Pathfinder 1E Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo, commenting about ENWorld

[xechnao]

No, it was supposed to be the premiere news site for D&D. Incidentally, it has accepted (or had forced upon it by the commons) the mantle of "the place to be" with regards to RPG's in general. Heck the front web-page says it all: "This is En World, the largest single Dungeons & Dragons fan site on the entire internet."

This post is what I think eventually the problem is all about over here. The confusion about relating what the site is supposed to be by its self-definition and the argument that people's own uninfluenced desires and judgment form the identity and properties of the site. There is a problem here that can't be solved IMO, so we can only accept the facts as they are. So we can't say that in the OP Lisa was wrong in what she said.

 

[Harlekin]

I fail to understand this criticism as one of the design goals of 4E was to dumb it down so it would appeal to a larger audience. Roleplaying games don't sell, but combat strategy games do, which is why the roleplaying aspects of D&D were clearly tacked on as an afterthought.

Is it really so difficult to use the neutral term "simplified" rather than the negative "dumbed down"?

 

[Spatula]

If you don't understand why that's insulting, try applying it to your favorite system.

It's insulting to the system. I'm not sure why anyone would take it as a personal slight. "Dumbed down" is just a shorthard for "simplified," albeit with a dismissive slant.

phloog's post upthread had the right of it.

Imagine how nice this place could be if people didn't seem to see themselves as defined by their game system of choice? Me not liking 4e doesn't make you a buffoon for liking it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

You fail to understand why people would take offense when you use a term that means "to lower the general level of intelligence" to apply to a game they enjoy when simplification and dumbing down are not synonyms?

Main Entry: dumb down2
Part of Speech: vi
Definition: to become less sophisticated or intellectual
Etymology: 1933-38
Usage: slang; dumbed-down, adj; dumbing-down, n

Again, this comes back to my complaint about people getting bent out of shape when someone calls a spade a spade.

You fail to see how some internet jackass saying you're not a real roleplayer because you like a different game is offensive? Or his painting you as some medication-needing adolescent when you are far from it?

If D&D died, it's because of elitists that want to paint those that disagree with them as intellectually inferior.

Maybe we would have liked to see a different name attached to something is clearly a different game. If I go to a pet store to buy a cat, I don't want someone to bring me a turtle and tell me that it's a cat. In any case, this really has nothing to do with what other people are playing. Up until this point, I've been mostly biting my tongue about my real opinion. But the fact is that I'm not the only one who feels this way about it. 4E is not a true successor to D&D. It's a new game that is deserving of a new identity.

Quite interesting, coming from a guy that left WotC 7 years ago, and has a serious personal investment in 3e and the public's perception of it. What would be nice is if he had facts to go with his opinion.

Frankly, I love how a year or so ago, people hung on every word Monte spoke, yet now many of the same people who used to hype his genius question his motives. If he shared the facts that he possesses (and frankly, I do too), he (and I) would be in violation of the NDAs that we signed. If you want facts to support the arguments, you'll have to go get a job at WotC and then all will become clear. Monte is a good game designer, and frankly, he's one of the few people in (or formerly in) the industry who speaks his mind. He's not giving a line of rhetoric, he actually has an informed opinion and he's sharing it in an honest and forthright manner.

 

[The Little Raven]

4E is not a true successor to D&D.

In your opinion. In many 2e-lover's opinion, 3E is not a true successor to AD&D, since it dumbs the game down (since Thac0 kept the riff-raff out, y'know).

Isn't it great how elitist opinions are absolutely meaningless because they're just so much hot air?

Frankly, I love how a year or so ago, people hung on every word Monte spoke, yet now many of the same people who used to hype his genius question his motives.

That's wonderful that people hung on his every word. I don't engage in the hero worship of professional RPG writers like so many in this community seem to.

Was bringing this up supposed to shame me into reverting to the previous "Monte is god" opinion that I never actually held?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There also seems to be a much-touted opinion that someone posting a harsh critique of 4E is "expressing their feelings"; but anyone who offers a rebuttal to it is being "rude" or "insulting". Why post on a messageboard if response is not wanted or expected?

