WOTC: Making a statement is not making a promise

[Kristian Serrano]

Some...like saying, confidetly, 367 days ago that each time you buy a book you get the ebook version...starts to sound like broken promise. (yes, I know they have replaced this with the compendium...).

Actually, that's not even true. The compendium contains character options (and now monsters) but not actual rules or other content found in the books (excluding images). For example, let's say a new 4e book introduces a new action type as 3.5 did with immediate or free actions (this is just a hypothetical example), you won't get that in the compendium. Let's say a new book has a new use for a skill. You might not get that in the compendium.

Essentially, the compendium lacks what the 3.5 Rules Compendium provided.

 

[catsclaw227]

I would agree that some of the DDI stuff came across as some strong plans and others have been planning their new campaigns around the idea of a gametable.

But this is more an expectation regarding a toolset, not the ruleset. Though it may be splitting hairs.

I also wonder how many actual promises came from WOTC that were broken, vs the number of bloated interweb extrapolations of comments and side-conversations.

 

[The Little Raven]

OK: some things could be called improvements, some changes.

I think all changes can be called changes.

Some...like saying, confidetly, 367 days ago that each time you buy a book you get the ebook version...starts to sound like broken promise.

You mean them saying "Our plan is to provide a code in each book to allow you to access an E-book version," sounds like a broken promise, despite not being anywhere near a promise at all (just a statement of possible intention). That's the problem with using the word promise: they don't make promises, but people try to relabel any statement as a promise.

Plans change.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

I would agree that some of the DDI stuff came across as some strong plans and others have been planning their new campaigns around the idea of a gametable.

But this is more an expectation regarding a toolset, not the ruleset. Though it may be splitting hairs.

I also wonder how many actual promises came from WOTC that were broken, vs the number of bloated interweb extrapolations of comments and side-conversations.

Toolset vs. ruleset: In my argument, it's splitting hairs. I'm addressing the general topic in the OP of this thread, which is about words vs. promises.

At least in the information I'm addressing above, they were words straight from WotCs proverbial mouths in their 4e announcement last year, and in subsequent podcasts and presentations.

 

[The Little Raven]

Let's say a new book has a new use for a skill. You might not get that in the compendium.

It's pretty likely that we would, as the compendium lists skills (with their rules) and will be updating with material. It has already been updated with recent Dragon, Dungeon, H1 and H2 content.

Essentially, the compendium lacks what the 3.5 Rules Compendium provided.

The 3.5 Rules Compendium was a single edition-end compilation product that didn't cover everything released for the edition, not an ever-growing database of particular rules material. They aren't even intended to be alike.

 

[The Little Raven]

At least in the information I'm addressing above, they were words straight from WotCs proverbial mouths in their 4e announcement last year, and in subsequent podcasts and presentations.

Unless you can pull up an instance of them explicitly promising something, as opposed to them stating that "Our plans are...", which is all they ever really said, then they never actually promised.

Someone on the internet labeling it a promise does not make it a promise.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

Unless you can pull up an instance of them explicitly promising something, as opposed to them stating that "Our plans are...", which is all they ever really said, then they never actually promised.

Someone on the internet labeling it a promise does not make it a promise.

They never said "Our plans our..." They said, "You will..." and "We will..."

Additionally, I am not saying they made promises. Reread the OP and my post. I was answering the question, "Why is it that we hang so heavily on the words of WOTC, ascribing their plans as promises?" What I am saying is that words do influence people and present expectations. Whether or not they are promises issubjective, but the point remains that it's those words in statements such as "You will..." or "We will..." that lead the consumer to believe they are absolute truths (not necessarily promises as a promise implies a hopeful prospect, not an actual fact).

 

[catsclaw227]

At least in the information I'm addressing above, they were words straight from WotCs proverbial mouths in their 4e announcement last year, and in subsequent podcasts and presentations.

And I would challenge someone to provide a list of promises, not plans but actual promises, that they have knowingly and explicitly broken.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

The 3.5 Rules Compendium was a single edition-end compilation product that didn't cover everything released for the edition, not an ever-growing database of particular rules material. They aren't even intended to be alike.

No, but changes and new adjudications to rules were included in the compendium.

Additionally, we saw a plethora of books that included errata available only in the books themselves that were eventually compiled into Rules Compendium (not including spell changes in Spell Compendium with no errata for those who only used the original sources; "How did you get that spell at 2nd-level?"), but that's a bit more plausible with the D&DI Compendium as it includes powers.

Descriptions of new action types would be more appropriate examples of hypothetical changes.

If the D&DI Compendium included actual rules of the game, we could easily reference the rules with the appropriate errata applied without having to own whatever new book published the changes (not everyone wants every single book).

Again, this is about game mechanics specifically, not character options such as feats, spells, etc.

And I would challenge someone to provide a list of promises, not plans but actual promises, that they have knowingly and explicitly broken.

If I cared enough, I would, but I honestly have more important things to do with my time.

 

[catsclaw227]

They never said "Our plans our..." They said, "You will..." and "We will..."

Additionally, I am not saying they made promises. Reread the OP and my post. I was answering the question, "Why is it that we hang so heavily on the words of WOTC, ascribing their plans as promises?" What I am saying is that words do influence people and present expectations. Whether or not they are promises issubjective, but the point remains that it's those words in statements such as "You will..." or "We will..." that lead the consumer to believe they are absolute truths (not necessarily promises as a promise implies a hopeful prospect, not an actual fact).

And my OP was responding to this trend of ascribing promises where only plans and projections were made.

If I recall, early on, Scott Rouse also said it is possible that some of the things they have talked about doing will change as WOTC got closer to the release date, and on other occasions WOTC came online to explain why some things were done differently than they originally expected back when the announcement.

I still don't agree that just because plans were stated, some thread topics were created that dissected and broke down every little detail, and then started building a furor over this little or that little thing. These threads then suddenly become fact and promise, when WOTC never stated them as such.

Its my recollection that there were more than a few of these so called promises that were actually snowballed monstrosities that evolved from a few vocal threads.

Either way, I still don't get it. I understand how it happens, I just don't get why. Maybe it's my jaded experience working on long-term development projects that have changed as the business needs changed.