# Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews



## zoroaster100 (Jan 31, 2008)

I just read Andy Collins' comments quoted on ENWorld's front newspage today explaining what playtesters were and were not allowed to say.  I must say I am disappointed with WOTC's decision to try to provide skewed information about the game by allowing certain playtesters to comment but only if they have positive comments.  I still trust that the freelancers who spoke out do honestly like the game, just as they stated, but now we know if there were four times as many freelancers who had nothing positive, and much negative to say, those people were forbidden from speaking out.  I believe that is deceptive and manipulative on the part of WOTC.   I'm sure there are many other companies that do similar marketing practices, but that doesn't make it right.  

I read Andy's defense for the practice, which is essentially that there is no point in having negative comments shared with consumers at this point because the criticism can just be used internally to fix the problem.  But that doesn't strike me as a legitimate defense.  From what we've heard, most of the rules at this point are pretty much done.  So if someone felt overall the game is not as fun with the new rules, I don't see how that could be fixed at this point.  More importantly, if the game is still so in flux that negative comments are not relevant because things might get fixed, the same could be said for positive comments.

I still have high hopes that the fourth edition rules will be fun.  But the credibility of WOTC's marketing department has taken a beating for me this day.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jan 31, 2008)

Hey, look at it from this point of view: if it's true that criticism from the playtesters can still influence design, and can result in changes made to the system, then so can criticism from fans of the game as a whole. Which is something a lot of people posting here still kinda hope for. Cloud, silver lining, and all that.


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 31, 2008)

I think it was completely legit of them to ask for anything negative to be directed to them. Remember that only people who asked, and were specifically trusted not to abuse it, where given some leeway to talk about their impressions.

As usual an internet storm in a teacup.

We'll get a 1000 impressions at the end of feb anyway.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jan 31, 2008)

Think about it this way. What company, ever, ever, *ever* allows playtesters under NDA's to make negative comments about their game before it's released? No one does that, because it would be pure corporate stupidity. NDA's are in fact, usually applicable even after the game is released, so that no one is allowed publically to discuss the beta testing, though in practice companies will cut people a certain amount of slack in this situation. 

  Allowing a few betatesters to talk about their experiences at all was apparently a special approval thing given to a few people like Ari because he'd been bugging them about wanting to talk about 4th edition more. 

  I just don't see what people are getting all upset about. I've been a playtester a few times, and this all seems par for the course. The only unusual thing is giving a few people limited permission to give their opinion.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 31, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> I still trust that the freelancers who spoke out do honestly like the game, just as they stated, but now we know if there were four times as many freelancers who had nothing positive, and much negative to say, those people were forbidden from speaking out.




No, in fact you don't know that. You can't know that without knowing how big a "handful" of playtesters _asked_ for permission to speak. They asked first; _then_ they were given permission to share their positive experiences but to reserve their negative comments for the proper channel-- playtest feedback.

If John, Ari, and Owen are the only ones who asked, and all three of them were given permission, and all three of them reported their positive experiences, then that tells you only  that those three had positive experiences, and nothing more.

You don't know what their negative experiences were, nor do you know how many other playtesters had a positive or negative experience either way.

That being said, I agree with you that there are better ways it could have been handled. They should have anticipated a certain illogical hysteria over "that email." 

Watching the roll out of 4e is like watching a toddler trying to pick up a ball that he keeps kicking away every time he bends over.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 31, 2008)

What good would posting a criticism to a message board do?

When they can just fire off an e-mail to Andy (or someone) and get it actually fixed?

And the broad, general positives they've been giving aren't very specific, either, beyond "I like it." They haven't been giving specific praise, really.

Maybe it would've been best not to say anything, but you can't beat direct word of mouth, so I can see why WotC decided to let the leash a bit slack.

Still, ENWorld or WotC.com is not the proper place to air their grievances. If I had Andy Collin's direct e-mail, I wouldn't be posting here, either, I'd be e-mailing him asking about this.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2008)

Being the playtester coordinator guy must be the worst job ever.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Jan 31, 2008)

Agreed.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## grimslade (Jan 31, 2008)

Without the full rule set, forum discussion of playtester dislikes would be useless. It would be a very low signal to noise ratio. At this point of design stage, WotC is not going to reinstitute Vancian spellcasting  or insert the gnome as a PHB1 race. There would be very minute nuanced fixes at this point and the chatter on these and other forums would be to rehash design decisions from a year ago.

The better decision might have been to keep playtesters and freelancers gagged until DDXP. We will have hundreds of fresh perspectives on 4E when people get to play a couple of rounds of 4E and talk specifics.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jan 31, 2008)

I'm with KM on this one.

What we now know is that three people outside of WotC like it.  None of them were under obligation to say anything so they could have just as easily kept quiet.

We don't even know specifics of WHY they like it.  Sure, Ari has given it to us in general terms of why he likes it but we still have no hard numbers or direct data points that we can use.

Even he didn't like the feat/power "This Feat is Bad" why should he tell us that WotC made a bad ability?  Maybe it isn't in the game anymore.   Maybe it got changed so that it can now be called "This Feat is Good".  On the other hand, maybe he didn't like but two dozen other playtesters thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.  

We don't know the current state of things.  Ari likely doesn't know the current state of things.  He didn't have to say anything.  

I think hearing The Bad from a single person whoes job it is to find The Bad is more effective than hearing it from a message board where the people tend to not have the full picture.  The three playtesters we've heard from could have kept quiet and no one would be the wiser.  

Maybe Andy phrased the email poorly (the post here has a quotation mark as if to denote the start of a quote but I didn't see a second one to mark the end of the quote so I'm unsure if he intended to quote a passage from the email or if he accidently fat fingured the keyboard during a paraphrase of the email); but I see no problem with what the stated intentions were.

There is absolutely no use in getting upset about something that was legitametely The Bad but but was removed from the game because... well... it was legitamately The Bad.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 31, 2008)

_...sigh..._


----------



## Maggan (Jan 31, 2008)

I think some of the reactions to the "please stick to the good things when on message boards" request from Andy proves a theory I have:

WotC should just say nothing at all.

That way, there will be nothing to rail about except the silence, and that railing would be over in say a month or two. Now we get new tidbits to rail against every so often.

"Don't fuel the fire" is my advice to WotC. Just keep quiet, and release the game and then start up the marketing for real.

/M


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 31, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> I just read Andy Collins' comments quoted on ENWorld's front newspage today explaining what playtesters were and were not allowed to say.  I must say I am disappointed with WOTC's decision to try to provide skewed information about the game by allowing certain playtesters to comment but only if they have positive comments.  I still trust that the freelancers who spoke out do honestly like the game, just as they stated, but now we know if there were four times as many freelancers who had nothing positive, and much negative to say, those people were forbidden from speaking out.  I believe that is deceptive and manipulative on the part of WOTC.   I'm sure there are many other companies that do similar marketing practices, but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> I read Andy's defense for the practice, which is essentially that there is no point in having negative comments shared with consumers at this point because the criticism can just be used internally to fix the problem.  But that doesn't strike me as a legitimate defense.  From what we've heard, most of the rules at this point are pretty much done.  So if someone felt overall the game is not as fun with the new rules, I don't see how that could be fixed at this point.  More importantly, if the game is still so in flux that negative comments are not relevant because things might get fixed, the same could be said for positive comments.
> 
> I still have high hopes that the fourth edition rules will be fun.  But the credibility of WOTC's marketing department has taken a beating for me this day.




Your position is completely unreasonable. NO COMPANY allows public airing of negative feedback in a testing phase for precisely the reason Andy outlines. I work for a software company and we DO NOT publish a list of bugs found in QA testing. We send that feedback to our developers to fix it.

Telling customers about a bug that gets fixed  and never made it to external release would NEVER be done. Heck we don't even tell customers about bugs we did not fix in some cases if we believe the conditions that cause the bug to appear are sufficiently rare that the average user will never see it. It would serve no useful purpose to do so and simply creates unwarranted negativity for issues that have no impact on the majority of our users. Those users it would affect are informed.

WotC's credibility has been RESTORED by this response, not damaged. WotC has done absolutely nothing deceptive or manipulative in ANY WAY. PERIOD. What they have done is standard operating procedure for ALL companies that conduct QA testing.

This is a faux controversy and is not proof of some evil WotC conspiracy.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jan 31, 2008)

The important fact for me, is that three designers that I like, and whose work I have enjoyed, and whose opinions I trust, like the new game, and found it fun and enjoyable. 

Their opinions mean more to me than "random gamer/tester #10's" would anyways.


----------



## La Bete (Jan 31, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> "Don't fuel the fire" is my advice to WotC. Just keep quiet, and release the game and then start up the marketing for real.
> 
> /M




Alternatively they could be using the "stoke the the nerd rage to great heights" approach to marketing.

It's what I'd do - admittedly only to warm my toes by the outpouring of rage, but hey.


----------



## Delta (Jan 31, 2008)

I've commented previously about how WOTC has turned its back on the Open Gaming movement ( http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/01/part-iii-promise-of-ogl.html ). There's been debate in the OGL forum about why WOTC is even bothering to call its new license "OGL" ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215975 ). 

This new commentary is the perfect demonstration of the reversal. In 2000 Ryan Dancey wrote this about Open Gaming rules (still on WOTC site today):


> With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time.




Today Andy Collins says the opposite:


> I recognize that this statement will generate controversy, but I don't believe it's helpful to anyone to hear negative comments about a game that isn't even finished (much yet published).




So we went from a philosophy of "work on problems in public" in 2000, to a clear-cut "work on problems in secret" that we have here in 2008. I find that to be a rather remarkable about-face.

Finally, you've got what Andy thinks is his coup-de-grace:


> "When we run our software through beta-test here, we don't publish a list of the bugs - we fix them."




*You do if it's Open Source.* ( https://sourceforge.net/ )


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 31, 2008)

So ... there is an ethical issue here.

Let's say that a drug company hires a number of companies to test out a new drug.

There are 10 companies.  Five have overall positive results, two are negative, and three are inconclusive.

The drug company discontinues the testing at the two companies with negative results.

The remaining results are published.  They are an inaccurate reflection of the testing results.

I have no sympathy for Wotc in regards to this issue.  They know exactly what they are doing.

I have a little sympathy for the two playtesters.  My thanks for the information that they have provided.  But they have put themselves in the middle of a marketing process, and need to have an understanding of how that works, and how that reflects on their integrity.

Now, there is a big difference between drugs and RPG testing.  A drug company that does what I outlined is probably breaking the law.  For RPG playtesting, I'm OK with we realize that the information is a part of a marketing campaign, and include that in our awareness.


----------



## ChaosShard (Jan 31, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I think it was completely legit of them to ask for anything negative to be directed to them. Remember that only people who asked, and were specifically trusted not to abuse it, where given some leeway to talk about their impressions.
> 
> As usual an internet storm in a teacup.
> 
> We'll get a 1000 impressions at the end of feb anyway.




This.

Also, if Playtester X drops a laundry list of complaints on a forum, all it will do is cause 'net drama, because that tester may very well (like Andy said) be working off of older material which  has already been fixed. 

Besides, the whole idea of beta testing (and this is true of the closed beta-tests in video games) is to send those complaints to developers so they can be addressed, not braindumped to rabid fans so they can form a lynch mob.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Jan 31, 2008)

What does it matter if playtesters with negative opinions are allowed to share their views on the forum or not.  I can't see how that helps anybody. . .

1.  The problems if true are likely to be fixed.

2.  There is an EXCELLENT chance that you won't agree with the playtester's opinions anyway.

People have this idea that "playtesters" means "people who think exactly as I do."  Just think about how many people have differing opinions from you just on the various forums you participate in.  Why do you think only the people who agree with you would be selected to playtest.

Letting them air negative views just contributes to general drama for no real positive effect.  Unless of course you happen to be one of the people who just enjoys drama. . . of which there are quite a few in the gaming community if discussions surrounding 4E are any indicator.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 31, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> So ... there is an ethical issue here.
> 
> _snip_




You're greatly misrepresenting the issue here while assuming a whole lot.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 31, 2008)

I am guessing the OP has never beta tested anything before.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 31, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> So ... there is an ethical issue here.
> 
> Let's say that a drug company hires a number of companies to test out a new drug.
> 
> ...




Bad analogy.  Atrocious analogy even.  The bolded portion is the problem -- WotC is not doing anything like that.  What they are doing is telling all their "companies" (i.e.) testers that the best way to handle negative feedback is to send it directly to them where it can be properly addressed.  There's no selective "discontinuing of testing" involved.  It's not even remotely a similar circumstance.

Far as I'm concerned, WotC _is_ acting properly, both in a business and an ethical sense.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 31, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> This new commentary is the perfect demonstration of the reversal.




Dancey was referring to the game after it was released; Collins is referring to the game before it is released.  I see a huge difference.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 31, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> I've commented previously about how WOTC has turned its back on the Open Gaming movement ( http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/01/part-iii-promise-of-ogl.html ). There's been debate in the OGL forum about why WOTC is even bothering to call its new license "OGL" ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215975 ).
> 
> This new commentary is the perfect demonstration of the reversal. In 2000 Ryan Dancey wrote this about Open Gaming rules (still on WOTC site today):
> 
> ...




But 4E is NOT OGL or Open Source.  How can it be?  It's not even out yet.  Once it is out, then yes, it would be OGL, and then the first quote would apply.


----------



## Khairn (Jan 31, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Watching the roll out of 4e is like watching a toddler trying to pick up a ball that he keeps kicking away every time he bends over.




Great analogy.

Granting only a limited number of playtesters the opportunity to speak about their 4E experience, and then limiting what they can say, is truly a bad decision.  

It certainly brings a question of credibility to whatever WotC is telling us.

Given WotC's track record to date for managing their customers, I believe Maggan's comments above is what will happen.  WotC will go into "bunker" mode and hope everything blows over.


----------



## Set (Jan 31, 2008)

Andy's explanation sounded reasonable to me (then again, I've run a beta program before, so I totally get it).  For all that he said 'this may be controversial' at one point, I think he's managed to make one of the most diplomatic posts ever from the 4E design crew.

I don't have any idea who the other two dudes are, but Ari's got tastes similar to mine, so I take his opinions seriously.

I still don't get the whole kerfluffle about it taking hours and hours to do character generation or run combats and 'feeling like homework' and 'being too hard,' but I guess it is a problem for other people, so they have to fix it for them.  Obviously I can't support the company by myself.


----------



## el_skootro (Jan 31, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> From what we've heard, most of the rules at this point are pretty much done.  So if someone felt overall the game is not as fun with the new rules, I don't see how that could be fixed at this point.




Yes, but the version that the playtesters would be commenting on are probably not the current version. For example, if a playtest group were given a copy of the rules that had dwarves as 8ft tall and firebreathing, and the design team had already changed that, what good would it do to tell the whole interwebs, "I can't believe that dwarves are 8ft tall! And they breathe fire!"

