D&D 5E Perfect example of the kind of interaction that I wish Wizards had with it's community.

[delericho]

Heh. That is pure speculation on your part.

No, actually it's not. I don't (or didn't) know how you feel about the people at WotC or about the company itself, and didn't want to speculate, and so I said "maybe". As in that could be the case (or, indeed, could not be the case). Either way, your prerogative.

Edit: Having read back what I wrote, I can see that that 'maybe' could well have been missed - it is after all one word out of a block of text. It wasn't my intent to speculate in that manner, but I can see how it would come across that way. And I can understand why that would be unwanted, or considered an attack. I therefore apologise for any offense caused.

I don't. I do not owe you anything. And the way you're asking for it, doesn't make me want to do it either.

You made the claim that they lied about Fortune Cards. That means you carry the burden of proof - can you provide the necessary evidence. If not, you're asking us to accept that they lied based on your say-so. Sorry, not going to happen.

 

[doctorhook]

Check the first thing post I made in this thread and what I was answering to understand. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-s-community&p=6595959&viewfull=1#post6595959

I provided a short list. Not just this example.

Well, I appreciate the link, but I'm still not sure your points are totally fair. I definitely agree with you that WotC's lack of candid communication is frustrating (blame the DMG, blame jury duty), but having worked on stressful, understaffed projects, I find myself sympathetic to what it must've been like developing this edition. I'm really not sure "lying" about Fortune Cards is even relevant though; that was a small product from years ago and from a different product line. (I'm also still unconvinced that "lying" is an accurate way to look at this.)

I sorta suspect this line of conversation isn't going to improve though, so I'm gonna bow out. Have fun.

 

[delericho]

I sorta suspect this line of conversation isn't going to improve though, so I'm gonna bow out. Have fun.

Wise move.

 

[Dire Bare]

I've actually thobuught better of it since, and I think "dying" is a strong word. "Diminishing" is more accurate, because in terms of proportional market share, it's true. Books are getting more expensive because demand for dead tree products is dropping. The market for TTRPGs has changed significantly due to increasingly immersive CRPGs.

TTRPGs aren't going to disappear, and I think we're evidence of that. That said, to me it looks pretty clear that the market for RPG books has been contracting for most of the past decade. If there's a stable business model for TTRPGs in the future, I don't believe we've seen it yet. (WotC has obviously abandoned the splatbook treadmill strategy, and I'm not convinced that the volume of splat Paizo keeps cranking out is sustainable either.)

I'm actually pretty sure the evidence is showing a resurgence in the tabletop RPG market, that has followed along with the resurgence in tabletop games overall (board games, card games, dice games, and RPGs).

I do think print is dying, although certainly not dead (it's going to be a slow death). After ebooks took off, print has seen a bit of a resurgence due to consumer backlash . . . . but I agree that "dead tree" products are eventually going to be a thing of the past.

But that doesn't equate to tabletop games dying. Tabletop offers something that digital just can't (at least, not yet), and more and more folks are beginning to appreciate that (or returning to it). And tabletop games can be produced without dead tree products, just look at drivethrurpg.com!

Tabletop RPGs are certainly changing . . . how much of that is a contraction or just a realization that older business models weren't ideal, I don't know . . .

 

[doctorhook]

I'm actually pretty sure the evidence is showing a resurgence in the tabletop RPG market, that has followed along with the resurgence in tabletop games overall (board games, card games, dice games, and RPGs).

I do think print is dying, although certainly not dead (it's going to be a slow death). After ebooks took off, print has seen a bit of a resurgence due to consumer backlash . . . . but I agree that "dead tree" products are eventually going to be a thing of the past.

But that doesn't equate to tabletop games dying. Tabletop offers something that digital just can't (at least, not yet), and more and more folks are beginning to appreciate that (or returning to it). And tabletop games can be produced without dead tree products, just look at drivethrurpg.com!

Tabletop RPGs are certainly changing . . . how much of that is a contraction or just a realization that older business models weren't ideal, I don't know . . .

