D&D 5E Well played WOTC (or Free RPG Day 2015)

[justinj3x3]

Merely expressing disappointment over something here on the boards doesn't tend to bring the other posters out to "defend WotC". When folks just give their opinion that they didn't like or enjoy something that WotC produced, the other posters tend to respond along the lines of "Really? That's too bad. I've enjoyed it."

However... whenever that same expression of disappointment is coupled with the expressed belief that WotC was acting stupidly or maliciously, or doesn't know how to run their own business (usually because the poster feels like they have to use more charged language to really get across how big a deal they think this is)... that's when posters show up to run interference. Someone sarcastically posts something along the lines of "Great job supporting your fanbase by not producing something for Free RPG Day"... and yeah, people will come out and question the poster why they feel that piece of free RPG product was so important to get out there while apparently ignoring all the other free RPG product WotC produces every month in Unearthed Arcana and the like.

Invariably, it comes down to this-- if you post that you aren't getting what you'd like to have, not many people will make a fuss. But if you post that you aren't getting what you'd like to have and it's because WotC doesn't care or are bad at their jobs... that's when you'll see a response.

Now HERE is a constructive thought out response that actually acknowledges what I'm saying. And it's a valid point too!

 

[Morrus]

I really don't need to. Just read these forums and this thread. It's all there.

Nobody's going to gather the evidence for your argument for you. That's your job, I'm afraid.

 

[justinj3x3]

Nobody's going to gather the evidence for your argument for you. That's your job, I'm afraid.

Is that really constructive Morrus? It's all here in this thread, mostly. And why would I bother gathering evidence for an argument other people want to have. It has nothing to do with what I'm saying. As you can see by my response to DEFCON I'm not here to argue and will gladly concede when someone makes a point that has ANYTHING to do with what I'm saying. As someone who maintains this site perhaps you shouldn't add fuel to a fire that never had to be there in the first place. Talk about self-created scarecrows.

 

[Morrus]

Is that really constructive Morrus? It's all here in this thread, mostly. And why would I bother gathering evidence for an argument other people want to have. It has nothing to do with what I'm saying. As you can see by my response to DEFCON I'm not here to argue and will gladly concede when someone makes a point that has ANYTHING to do with what I'm saying. As someone who maintains this site perhaps you shouldn't add fuel to a fire that never had to be there in the first place. Talk about imagined scarecrows.

There's no need to get upset or defensive about it. It's a reasonable request - you made claims, so you're being politely asked to cite your evidence. If that's an issue, perhaps not making any further random generalizations about what everybody thinks might help? Because I see no evidence that everybody thinks what you're claiming they think; and Umbran's pointed out that nobody's said the things you're saying they said.

 

[justinj3x3]

There's no need to get upset or defensive about it. It's a reasonable request - you made claims, so you're being politely asked to cite your evidence. If that's an issue, perhaps not making any further random generalizations about what everybody thinks might help? Because I see no evidence that everybody thinks what you're claiming they think; and Umbran's pointed out that nobody's said the things you're saying they said.

Ok how about everyone reference and site their arguments too then? Why do I need to site EXACT posts about people acting in the ways I'm expressing, but you don't ask them to site the angry fanboy rage posts that drive WOTC away? But again it's a non-issue. It's not even the point I have been trying to make for two days.

 

[justinj3x3]

Honestly, I'm done. It's getting just silly. I say DEFCON wins (excluding isolated incidents) and he deserves a cookie!

 

[Morrus]

Ok how about everyone reference and site their arguments too then? Why do I need to site EXACT posts about people acting in the ways I'm expressing, but you don't ask them to site the angry fanboy rage posts that drive WOTC away?

Because you're engaged in a debate, and that's how debates work. Calm the heck down. Nobody is attacking you.

And yes, you are welcome to ask people to cite evidence for statements they make, too.

 

[justinj3x3]

Because you're engaged in a debate, and that's how debates work. Calm the heck down. Nobody is attacking you.

And yes, you are welcome to ask people to cite evidence for statements they make, too.

I'm completely calm. Do you see all caps (not counting the one word I capped for emphasis) or exclamation points? I also said in that post which you edited out 'it's a non-issue'. It's all good.

 

[Umbran]

It's funny how the stories change though. In other conversations the story is WOTC does not need to pay attention to or care about what's said on the forums because people who post on forums are a rather small percentage of the customer base.

I cannot speak to the positions of others, but that doesn't represent my position.

The people on messageboards are not a large percentage of gamers, overall, and by our being selected to be the types of folks who argue about things on messageboards, we should not generally be considered to be a representative subset of gamers. So, just because we on messageboards like, or don't like, a thing, doesn't mean the rest of gamers do. In that sense, they should not pay attention to us. They should do market research instead.

Negative feedback is not limited to messageboards. It goes out to Twitter, Facebook, and other media, where the impact does reach out to a more broad audience. The power of such media is still new to us, and broadly, we (humans, in general) have not yet adapted. We are *strongly* impacted by the flood of negativity out there.

But, as above - pandering to a vocal few may stem the negative feedback, but it doesn't necessarily produce a product that's desirable to the non-vocal masses. This leaves producers of content in a bind, and one reasonable strategy is to be largely quiet, to not feed the discussion.

No.

Yes. I have, certainly.

People have critiqued parts of my opinion to argue a different argument entirely while ignoring my statement as a whole.

There is no requirement that a point you make will or should be used to only address your overall point.

Heck, you are looking at one element of WotC performance to make a point. Their "statement" as a whole isn't Free RPG Day, is it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Semantics. You do have a point, but that doesn't change the fact that WOTC as a company outsourced it, so they did not produce the product. The point being that the ONLY products WOTC has put out themselves in the past year are the three core books.

For perspective, when TSR first published 1e AD&D, it took them from 1977 through 1979 to get the three core books out. Book-a-year worked fine for D&D at the very height of its popularity.

The book-a-month (or more) model started in the 90s with battletech and WoD, 2e jumped on that bandwagon and the industry had been publishing more and more books, faster and faster, for fewer and fewer product-fatigued fans ever since.

Until now. I think the two year hiatus and slower pace of publication is going to let demand recover for longtime fans, and give new players a chance to get into the game without being overwhelmed. On balance, it may prove to be a good strategy, in the long run.

OTOH, not supporting Free RPG day feels like a bad strategy, in the long run. It's an opportunity to raise awareness of and grow the hobby - and the presences of the most-recognizable brand name in the hobby would have helped with that.