Stuff may be pretty much done at this point, but we don't know what shape the rules were in when any individual playtester saw them.

El Skootro


----------



## abelan (Jan 31, 2008)

I understand positive marketing, but Andy Collins needs to understand that you don't air a public reprimand. He needs to stop the spin control and explain to the masses that he has limited those that can share their ideas in public to a select few. Forget the business of allowing only positive comments and telling us that. We didn't need to know, and he hurts his cause when he tells the world that he wants only the positives posted. The damage is done, and now we may question what aspects of the game may be a bit crunchy. The whole episode smacks of the Twilight Zone - "It's a Good Life" where everyone tiptoes around the young boy saying how good he is. They may feel differently, but they need to say the positives in front of the boy(public). The conversation at home may be different, but it's not in the public eye.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 31, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Great analogy.
> 
> Granting only a limited number of playtesters the opportunity to speak about their 4E experience, and then limiting what they can say, is truly a bad decision.




No, in fact it is not.



> It certainly brings a question of credibility to whatever WotC is telling us.




No it doesn't.


----------



## jaer (Jan 31, 2008)

I'd rather hear the negatives later.  What is the point of stating a list of negs and having them become irrelevent, and yet existing on and on on the forums, being quoted by people as reasons the system will be horrible...because we would never know if they were fixed.

Also, if one person says "I didn't like _____" and the other 50 people who playtested did like it but can't say so due to the NDA, all we have is one opinion, and plenty of people harking on that one.

Much better to have the negatives sent to the people who can fix it rather than be tosses out onto the forums where they do no good.  If there are negatives and they end up in the final version, it will come out before release.  Why hear about them before then?


----------



## Toryx (Jan 31, 2008)

I think the only real mistake WotC has made in this aspect of the playtesting is allowing Ari and some of the others to make any comments at all. That's clearly opened the door to madness and now that they've seen the results we can be sure that it won't happen again. They were letting people talk about their enjoyment of the game to give the public a little treat. That bit them on the ass (rightfully so, I think) and if they're half as smart as I think they are, they'll learn from the mistake.


----------



## zacharythefirst (Jan 31, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> No, in fact it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.





Care to expound?   

Honestly, I do not envy anyone trying to make changes to any beloved IP.  These guys are gamers, designers, but generally *not* PR folk.  So in a situation where every statement they make (as well as the tone of that statement) is going to be filleted, processed, digested, and re-digested, you can expect stuff like this to happen.


----------



## zacharythefirst (Jan 31, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I'd rather hear the negatives later.  What is the point of stating a list of negs and having them become irrelevent, and yet existing on and on on the forums, being quoted by people as reasons the system will be horrible...because we would never know if they were fixed.
> 
> Also, if one person says "I didn't like _____" and the other 50 people who playtested did like it but can't say so due to the NDA, all we have is one opinion, and plenty of people harking on that one.
> 
> Much better to have the negatives sent to the people who can fix it rather than be tosses out onto the forums where they do no good.  If there are negatives and they end up in the final version, it will come out before release.  Why hear about them before then?




Why, then, hear about the positives beforehand?  Don't they have potential for change before the final version as well?  Wouldn't the same reasons you listed affect them as well?

I don't think for a second there was a single malicious or false intent in letting some of the playtesters share info early--as a player who is still on the fence (until I get to play in a demo or two, at least, and see how it's all come together), I thank them for any attempt to shed any new information on the game.  But given the circumstances and criteria for that release, and the resulting stink, perhaps it would have been better in this particular instance not to allow that particular sharing.

Remind to buy the entire 4e dev team some "liquid courage".  I know *I'd* need it at times.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 31, 2008)

abelan said:
			
		

> I understand positive marketing, but Andy Collins needs to understand that you don't air a public reprimand. He needs to stop the spin control and explain to the masses that he has limited those that can share their ideas in public to a select few. Forget the business of allowing only positive comments and telling us that. We didn't need to know, and he hurts his cause when he tells the world that he wants only the positives posted. The damage is done, and now we may question what aspects of the game may be a bit crunchy. The whole episode smacks of the Twilight Zone - "It's a Good Life" where everyone tiptoes around the young boy saying how good he is. They may feel differently, but they need to say the positives in front of the boy(public). The conversation at home may be different, but it's not in the public eye.



Problem with that analogy: The negatives are not facts. Repeat after me: Every you can criticise is not a fact, because it can be fixed, is already fixed, or is a product of the new design paradigm.

Only in that last case, the criticism actually applies, in the former two, the criticism is moot, pointless, useless.

I mean, if a playtester finds something negative, let's see the following courses of action:

He posts his criticism on the internet only: Bad form, that's only to stir rage, and doesn't allow WotC to fix it.
He posts it on the web and to WotC: Stirs rage, but will be fixed anyway, so no point.
He only posts it to the web: No rage, it will be fixed, we're all happy.

See why it should remain contained, until the the final PHB is finished and set in stone? That's because we're not dealing with facts or a finished product, we're dealing with a draft.

Unfinished things and playtest material SHOULD be criticised, it's the whole point of'em to avoid criticism at the finished product.



			
				zacharythefirst said:
			
		

> Why, then, hear about the positives beforehand?  Don't they have potential for change before the final version as well?  Wouldn't the same reasons you listed affect them as well?



Considering that good feedback also involves praise about positives... this will probably keep it in. Furthermore, that's the reason why no specific crunch should be revealed. Not that all three comments on the game are about the "general feel", not about specifics. I don't think they'll rewrite the whole game, hence the general feel should remain similar.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 31, 2008)

zacharythefirst said:
			
		

> Care to expound?
> 
> Honestly, I do not envy anyone trying to make changes to any beloved IP.  These guys are gamers, designers, but generally *not* PR folk.  So in a situation where every statement they make (as well as the tone of that statement) is going to be filleted, processed, digested, and re-digested, you can expect stuff like this to happen.




At the end of the day they would really have to do something crazy (from a PR POV) to not make people buy the game.

I see the chain of events and the logic behind what they have done and I really appreciate them allowing some people to take about their experience, even in a limited way. It is not a review, they will come soon enough by the truckload.

With the lack of information we have at the moment every event is magnified tenfold. Every sentence is a controversy. 

I don't think they need to worry too much about these things, the alternative is a Hasbro information officer approving everything, filtering out anything that could be controversial. 

My meandering point, I suppose, is that they should not worry about upsetting a few Internet Conspiracy Theorists who believe they are the devil incarnate looking to butcher their past and destroy their RPG future (not talking about anyone on ENWORLD necessarily).


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 31, 2008)

I don't have a problem with Andy's comments or the reasons he gave.  It's all marketing right now anyway.

I think we'll get the best feedback at Origins and GenCon, from non-playtester gamers and playtesters alike once NDAs are no longer an issue.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 31, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I'd rather hear the negatives later.  What is the point of stating a list of negs and having them become irrelevent, and yet existing on and on on the forums, being quoted by people as reasons the system will be horrible...because we would never know if they were fixed.



Well, what if the opposite happens? Something the playtesters voicing their opinion liked needed to be changed because other playtesters hated or found a critical flaw in it. 

I don't see that as likely, but it can be used as a counterpoint.


I guess the step of allowing some playtesters to voice their opinion was neither bad nor good, it was just, overall, meaningless.
People that don't like the idea of D&D 4 will use this e-mail as a proof that WotC is all trying to dupe us, people that like the idea of D&D 4 will use the playtester posts as proof that D&D 4 is the best thing since sliced bread. 

The only thing at this point that will change opinions overall is the actual release and people actually playing the game, then reporting their feedback. The D&D Experience will hopefully do its best here.

--------

Oh, judging from what I heard from two playtesters on the interweb, D&D 4 will probably turn out to be the best thing since sliced thread.


----------



## zacharythefirst (Jan 31, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I think we'll get the best feedback at Origins and GenCon, from non-playtester gamers and playtesters alike once NDAs are no longer an issue.




Absolutely.  I know the best feedback I'll get is when *I* get to play in a demo at one of those two cons.


----------



## jaer (Jan 31, 2008)

zacharythefirst said:
			
		

> Why, then, hear about the positives beforehand?  Don't they have potential for change before the final version as well?  Wouldn't the same reasons you listed affect them as well?
> 
> I don't think for a second there was a single malicious or false intent in letting some of the playtesters share info early--as a player who is still on the fence (until I get to play in a demo or two, at least, and see how it's all come together), I thank them for any attempt to shed any new information on the game.  But given the circumstances and criteria for that release, and the resulting stink, perhaps it would have been better in this particular instance not to allow that particular sharing.
> 
> Remind to buy the entire 4e dev team some "liquid courage".  I know *I'd* need it at times.




Quite honestly, the bits I read from these playtesters didn't sway me one way or the other.  I don't know them, and have no investment in what they say.

Playtesting reports and the Design releases were helpful (even if not necessarily conclusive since things could change) because they give an idea of what direcion WotC is going in their changes.  It takes away the "we want to do this" and shows me how they are attempting to do the "this."

So allowing some playtesters to say "hey, i liked it.  It spend up combat, just the way WotC said it.  I made things easier, the way WotC say it would." is in no way different to me than WotC saying "we made it better, faster."  I don't doubt the statements from WotC, so hearing them from other people doesn't effect me either.

I guess I just don't understand why people care that we weren't able to hear the "I didn't like this," but for me, "I didn't like this" and "I did like this" mean the same thing: nothing.  Those are someone else's opinions, and only a few.  When I can get actual info about the game, then it becomes important.


----------



## tresson (Jan 31, 2008)

Anyone remember what happened when the developers mentioned they had tested agro mechanics but had decided NOT to use it? Remember the mass rage and nashing of teeth?
Over a mechanic that had already been canned?

Now can you imagine what would happen if a playtester said the didn't like x ability or spell or whatever but didn't know it had already been fix/changed?  Yeah pretty ugly and there wouldn't be much the devs could to to calm it down.


----------



## Pinotage (Jan 31, 2008)

In the old end it doesn't really matter what the playtesters did and didn't say. What matters more to me is when Joe Average Gamer gets his hands on a copy and then says something that's useful based on a complete opinion of the entire product. These playtester reports are pretty useless in a way, because they give you snapshots and don't really tell you much as a whole. I waiting for release when everybody can say what needs to be said.

Pinotage


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 31, 2008)

zacharythefirst said:
			
		

> Care to expound?




Sorry, I'm at work and don't always have the liberty to make long posts. I think my first post and those of many others explain why. Andy was open and honest. As someone who deals with a QA department for a living, I have to say that he is right.

If someone thinks that not allowing negative pre-release feedback for a game that isn't even finished yet is some sort of indictment about WotC's lack of "credibility", then I'm sorry, but they have no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jan 31, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, what if the opposite happens? Something the playtesters voicing their opinion liked needed to be changed because other playtesters hated or found a critical flaw in it.




Assuming the NDAs are followed that still won't come up.  We know these playtesters liked 4e but we don't really know WHY they liked 4e.  We have some vauge aspects but no specifics.  Unless they come out after publication and say "I wish they had kept in X" we won't know that this is the case.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I guess the step of allowing some playtesters to voice their opinion was neither bad nor good, it was just, overall, meaningless.




Maybe, but hindsight and all that...

I can see why they allowed it though.  I have seen multiple complaints that all we hear is that 4e is "cool" and this is all from WotC staffers.  So, if we here that it is "cool" from people outside of WotC it would hopefully take care of that particular complaint.  This sounds good and an easy one to take care of.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jan 31, 2008)

AH, to abuse the power of "Postitive Deconstruction"
This Part was Great, much better than this part or this part

This part was Very clear and easy to read, where as this part and this part could be re-worded for clarity.

so on, and so forth


----------



## zacharythefirst (Jan 31, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm at work and don't always have the liberty to make long posts. I think my first post and those of many others explain why. Andy was open and honest. As someone who deals with a QA department for a living, I have to say that he is right.
> 
> If someone thinks that not allowing negative pre-release feedback for a game that isn't even finished yet is some sort of indictment about WotC's lack of "credibility", then I'm sorry, but they have no idea what they are talking about.




That's cool.  I know what it's like, doing "guerilla posting" from work.  I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything, just wanted to see if had more along the lines of post 1.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 31, 2008)

I am not eager to hear a report from every single playtester. I was interested to hear Ari's opinion because I've seen his work and his tastes seem to be similar to mine. I also know Jon's work and was interested to see what he had to say. I don't know the third poster's work. It was interesting to hear, but less likely to have an effect on my opinion about the upcoming game.

I also don't that WotC did anything sinister in this matter. Everything seems to have been handled in the manner that NDAs are always handled.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 31, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I don't doubt the statements from WotC, so hearing them from other people doesn't effect me either.



This is maybe where you are different then some other people. Some people doubt WotC words, but they might believe an "outside" source. 

But in the end, maybe the approach to simply not believe what WotC tells us is so unreasonable to begin with that any outside source doesn't have a fair chance to change opinions anyway. 
But I think there is a middle ground - some might believe WotC believes what they say, but are still mistaken. In that case, an outside source increases the likelihood that WotC isn't mistaken...

But the statements we have gotten so far doesn't "help" those that have clear preferences for certain play styles that don't seem supported in 4E, at least if they don't know that the playtester voicing his opinion favours the same play style.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 31, 2008)

zacharythefirst said:
			
		

> That's cool.  I know what it's like, doing "guerilla posting" from work.  I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything, just wanted to see if had more along the lines of post 1.




No worries. I didn't think you were being snarky at all.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 31, 2008)

I can't imagine how anyone can read Collin's comments and come away with anything other than a reasoned and legitimate explanation. There's no 'damage' or 'credability hit' or 'spin' or 'marketing' or anything else involved.


----------



## AZRogue (Jan 31, 2008)

1. Some playtesters ASKED for permission to speak of their 4E experience without giving away the game mechanics. They were GRANTED permission, even though any other company would have denied the request.

2. Those playtesters that ASKED for and were GRANTED permission were allowed to relay their positive feelings, which is what they WANTED to do, and to not go into negatives since those should go to WotC. That's what playtesting is FOR.

3. Instead of being grateful that they allowed a few trusted individuals speak when they SHOULDN'T have, we have people using this as proof of some sort of spin. What, what? Next time you take the little pink pill, read the bottle. And don't mix with alcohol, geez.

This really is a storm in a teacup. I'm starting to think that a very small minority (very small) of posters will SPIN anything they hear to make it into a plot "against" them. Maybe we should go with it and just admit that, yes, 4E was designed specifically to upset three or four people. Is it working? Then it was all worthwhile, mwahahahahahahaha!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 31, 2008)

> I think the only real mistake WotC has made in this aspect of the playtesting is allowing Ari and some of the others to make any comments at all. That's clearly opened the door to madness and now that they've seen the results we can be sure that it won't happen again. They were letting people talk about their enjoyment of the game to give the public a little treat. That bit them on the ass (rightfully so, I think) and if they're half as smart as I think they are, they'll learn from the mistake.




