Upset about another edition!

[TwinBahamut]

Then I take it this a bad time for me to say that 4e makes me think of City of Heroes - still does? And that I don't find that flattering to 4e?

Well, it isn't exactly on topic for this thread (if we are even following the topic of this thread anymore...), so probably a bad time.

Also... you'd need to elaborate on that argument a lot more for me to respect it. If it is left at the realm of "it feels like a videogame, then it is terrible, because it is blasphemy for D&D to resemble a video game!", then I will give that argument no respect (and yes, I've seen this exact thing argued enough to make me sick). You get bonus points for at least having played the game you are comparing it to (I hope).

 

[billd91]

The second paragraph does not follow from the first. You're omitting a key assumption required to make that logic work. That assumption pretty much has to be "we just don't like people pointing out problems with things we like". It isn't that the critic is inherently wrong. It is that you just don't like critics, regardless of how right or wrong they are.

But clearly, if I come to not like someone because of their criticism, it's probably because I don't think they're right and don't like the way they push their criticism. In many situations, the criticism isn't right or wrong in any objective sense. You don't think 4e plays like a video game, I think it kind of does. Which one of us is right? Both from our perspective, neither from the other's.
Since you said you nearly got yourself banned and did move your bookmark for a while, criticism and the way it is done must have affected you emotionally. You got pissed off. You stalked away. Did you feel you were owed an apology for any of it? Or, if not owed, that an apology would have been welcome?

Not wanting to buy things from WotC is totally fine. The problem is saying they are terrible people who need to apologize because they dared to criticize the game.

I think they are in the process of apologizing. They've admitted that their marketing wasn't exactly ideal. They seem to be trying to do a more deft job now and that's all I really want on that topic.

 

[mudbunny]

This whole line of discussion about what WotC said or didn't say...Can we just drop it??

It has been hashed and rehashed so many times that the battle lines are not just drawn in the sand, they have been fortified with steel-reinforced cement, concertina wire and machine gun emplacements.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

All I recall are general criticisms that I agreed with at the time, and still do. I don't remember anything even close to a general "3E wasn't a fun game". Those criticisms were also the very things that got me excited about 4E in the first place, so I would call them a marketing success.

Edit: And should you really be suggesting that they should have killed their spokesman? That isn't very funny, even in jest.

Maybe not funny, but it would have helped their marketing.

Keywords - guards, wyatt. Fairies, wyatt.

On their forums look for 3.5 combat wasn't fun and, you guessed it, wyatt....

He never came out that the game as a whole was not fun, but every time he pulled out an example from 3.5 he did make those statements that those aspects were not fun. And he was most often, in my estimate, wrong.

Maybe a wood chipper would be better than the Sound....

The Auld Grump, don't want to poison the fish....

Please see my note below. ~Umbran

 

[TheAuldGrump]

But clearly, if I come to not like someone because of their criticism, it's probably because I don't think they're right and don't like the way they push their criticism. In many situations, the criticism isn't right or wrong in any objective sense. You don't think 4e plays like a video game, I think it kind of does. Which one of us is right? Both from our perspective, neither from the other's.
Since you said you nearly got yourself banned and did move your bookmark for a while, criticism and the way it is done must have affected you emotionally. You got pissed off. You stalked away. Did you feel you were owed an apology for any of it? Or, if not owed, that an apology would have been welcome?



I think they are in the process of apologizing. They've admitted that their marketing wasn't exactly ideal. They seem to be trying to do a more deft job now and that's all I really want on that topic.

As far as I can tell, that is the exact truth - the folks over to WotC are apologizing.

They do not need defending, they have admitted to their mistake.

Rehashing that they did say what they are already apologizing for does not forward their cause.

I accept their apology. I have not looked at a 4e book since trying the two games that I played (and did not like).

I will look at 5e. I may not buy it, but maybe I will - that is a huge advantage that they have gained in regards to my approval. I have not had any urge to even look at 4e material since 2008.

I am now more annoyed with some of the more vocal fans than with WotC.

Progress has been made....

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* As I become annoyed I become more didactic, my sentences and paragraphs become shorter, and the urge to snark continues to grow....

