member: 20741">"People"? Ari, in fairness man - there were not too many comparing it to rape.  But it sure makes it easy to dismiss the other 99 out of 100 posts by pointing at a few over the top analogies. The were more than a few over the top posts on WotC's forums - and on RPG.net, and the murdered analogy came out on Paizo's forums a few times as well.And yes - a few over the top analogies here too on ENworld.But for the most part - there were hundreds of not-too-over-the-top-posts from some pretty angry people. And that attitude was present everywhere on the net where RPGs are discussed. This time, it wasn't particularly confined to a given discussions forum's  "board culture". It was literally across the board.And its for that reason that I do think that Morrus over-reacted when he was told that there were game designers from WotC who would not post here to discuss it.  As if there were some fans besmirching the ENWorld brand - as distinct from any other forum. The moderation and implied threats came off as heavy-handed to me. *shrug*  Not saying the people who posted in the manners that they did were being terribly reasonable (they were not) but lifetime bans seemed a little twitchy, capricious and arbitrary to me. There it is.It wasn't much different anywhere else. Par for the course.So sure Ari - there are a lot of designers at WotC who would have had nothing to do with this given a chance and would like to say so - but they can't. For example, I have a hard time seeing Chris Perkins willingly kill off Dungeon if it had been up to him. So  I'm willing to assume that it wasn't up to him.********Anyways...I don't feel as if there were many reasons given in the QA  for doing what they did.  Instead, there was a whole lot of hype about DI that was short on specifics. I think WotC just doesn't care to explain it with specifics right now. And that's ok I guess - as, tbh, I'm not much in the mood for listening right now either.Perhaps in the fall I will be open to hearing about it. It's not like I am uninterested in digital gaming. Far, far from it.  But right now? Nah. This whole DI thing has been linked in my mind to the death of print magazines I've read since The Strategic Review. That's pretty much enough to ensure that I will react hostilely to DI as a twitch reaction for a very long time indeed. Which, when you think about it, is pretty silly - given that I literally do not think you will find anyone on ENWorld more KEEN on integrating more digital gaming into their pnp games  than me. And I mean that, I really do. I'm ordinarily the #1 fan of this crap.And that's just bizarre. Because despite the fact I'm a huge propopnent of digital gaming, I can't shake the feeling I'm not WotC's target customer.  Seeing as I have a few thousand D&D minis and 48 WotC hardcovers on my shelf, I have a hard time understanding why that would ever be so.  (Answer: I guess it's because of the several hundred magazines also sitting on that shelf). If I wasn't the customer they wanted - why do they have so much of my money? If there's a better customer out there than me - well - damnit - there can't be many of them. This whole question of who is their target customer is a big one for me, and nothing much in that interview answered that question for me at all.  I'm not too sure much of what I hear WotC say in the short to medium run ever will answer that question. It will take someone like a Ryan Dancey, explaining this decision many years later in hindsight that will probably be necessary to put all of this in context.Anyways - enough of this crap. I think I'll go back to talking about 3.5 gaming. It is, after all, why we are here.</blockquote>

Verification