Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6907927" data-attributes="member: 2525">Wasn't asking for your grade on my argumentation skills there Cap, but thanks for offering it unsolicited.  No we're on the same page there, which is why I have always specified the published adventures and continue to ask about the most recent one.  We've had four posts back and forth now, and in each of them I have mentioned the adventures.  Nothing in what I have written says or implies that I think you're talking about the entirety of 5th edition.  No what's preposterous is that strawman you just constructed and knocked down.  Not only do I welcome critiquing the game, but I do it a fair bit myself.  All I have asked, repeatedly now, is whether or not you've found it to be a common complaint about the most recent two adventures.  And repeatedly now you've dodged that question and distracted from it with ridiculous claims like the one you just made about me.  If you think I am wrong in that - then show me where I have ever said or implied someone should not critique the game.  No I seem to think (because it's what I said) that it's acceptable to start out "OK" early on and get better over time to the point where the adventures are "good" which is what I am arguing.  Particularly when dealing with a third party company like Green Ronin to begin with.  I also seem to think it's a lot more productive to complain about what's coming out recently, from WOTC themselves, than it is to continue to dwell on what came out a year or more ago about Green Ronin's adventure.  Getting progressively better over time is how most things in life go.  If you disagree that's fine, but at least speak to my actual argument.No, as if we should judge the company based on the entirety of their products in the context of their progress over time, and the context of a third party company versus in-house adventures.  Much like you and I are judged for things we do in life.  We're generally worse when we first do something, and then get better as we gain experience and do them more.  Which is why people tend to be judged more on what they've done recently, and directly. than what they did in the beginning, and for what they only supervised.  And which is what's more helpful - to discuss what's current.Why? They were called out plenty for the adventures you're harping on right now.  I don't think it's helpful to continue to complain about stuff that isn't even vaguely recent anymore.  It's not like they can retroactively change it, and they have improved since then which is the purpose of the complaining to begin with, right?  Now if you were arguing they didn't get better you'd have a better point.  It's why I keep focusing on the last two adventures.Recognizing success is not "fanboyism" any more than focusing on failure is trolling.  Both are useful and when you dismiss one you make it easier to dismiss the other.  If you want your complaints to be taken seriously, then don't be so dismissive of those who praise the good.  Then again, if you want people to be dismissive of your complaints, then keep being dismissive of those who disagree.Tough.  This is a public message board for fans of the game.  It doesn't matter that you don't want people to disagree with your views.  If you want to control responses, write a blog post rather than a message board post.  By choosing the forum you chose, your message will get diluted by those who disagree with it. I've played through the adventure, and run part of it (we switched off DMing) and enjoyed it quite a bit. However, I did not rate it as far as I can recall.  Nevertheless, the adventure came out over a year ago, by Green Ronin.  What is the point of dwelling on it one way or the other? The only way to know if WOTC listened to criticism of their contractors work at the time is to examine the newer adventures and see if they improved.  Which, again, brings me back to the point I am making which you keep avoiding.There was a lot of discussion of it at the time.  You're over a year late.  Why do you keep acting like this is a recent topic which you have complete knowledge regarding?This is a ridiculous claim which I hope never comes back to be applied to you in life. You had a bad experience with one part of one adventure written by him, and you've decided he should be barred for life from ever writing high level encounters again? Come on, bring the hyperbole down a bit, would you? Or how about, it's possible your opinion is not well shared, and even among those who think the adventure had some problems they don't see those problems to be as serious or intense or meaningful as you do?Well you sure have not attempted to make your case by any objective means.  What you guess is pretty irrelevant.  You want people to take this claim seriously, then go find objective measures of what people think about the adventure that is more than your single subjective claim.Nope.  Study after study shows that people choose to write publicly more about things that bother them than things they like.  On that one I think you are wrong as a generalization.  I'm not.  I am disagreeing with you and you're reacting very poorly to dissent.  I mentioned the adventure above, but much more importantly I think you're wrong to be still complaining about an adventure over a year old from a contractor of WOTCs.  It's October 2016.  If WOTC has learned from mistakes made, the only way to determine that is to examine what they've done in the over-a-year since that adventure was written by their contractor.  Why won't you do that?OK fair enough, sorry for doing that.I don't do that, it's a false accusation, I ask that you either support it or drop it.  If you got that impression it's because you've read far too few of my posts, which is your own failing as you made the decision to make that judgement without putting in the effort to get the facts.Nope.  Context is relevant.  So is ethos.  You don't get to dictate how people judge things and what people find relevant.  Again, if you feel the need to control others on that level, make it a blog post instead of a post on a public forum inviting response.  No I don't because that's not what it means at all.  If they had continued to do poorly over time without any improvement, you'd have a much better point than the one you have right now.  Criticism of the Giants adventure or Strahd is a lot more meaningful because those are the more recent ones.  If they still had the same flaws then the criticism has more meaning.  Do you get that now? Have you looked at the reviews for them and seen if people are still running into the issues that you're highlighting? If not, why not?</blockquote>

Verification