 

[TwinBahamut]

But clearly, if I come to not like someone because of their criticism, it's probably because I don't think they're right and don't like the way they push their criticism. In many situations, the criticism isn't right or wrong in any objective sense. You don't think 4e plays like a video game, I think it kind of does. Which one of us is right? Both from our perspective, neither from the other's.

The thing is, my issue with that complaint is not that I don't think 4E is like a videogame (well, I don't, but still...), but that people use "videogamey" as an insulting pejorative, as if videogames are inherently a bad thing. It is not criticism, but rather crude insult that belittles a secondary target and tends to not be based on rational analysis. Many people who made that argument in the past have been completely incapable of articulating any reason why 4E has such a "feel", and are generally ignorant of videogames as a whole.

It is also rather annoying in regards to the fact that I flat out like videogames and like the influence of videogames upon fantasy and D&D. I think D&D would benefit from taking more ideas and inspiration from videogames. Seeing people who don't even play videogames insult the hobby as being "inferior" is not fun.

Not all criticism is equal.

Since you said you nearly got yourself banned and did move your bookmark for a while, criticism and the way it is done must have affected you emotionally. You got pissed off. You stalked away. Did you feel you were owed an apology for any of it? Or, if not owed, that an apology would have been welcome?

As I said before, the criticism WotC expressed for D&D and the "criticism" that fans have towards the "videogamey-ness" of 4E are not even comparable. The first was rational and fair, the latter was not. The former is fine and requires no apology, the latter is not fine and was just plain rude, and an apology might be nice.

I think they are in the process of apologizing. They've admitted that their marketing wasn't exactly ideal. They seem to be trying to do a more deft job now and that's all I really want on that topic.

I don't want an apology for 4E. I want a game better than 4E. An apology from a game company is nothing more than a reactionary effort. Good game design requires progressive effort. Apologizing for understandable decisions (not necessarily good ones, but understandable ones) only makes things worse in the long run, because it gives an excessive amount of momentum to reactionary forces.

 

[Mark CMG]

The Auld Grump, don't want to poison the fish....

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Poison that fish and he eats for a lifetime.

 

[Consonant Dude]

I agree. The first of which being, "Which questions should we be asking ourselves?"

Well, I think you and I agree (to a varying degree) that there were still positives to 4e. There are certainly elements that can be featured in the next edition.

I think one step they have taken is reengage the community. It seems they are really asking folks for feedback. Numerous polls, waves of playtesting. I think they will continue to ask questions. Design by ultimate consensus is utopia. As you pointed out yourself, at some point a writer must decide what is fun. But making sure you have distilled the essence of the game is a step forward.

And with their modularity concept, keeping adventurous design ideas for modules is probably a good idea. I do no doubt one minute that there will be AWESOME ideas. I'M sure some of them will even become default ideas (much like some Dragon material almost became house rules adopted almost universally).

It seems we appreciate very different DnD you and I but I have to say, it is fun debating this with you

 

[Dannager]

Well, I think you and I agree (to a varying degree) that there were still positives to 4e. There are certainly elements that can be featured in the next edition.

I think one step they have taken is reengage the community. It seems they are really asking folks for feedback. Numerous polls, waves of playtesting. I think they will continue to ask questions. Design by ultimate consensus is utopia. As you pointed out yourself, at some point a writer must decide what is fun. But making sure you have distilled the essence of the game is a step forward.

And with their modularity concept, keeping adventurous design ideas for modules is probably a good idea. I do no doubt one minute that there will be AWESOME ideas. I'M sure some of them will even become default ideas (much like some Dragon material almost became house rules adopted almost universally).

I think that both of these things are going to turn out to be absolutely true. A huge emphasis on presenting a focused core of D&D, and a huge focus on modularity.

My one true concern is with the difficulty of balancing all the different permutations of the game (that is to say, ensuring that the game plays well no matter which combination of modules you choose to "install" into your campaign).

 

[Dannager]

I don't want an apology for 4E. I want a game better than 4E. An apology from a game company is nothing more than a reactionary effort. Good game design requires progressive effort. Apologizing for understandable decisions (not necessarily good ones, but understandable ones) only makes things worse in the long run, because it gives an excessive amount of momentum to reactionary forces.

I could not have said it better.