I'm defending WotC's choice, here, but even *I* think this was kind of an ill-thought-out tactic. They didn't do anything wrong, but they should've know their audience enough to know that any hint of WotC "gagging" people would imply that they had something to hide.

It isn't bad, but it looks kind of bad. I get that they were trying to get buzz going, but they come off looking kind of manipulative (even though, as said above, they took pretty much the right course of action). 

I don't blame them. I might've made the same descision in their shoes. But the praise does come accross as kind of cheap because it can't come with the criticism that a discerning audience demands, even if the posters really and honestly had no criticism to offer.


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 31, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Watching the roll out of 4e is like watching a toddler trying to pick up a ball that he keeps kicking away every time he bends over.




Don't forget "falling down a lot" too.  I don't think anything nefarious is going on, just poorly thought out.  I shudder to think how many playtesters are sending emails as we speak, despite pleas to the contrary, thinking they will somehow also get permission to talk (a ticket to instant geek celebrity for at least an hour or two).

We're really not that far from the launch date of the core books.  Ari and John's comments are interesting, but it's not like people weren't already aware and talking about these products.  Regardless of whether people were talking positively or negatively on message boards, they were still talking about it.  This just seems like it's caused hassle for Wizards and didn't really provide us with any new, concrete information.

Strangest product launch ever.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 31, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What good would posting a criticism to a message board do?
> 
> When they can just fire off an e-mail to Andy (or someone) and get it actually fixed?



Fair point but what about bigger problems? Playtesting feedback will only bring about minor changes. What if a playtester has a really major system concern? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a playtester thinks per encounter abilities are fundamentally flawed. That's never going to be fixed.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Jan 31, 2008)

The OGL was never the same as open computing, and never intended to create an open official product worked on by the community. Bugs were never posted and fixed by the developer community, the final product was not worked on in the same sense. 
In fact, an early complaint about the OGL was that it wasn't actually an open system like open computing. It was a reasonable and factual complaint. 

The "open" nature of the OGL was about developing add-on products that promoted the main product-- that d20 system games built on the engine was a byproduct of the system, not its intent. OGL was never entirely open, and always about selling core D&D books, no about opening up the core product to change. Playtesting of D&D 3.0 was done in house, not in an open development setting. 3.5 changes were done in house, not in an open development setting. 4.0, done in house, not in an open development setting. No changes in procedure at all.

That there may be a change in how supplementary or derivative material is developed does not change the core product development process.




			
				Delta said:
			
		

> I've commented previously about how WOTC has turned its back on the Open Gaming movement ( http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/01/part-iii-promise-of-ogl.html ). There's been debate in the OGL forum about why WOTC is even bothering to call its new license "OGL" ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215975 ).
> 
> This new commentary is the perfect demonstration of the reversal. In 2000 Ryan Dancey wrote this about Open Gaming rules (still on WOTC site today):
> 
> ...


----------



## Pinotage (Jan 31, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Fair point but what about bigger problems? Playtesting feedback will only bring about minor changes. What if a playtester has a really major system concern? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a playtester thinks per encounter abilities are fundamentally flawed. That's never going to be fixed.




I suspect at this stage of the game, playtest feedback is going to change the game very minimally. There's a point of no return where you just have to get the product out and can't accept any more feedback. If you think about things that way, and assume that 4e is in a position where it is nearly complete, then is makes Andy Collins' statements even more interesting. My guess is that WotC can't really be paying that much attention to feedback at this stage. So the 'negative comments' channel to WotC would be pretty much blocked.

Pinotage


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 31, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Bad analogy.  Atrocious analogy even.  The bolded portion is the problem -- WotC is not doing anything like that.  What they are doing is telling all their "companies" (i.e.) testers that the best way to handle negative feedback is to send it directly to them where it can be properly addressed.  There's no selective "discontinuing of testing" involved.  It's not even remotely a similar circumstance.
> 
> Far as I'm concerned, WotC _is_ acting properly, both in a business and an ethical sense.




Well, sending the negative feedback to WotC while allowing positive feedback to be sent to potential customers sounds exactly like my example.  The negative feedback is filtered out.

The ethical problem is not disclosing, up front, that the reviews have been filtered.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 31, 2008)

No, your example involved entirely shutting down everyone who was providing negative feedback -- that's not at all the same thing.  What I said stands -- your analogy is fatally flawed.

Edit: additionally, your analogy tries to link a situation where negative feedback would be purely factual (bad drug interactions, fatalities, other dangerous side effects) with a situation where much (not all) of the bad feedback would be either opinion or stylistic differences.  Again, the flaws in the analogy are too great for it to have any use at all.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 31, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I can't imagine how anyone can read Collin's comments and come away with anything other than a reasoned and legitimate explanation. There's no 'damage' or 'credability hit' or 'spin' or 'marketing' or anything else involved.




You haven't been to the Paizo 4E board then.  Some of those posters could spin any bit of info to make it look evil and detrimental to all life on earth as we know it.


----------



## Delta (Jan 31, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> But 4E is NOT OGL or Open Source.  How can it be?  It's not even out yet.  Once it is out, then yes, it would be OGL, and then the first quote would apply.




We agree that 4E is not an Open Game. It _could_ have been if the new rules were developed in a community-oriented fashion, which is what Dancey evangelized back in 2000. 

It will also not be an Open Game after it is published. The changes signalled by WOTC for the new so-called-OGL do not satisfy the criteria of an Open Game ( http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html ).


----------



## king_ghidorah (Jan 31, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> We agree that 4E is not an Open Game. It _could_ have been if the new rules were developed in a community-oriented fashion, which is what Dancey evangelized back in 2000.
> 
> It will also not be an Open Game after it is published. The changes signalled by WOTC for the new so-called-OGL do not satisfy the criteria of an Open Game ( http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html ).




But under these criteria, 3e and 3.5e core rules also weren't Open Games, either, no matter what Dancey evangelized in 2000. Development and play-testing was not communal, but in-house or closed -- just like 4e,  despite the option to use OGC. 

Is there any commercial RPG that is truly developed in a development community like open-source software? Maybe FUDGE, but its commercial sale came after its open development on the web.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Jan 31, 2008)

I would not call it censoring.

Playtesters don't have the right to speak out about the game till a given date. They signed an agreement. A select few are being given a green light to give a positive review to the public.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 31, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> ...
> 2. Those playtesters that ASKED for and were GRANTED permission were allowed to relay their positive feelings, which is what they WANTED to do, and to not go into negatives since those should go to WotC. That's what playtesting is FOR.
> ...




The release date is soon.  There is (if they intend to hit the release date) a *lot* of stuff that can't get changed.  Therefore a lot of the negative feelings that exist are about things that will hit the shelves.  Fundamental disagreements about design philosophy, for example, are negative feedback issues that I am interested in and which, by now, are unchangeable.

We aren't in alpha any more.  Feedback is of little use to WotC (no time to change anything major), and for the same reason of lots of use to us (with no time to change anything major, feedback can be thought of as fairly accurate reviews).

Accordingly, by selecting what information goes out, they are turning the people who get to  leak stuff into (unpaid) partisan reviewers.  Which annoys my "fair play" sensors.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 31, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> The ethical problem is not disclosing, up front, that the reviews have been filtered.



That's the problem with your analysis. *These are not reviews. These are not review copies.* These are impressions from a tested beta.

More correct example, based on yours:

Company develops drugs.

Company gives drugs to ten test companies, five have positive results, two are negative, three are inconclusive.

Some of the test companies ask the drug company if it's allowed to give a first impression.

Drug company says "yes" and also says criticism should be directed at them first to allow them to fix it. *And this is where we are.*

Drug company develops the drug further and releases it, now as fully functional version, allowing all company to publicize all reviews of the final product, whether it be good or bad.

See the difference?

Furthermore, the drug example is very bad, because of two factors: First, drugs can kill people, if they are ill-developed, 4E cannot do that. Second, drugs have the problem of being non-fixable, i.e. you cannot fix all flaws of a drug, as it interacts with a not completely understood system, the human body. 4E is a purely "designed" product, it is better controllable than a drug. Your example may imply that there are uncontrollable aspects, but 4E has less such aspects as a drug. Finally, 4E is not a novelty, like the drug example may imply as well.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Delta (Jan 31, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> But under these criteria, 3e and 3.5e core rules also weren't Open Games, either, no matter what Dancey evangelized in 2000. Development and play-testing was not communal, but in-house or closed -- just like 4e,  despite the option to use OGC.




Yes, I agree. The promise of the OGL, as Dancey wrote, was that after the publication of 3E, future products would be developed with the leverage of Open Gaming. By the time 3.5 was published, Dancey was already gone, and I said at the time that WOTC had apparently reversed course on the OGL ( http://www.superdan.net/down3-5.html ).


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 31, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> No, your example involved entirely shutting down everyone who was providing negative feedback -- that's not at all the same thing.  What I said stands -- your analogy is fatally flawed.
> 
> Edit: additionally, your analogy tries to link a situation where negative feedback would be purely factual (bad drug interactions, fatalities, other dangerous side effects) with a situation where much (not all) of the bad feedback would be either opinion or stylistic differences.  Again, the flaws in the analogy are too great for it to have any use at all.




At issue is what role the playtesters are filling.  Are they acting as reporters, or as WotC representatives?  If they are acting as reporters, they have an obligation to avoid conflicts, and to report biases.  As WotC representatives, they are can be expected to provide positive information, but then they are acting more as WotC salespeople.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 31, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> We agree that 4E is not an Open Game. It _could_ have been if the new rules were developed in a community-oriented fashion, which is what Dancey evangelized back in 2000.




I think you are confusing open licensing with open development practices.  The OGL is about license terms, not development.  I don't recall Dancey ever evangelizing open development practices, and I have to ask you to find a quote to support this assertion.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 31, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> That's the problem with your analysis. *These are not reviews. These are not review copies.* These are impressions from a tested beta.
> ...
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Whether WotC (or you) considers them to be reviews or not, *that is* what many (if not most) of the player-base that read them considered them to be.  Incomplete reviews, yes, but still *reviews*.  There was no hint in the posts that they were "censored".  Legally, was WotC in the clear?  I assume so.  I cannot see how they wouldn't be.  However, it was blatantly obvious that people would treat the posts as partial reviews, WHETHER that was the intent or not.  Which means that they treat the "censorship" as just that, and respond as if WotC wasn't playing fair.

In short, given that people *would* treat the posts as reviews (and they did, shocker!), censoring them was *stupid*.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 31, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> I've commented previously about how WOTC has turned its back on the Open Gaming movement ( http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/01/part-iii-promise-of-ogl.html ). There's been debate in the OGL forum about why WOTC is even bothering to call its new license "OGL" ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215975 ).
> 
> So we went from a philosophy of "work on problems in public" in 2000, to a clear-cut "work on problems in secret" that we have here in 2008. I find that to be a rather remarkable about-face.
> 
> ...



Well, this is where we disagree. 

I have been involved in Open Source development and closed development. Comparing the development of a new core system, and the Open Source software development platform is like comparing apples and oranges.  

When talking about for-profit businesses (like WOTC, Microsoft, Google, etc) Open source is good for systems that either have ALREADY been released and therefore tools are provided to extend and enhance the systems through APIs or other means.  Google may provide access to great tools to use for free, via APIs, but they would never give out their proprietary search algorithms.  Microsoft (or do you prefer to pronounce it Micro$oft??) opens up their .NET framework for developers to build and enhance tools of their own. For all the bashing they get, they are notoriously helpful to developers.

For non-profit businesses, small businesses or dudes in a garage, Open Source is great, they can share ideas, utilize other source code to improve their own product, and get free feedback on systems they are developing.

Sourceforge is a great environment for putting together Open Source software, designed with the intention of providing tools for people.  It doesn't cater well to for-profit companies with IP to protect. I have had two projects on sourceforge and two that I wouldn't use it for. The ones appropriate for Sourceforge were to help flesh out ideas and get some free programming advice/help, the others were for making money.

WOTC hasn't even released the 4e OGL publicly, so no one knows what it says.  WOTC hasn't even finished v1.0 of their 4e product, so why would they open it up before getting their own bugs out.  Not many companies release ALPHA, and many companies only perform closed beta testing (which WOTC is doing).  Are they all evil empires that have tossed out Open Source on it's ear?  No, they are doing business in the way that they see fit to find profit.  

People say how much they love 1e, but it wasn't open source.

I suggest that people don't comment on how WOTC is walking away from the open gaming movement until they look at the 4e OGL.  Only then will they have an informed opinion.  Otherwise it is just fire-fanning and rumor-mongering.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 31, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think you are confusing open licensing with open development practices.  The OGL is about license terms, not development.  I don't recall Dancey ever evangelizing open development practices, and I have to ask you to find a quote to support this assertion.




I remember Ryan saying something of the sort, though I don't know (and can't really imagine) that he was thinking in terms of a new edition of D&D.  He said at the time that he hoped that the community's refinements to the system would get absorbed back into the  rules system.  I'll try and find a link.

It would seem to me a dangerous thing to do from WoTC's POV, for exactly the reasons catsclaw227 points out.  It would endanger their ownership of D&D as a rules system.

I'd be interested in hearing Ryan Dancey's thoughts on where he would have hoped the SRD and D&D would have gone from the 3E launch.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 31, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> So ... there is an ethical issue here.
> 
> Let's say that a drug company hires a number of companies to test out a new drug.
> 
> ...




You win the most flawed analogy of the month award! 

Mind you, it's OF THE MONTH, not hour day or week.  This is a big deal.  You should bask in the glow of knowing that, despite all the horrid analogies we've seen since the beginning of 2008, yours was the worst.  

Congratulations.  You deserve this award.  You earned it.  Take it home with pride.


----------



## Voss (Jan 31, 2008)

My take on this- 
another oops marketing decision from WotC.  As simple as that- they just handled it in a rather foolish way.  Not from obscure ethical reasons, but because they know how their audience tends to react to even a hint of the idea that people are hiding things from them.  Again they need to learn to keep their collective mouth shut.

Of more concern to me is the idea that the books aren't finished.  Its almost February, guys.  Time is ticking away and you'll need to get these beasts to the printers.  127 days to the release date...


----------



## MarkAHart (Jan 31, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Of more concern to me is the idea that the books aren't finished.  Its almost February, guys.  Time is ticking away and you'll need to get these beasts to the printers.  127 days to the release date...




Read Bill Slavicsek's notes on the Design & Development article regarding the Pit Fiend (towards the bottom of the page).

"The Player's Handbook is in Typesetting, and we're poring over the galleys to make every last improvement we can before it goes to print. The Monster Manual is in its last two weeks of Managing Editing, the stage right before it goes into Typesetting. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is about to leave Editing and enter its Managing Editing stage."

Doesn't sound like there's a problem in this regard.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125


----------



## Cmarco (Jan 31, 2008)

I really have no problem with the playtester commentary. Any negative comments would be forwarded to the 4e R&D folks in order to fix them. 

