Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5811327" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Basically agreed on all of this, and what you're trying to get at.This is where I feel like there's a little spin going on (but not a lot). That is, a lot of people felt that WotC wasn't saying &quot;this game is more fun,&quot; but rather &quot;your game wasn't fun.&quot;People didn't like them saying the plane of void (I think?) was terrible. A lot of people didn't like them saying an encounter with guards at a gate isn't fun. A lot of people didn't like being told that their game was broken, and that the mechanics hampered fun, and that this time &quot;the math works.&quot;Now, I understand trying to improve things. I understand that those improvements will be subjective. I've designed by RPG, and I've revised it, and I've felt both objections and warm embrace from my players as I've done so. So, I get that I'm putting out there &quot;this is more fun, and here's why.&quot; I never really said &quot;this just isn't fun&quot; when someone was having fun with it, though. And that's the impression that a lot of people got with WotC's marketing campaign.I think saying &quot;we're making this game to be the most fun it can be&quot; is fine. I think saying things that give the impression that you don't care about objections (dragon pooping on the troll cartoon... we can go into that if you want), or telling people that their version of fun wasn't actually fun (plane of void, gate guards, talking to the little people, etc.), or even hearing WotC say &quot;that guy's version of fun isn't actually fun&quot; can be pretty off-putting.Anyways, my take on it. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5811327, member: 6668292"] Basically agreed on all of this, and what you're trying to get at. This is where I feel like there's a little spin going on (but not a lot). That is, a lot of people felt that WotC wasn't saying "this game is [I]more[/I] fun," but rather "your game [I]wasn't[/I] fun." People didn't like them saying the plane of void (I think?) was terrible. A lot of people didn't like them saying an encounter with guards at a gate isn't fun. A lot of people didn't like being told that their game was broken, and that the mechanics hampered fun, and that this time "the math works." Now, I understand trying to improve things. I understand that those improvements will be subjective. I've designed by RPG, and I've revised it, and I've felt both objections and warm embrace from my players as I've done so. So, I get that I'm putting out there "this is more fun, and here's why." I never really said "this just isn't fun" when someone was having fun with it, though. And that's the impression that a lot of people got with WotC's marketing campaign. I think saying "we're making this game to be the most fun it can be" is fine. I think saying things that give the impression that you don't care about objections (dragon pooping on the troll cartoon... we can go into that if you want), or telling people that their version of fun wasn't actually fun (plane of void, gate guards, talking to the little people, etc.), or even [I]hearing[/I] WotC say "that guy's version of fun isn't actually fun" can be pretty off-putting. Anyways, my take on it. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]

Verification