Request: Sub-Forum for WOTC/Hasbro Post

[Alzrius]

I think I characterized my position well enough that this is not a valid take on my statement. Specifically, when a ton of reviews come in before the film can be seen that cannot be considered valid criticism.

Which would be a more salient point if people didn't regularly use the term to mean "quickly garners lots of negative reviews (which therefore must be in bad faith)."

But, thank you for your input.

Oh, you're very welcome.

 

[Belen]

Which would be a more salient point if people didn't regularly use the term to mean "quickly garners lots of negative reviews (which therefore must be in bad faith)."

Oh, you're very welcome.

I sense tension.

 

[Mistwell]

You folks all seem focused on the concept, maybe with the idea of a single post that has to be judged in your head, and how it must be easy to work it out for that one post. But I'm talking about implementation and scale.

In times of disturbance, I don't think about a single post. I think about how dozens of them can build up while none of us are looking at the site. I have in mind the cases where I've come home from work to find several threads that are 20+ pages of argument, with dozens of reports, people on both sides of it asserting the other guys started it. While you all, I am sure, feel the instigation is always 100% clear, I assure you that it is not.

I mean, unless you want us to just go ahead and be draconian a-holes with no concern for fairness. If you don't want us to do that, then we have to gather context and think about it all. What you are asking is apt to be hours of work when we actually have to do it.

And that's not even considering the unintended consequences of such policy. Morrus already alluded to them, but none of you seem to care.

A note at the top of the forum asking people to please try and keep discussions about Hasbro and WOTC out of the rules discussion threads would not take hours of work, require research, or have the named unintended consequences.

 

[Mistwell]

I think I characterized my position well enough that this is not a valid take on my statement. Specifically, when a ton of reviews come in before the film can be seen that cannot be considered valid criticism.

But, thank you for your input.

To be fair, this round of WOTC-bashing all started well before the rules for 5.24e came out. In fact it started before we had the first playtest, but after we knew a revised edition would come. People were composing extensive rants about WOTC money-grabbing, creating a "woke" new edition, the anger over Kyle Brinks comments being spun as the direction the new edition would take, how the new edition would be digitally oriented to foist microtransactions on players, etc.. And a lot of us were saying essentially "when a ton of reviews come in before the rules can be seen that cannot be considered valid criticism."

I don't even know what movie your comment is relating to. But given current movie discussion trends, I bet it's the same tone as the complaints we were seeing here about 5.24e before it came out too. Replace the corporate name of the movie producer (I am going to guess Disney?) with Hasbro and the tactic is probably very similar.

Which is to say, not all criticism should be considered valid criticism. In particular, if you're ranting about Pinkertons and the OGL in a thread about rules like whether you can move diagonally on a grid past a corner, it might be fair to say this is not valid criticism but is instead just more of a review bomb of something unrelated to having even seen it, based purely on hatred for the company behind it and their assumed motives.

We're just asking for something to help reduce the amount of review-bombing of the latest Disney/WOTC product because it's from Disney/WOTC (and not because of the content of the product itself) in threads genuinely trying to discuss the actual product. Not get rid of threads which are about discussing Disney/WOTC.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

you have a cool character concept?! Don’t you know the company clubs baby seals? How can you enjoy being an imaginary hero when people are spending too much on plastic monsters?!

 

[Umbran]

you have a cool character concept?! Don’t you know the company clubs baby seals? How can you enjoy being an imaginary hero when people are spending too much on plastic monsters?!

Mod Note:
Hey. We are trying to have a discussion that requires clear and cogent communication. Potshots are not suitable here. Stop. Now. Thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

No matter which edition(s) or versions of D&D we play-support-like, one thing we can probably all agree on is that we'd like to see whoever owns D&D be and act as a decent custodian of the game's past, present, and future.

The current owner's track record on this has been decidedly mixed*, to the point where I'd posit a lot of overall trust in that custodianship and the willingness-ability to maintain it has been lost. And it's this underlying loss of trust - particularly of trust in what the future holds - that keeps rearing its head at every possible opportunity in discussions about the very game over which they hold that custodianship.

And it won't stop until that trust has been, even to a relatively small extent, regained; which won't happen overnight.

* - to extremes; from the excellent (splendid job with this year's OD&D history book) all the way to the terrible (complete mess they made with the OGL)

 

[RoughCoronet0]

No matter which edition(s) or versions of D&D we play-support-like, one thing we can probably all agree on is that we'd like to see whoever owns D&D be and act as a decent custodian of the game's past, present, and future.

The current owner's track record on this has been decidedly mixed*, to the point where I'd posit a lot of overall trust in that custodianship and the willingness-ability to maintain it has been lost. And it's this underlying loss of trust - particularly of trust in what the future holds - that keeps rearing its head at every possible opportunity in discussions about the very game over which they hold that custodianship.

And it won't stop until that trust has been, even to a relatively small extent, regained; which won't happen overnight.

* - to extremes; from the excellent (splendid job with this year's OD&D history book) all the way to the terrible (complete mess they made with the OGL)

I get that, but it would still be really nice to be able to talk about ANYTHING ELSE in a thread that is about ANYTHING ELSE other then the company's without it just devolving into talking about WotC again and again with all other conversation being pushed to the side. That's the issue some of us are having.

I mean the threads for the things in the Direct were just made today and some have already become so filled with only talk about the company's actions that it just makes me not want to engage with the forums at all. It feels like it's being implied that if you are excited for any of this, you are a problem and shame on you without needing to ever say that and arguments are already starting to form in some of those threads. I know that's not the intention, but still. I'm sure some of this frustration is due to my own biases.

Truthfully, I don't think much can be done though, people have a lot of opinions and feelings on things right now. Best to just step away from the forums until they hopefully simmer down some.

 

[MichaelSomething]

We have no intention of creating a “WotC Bashing” forum. Whether it buries criticism of WotC by hiding it out of the way, or it invites criticism of WotC by creating a space for it, it’s a bad look either way.

Also, the moderation load of that is not feasible or something we want to become our job.

I was mulling an "I hate WOTC" topic but back to the drawing board I guess???

 

[Zaukrie]

Can't go into the sigil thread without people complaining, again, about micro transactions.... Because we haven't talked about that enough.