Beyond that, I'm still stoked for 4e.


----------



## The_Baldman (Jan 31, 2008)

zacharythefirst said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  I know the best feedback I'll get is when *I* get to play in a demo at one of those two cons.





I believe we will have LFR preview events at Origins but it will still be a 3.5 show.

Gencon will be entirely 4th edition from top to bottom and from an RPGA stand point we will have more 4th edition material scheduled then you can possibly play in the time frame of the show.


----------



## eleran (Jan 31, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Whether WotC (or you) considers them to be reviews or not, *that is* what many (if not most) of the player-base that read them considered them to be.  Incomplete reviews, yes, but still *reviews*.  There was no hint in the posts that they were "censored".  Legally, was WotC in the clear?  I assume so.  I cannot see how they wouldn't be.  However, it was blatantly obvious that people would treat the posts as partial reviews, WHETHER that was the intent or not.  Which means that they treat the "censorship" as just that, and respond as if WotC wasn't playing fair.
> 
> In short, given that people *would* treat the posts as reviews (and they did, shocker!), censoring them was *stupid*.





I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.  

You're giving all the power of intent to the readers.  And as such you're speaking for the readers.  I did not view it as a review, therefore it wasn't.  They were merely a couple of people stating their opinions as to the parts of 4e they liked.  Ari even mentioned that there were some things he was not so hot about.  I think it would have actually been a great disservice for these folks to talk about what they didn't like, mostly I say that as hindsight because of all the Sturm und Drang generated by them not saying what they didn't like.  It would have been exponentially worse if they had.  

And the bottom line is....They didn't.  Get past it.  Move on.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 31, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
> 
> You're giving all the power of intent to the readers.  And as such you're speaking for the readers.  I did not view it as a review, therefore it wasn't.  They were merely a couple of people stating their opinions as to the parts of 4e they liked.  Ari even mentioned that there were some things he was not so hot about.  I think it would have actually been a great disservice for these folks to talk about what they didn't like, mostly I say that as hindsight because of all the Sturm und Drang generated by them not saying what they didn't like.  It would have been exponentially worse if they had.
> 
> And the bottom line is....They didn't.  Get past it.  Move on.




The power of intent *is* in the hands of the readers.  What the writer means something to mean is irrelevant.  What the readers takes it to mean is the important thing.  Understanding what readers are likely to take something to mean is crucial (hence smilies).

The existence of the Sturm und Drang was because people, predictably, viewed the posts as partial reviews.  The editing schedule above says that viewing it as such *was entirely justified*.  Talking about sending complaints about the PHB back to WotC, when the PHB is in typesetting, is laughable.  The posts ARE partial reviews.  The mechanics the posters know about ARE the final mechanics (except, maybe, for a few minor things in the DMG).


----------



## Oldtimer (Jan 31, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> But under these criteria, 3e and 3.5e core rules also weren't Open Games, either, no matter what Dancey evangelized in 2000. Development and play-testing was not communal, but in-house or closed -- just like 4e,  despite the option to use OGC.



Are you refering to the Open Gaming Foundation criteria? They have nothing to do with Open Development. They are simply:

The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.
Under these criteria the 3e SRD and the 3.5e SRD were Open Games. We simply don't know about the 4e SRD yet.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 31, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> At issue is what role the playtesters are filling.  Are they acting as reporters, or as WotC representatives?  If they are acting as reporters, they have an obligation to avoid conflicts, and to report biases.  As WotC representatives, they are can be expected to provide positive information, but then they are acting more as WotC salespeople.




They're acting as option C: interested 3rd parties who are bound by an agreement which limits what they can say and when.  Neither reporters nor official representatives.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 31, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The existence of the Sturm und Drang was because people, predictably, viewed the posts as partial reviews.



The arguments began with the rumour of a e-mail. Not because it was seen as a review. Most negative arguments ONLY deal with that alleged censorship, not whether it was a review or not. Do you think anything would have been different, if Ari had said "these are first impressions, not a review"?



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Talking about sending complaints about the PHB back to WotC, when the PHB is in typesetting, is laughable.  The posts ARE partial reviews.  The mechanics the posters know about ARE the final mechanics (except, maybe, for a few minor things in the DMG).



Typesetting = Layout nowadays. Changing things is entirely possible. In the worst case, it means it messes up the layout of some pages. Which means some poor souls are going to work overtime.

Furthermore, I think post people decrying these decision are already against 4E and WotC in general, people defending it (like me) are already liking either Ari, WotC and/or 4E. So it's not changing a lot and basically, the "Sturm und Drang" is mainly noise, I only see some people posting over and over again, on both sides. I don't think that's that big, I have to admit.

Furthermore, people savvy enough to read ENWorld and Ari's blog HAVE gotten this message as well (Collins' response). And readers can adjust their interpretation of intent, if new evidence occurs, as they have done it after the rumour popped up.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Delta (Jan 31, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think you are confusing open licensing with open development practices.  The OGL is about license terms, not development.  I don't recall Dancey ever evangelizing open development practices, and I have to ask you to find a quote to support this assertion.




This is the article from 2000, still online at wizards.com, where Dancey says "D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people":
( http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e )



> Torvalds creates a small computer operating system called "Linux" and releases it to the public via the GPL. Using his original code as a base, thousands of programmers all over the world begin to extend and develop the system, and in a few short years, it becomes as capable, robust, stable and usable as the best Unix versions. In fact, Linux takes a larger share of the worldwide server market share than Windows NT, despite everything Microsoft does to combat it...
> 
> There is now a new, viable model for creating complex systems, using standardized protocols and interfaces, that are shared by many people, with many independent sub-components that have to work together.
> 
> ...




From July of last year you can see the Dancey recognizes a difference between to the original theory of Open Gaming and how it actually worked out at WOTC:
( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=201334 )



> In *theory* I would have liked to have seen a much more aggressive use of OGC in D&D products, because I think that feeds the idea "pump" (the more likely someone thinks their work is to become "Dungeons & Dragons", the more likely they may be to make the complete effort required to thoroughly write up and distribute their ideas).
> 
> In *practice* I'm not too surprised at the lack of OGC use in D&D. There are several dozen people paid quite well to design & develop Dungeons & Dragons. You will remember that just after 3.0 shipped, Wizards went through 4 disastrous rounds of layoffs. The "survivors" (many of who also survived the Last Days of TSR) know how to keep their jobs...


----------



## jeffh (Jan 31, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Whether WotC (or you) considers them to be reviews or not, *that is* what many (if not most) of the player-base that read them considered them to be.



If that's the conclusion they came to, then that conclusion was uninformed and poorly thought out. That's their problem, not WotC's.

Andy didn't say anything that wasn't already obvious to anyone prepared to apply an ounce of intelligence, and indeed, accurately predicted by multiple posters here and elsewhere. He _shouldn't_ have needed to say anything at all.

Intent is _not _wholly in the eye of the beholder, or else communication would be impossible.


----------



## Voss (Jan 31, 2008)

MarkAHart said:
			
		

> Read Bill Slavicsek's notes on the Design & Development article regarding the Pit Fiend (towards the bottom of the page).
> 
> "The Player's Handbook is in Typesetting, and we're poring over the galleys to make every last improvement we can before it goes to print. The Monster Manual is in its last two weeks of Managing Editing, the stage right before it goes into Typesetting. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is about to leave Editing and enter its Managing Editing stage."
> 
> ...




Sounds like a problem to me if they're still willing to make changes suggested to them by playtesters.  Because, guess what?  You have to playtest any changes you make based on those suggestions.  And certain changes can cause a cascade of other changes...

Then you have to go back in and adjust the typesetting...


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

When and how did the news break that Wotc encouraged certain playtesters to post their positive experiences?

If it happened before Ari posted, I find it deeply unethical. We are currently unaware of the system. All we have is what they tell us, and while we expect bias, "letting" bloggers sing the praises of 4E without letting us know they're being encouraged to only report one side of the story is pretty bad.

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. When Ari posted my hopes were high. I wasn't sold, but I was thinking about it. Now I'm not so sure...

I am also disappointed in Ari Marmell. He should have made it clear at the beginning of his post that he was only allowed to speak positively about 4E. I really like his work, but this makes me


----------



## Delta (Jan 31, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Well, this is where we disagree... Are they all evil empires that have tossed out Open Source on it's ear?  No, they are doing business in the way that they see fit to find profit.
> 
> I suggest that people don't comment on how WOTC is walking away from the open gaming movement until they look at the 4e OGL.  Only then will they have an informed opinion.  Otherwise it is just fire-fanning and rumor-mongering.




Actually, I think that we agree. 4E is not Open Gaming, and WOTC has decided to toss the principles "out on its ear". I agree with all that. They have the right to change their mind like that, but personally I found it disappointing back in 2003 when that became clear.

The nature of the new so-called-OGL is not merely rumor-mongering. WOTC has a page up about it here ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a ). They've had a public conference call about the changes and notes from participants are posted here ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215976 ).


----------



## jeffh (Jan 31, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Sounds like a problem to me if they're still willing to make changes suggested to them by playtesters.  Because, guess what?  You have to playtest any changes you make based on those suggestions.



By that logic, it is impossible for playtesting to _ever _end. Clearly this is not true. Try again.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 31, 2008)

I'm not a fan of this, but I'm not gonna get worked up about it. I just don't like it when companies try end-arounds like this to try and drum up my excitement.


----------



## AZRogue (Jan 31, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The release date is soon.  There is (if they intend to hit the release date) a *lot* of stuff that can't get changed.  Therefore a lot of the negative feelings that exist are about things that will hit the shelves.  Fundamental disagreements about design philosophy, for example, are negative feedback issues that I am interested in and which, by now, are unchangeable.
> 
> We aren't in alpha any more.  Feedback is of little use to WotC (no time to change anything major), and for the same reason of lots of use to us (with no time to change anything major, *feedback can be thought of as fairly accurate reviews).*
> 
> Accordingly, by selecting what information goes out, they are turning the people who get to  leak stuff into (unpaid) partisan reviewers.  Which annoys my "fair play" sensors.




Not true. Any negative feedback that may exist may be regarding something that WAS fixed. They are playtesters, not R&D. Whatever specific issue they may have had may have been clarified, tailored, or corrected. 

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, this doesn't take away from the positive words given by the playtesters we've heard from so far. Maybe there are some things they don't like (naturally) but not saying what those are doesn't invalidate the other things they said.

A moot point, though, since these playtesters thought well enough of the game to ASK to be allowed to share their impressions. They weren't begged, they asked. They would hardly have asked for the privelage if they thought it was a bad system.


----------



## mhensley (Jan 31, 2008)

You guys take this waaay too seriously.   I'm amazed that anyone at wotc takes the time to post anything on the internet.  Why bother?  They catch crap for anything they do.


----------



## AZRogue (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I am also disappointed in Ari Marmell. He should have made it clear at the beginning of his post that he was only allowed to speak positively about 4E. I really like his work, but this makes me




Wow. That's harsh and uncalled for. I'm insulted for Ari. He gave his honest review the best he could. Nothing that has happened has invalidated his words. I think you should re-read Andy's post a bit, as well as John's after. Geez.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 31, 2008)

How differently would it have been perceived if these reviewers had made Andy's policy clear up front.

"WotC has encouraged us to share some of our positive feedback on the game with the public. As playtesters and avid gamers, we naturally found room for criticism, but we were asked to leave that in the hands of WotC so that they can incorporate our feedback into the final product, and we agree with that arrangement. That being said, [insert Wahoo here]."

Well, hindsight and all that.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 31, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Typesetting = Layout nowadays. Changing things is entirely possible. In the worst case, it means it messes up the layout of some pages. Which means some poor souls are going to work overtime.




QFT.  Also note that there's no reason to suppose the playtesters have seen the version that got sent to the typesetters.  They were almost certainly working with an earlier form of the rules.


----------



## eleran (Jan 31, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The power of intent *is* in the hands of the readers.  What the writer means something to mean is irrelevant.  What the readers takes it to mean is the important thing.  Understanding what readers are likely to take something to mean is crucial (hence smilies).
> 
> The existence of the Sturm und Drang was because people, predictably, viewed the posts as partial reviews.  The editing schedule above says that viewing it as such *was entirely justified*.  Talking about sending complaints about the PHB back to WotC, when the PHB is in typesetting, is laughable.  The posts ARE partial reviews.  The mechanics the posters know about ARE the final mechanics (except, maybe, for a few minor things in the DMG).




You're confusing "intent" with interpretation".  I surmise this is being done on purpose.  And therefore, since I believe it is your intent to be purposefully obtuse, how you actually meant it is irrelevant.  

wow...just wow


----------



## king_ghidorah (Jan 31, 2008)

The OP taked about using criteria that bugs were posted publicly and worked out in a development community. This did not happen under the OGF for core products.

Open products did develop in the way referenced above. 3.0 and 3.5 core rules (PHB, DMG, and MM) were not among them. They were developed in a closed environment and opened to use in making other open games.

Doug



			
				Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Are you refering to the Open Gaming Foundation criteria? They have nothing to do with Open Development. They are simply:
> 
> The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
> The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.
> Under these criteria the 3e SRD and the 3.5e SRD were Open Games. We simply don't know about the 4e SRD yet.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Wow. That's harsh and uncalled for. I'm insulted for Ari. He gave his honest review the best he could. Nothing that has happened has invalidated his words. I think you should re-read Andy's post a bit, as well as John's after. Geez.




I understand that Ari has a positive outlook on 4E, but his playtest report implies that he had generic clearance to talk about 4E--we didn't know what editorial controls he was under and I think he should have at least mentioned them. 

I believe I would have had no problem nor would my opinion of his post been changed if he had said something to the effect of "I've been given permission to voice my support of 4E" or "I've been allowed to announce the positive experiences I've had playtesting this product".

I can't help but feel like Wotc is being disingenuous here. They shouldn't use a private blog as a marketing tool without telling us.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jan 31, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Typesetting = Layout nowadays. Changing things is entirely possible. In the worst case, it means it messes up the layout of some pages. Which means some poor souls are going to work overtime.




Absolutely true. I was still making tweaks and changes to the Saga Edition core rulebook up through the day it was sent off to the printers.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I believe I would have had no problem nor would my opinion of his post been changed if he had said something to the effect of "I've been given permission to voice my support of 4E" or "I've been allowed to announce the positive experiences I've had playtesting this product".



But then, you'd get an outrage saying "censorship!". The result would probably very similar. Don't forget that some even approached WotC to allow them to comment. AND all had the option of saying _nothing_.

No matter what way, people would accuse WotC. And perhaps, the best idea was even to say nothing, it was only the rumour sparking that rage.

And even if that's obfuscation, the alternative would have been saying nothing, nada. So you're implying nobody should say anything until 4E is out?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Set (Jan 31, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But then, you'd get an outrage saying "censorship!".