For sure! I agree that tabletop gaming and RPGs aren't dying so much as changing, and that there are really too many variables in play to make a reliable prediction for the future. I definitely believe digital distribution and integrated formats will become the norm, but I have serious doubts about the extent to which published products (dead tree or not) will be able to remain competitive.

 

[Kramodlog]

If not, you're asking us to accept that they lied based on your say-so. Sorry, not going to happen.

My word and a journalist. Be accurate.

 

[Kramodlog]

Well, I appreciate the link, but I'm still not sure your points are totally fair. I definitely agree with you that WotC's lack of candid communication is frustrating (blame the DMG, blame jury duty), but having worked on stressful, understaffed projects, I find myself sympathetic to what it must've been like developing this edition.

You can cut them some slack, but it still promotes bad interaction with the fans simply because others won't be indulgent like you (Whether it is legitimate or not. Fairness is not always there when fans make their judgements).

I'm really not sure "lying" about Fortune Cards is even relevant though; that was a small product from years ago and from a different product line. (I'm also still unconvinced that "lying" is an accurate way to look at this.)

That it happened years ago on a minor product, doesn't mean it didn't promote bad interaction with the fans.

How DDI and how the e-mags were handle also promoted bad interaction with the fans. Probably the most in recent memory.

So, I believed I answered the original question. That sort of was my point.

 

[fjw70]

How DDI and how the e-mags were handle also promoted bad interaction with the fans.

I would disagree with this. Mishandling products doesn't promote bad interactions with fans. People make bad decisions and mistakes. Things that promote bad interactions with the fans are things like being rude or lying (and cancelling products is not lying unless they had no intention of releasing the product when it was announced).

So, I believed I answered the original question. That sort of was my point.

The point is you answered with unsubstantiated accusations, which is not a legitimate answer.

If they lied about the fortune cards then please provide a link to the lie (not a link to someone saying they lied).

 

[Shasarak]

No, I mean the time they were accused of lying about not working on 4th edition. That's why I said "that last time". It turned out the key statement in question was that they weren't working on a 4e that required miniatures. It turned out that that quote had been literally half-remembered - and the omission of the "that requires minis" part of it was the difference between it being a lie and not.

Details matter.

I wonder what ever happened to the 4e that does not require minis?

 

[Kramodlog]

I would disagree with this. Mishandling products doesn't promote bad interactions with fans.

Necessarely? No. But in this case, yes. DDI had problems from the start and after a brief period when things were better it got worse to the point where refunds had to be given because there were too many complaints. Giving refunds does promote better interactions, but there was damage caused to the relations with fans. When people pay for a product, they expect to get it what is advertized and expect a certain quality. If a compagny can't meet those basic goals, it will promote bad interaction with customers/fans.

Not announcing any products doesn't foster good interaction with fans either. Althought this might be the best of a worse situation for WotC. They have trouble delivering their prodcuts, so silence about what is coming (or not) might be better than disappointement. But not announcing anything means every statement that a employee makes are more important. People were happy when Perkins said an OGL and PDFs were coming. But where are those? Did he foster good interaction or are people a bit more warry of what he says?

How about when on Twitter someone asked him if the Realms were the default setting? He said "Who said they were the default setting?" He is factually right. No one at WotC used the word default. But you read Nathan Steward's interview and he pretty much says the Realms are going to be the default setting for a while. He didn't use the word default, but it de facto ment that. Perkins' communication aren't so much aimed at fostering good interaction, as they serve to "win" communications. Make everyone happy. You can say maybe he didn't know better at the time, but he also said around the same time that he was working on the next 7 years of stories. It is fair to say he was informed. At some point, when you try to make everyone happy you make no one happy, and that doesn't foster good interaction with fans.

At least people are taking those comments with a sort of shrug nowadays. But when people are shrugging at what you say, is it good?

The point is you answered with unsubstantiated accusations, which is not a legitimate answer.

They are all substantiated, all I mentioned were facts, althought I agree that the fortune cards might be contentious. That you feel those aren't facts doesn't mean they aren't. I mean Mearls did say "you cannot cancel what hasn't been announced" and I did demonstrate that ii is not accurate. It isn't like you formed a rebuttle to that or any of the other things I said. All you say can be charicatured as "nuh-huh".