I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) you are making reference to the Celtavian thread. In which case I must really take you to task with how you have twisted what has happened on that thread to some imagined generality that is nowhere near indicative of EN World as a whole. If you have a chip on your shoulder and are over-correcting a perceived imbalance, then please DON"T!

The critique was not "harsh" but valid. The "expressing of feelings" was despondence by the OP at how the game had gone in a direction he did not like and that as his gaming group were heading that way, he was left on his lonesome.

On that thread there were several valid rebuttals (some that I agreed with, but also some by the same "crew" who feel the need to defend 4E at every available evangelistic opportunity). And then there was:

I stopped reading your post at the point that I realized that you hadn't actually understood the rules.

Good for you. Enjoy whatever gaming-or-nongaming activity you'd normally devote D&D time to. Learn a craft. Run for local office. Spend time with your friends or family.
Just don't sit on the internet throwing out the same tired "reasons" for why D&D isn't D&D and how Wizards killed your childhood.

Does that mean you'll never post something as long as this again?
Wow, what free time you must have. Good luck with WOW. I hope your fam,ily relationships survive it. Oh, and don't argue with me, I forbid it.

...and a post that got the guy banned for a week which I won't quote.

These ranged from snippy, to completely lacking in empathy to insulting and yes, to utter rudeness.

The us/them attitude you (Grimstaff) put forward is unfortunately held by way too many posters on these forums to the detriment of the board as a whole. I could have almost as easily taken to a pro3.x poster but your remarks were the most recent and cogent to the point I am trying to make.

People of EN World, let's actively try to find and share the things we have in common in addition to the normal divergent viewpoints rather than continuing the us/them partisan bashing and devisiveness that has corrupted these boards for too long. In other words, we're all gamers who love our hobby. Just try and have a little extra respect for people who share the same passion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Grimstaff]

edited out.

 

[Barastrondo]

Maybe we would have liked to see a different name attached to something is clearly a different game. If I go to a pet store to buy a cat, I don't want someone to bring me a turtle and tell me that it's a cat. In any case, this really has nothing to do with what other people are playing. Up until this point, I've been mostly biting my tongue about my real opinion. But the fact is that I'm not the only one who feels this way about it. 4E is not a true successor to D&D. It's a new game that is deserving of a new identity.

To be honest, I thought much the same thing about 3e when it dropped "Advanced" from its title. It was a successor to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but a successor to Dungeons & Dragons? The red-box I grew up with, where "halfling" was a class, there were only three alignments, and blue dragons and white dragons weren't evil?

The answer I came up with was "Well, yes, of course it's a successor. It's kind of unfortunate that it hogging the D&D brand entirely means that we probably won't see another stripped-down work of genius like the red-box this go-round, but it's got as much right to the name as anything else that had the ampersand on the cover." It's an answer that makes just as much sense here, if not moreso, given that 4e seems to have dipped more from the well of red-box D&D than 3e did.

 

[Darrin Drader]

That's wonderful that people hung on his every word. I don't engage in the hero worship of professional RPG writers like so many in this community seem to.

Was bringing this up supposed to shame me into reverting to the previous "Monte is god" opinion that I never actually held?

And I never held that opinion either. As I said, Monte is a good game designer. If the hypocrisy that I speak of doesn't apply to you, it certainly applies to many who apparently have bought into the line WotC's been selling you that 3E was so horribly broken and flawed that is was designed by a bunch of incompetent monkeys.

 

[Caliber]

I fail to understand this criticism as one of the design goals of 4E was to dumb it down so it would appeal to a larger audience. Roleplaying games don't sell, but combat strategy games do, which is why the roleplaying aspects of D&D were clearly tacked on as an afterthought.

Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.

Well, you've chosen your side, I've chosen mine. Us courageous geniuses have all the fun anyway.