Good thing they did it the other way and that didn't happen then!  

Anywho, I think Ari saw that the design team wasn't doing the bestest-ever job of pointing out the exciting new stuff, and might have thought 'hey, I'm a professional writer, maybe *I* can talk about some of my positive experiences with the new system without crapping all over 3e and the customerbase!' and the powers that be said, 'sure, we'll let you talk up the game, based on your playtesting.'

And then there was a tempest.  Right there in the teacup.  Which has nothing to do with 3E, 4E, 'grognards,' 'haters' or any of that stuff.  It has everything to do with internet drama queens running around with their hands in the air.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But then, you'd get an outrage saying "censorship!". The result would probably very similar. Don't forget that some even approached WotC to allow them to comment. AND all had the option of saying _nothing_.
> 
> No matter what way, people would accuse WotC. And perhaps, the best idea was even to say nothing, it was only the rumour sparking that rage.
> 
> ...




Already said I would have no problem with Ari prefacing his post in the aforementioned manner. I stand by the comment. What other would people might engage in I will not speculate, but if people did say that Wotc was structuring private blog posts to paint a favorable picture of 4E, there would be basis. There is evidence indicating that bloggers were encouraged only to communicate positive experiences.

Let's get one thing straight though: I'm not outraged and I have no idea why you think I'm against people talking about 4E. If the company making it is going to allow their playtesters to post, they should admit beforehand that they have editorial control on that commentary. I think it is unethical to do otherwise.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> Already said I would have no problem with Ari prefacing his post in the aforementioned manner. I stand by the comment. What other would people might engage in I will not speculate, but if people did say that Wotc was structuring private blog posts to paint a favorable picture of 4E, there would be basis. There is evidence indicating that bloggers were encouraged only to communicate positive experiences.
> 
> Let's get one thing straight though: I'm not outraged and I have no idea why you think I'm against people talking about 4E. If the company making it is going to allow their playtesters to post, they should admit beforehand that they have editorial control on that commentary. I think it is unethical to do otherwise.




There was no editorial control.  Again, you should do what was asked, and re-read Andy's comment on this issue.  

They did not control anything, they did not edit anything.  There is no indication, AT ALL, that Ari self-edited to remove negative comments.  He asked for permission to post his opinion.  He was told that if he had something negative to say, then don't post at all.  He did post, which means he did not have something negative to say.  WOTC also said that everything Ari posted is what Ari wanted to post.  There is nothing at all to indicate anything you are implying.  "Nowhere did I ask folks to be deceptive about those experiences or suggest positive experiences where they didn't exist...Ari and a few other folks asked me specifically if they could talk about their positive experiences, and I said yes. Nobody here asked them to do it, and I'd never want to put Ari or any of the other fine folks who work with us in the position of feeling like extensions of our marketing department."


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Jan 31, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> *You do if it's Open Source.* ( https://sourceforge.net/ )



The analogy here could not possibly be more false. In an Open Source project, the general public and the development team are (theoretically) one and the same. In a project like D&D, or like the next version of AppleWorks, the development team is the group that the company assigned to develop the project. The general public - who are NOT involved in development in any way at all - has neither need nor right to know what's wrong with the system-in-testing.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> What other would people might engage in I will not speculate...



Basically that's the main point. There are always people who are displeased. And how can you avoid it? Saying nothing (I've meant this by "So you're implying nobody should say anything until 4E is out?"), at least you don't give anybody new fodder.

Also, don't forget that the blogs and posts are not directly controlled. It was a decision by Ari & Co., and since they've understood the reason of no negative comments as "give it to the designers instead", they wanted to avoid such issues.

Don't forget that Mouseferatu predicted flak against him - had he said that he cannot say anything negative (no matter now you formulate it), then he would still catch the flak AND WotC (undeservedly, if he agrees with their argumentation, which I assume). Therefore he chose the course he thought of as better.

Furthermore, Collins has commented on that. They could've said nothing as well, the e-mail rumour caused less excitement than this now, and they've known it. They wanted to be honest with us, after all, at least that's my impression.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> There was no editorial control.  Again, you should do what was asked, and re-read Andy's comment on this issue.
> 
> They did not control anything, they did not edit anything.  There is no indication, AT ALL, that Ari self-edited to remove negative comments.  He asked for permission to post his opinion.  He was told that if he had something negative to say, then don't post at all.  He did post, which means he did not have something negative to say.  WOTC also said that everything Ari posted is what Ari wanted to post.  There is nothing at all to indicate anything you are implying.  "Nowhere did I ask folks to be deceptive about those experiences or suggest positive experiences where they didn't exist...Ari and a few other folks asked me specifically if they could talk about their positive experiences, and I said yes. Nobody here asked them to do it, and I'd never want to put Ari or any of the other fine folks who work with us in the position of feeling like extensions of our marketing department."




I've read Andy's comment and while I agree with the decision he made, it sounds like they are exerting editorial control over his blog by telling what is ok or not to post. Editorial control isn't necessarily prior review...

I still think that Ari should have prefaced his post in the way I described in my initial post. Saying that he was allowed to voice his support for 4E would have described exactly the arrangement he had with the staffer and prevented this controversy.

I realize this is a one-time situation and that admitting that might sound weird, but the topic is very controversial and could have used better discretion.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 31, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> The important fact for me, is that three designers that I like, and whose work I have enjoyed, and whose opinions I trust, like the new game, and found it fun and enjoyable.
> 
> Their opinions mean more to me than "random gamer/tester #10's" would anyways.




And that's also my opinion.  I enjoyed hearing a bit from people I 'knew' and trusted, and was not surprised to find I wouldn't be getting any details yet.

I just can't get 'worked up' over this.  Guess I'm just not much of an Internet Commando.  :\


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I've read Andy's comment and while I agree with the decision he made, it sounds like they are exerting editorial control over his blog by telling what is ok or not to post. Editorial control isn't necessarily prior review...




Do you have any reason to believe that WOTC told Ari to remove anything, either before or after it was posted?  Do you have any reason to believe that anything Ari posted was changed in any way by WOTC, either directly or indirectly? 



> I still think that Ari should have prefaced his post in the way I described in my initial post. Saying that he was allowed to voice his support for 4E would have described exactly the arrangement he had with the staffer and prevented this controversy.




The controversy is, in my opinion, yours.  There is no real controversy.  Prefacing his comment with what you suggested would not be accurate.  He had a comment already in mind before hearing anything from WOTC.  He asked THEM if he could post it.  They essentially said "If it is positive, then sure, and if it is negative, then no just tell us the negative so we can correct it."  It was positive, so he posted it.  No editorial control.  No caveats.  No changes.  No implication that something would be changed, or he would be rewarded for posting it, or that he was supposed to be part of marketing with that post.  No censoring.  We don't even have any indication that WOTC even read it before it was posted. Nothing of what you are implying was actually present.  In my opinion, you have stretched some some out of context facts into an implication that is false.



> I realize this is a one-time situation and that admitting that might sound weird, but the topic is very controversial and could have used better discretion.




How do you define "very controversial"?  We have about a 10 to 1 ratio of people who see no problem at all with this to people like you who do.  How is about a 10% complaint rate the same as "very controversial"?


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Don't forget that Mouseferatu predicted flak against him - had he said that he cannot say anything negative (no matter now you formulate it), then he would still catch the flak AND WotC (undeservedly, if he agrees with their argumentation, which I assume). Therefore he chose the course he thought of as better.
> 
> Furthermore, Collins has commented on that. They could've said nothing as well, the e-mail rumour caused less excitement than this now, and they've known it. They wanted to be honest with us, after all, at least that's my impression.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




I've looked into it a bit and can't find where Ari said it would cause flak. I did find places where he proclaimed the post his sincere opinion (which I believe). This doesn't change my position at all.

Being honest after the fact is still being disingenuous. I still do not comprehend your argument promoting a news gag or blackout or something. I don't promote it. Neither do you. Can we drop it?


----------



## maggot (Jan 31, 2008)

If it is too soon to post negative comments because those areas might be changed, then is it too soon to post positive comments because those areas might be changed.

I think the posters should have been upfront by saying they were posting under the understanding that they could only post positive feedback.  Do just post positive feedback left the impression that the information has the potential of being balanced, but it never did.

Maybe I'm missing something, but Andy's note doesn't make it clear who asked for what.  There is a direct reference to Andy sending a note "granting" the ability to speak up (positively), and a marketing reasoning why.  Where is the reference that these people asked for this?

This thing smells of marketing desperation.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

I am refusing to discuss this any further. Clearly I am not elucidating my opinion to you all and I am frustrated with trying.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 31, 2008)

maggot said:
			
		

> If it is too soon to post negative comments because those areas might be changed, then is it too soon to post positive comments because those areas might be changed.




I agree.



> This thing smells of marketing desperation.




Oh, I wouldn't say that.  WotC has no reason in the world to be desperate.  D&D 4e is going to rock the free world with fun and coolness.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I am refusing to discuss this any further. Clearly I am not elucidating my opinion to you all and I am frustrated with trying.



No, I think you're communicating pretty well, it's just that many people disagree with you. 

I know Ari, and I know John. I have no doubt in my mind that neither of them deliberately excised negative feedback; even if they hadn't been asked "please say nothing rather than discuss things you don't like," my understanding is that their feedback _would have been exactly the same._ Andy's request was irrelevant in that regard. Ari in particular makes it crystal clear that he's sharing his personal and unconstrained opinion.

Either way, we ask that no one belittle their ethics. They're both completely clear on that front.

I think the best way to decide is to listen to feedback from the D&D Experience next month. That's going to give a fun cross-section of views from many people.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I've looked into it a bit and can't find where Ari said it would cause flak.





			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Anyone who feels like dismissing what I have to say because of *any assumed bias* is cordially invited to stop reading now.



That sounds like expecting some flak!


			
				PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I am refusing to discuss this any further. Clearly I am not elucidating my opinion to you all and I am frustrated with trying.



No, you make your point and opinion very clear. I just don't share your opinion and try to find arguments against it, as you do. For me, trying to point out flaws and getting my own flaws getting pointed out is fun and educates me.

I hope I didn't get you too frustrated, if so, sorry.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> No, I think you're communicating pretty well, it's just that many people disagree with you.
> 
> I know Ari, and I know John. I have no doubt in my mind that neither of them deliberately excised negative feedback; even if they hadn't been asked "please say nothing rather than discuss things you don't like," my understanding is that their feedback _would have been exactly the same._ Andy's request was pretty much inconsequential in that regard.
> 
> I think the best way to decide is to listen to feedback from the D&D Experience next month. That's going to give a fun cross-section of views from many people.




I agree with you, but I didn't want to start a flame war or anything over the difference between editorial control and prior review. Since I've tried already to explain this, mentioning that they are different things, but made no progress. 

Wizards has denied them the ability to post negative commentary on 4E, whether they have negative feedback or not. That is editorial control. Prior review is a form of editorial control including the altering or deleting of their words.

I also agree that none of the message would have changed. The community still should have been informed that they were forbidden from writing negative feedback on 4E.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 31, 2008)

Frankly, the only thing I'm surprised about is that Andy is making public his instructions to only post positive comments. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and admit openly to people that it is not in their best interest for them to detract from their own product. Allowing playtesters to comment at all is nearly the same thing as the company itself issuing the statement. How many companies so you know of that tell people that their product is flawed? None that I'm aware of.

Personally, I'm glad I'm taking a break from WotC right now. Since I'm not part of the 4E design process, I can give whatever gut reactions I want, positive or negative, and of course they're all based upon information that the company has released. The fact that I don't really like the sounds of some of the things they've revealed has no bearing upon how I feel about them as people or designers (the truth of the matter is that I think they have one of the most capable group of designers on the planet and all of the R&D people I still know there are wonderful individuals). I still have high hopes for 4E, even if I have been a little critical of the information they've released in the past. 

The job of the playtesters and the designers is to take a work in progress and make it better. How would it be in the company's best interest to allow those people to undercut not only the company's best interests, but their own, by effectively airing a negative commercial? It's a no-brainer that they would ask these people not to say anything negative, and it's actually unusually honest that they would reveal this fact to the public. This is really just common sense.


----------



## fnwc (Jan 31, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> I just read Andy Collins' comments quoted on ENWorld's front newspage today explaining what playtesters were and were not allowed to say.




In this regard, WotC is not behaving any different than any other company in the world.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I also agree that none of the message would have changed. The community still should have been informed that they were forbidden from writing negative feedback on 4E.



I only find that relevant if it would have affected their opinions. I understand your position, though. Mine just differs. For me, it seems like you're holding them to a level of standard that just isn't applicable here.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I've read Andy's comment and while I agree with the decision he made, it sounds like they are exerting editorial control over his blog by telling what is ok or not to post. Editorial control isn't necessarily prior review...




Let's not forget that Ari signed an NDA, which basically is an Agreement to not discuss what you are asked not to discuss.  So in a round about way, you are right.  Except you seem to imply that WotC is "forcing" him not to say anything negative, when in actuality, he AGREED to not say anything negative.  BIIIIIG difference there...

Sorry, but if you sign an NDA you are supposed to honor it.  And if those terms are "don't say a word" or "only post positive comments, direct any negative experiences back to R&D" then that is what you agreed to.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 31, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> In this regard, WotC is not behaving any different than any other company in the world.




I could have sworn recently that someone from WotC posted in their blog how much he or she hated that people considered the company to be souless and moneygrubbing, just like any other company out there, but I can't find the quote now.

Oh well.


----------



## fnwc (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I understand that Ari has a positive outlook on 4E, but his playtest report implies that he had generic clearance to talk about 4E--we didn't know what editorial controls he was under and I think he should have at least mentioned them.
> 
> I believe I would have had no problem nor would my opinion of his post been changed if he had said something to the effect of "I've been given permission to voice my support of 4E" or "I've been allowed to announce the positive experiences I've had playtesting this product".
> 
> I can't help but feel like Wotc is being disingenuous here. They shouldn't use a private blog as a marketing tool without telling us.




Huh? Andy Collins said that Ari and John had specifically asked permission to comment about 4th edition:

"To sum up: Ari and a few other folks asked me specifically if they could talk about their positive experiences, and I said yes. Nobody here asked them to do it, and I'd never want to put Ari or any of the other fine folks who work with us in the position of feeling like extensions of our marketing department."

The cynicism runs high here...


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Jan 31, 2008)

I stopped reading a few pages ago. I just want to say this:

Andy, thanks for being as forthcoming as possible with the release of this product. Despite the ridiculous amount of internet drama, many of us are really excited to see the little bits you've been able to release and value what Ari and John have shared.

Please don't be discouraged by the sound and fury.


