Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3838157" data-attributes="member: 18280">I wasn't aware that Scott Rouse's comments applied only to the OP.&nbsp; If that is the case, then you are correct -- only what the OP said/did is relevant.&nbsp; However, one must then wonder why Mr. Rouse refers to the OP in the plural.And while it is true that we've gotten a lot more information since then, a comparison of what was available with 3.0 shows that it is not nearly as much based on release date.&nbsp; There are obviously limits to what the designers can say, and IMHO it is equally obvious that those limits are greater than the limits on what 3.0's designers could say.&nbsp; Who do you address if you view this to be a problem?&nbsp; The whole idea behind the term &quot;faceless corporation&quot; is that you don't know who to address.&nbsp; So, while the people who set those limits may be &quot;some of the very people posting on these blogs&quot; we certainly don't know this.&nbsp; We don't know who to address.Assuming that &quot;They can't tell us everything yet&quot; means &quot;They can't answer specific concerns&quot; demonstrates a common fallacy:&nbsp; that of the excluded middle.&nbsp; There is a wide range between telling us everything and what they have told us.&nbsp; The release of 3.0 demonstrates this quite clearly, IMHO.But you seem to know that &quot;Sharing a lot doesn't equal sharing everything.&quot;&nbsp; You just seem to equate &quot;not knowing who to address with a complaint&quot; with &quot;a Morley-smoking Cancer Man having a late-night meeting with Deep Throat&quot;, which is a whole 'nother issue.And, I agree with you that it is &quot;important to remember that those who complain the loudest are rarely in the majority&quot;.....I certainly hope WotC has taken that into account in relation to certain loud complaints about current and past D&amp;D rules.Anyone trying to sell anything has to take their customer base into account.&nbsp; When a campaign intended to &quot;excite and engage&quot; the customer base isn't having the desired effect, it is more effective to alter the campaign than to complain about the customers.&nbsp; This isn't some weird &quot;anti-corporate vibe&quot;; this is common sense.I guess I wasn't clear enough with my conclusion:&nbsp; I doubt very much that there is a gamer alive who doesn't hope every new product is a &quot;must have&quot; that transforms their gaming experience to the better. This is an audience that wants to be sold.Not every concern is worth addressing; as I said earlier, doing so would be a full-time job, probably for several people.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that there are not some specific concerns that are worth addressing.YMMV, and obviously does.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3838157, member: 18280"] I wasn't aware that Scott Rouse's comments applied only to the OP. If that is the case, then you are correct -- only what the OP said/did is relevant. However, one must then wonder why Mr. Rouse refers to the OP in the plural. And while it is true that we've gotten a lot more information since then, a comparison of what was available with 3.0 shows that it is not nearly as much based on release date. There are obviously limits to what the designers can say, and IMHO it is equally obvious that those limits are greater than the limits on what 3.0's designers could say. Who do you address if you view this to be a problem? The whole idea behind the term "faceless corporation" is that you don't know who to address. So, while the people who set those limits may be "some of the very people posting on these blogs" we certainly don't know this. We don't know who to address. Assuming that "They can't tell us everything yet" means "They can't answer specific concerns" demonstrates a common fallacy: that of the excluded middle. There is a wide range between telling us everything and what they have told us. The release of 3.0 demonstrates this quite clearly, IMHO. But you seem to know that "Sharing a lot doesn't equal sharing everything." You just seem to equate "not knowing who to address with a complaint" with "a Morley-smoking Cancer Man having a late-night meeting with Deep Throat", which is a whole 'nother issue. And, I agree with you that it is "important to remember that those who complain the loudest are rarely in the majority".....I certainly hope WotC has taken that into account in relation to certain loud complaints about current and past D&D rules. Anyone trying to sell anything has to take their customer base into account. When a campaign intended to "excite and engage" the customer base isn't having the desired effect, it is more effective to alter the campaign than to complain about the customers. This isn't some weird "anti-corporate vibe"; this is common sense. I guess I wasn't clear enough with my conclusion: [b]I doubt very much that there is a gamer alive who doesn't hope every new product is a "must have" that transforms their gaming experience to the better. This is an audience that wants to be sold.[/b] Not every concern is worth addressing; as I said earlier, doing so would be a full-time job, probably for several people. That doesn't mean that there are not some specific concerns that are worth addressing. YMMV, and obviously does. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification