D&D 4E Why is this board so down on 4E critics?

[Shazman]

The email isn't anything wrong. Think "Prior Written Consent". As in: Prior Written Consent must be given prior to the release of any information covered by this NDA.

The NDA thing isn't marketing!! It is a perfectly normal, ordinary and ethical way that NDAs work. The people who are under an NDA to playtest 4e and release their experience with it aren't reviewing the game. They are describing their playtesting experience.

Now if they were reviewers who were told that they could only review it if they only said positive things, there would be every justification for the outcry. But while something is in playtesting?? Tempest in a teapot.

The negative things that are described by the playtesters may not even survive to be in the final release of the game!!

So you don't feel that "allowing" some playtesters to speak up about "only positive" things about 4E isn't marketing. It's the best marketing they've had for 4E to date. It may be underhanded, but it's a whole lot better than playtest reports of a poorly converted Eberron campaign, selling us two preview books of content which should be free, the horrible quality of DDI, and insulting and dismissive comments on the designer's blogs.

 

[Hjorimir]

Just for illustrative purposes, I'm going to use your own post as an example of things that start small but could quickly start a flame war.

I heard enough from people who actually saw the e-mail or knew one or more people who had received the e-mail to give it some credibility with me. What really makes it believable, is that it is right in line with WotC's amateurish, hamhanded, inept, marketing of 4E.

So you're presenting second-hand news as fact. Then you go on to attack the company that owns the game this entire website is all about. It would be like going to a Mustang fan message board and attacking Ford. Sure, not everybody will care (and a few may even agree with you), but do you think it's really a worthy pursuit?

I don't think that WotC is conspiring to give us a crappy game. I do think that they are trying to make a game different enough from D&D that it won't really be D&D anymore.

So you're basically saying if somebody likes 4E they don't like D&D or not really a D&D player.

It seems that it will essentially be D&D minis with some elements of WOW and Exalted thrown in for good measure. This may be a good game for some people. In fact WotC is banking on the fact that it will appeal to enough younger gamers to offset the older crowd which will pass on 4E.

Well, let's see. I'm definately in the 'older' crowd and I'm not passing on 4E, which means you're trying to talk for me. What you're basically insinuating here is that the younger (i.e. less mature) will be okay with 4E, but older (i.e. wiser) will stay with 3E because it is clearly the better game.

It might be a fun game, but it won't deliver what many D&D fans are looking for in a game with the Dungeons and Dragons logo on it.

How do you define many? How did you come to that conclusion? How many D&D players are there right now? How do any of us know? What percentage equates to 'many' and how have we tracked that demographic's opinions?



You see how easy it is to read insult where none may be intended? (I am at least assuming you didn't intend insult in your post here ). I've seen plenty of constructive anti 4E posts around here, but they usually stick to specifics ("If you look at the latest article over at WotC they are talking about magic rings and..."). Anything resembling an attack on other people (or group of people such as those who are pro or anti 4E) is going to get the mods involved... and I'm glad they get involved. So I'm clear, when I say involved, that isn't meant to say they start banning immediately. It has been my experience that they post warnings. All I know is that I've never been banned and I'm trying to keep it that way.

Maybe it is the very nature of anti 4E posts to draw "undue" attention because they tend to "attack" by the virtue of being against something else. So I guess I can see how the perception is that the mods attack those who attack 4E, but it just isn't so. It's easier to be pro 4E and shout for joy at the impending changes because while doing so your message doesn't necessarily lend itself to attack (usually), but if somebody started posting those who don't like 4E are losers or any other such nonsense, I'd want the mods to step in as well.

D&D players are pretty passionate about the game. For a lot of us, it isn't just a game, it is a deep hobby. Something we care about and have invested a lot of time and money into. Whenever you have something like that, you should expect people will be pretty defensive of it. I try to remind myself that some 4E attacks are a form of defense by those who see the support of the edition they love slipping away. (I also happen to think that it's pretty pointless as WotC is going to release 4E or 'the ship has sailed' as the case may be.)

Me, I'm pro 4E (obviously), but I think that any edition is fine if you and yours are having fun. I won't rain on your parade; please don't rain on mine.

Peace.

 

[Set]

FIFY.

I'm sorry too, but just because you consider it to be rude doesn't make it so. It's a pretty common practice.

What's FIFY mean? I'm not hep to your crazy internet slang...

And wow (pun intended), saying that something is like Warcraft is an insult? WotC *wishes* they had that kind of success...

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

What's FIFY mean? I'm not hep to your crazy internet slang...

And wow (pun intended), saying that something is like Warcraft is an insult? WotC *wishes* they had that kind of success...

FIFY=Fixed It For You....

It's generally done with the intent being humor, and normally done so that the edit can be seen - otherwise it would be very easy to ascribe bad motivations to the person doing it.

 

[Gundark]

Why is ENWorld so against anyone that post anything critical about 4E. It seems that the surest way to get dogpiled on this forum is to say anything the slightest bit negative about 4E. The worst part is that the moderators seem as bad or worse than the posters. It seems that anytime someone posts something critical of 4E they either get warned, the thread is closed, or they may even get banned or suspended. What happened to open discussion? Why is the moderation of these boards so heavy-handed? Ari's thread about his playtest experience is a prime example of this. As soon as people started airing WotC's dirty laundry about their "If you can't say anythign good about 4E, don't say nothing at all." e-mail, the thread got shut down. Has ENWorld been paid off by WOtC or what? Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

Well I try to not flame others about their distaste towards 4e, although I've had more than few eye rolling moments while reading the forums .

The thing that gets me is the illogical arguements against 4e that I've seen flying around here. As well as people who get all worked up about a topic and post a concern that seems like they havn't thought it through before posting. Another thing that gets me is people who just can't be pleased about 4e no matter what, there is no silver lining, no making them happy.

That said there have been arguements against 4e where I think a valid concern was raised. And I think it's wise to be wary of the changes being made.

 

[Dragonblade]

I was going to respond, but Hjorimir and others have stated very eloquently what I would have said anyway.

 

[eleran]

FIFY.

I'm sorry too, but just because you consider it to be rude doesn't make it so. It's a pretty common practice.

Just because something is common practice doesn't make it right.

 

[mudbunny]

And wow (pun intended), saying that something is like Warcraft is an insult? WotC *wishes* they had that kind of success...

Think of the stereotypical player of WoW. That is why it is used as an insult.

When someone uses "They are making it like WoW" as an insult, it is generally used to mean that they are marketing it (4E) towards teenagers who are only interested in killing things and getting "phat loot!!" and have no interest at all in roleplaying. They need to be spoon-fed quests and can only work on a railroad.

 

[WhatGravitas]

So you don't feel that "allowing" some playtesters to speak up about "only positive" things about 4E isn't marketing. It's the best marketing they've had for 4E to date. It may be underhanded, but it's a whole lot better than playtest reports of a poorly converted Eberron campaign, selling us two preview books of content which should be free, the horrible quality of DDI, and insulting and dismissive comments on the designer's blogs.

By the way, while I don't 100% believe that such an email was sent (in WotC's case, I'd rather expect formal documents about something leak-critical as this), shouldn't playtesters report their negative feedback/review to WotC, meaning it would get fixed and would hence be pointless anyway?

Additionally, if you're playtester, your job is finding faults and reporting them (and allowing change, as above), not trumpeting them into the internet.

If playtesters find negative things and don't report them, "saving" them as criticism, then that's pretty underhanded, yeah?

Cheers, LT.

 

[mudbunny]

So you don't feel that "allowing" some playtesters to speak up about "only positive" things about 4E isn't marketing.

Your first sentence contained a double negative, but I think I know what you meant.

No, I don't consider WotC telling people that they can talk about their positive experiences marketing. It has the side benefit of promoting the game, but it is not marketing. It is not a purposeful, targeted approach. Marketing implies planning, determination of where the marketing will go and all that. WotC had no guarantee that any of these people would talk. They have no idea of the market exposure that they would be getting. Sure, some of them would be telling things to ENWorld, or on various blogs and what. But there are also people that will only be talking about this to the owner of their LFGS.