----------



## fnwc (Jan 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> fnwc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was referring specifically to the NDA and the rights that beta testers have agreed to under those terms.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 31, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Whether WotC (or you) considers them to be reviews or not, *that is* what many (if not most) of the player-base that read them considered them to be.  Incomplete reviews, yes, but still *reviews*.  There was no hint in the posts that they were "censored".  Legally, was WotC in the clear?  I assume so.  I cannot see how they wouldn't be.  However, it was blatantly obvious that people would treat the posts as partial reviews, WHETHER that was the intent or not.  Which means that they treat the "censorship" as just that, and respond as if WotC wasn't playing fair.
> 
> In short, given that people *would* treat the posts as reviews (and they did, shocker!), censoring them was *stupid*.




Well, I consider them to be "movies." 

First time in years that I've seen a movie that didn't have any moving pictures. What a stupid movie.

Does my opinion make them movies?


----------



## PoeticJustice (Jan 31, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> Huh? Andy Collins said that Ari and John had specifically asked permission to comment about 4th edition:
> 
> "To sum up: Ari and a few other folks asked me specifically if they could talk about their positive experiences, and I said yes. Nobody here asked them to do it, and I'd never want to put Ari or any of the other fine folks who work with us in the position of feeling like extensions of our marketing department."
> 
> The cynicism runs high here...




I understand that. I understand that the whole ball of was was probably initiated by the playtesters. I still think they should have said they were instructed not to say anything negative about the game. If they wanted follow that up with a statement effecting that they had no criticism of 4E, that would be fine (I'd still find it a little unbelievable that everything about their experience was positive, but it would have been a non-issue). 

Apologizing after the fact is good, but they should never have been in the position to begin with. The testers should have said that, after asking permission and understanding that they weren't to criticize the game, they were allowed to announce their support of 4E.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 31, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I understand that. I understand that the whole ball of was was probably initiated by the playtesters. I still think they should have said they were instructed not to say anything negative about the game. If they wanted follow that up with a statement effecting that they had no criticism of 4E, that would be fine (I'd still find it a little unbelievable that everything about their experience was positive, but it would have been a non-issue).
> 
> Apologizing after the fact is good, but they should never have been in the position to begin with. The testers should have said that, after asking permission and understanding that they weren't to criticize the game, they were allowed to announce their support of 4E.




Why is it relevant for these particular circumstances that they say first that they were "instructed not to say anything negative about the game"? Why is it an appropriate standard to hold WOTC or Ari to?  Connect the dots between the action or lack of action and the harm.


----------



## Voss (Feb 1, 2008)

jeffh said:
			
		

> By that logic, it is impossible for playtesting to _ever _end. Clearly this is not true. Try again.



Actually that is true.  At some point you just settle for 'good enough to publish'. You never get to a state where there are no flaws.

But my point was you don't change things based on feedback and then call it done.  You have to at least try out new suggestions and make sure they don't break the game.  It would essentially add an additional playtesting cycle on top of current time constraints.


----------



## Vaegrin (Feb 1, 2008)

*What's the harm here?*

What's the harm here?  If the NDA and positive-only rule went all the way up until the day after release day, then people might end up purchasing the new edition without the benefit of impartial reviews.  There would actually be some harm in that scenario.

But as it stands, the NDA will expire with more than ample time left for any and all playtesters to voice both positive opinions and negative.  There will be plenty of time for consumers to make informed decisions.

Even if the playtesters being allowed to speak were from a tiny minority who actually like the game, which is a relatively unlikely scenario, the rest of the playtesters will be allowed to speak long before release day.  Even if the playtesters were being asked to lie, which is an absolutely ludicrous notion, the truth would come out soon enough.

Even in the worst-case scenario, absolutely no harm is being done to consumers.  And consumers would get absolutely no benefit if playtesters were allowed to gripe about the new edition on message boards.  In fact, consumers would be more likely to be harmed by that scenario than anything else.

There is no justification whatsoever for being upset or angry about this.  The only explanation I can think of is that those who are upset or angry over this simply enjoy being upset or angry.


----------



## Primal (Feb 1, 2008)

I don't know about you, but I would have personally preferred to see honest comments from your 'Average Joe DMs' than established authors (one of which also happens to be a freelancer working for WoTC). They probably thought that Ari and John have more "street credibility" among the gamer community, but as an "average" DM myself, I would have liked to see opinions from more "non-biased" and hard-working fellow gamers. Is it that hard to tell them that "You may post info about these details but do not reply to any questions"? And these guys who run games every week or so couldn't "handle the pressure"?  :\ 

Anyway, I don't think that Ari is as "non-biased" as he may want to appear -- if he had remained silent or expressed negative opinions about 4E, I think it might have made reflected on his future assignments (or that may be what he feared?). I'm not saying that it would have, or that he thought it would, but so far I've not seen WoTC designers (except Rich Baker) handling criticism (even when it has been expressed in a polite and constructive form) very well.  

I also have an issue with overly-positive reviews which seem to follow a very strict and "codified" format: "It's awesome, it's cool, it's faster, it's better and I'll never play 3E ever again!". I've seen such claims in every designer blog so far, and I already *BELIEVE* that "my head will explode with all the awesomeness" (as Logan Bonner, I think, said in 'Races and Classes'). Why not tone down the "awesomeness factor"? Why not just say that you and your group liked it because of X and Y and Z, without going into mechanical details? 

And what's with the "fun and exciting non-combat stuff each class will have"? We were more or less *promised* that 4E would have them. Will it just be house-ruled or handled case-by-case (as we did with the Secondary Skills)? And will there be rules for the "Social Encounters/Combat"? I *think* I saw an interview in which it was said that they couldn't make it work, so it's not going to be in PHB or DMG? I might be wrong, thought. And didn't Ari and/or John remark that only the "essential mechanics" (i.e. combat) are presented in the game, and they had to house-rule stuff (checks) on the fly? 

This is a very essential issue for me, as my group had concentrated more and more on "non-combat stuff" since 3E came out (and had rules for things like Crafting and running your own guild or shop). Funnily enough, we never thought about how much a character with 'Gemcutting'-NWP would make per month, but as we've now gotten used to having mechanics for 'fluffy' skills such as this (and making a living with these skills outside adventuring), I think my players will not be satisfied if it feels just like a "hobby" without any impact in the game. Besides, how many such "freebies" can your characters have? How much control do the players have over them? Is it valid to state that your character is a 'Master Armorer' at 1st level, if you can work that into your backstory? Or even the best in the world? And how much GPs will such a talented individual make per month? Or can a Master Armorer craft a full-plate at 1st level? Of course, a DM can always say that "Your Master Jeweler-skill/trait gains you X number of GPs per month, period." or that "You can only be a 'generic' Jeweler or an apprentice", but my players would feel cheated.

I can house-rule stuff on the fly, too, but how about newbie DMs without any points of reference? And I could always just refer to the 3E rules (e.g. concerning Craft and other 'fluffy' skills if my players want their characters to have them), but that would probably make me feel that 4E is "flawed" for my group's purposes.


----------



## BadMojo (Feb 1, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Anyway, I don't think that Ari is as "non-biased" as he may want to appear -- if he had remained silent or expressed negative opinions about 4E, I think it might have made reflected on his future assignments (or that may be what he feared?). I'm not saying that it would have, or that he thought it would, but so far I've not seen WoTC designers (except Rich Baker) handling criticism (even when it has been expressed in a polite and constructive form) very well.




Well, Ari has already said that his comments weren't solicited by WotC and judging him by his conduct here for many years, I believe him.  He may be biased by virtue of working with 4E, but I really do believe that his statements reflect how he feels.

It's really not cool to call the guy a liar when he's said that he made these comments of his own free will.  Why is it impossible that he likes the game and isn't just blowing marketing smoke up our butts?  Ari's always been a very straight forward, nice guy here at EnWorld.

I've also yet to see a WotC designer lash out at fans, if that what's implied by not "handling criticism".  On the other hand, despite having one of the coolest jobs in the world (working on freakin' D&D and getting paid!), I'm actually starting to feel bad for the Wizards designers.  

I'd hate to be working on a project I really love, only to have a few dozen people each day reacting like I ran over their dog.  It'd be like walking to the office every morning and getting a public beating every morning before you got through the door.


----------



## jeffh (Feb 1, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I understand that Ari has a positive outlook on 4E, but his playtest report implies that he had generic clearance to talk about 4E



Where and how does it imply this?

Especially if, as my previous post to this thread suggested, you _apply an ounce of common sense_ to the situation. What would possess WotC to give the kind of blanket clearance you imply here? Why do you think they're obligated to take such bizarre and unprecedented measures? How is WotC putting limitations on what _people who are under an NDA_ can say out of line or even remotely surprising, given _ what an NDA *is*_?

The behaviour you're demanding would benefit neither WotC nor the gaming public, for reasons that have been discussed in this thread far too many times to be worth repeating yet again.


----------



## jeffh (Feb 1, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually that is true.  At some point you just settle for 'good enough to publish'. You never get to a state where there are no flaws.
> 
> But my point was you don't change things based on feedback and then call it done.  You have to at least try out new suggestions and make sure they don't break the game.  It would essentially add an additional playtesting cycle on top of current time constraints.



Your first paragraph contradicts your second one, though. As you say yourself in the first paragraph, at some point, you_ have no choice _but to "change things based on feedback and then call it done". (What _else _are you going to base changes on?) I don't see why you seem to think it's an _a priori_ truth that this isn't the right time to do that.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2008)

tresson said:
			
		

> Anyone remember what happened when the developers mentioned they had tested agro mechanics but had decided NOT to use it? Remember the mass rage and nashing of teeth?
> Over a mechanic that had already been canned?
> 
> Now can you imagine what would happen if a playtester said the didn't like x ability or spell or whatever but didn't know it had already been fix/changed?  Yeah pretty ugly and there wouldn't be much the devs could to to calm it down.




This NEEDS repeating.  Got buried a few pages back.

Think about it for a second.  The level of vitriol over the agro mechanics was astounding.  The threads multiplied like rabbits and achieved a Golden Wyvern Adept level of hatred.

Now, imagine that Ari pipes up and says, "Hey, they are going to do X.  I really don't like it, but, hey, they do."  So, you get a completely one sided argument, which no one can respond to because they're NDA'd out the wazoo, and the collective nerd apoplexy causes the simultaneous instantaneous combustion of twenty different posters.  

All for something that is actually NOT going to appear in the game because it got changed yesterday and Ari hadn't seen the latest draft.

How could that possibly be a good idea?


----------



## Henry (Feb 1, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I would have personally preferred to see honest comments from your 'Average Joe DMs' than established authors (one of which also happens to be a freelancer working for WoTC). They probably thought that Ari and John have more "street credibility" among the gamer community, but as an "average" DM myself, I would have liked to see opinions from more "non-biased" and hard-working fellow gamers. Is it that hard to tell them that "You may post info about these details but do not reply to any questions"? And these guys who run games every week or so couldn't "handle the pressure"?  :\




Let me understand -- Ari and John aren't average DMs, nor hard-working fellow gamers, and don't run games every week?  I'm willing to bet they're all three, to the contrary.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 1, 2008)

I can't believe this is still being discussed. It's surprising how desperate some people are to BELIEVE that they've been fooled somehow. But, hey, there are a lot of things I don't understand. 

The only real consequence from all this is that I bet Andy really wishes that he wouldn't have let Ari or John post when they asked him. That probably means that other playtesters won't be allowed to do so in the future, which is a shame. Way to shoot ourselves in the foot. :/


----------



## Delta (Feb 1, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> The analogy here could not possibly be more false. In an Open Source project, the general public and the development team are (theoretically) one and the same. In a project like D&D, or like the next version of AppleWorks, the development team is the group that the company assigned to develop the project.




It sounds like we agree. In 2000 Dancey predicted that future D&D "development" would follow the model of Open Source projects with the general public. That didn't happen, and after Dancey left, WOTC followed the other, proprietary development path. The distinction you're making is precisely my point as well.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> It sounds like we agree. In 2000 Dancey predicted that future D&D "development" would follow the model of Open Source projects with the general public. That didn't happen, and after Dancey left, WOTC followed the other, proprietary development path. The distinction you're making is precisely my point as well.




The reason it failed is because the community didn't support it like the Open Source community has supported it's continued development. Hell, even the OGF site hasn't been updated in almost 5 years, and that was supposed to be the independent organization focused on the Open Gaming Movement as Dancey saw it (since he founded it). And actually, they followed that plan before Dancey even left, since he left in 2002 and there was almost no other OGC released (or much of a community response) at that time.


----------



## JeffB (Feb 1, 2008)

Just wanna say to Ari, John and Owen , "Thanks" for posting and sharing your thoughts.  

I'm sure none of you will do it again after all this BS, but I was happy to read it, even though I'm a fence-sitter as regards to 4E.

EDIT: Rephrase    I appreciate the posts.  Even as a fence-sitter, I felt it wasn't "corporate spew" and liked what I read.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 1, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> This is a very essential issue for me, as my group had concentrated more and more on "non-combat stuff" since 3E came out (and had rules for things like Crafting and running your own guild or shop). Funnily enough, we never thought about how much a character with 'Gemcutting'-NWP would make per month, but as we've now gotten used to having mechanics for 'fluffy' skills such as this (and making a living with these skills outside adventuring), I think my players will not be satisfied if it feels just like a "hobby" without any impact in the game. Besides, how many such "freebies" can your characters have? How much control do the players have over them? Is it valid to state that your character is a 'Master Armorer' at 1st level, if you can work that into your backstory? Or even the best in the world? And how much GPs will such a talented individual make per month? Or can a Master Armorer craft a full-plate at 1st level? Of course, a DM can always say that "Your Master Jeweler-skill/trait gains you X number of GPs per month, period." or that "You can only be a 'generic' Jeweler or an apprentice", but my players would feel cheated.
> 
> I can house-rule stuff on the fly, too, but how about newbie DMs without any points of reference? And I could always just refer to the 3E rules (e.g. concerning Craft and other 'fluffy' skills if my players want their characters to have them), but that would probably make me feel that 4E is "flawed" for my group's purposes.



I am not sure how many newbie DMs and players are going to play D&D to discover the joys of opening up a Bakery.

We did this in a game, opening a tavern.  But our DM didn't build a subsystem for Craft (Brewing).  We didn't need it.  We simply went with the mechanics provided - at the time it was 1e - and we enjoyed it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> It sounds like we agree. In 2000 Dancey predicted that future D&D "development" would follow the model of Open Source projects with the general public. That didn't happen, and after Dancey left, WOTC followed the other, proprietary development path. The distinction you're making is precisely my point as well.



I think what WOTC has done since 3e - including 3e - was build a system first, then provide an OGL for other to produce games and supplements based upon the subsystem.  This isn't really Open Source, and though Open Gaming was a neat idea, it wasn't well embraced by the general population.

With 4e, they are simply tightening the OGL so that products will need to require a 4e PHB (and possibly DMG, we'll see) to play.  So we won't get OGL Conan anymore with 4e, but people can still develop games based on the original OGL.

Mongoose's Runequest was developed first and then made open, True 20 was just recently opened fully, so WOTC isn't the only "bad guy" in your eyes.  I think you are in a very small minority regarding the outrage over WOTC not following Open Gaming as originally described by Ryan Dancy.

Personally, if I were to responsible for the decision, I could see seriously considering what WOTC is doing with 4e a good thing for business.  

But more importantly...*we don't know what the 4e OGL says*, so how can we judge it yet?  It might suck, and it might be quite open and fair.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 1, 2008)

The interesting thing to me is that , in spite of having the OGL and through it access to everything in the SRD, Mongoose chose to do Runequest as a non-d20 system.  I believe I also read on their forum somewhere that they were considering redoing Conan in the Runequest rules.

At first I thought they were doing this so they could keep RQ more proprietary.  But then they released it with it's own OGL.  So that doesn't seem to be the case.

I would have thought that the advantage of using a system widely understood by a million gamers would have outweighed the advantage of having an in-house system.  But clearly, Mongoose decided otherwise.

Anyone know why Mongoose made this choice?

Ken


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 1, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> The interesting thing to me is that , in spite of having the OGL and through it access to everything in the SRD, Mongoose chose to do Runequest as a non-d20 system.  I believe I also read on their forum somewhere that they were considering redoing Conan in the Runequest rules.
> 
> At first I thought they were doing this so they could keep RQ more proprietary.  But then they released it with it's own OGL.  So that doesn't seem to be the case.
> 
> ...




Because they own Runequest and can dictate how it develops themselves, would be my primary guess. But I suspect if they'd come out with D20 Runequest there'd be nothing but a pile of rubble where their headquarters stands. Most RQ fans aren't particularly fond of D&D - and if that doesn't win "Understatement of the Year" I can't imagine what will.


----------



## dmchucky (Feb 1, 2008)

*It's Marketing 101*

Just a quick note. Everyone who has said that this is what every business out there does is 100% spot on. I've been working in marketing-oriented businesses for the last fifteen years and my wife is a director at a major ad agency. Even she says these types of NDAs are common.

What is marketing really? You are trying to convince people to part with hard earned money for something they don't really need. How often do you see ads for generic products? Why spend twice as much for Del Monte greenbeans when they probably came from the same farm as the generic ones? Because they're mmm mmm good. The advertising told you so. And do you really think Bill Gates is going to come out and tell you why Vista sucks?

Of course these guys are only allowed to say the good things and not the bad things. And of course a person will never say bad things about a company's product when he is on said company's payroll.

Having said all that; I find the practice to be unethical and immoral. It still pisses me off. Personally, I wish that they'd just keep quiet on the whole thing. I have nothing against Ari or Andy. They have made some great products. I know, I judged these products for MYSELF. I don't need them to tell me how cool the products are. So forgive me if I take Ari's comments with a grain of salt. Though he is most likely being totally honest here; he can't escape the fact that his future employment with WOTC colors any reviews he gives as unreliable at best to any discerning customer. And that is just the reality of the situation.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 1, 2008)

You know, I had heard before that most RQ fans don't like d20.  I really don't understand it.

I played RuneQuest pretty much exclusively between the time 2nd Edition D&D came out, up to the D&D 3rd edition launch.  I was one of those players who 'came back into the fold' when 3E was released.  So I guess I am the outlier...a long time RQ fan and Gloranthaphile (I even played in games with Ray Turney, for years in fact) who likes D20 and D&D.



			
				Bluenose said:
			
		

> Because they own Runequest and can dictate how it develops themselves, would be my primary guess. But I suspect if they'd come out with D20 Runequest there'd be nothing but a pile of rubble where their headquarters stands. Most RQ fans aren't particularly fond of D&D - and if that doesn't win "Understatement of the Year" I can't imagine what will.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 1, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> You know, I had heard before that most RQ fans don't like d20.  I really don't understand it.
> 
> I played RuneQuest pretty much exclusively between the time 2nd Edition D&D came out, up to the D&D 3rd edition launch.  I was one of those players who 'came back into the fold' when 3E was released.  So I guess I am the outlier...a long time RQ fan and Gloranthaphile (I even played in games with Ray Turney, for years in fact) who likes D20 and D&D.



Maybe you're (and people like you) are the reason why RQ fans don't like d20 - d20 took all their good players!


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 1, 2008)

ENWorld: "Why oh why won't WotC give us more information about 4E?"

Well-Respected Playtester: "I've played it, and it is fun like they say it is."

ENWorld: <outrage and moral indignation> "I can't believe WotC would release information _like that_. It's so unethical!!!" </outrage and moral indignation>

Le Rouse: "WTF?"


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 1, 2008)

I think this thread is cool


----------



## Delta (Feb 1, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> But more importantly...*we don't know what the 4e OGL says*, so how can we judge it yet?  It might suck, and it might be quite open and fair.




Or it might be entirely nonexistent. ( http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218031 )

Kind of like I predicted earlier. ( http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/02/no-ogl-for-4e.html )

So apparently there were clues by which we could in fact judge it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> So apparently there were clues by which we could in fact judge it.



Those clues being what, that they changed the name? Not much to go on at this point.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 1, 2008)

Yea, the Game System License is still not public yet either, and I am not sure if anyone has had a chance to see it yet.

For what it's worth, when I referred to the 4e OGL, I was referring to whatever the 4e license is supposed to be. i.e. the doc that the 3rd party publishers will receive when they sign their NDA, and prior to ponying up the $5000.

I am guessing that it will allow for 3rd party publishers to build adventures and supplements, using 4e mechanics as a basis for creating new stuff (classes, races, adventures, splatbooks, environment books, monster books, etc) for the 4e system, as long as it requires the 4e PHB (and/or 4e DMG)


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 1, 2008)

dmchucky said:
			
		

> Having said all that; I find the practice to be unethical and immoral. It still pisses me off. Personally, I wish that they'd just keep quiet on the whole thing. I have nothing against Ari or Andy. They have made some great products. I know, I judged these products for MYSELF. I don't need them to tell me how cool the products are. So forgive me if I take Ari's comments with a grain of salt. Though he is most likely being totally honest here; he can't escape the fact that his future employment with WOTC colors any reviews he gives as unreliable at best to any discerning customer. And that is just the reality of the situation.




Let's talk about Owen's comment on his playtesting experiences then, which are nearly the same as Ari's, but which are 100% free of the supposed taint you are painting Ari with (which is not accurate by the way - you said Ari's employment with WOTC  :\ ).

Owen had no incentive at all to be dishonest in his opinion.  He has a regular office job unrelated to RPGs, does not need the work, and was not at the time necessarily seeking out any work in that field.  He playtested it, he likes it, and NOW he is open to being hired to do freelancer work (and specifically freelancer work for companies that are not WOTC by the way) because he likes it.  So how does this color his opinion?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 2, 2008)

Never mind.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 2, 2008)

Basically, they've been given clearance to give only positive opinions on their experience thus far. Although I don't buy into the entire anti-4e skepticism, it's still fairly biased. I'd rather hear constructive criticisms about the generic aspects of the game as a broadstroke, as opposed to nothing but "allowance" to give positive opinions only.


----------



## ruemere (Feb 2, 2008)

*Ari,*
thanks for sharing information.

*To those who liked the fact that Ari shared information:*
Positive attitude always counts. 

*To those who did not like WotC policy on sharing information:*
You have no position to argue really, since:

No news at all is bad news. 
All opinions, both positive and negative, are merely opinions, and therefore biased. It's not a bad thing, since opinions of industry veterans are something you can rely on. 
Discouraging people from voicing their opinions by trying to undermine their credibility is clearly bad manners. If you need to argue, try to question actual information. Bashing one's views by attacking one's potential (with emphasis on "potential") allegiance smacks of prejudice.

IMHO, mods here should delicately (delicately as in "ton of bricks falling on one's head") remind people involved in this discussion that informed opinions are more welcome than innuendos.

My personal take on this:
- I am seriously concerned with supposedly closed format 4E license. It may actually delay indefinitely my adoption of 4E rules due to supposedly unfriendly attitude toward 3rd party electronic tools.
- I like the system so far, and I understand the need for simplification of creature statblock design process. Of course, it still tells me that 4E mechanics are not capable of supporting unified and universal inner game logic (i.e. one system to govern all types of creature generation), but I'm fine with that. There are few systems that do that, and even fewer which do that well.
- I'm applauding the fact that 4E continues the trend of 3E of yielding more action options to characters (especially those of non-spellcasting type).
- I'm indifferent to deepening reliance on squares and minis (see units used in statblocks). I did not like 3E metrics so there is actually even a bit of progress (for me at least).

Regards,
Ruemere

EDIT: errors.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Feb 2, 2008)

I don't think there's anything wrong with them talking up the positives. As has been mentioned elsewhere the criticisms stay in house for review and development. This is what you expect from WotC during the development of the product.

The issue here has been when people not employed by WotC comment with no indication that they're restricted in what they can say. So the view the public gets is that there are people independent of the company commenting and they only have positive things to say. I think a simple disclaimer such as "We've been given clearance to talk about aspects of 4E we're giving the thumbs up. Our criticisms are channeled to WotC RPG R&D for them to consider for improvement." would have made clear the ground rules they were commenting under and may have avoided the negativity it's ended up generating.

In my opinion it was a bad call but I don't buy the argument that there was any malicious intent to deceive the community on the part of WotC or those who commented. Part of why this is still going may be how WotC has responded to the criticism, but that's speculation on my part because aside from considering it on a matter of general principle I was not too bothered by it to begin with. I guess my habit of trying to avoid marketing influence has a lot to do with that though.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> Basically, they've been given clearance to give only positive opinions on their experience thus far. Although I don't buy into the entire anti-4e skepticism, it's still fairly biased. I'd rather hear constructive criticisms about the generic aspects of the game as a broadstroke, as opposed to nothing but "allowance" to give positive opinions only.






			
				Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> I don't think there's anything wrong with them talking up the positives. As has been mentioned elsewhere the criticisms stay in house for review and development. This is what you expect from WotC during the development of the product.
> 
> The issue here has been when people not employed by WotC comment with no indication that they're restricted in what they can say. So the view the public gets is that there are people independent of the company commenting and they only have positive things to say. I think a simple disclaimer such as "We've been given clearance to talk about aspects of 4E we're giving the thumbs up. Our criticisms are channeled to WotC RPG R&D for them to consider for improvement." would have made clear the ground rules they were commenting under and may have avoided the negativity it's ended up generating.
> 
> In my opinion it was a bad call but I don't buy the argument that there was any malicious intent to deceive the community on the part of WotC or those who commented. Part of why this is still going may be how WotC has responded to the criticism, but that's speculation on my part because aside from considering it on a matter of general principle I was not too bothered by it to begin with. I guess my habit of trying to avoid marketing influence has a lot to do with that though.




OK, you're both repeating a misrepresentation.  So, I guess it's time to correct it again.

First guy, you phrased it "they've been given clearance to give only positive opinions on their experience thus far. "  Not accurate.  They were given clearance to give their opinion if their opinion was positive.  That is not the same as given clearance to give only positive opinions.  If you read it, then their opinion was positive.  It is not the case that these people had both positive and negative opinions and only offered the positive.  Their posts were about general impressions, and their general impression was positive.  To imply otherwise is to misrepresent what happened.

Second guy, you said "...comment with no indication that they're restricted in what they can say."

That is a misrepresentation of what happened also.

Three people asked to be able to say their opinion about 4e.  They were told if their comment (an opinion already formed before being told this) is positive they can post it, and if it is negative then tell WOTC so it can be corrected.

So if you see a comment by one of these people, it's said without a restriction on what they can say beyond the "no details" rule that they all posted about up front.  There is no evidence, at all, that anyone (including themselves) edited their comments, or had negative things that they felt they could not say, or were influenced to say something different than what they honestly thought about the game.

Your paraphrasing of the issue implies different.  And I think it's inappropriate to continue to misrepresent what happened.  Unless you have any evidence, at all, that the three people who posted their opinions edited their comments in any manner to not offer a negative impression of the game, it's simply inappropriate to continue to repeat that their comments themselves were somehow restrained in what they said (beyond the "no details" restriction that they all mentioned up front in their posts).

In conclusion, do you guys get that it's not a case of "don't say the negative part of your opinion, just the positive parts"? That isn't what happened.  And by continuing to imply that friends of people here, and of this board, and fellow peers of yours, are somehow lying in their opinions or leaving part of their opinion out after they already said they are not doing that (which is another way of you saying they are lying), is at best impolite.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Feb 2, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> They were told if their comment (an opinion already formed before being told this) is positive they can post it, and if it is negative then tell WOTC so it can be corrected.




I may be misunderstanding your point but isn't this restricting what they were allowed to say publicly?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 2, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> I may be misunderstanding your point but isn't this restricting what they were allowed to say publicly?



"Hey, feel free to compliment my hairstyle if you happen to like it.  But if you notice that I have a cowlick, can you just discreetly point it out to me so I can comb it down?  Thanks."


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> I may be misunderstanding your point but isn't this restricting what they were allowed to say publicly?




If they said something, then they are not restricted (beyond the "no details" restriction they mentioned up front).  If they didn't say something then they were restricted.  

If I form a general impression of a new game first, and I am told I can post that entire general impression later, if my general impression is positive (but I cannot if  contains a negative), and I post it, then my general impression was positive.  Whatever I write, it's not restricted at that point.  I already got beyond the restriction at the point where I answered the question of "my general impression is positive therefore I can post my impression". 

Do you see the difference?  If someone had a both positive and negative impression, they couldn't post any impression.  If you saw the post, you saw the entire impression, which was positive.  There was no restriction on that person.  Nothing was held back.  If there had been something to hold them back, then they were not allowed to post at all.

To offer an analogy, if I am approaching a toll road and I know I can continue driving if I have a pre-paid pass, and I have to stop if I do not have a pre-paid pass, and I fly on by because I have a pre-paid pass, my movement was not restricted.  The guys who stopped were restricted, but not me.  But you guys are claiming the ones who had the pre-paid pass were restricted even though they were not.  If you want to focus on restricted people, it should be on the ones who were stopped...not the ones who flew on by.  But because you don't know who was stopped, you're instead taking it out on the guys who flew on by (without good cause for taking it out on them, since they did nothing wrong).

I understand it's a subtle distinction, but it's an important one.  You guys are accusing some fine folks here of not offering their true and complete honest impression.  But you have no evidence to back that up.  If you saw their impression, then you got their true and honest and complete impression (beyond the "no details" part).  That other people were restricted because they had negative comments is simply not relevant when considering the comments that *were* posted.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2008)

I had been hoping to keep out of this thread, but I want to give Mistwell some backup.

Mephistopheles, you are paraphrasing the situation this way:

They were allowed to express the positive parts of their thoughts.​
Whereas in fact, what happened was this:

They were allowed to express their thoughts, provided that those thoughts were positive.​
Given this, and given that Ari et al expressed their thoughts, we can infer that those thoughts were (and presumably still are) postive.

Furthermore, Ari said this upfront:



			
				Ari Marmell's blog said:
			
		

> Are there a few things I'd like to see done differently? I think that goes without saying. There's no such thing as a perfect system for anyone. But on a scale of 1 to 10, measuring to what extent I like and agree with all the changes, 4E easily rates an 8.5 to 9.



That is, Ari was upfront about the game not being his perfect game, but merely (in his opinion) very good.

And given that full disclosure seems to be the new standard for the 4e forums, I should add that I do not know Ari, have never met, have perhaps replied to the odd posting of his on these forums but have otherwise never corresponded, and (to the best of my knowledge) own no gaming materials written by him.

But I am getting fed up with the ongoing (and unjust) misattributions on this thread.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 2, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If they said something, then they are not restricted (beyond the "no details" restriction they mentioned up front).  If they didn't say something then they were restricted.
> 
> If I form a general impression of a new game first, and I am told I can post that entire general impression later, if my general impression is positive (but I cannot if  contains a negative), and I post it, then my general impression was positive.  Whatever I write, it's not restricted at that point.  I already got beyond the restriction at the point where I answered the question of "my general impression is positive therefore I can post my impression".
> 
> ...




Uhm...so what if they sent their criticisms to WotC?  I mean that was an option and it does amount to only the positive made public and the negative kept from the public.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Feb 2, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If they said something, then they are not restricted (beyond the "no details" restriction they mentioned up front).  If they didn't say something then they were restricted.
> 
> If I form a general impression of a new game first, and I am told I can post that entire general impression later, if my general impression is positive (but I cannot if  contains a negative), and I post it, then my general impression was positive.  Whatever I write, it's not restricted at that point.  I already got beyond the restriction at the point where I answered the question of "my general impression is positive therefore I can post my impression".
> 
> ...




I think it's a somewhat spurious distinction myself because it relies on other assumptions. For what you've suggested to be so we have to assume that the people that commented simply had no issues whatsoever with 4E and their experience was without exception positive. Had it been otherwise they would not have commented. Doesn't it seem more reasonable to assume that the positive comments they gave were honest, but that there were also things they didn't like or problematic points that they brought to the attention of the designers but did not comment on publicly? I don't see any definitive evidence for either position, which has led to the doubt that's sprung up over the issue for some people.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Feb 2, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I am guessing the OP has never beta tested anything before.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> Doesn't it seem more reasonable to assume that the positive comments they gave were honest, but that there were also things they didn't like or problematic points that they brought to the attention of the designers but did not comment on publicly? I don't see any definitive evidence for either position, which has led to the doubt that's sprung up over the issue for some people.



I was hoping not to have to actually quote anyone - but Mephistopheles, I have to ask if you have read Ari's blog, the relevant part of which I have quoted in my post above.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> I think it's a somewhat spurious distinction myself because it relies on other assumptions. For what you've suggested to be so we have to assume that the people that commented simply had no issues whatsoever with 4E and their experience was without exception positive.




Nope.  If you read their posts, all they did was offer general impressions.  There was no detail that could really go deep enough to distinguish an issue one way or the other with a smaller portion of their experience.  And that restriction was known and posted about up front.



> Had it been otherwise they would not have commented. Doesn't it seem more reasonable to assume that the positive comments they gave were honest, but that there were also things they didn't like or problematic points that they brought to the attention of the designers but did not comment on publicly?




They really didn't comment on "things" and "points" one way or the other.



> I don't see any definitive evidence for either position, which has led to the doubt that's sprung up over the issue for some people.




Except that they told you in their posts that it was their complete and honest general impression.

For example, Owen wrote in his opinion:



> However, it's also unprofessional to give anything but my honest opinion even if it's light on specifics. That would be lying, to fans and to other designers who may read my thoughts. It could do a lot of damage if the stars were aligned right. (Most likely to my reputation – don't think I believe I can bring down a game with a casual untruth.) I have been at this for quite some time, I have been talking about games before they come out for nearly a decade now. I hope the fact that my opinion on the EverQuest RPG, Gamma World, Black Company, Thieves World, Dragon Magic, and Star Wars Saga Edition remain consistent before and after their release is a reasonable show of good faith.




However, you are claiming he is giving you "anything but [his] honest opinion" by claiming he is holding back the negative portion of his opinion.  But if he were, it wouldn't be the consistent thing he mentions in the final sentence, would it?

The other two playtesters wrote something similar.  They tell you that it's their honest impression.  Not a part of an impression, but ThE impression they got.

You are calling into question the honesty and credibility of these people, without cause.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem




What characteristic or belief of did he comment on?  He is mentioning personal experience in the topic, which is not the same as mentioning personal characteristics or beliefs. Experience is relevant to the topic (particularly when the OP questioned the credibility of Andy), but characteristics or beliefs are not.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Feb 2, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Furthermore, Ari said this upfront:
> 
> ...
> 
> But I am getting fed up with the ongoing (and unjust) misattributions on this thread.




Thanks for the quote from Ari, although it does seem to imply that there are indeed points they might have critiqued but kept themselves on topic with the aspects they felt positively about.

In any case I am with you on being over the topic. I was not personally bothered by it to begin with and only got involved in response to some comments from Scott Rouse in another thread that I took objection to on a matter of principle.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Feb 2, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You are calling into question the honesty and credibility of these people, without cause.




If that's what you're getting from my posts I'd ask you to reread them.

I guess I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that as I'm done with this topic.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> Thanks for the quote from Ari, although it does seem to imply that there are indeed points they might have critiqued but kept themselves on topic with the aspects they felt positively about.



This implies that you have not read what Ari actually said. If that is so, then I don't understand on what basis you can be criticising it, or alleging that its content was influenced in a certain way that Ari was not upfront about from the beginning.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Feb 2, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> What characteristic or belief of did he comment on?  He is mentioning personal experience in the topic, which is not the same as mentioning personal characteristics or beliefs. Experience is relevant to the topic (particularly when the OP questioned the credibility of Andy), but characteristics or beliefs are not.




Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 2, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> Doesn't it seem more reasonable to assume that the positive comments they gave were honest, but that there were also things they didn't like or problematic points that they brought to the attention of the designers but did not comment on publicly?




Yes, but only because they are under NDA and are not allowed to comment on things publically, regardless if they are postive OR negative.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 2, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem




Thanks for the link, as I did not know what ad hominem meant.  I have gained some wisdom.

However, my statement still stands.  And if the person I was referrencing did have some background in beta testing, they could have refuted my claim.  Since they didn't, the point stands.  They don't know what beta testing and NDAs are all about.

So ad hominem that ;0


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 2, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).




But when I reply by saying "I guess you have never had any experience in botany", and you don't refute that, it doesn't make it any less true.  Because SOME grass is green, and some grass is not.  So your statement isn't really completely true.


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Feb 2, 2008)

I haven't read most of the entries in this post, as most of it is just the usual suspects showing up shouting, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I going to keep rewording the same general argument 3 or 4 times each page until you either agree with me or go away."

My knee jerk reaction to this situation is this:  WOTC shouldn't give any playtester special permission to comment on the new edition.  I want to hear unrestricted comments from both positive and negative sources before I decide to buy into 4E.  I already don't like the direction the game is going with DDI, and doing marketing things that feel a tad shady aren't improving my opinion. 

As has been noted in many other posts, there are enough 3E materials for most groups to play/explore to last at least a decade, if not longer.  If WOTC wants me and my group to spend money on multiple core books, DDI, and the usual range of splat books they had best not only produce a kick butt new edition but stop making stupid marketing decision/mistakes that tick us off.  I mean, come on, I can go on ebay or to my local discount book store and get enough books for a half dozen 3E variants to cover my entire group for the same price as picking up the three 4E core books and 6 months of DDI.

Make the game the best it can be, show us some real rules info, and then let the game and the players speak for themselves.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 2, 2008)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> My knee jerk reaction to this situation is this:  WOTC shouldn't give any playtester special permission to comment on the new edition.  I want to hear unrestricted comments from both positive and negative sources before I decide to buy into 4E.  I already don't like the direction the game is going with DDI, and doing marketing things that feel a tad shady aren't improving my opinion.



First, there's nothing shady about the email Andy Collins was referring to, and there was nothing shady about how the playtesters that commented about 4e handled things.

Second, everyone seems to be forgetting one seriously blatant fact.  We will get LOADS of both positive and negative criticism about 4e in one month.  After D&D Experience, there will be plenty of people willing to spew forth their opinions, either informed, ill-informed or uninformed.  That will be 3 months prior to the launch of 4e.  

How much more open can a publicly held company (Hasbro) be about an unreleased product still in development.  In other vertical markets, shareholders would have a lot to say about this, gagging the company completely.

I say, take what we can get, because it doesn't have to be this way.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 2, 2008)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Where and how does [Ari's Blog] imply [generic approval]?






			
				Ari said:
			
		

> I've finally been told that it's okay to talk about my opinions in a little more detail.
> 
> As most of you already know, I've been both playtesting and working on 4E material. I can't say what, of course. But it does mean that I've had the rules for months now, and have been playing in an ongoing 4E campaign with a group of NDAed playtesters.



He didn't say positive experiences. That's what I was referring to.



			
				jeffh said:
			
		

> Especially if, as my previous post to this thread suggested, you _apply an ounce of common sense_ to the situation. What would possess WotC to give the kind of blanket clearance you imply here? Why do you think they're obligated to take such bizarre and unprecedented measures? How is WotC putting limitations on what _people who are under an NDA_ can say out of line or even remotely surprising, given _ what an NDA *is*_?




Look, if you don't like what I'm saying, that's fine. Put me on your ignore list before you accuse me of not applying common sense to the situation. I don't really want to argue with you either. 

I think disclosing the particulars of what may and may not be discussed from the very start would be appropriate in this case. It doesn't detract from what Ari's saying to preface his report by saying that he's been allowed to break NDA by saying a few words in support of 4E. 



			
				jeffh said:
			
		

> The behaviour you're demanding would benefit neither WotC nor the gaming public, for reasons that have been discussed in this thread far too many times to be worth repeating yet again.




Maybe, but it would make me feel a lot better.
EDIT: I'm not demanding. I'm disappointed. Like I said in my first post on this thread, the experience leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Feb 2, 2008)

While I may regret stepping into this:

I'm trying to give an overall impression of my opinion of the game. That overall impressions is positive. I have no -overall- negative opinions.

There are specific elements I like more and those I like less. I can only comment on specific elements if they're already common knowledge, whether I liked them or not. I like dragonborn, for example. I sometime walk the line a bit, and say I like how races are presented. But, sadly, I can't tell you -why- I like that yet.

There are things (like a lack of gnomes or bards in the PHB), that I see as non-issues, because those options will be available soon enough. If I thought there would never be playable gnomes, I'd have a different opion. As it is, that's not a game-system question, that's just order of presenations.

Even when there are things I don't like, they fall into two categories. There are things I don't personally like, but aren't going to bother me in a way that detracts from the game. Many of these are green/blue type issues. I might prefer my car be blue, but it's green. When talking about how good my car is, I'm unlikely to mention its color at all. If my car were bright yellow poka-dots on plaid, I'd have to mention that.

Other things are specific items, not yet in the public eye, which are subject to change anyway. I can't talk about them in any case, and even if I could I wouldn't because they may change. I have no interest if having people form opinions from my input based on things that may not be in the final version, good -or- bad. Once -I- see the final version, I can comment on specifics, and likely will.

I mainly want to talk about my 4e experiences because a: I have friends overseas who have asked me to keep them as up to date as I can, and my blog is the easiest way to do that and b: it's good for my freelance career for companies to know I'm already familiar with 4e.

So, my vague, detail-free, overall opinion is that I like 4e, and I'm pretty sure I like it better than 3e/3.5e. YMMV, obviously.

And just to set the record straight, while my public opinion probably is for sale, no one in their right mind is going to meet my price.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> He didn't say positive experiences. That's what I was referring to.



Maybe you missed the part I quoted upthread, where he said that there were some things that he would do differently if he were the designer, but overall he likes it a lot.

And to reiterate the early point that Mistwell hsa made and I've repeated above:

It's not that he shared only his positive experiences. Rather, given that his experiences were positive, he shared them.​
I just don't see how it affects the content of what he said, that had he had different experiences, he wouldn't have said anything at all. As a result of the designers having designed the game as they have, Ari didn't have a different sort of (ie negative) experience.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> If that's what you're getting from my posts I'd ask you to reread them.
> 
> I guess I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that as I'm done with this topic.




You're right, you didn't call their credibility into question.  However, the people whose position you seemed to be defending did do that, and I mistakenly lumped you in with the company you were keeping.  Sorry I painted you wish such a broad brush.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.




You inferred that, but I don't see how he implied it.  He said he assumed the OP didn't have playtesting experience.  That doesn't imply a lack of qualification to have an opinion.  But it's relevant to evaluating his opinion.  It's not a characteristic or belief, and it is on-topic.  We are talking about the opinions of playtesters, and the OP's experience as a playtester is a natural subject of conversation and not an ad hominem in that context.



> A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).




Indeed, however nobody called him a scoundrel, or questioned his characteristics or beliefs.  You have created a strawman.  Nobody made a claim about someone's characteristics or beliefs, but you have now repeatedly claimed they did and then attacked that position that was never claimed.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> I haven't read most of the entries in this post, as most of it is just the usual suspects showing up shouting, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I going to keep rewording the same general argument 3 or 4 times each page until you either agree with me or go away."
> 
> My knee jerk reaction to this situation is this [Repeat of the same old general argument already made 3 or 4 times each page because this poster didn't have enough respect for his fellow posters to read most of the entries in this thread before making a hasty generalized insult about them].




With an intro like that, did you expect us to take your comment seriously?


----------



## Stomphoof (Feb 2, 2008)

*eyes the thread*

An NDA Means that you agree to the terms specified in it.  If those terms are "NO TALKIE BOUT PRODUCT!" then you don't talk about it.  If you ask and they give you permission to talk about the product in a positive light if you wish and you do, thats your choice.

I don't see what the big fuss about all this about.

Also, I have no idea about these comments cause I missed em.  And I have no idea who Ari or any of these other people (other then Collins) is.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Feb 3, 2008)

As the original poster on this thread, I have to say that I am feeling sorry I started the thread.  Chances are someone else might have started a similar thread if I did not, but still, I started it.  

Even though I still think WOTC made an error in judgment in sending out "that email", after my initial anger at feeling somewhate snookered calmed down, I decided that it's not a huge deal.  

In fact, I think if WOTC had merely verbally authorized Ari and one or two other playtesters to speak about their experiences and had verbally asked them to please not get into specific criticisms in public at this stage, that would not have offended me even if I somehow learned of it.  Of course, in that case I probably would never have heard of it.  It was the fact of an email sent out to possibly many playtesters that bothered me.  But its not a huge deal.   

If WOTC produced a great product and doesn't try to price gouge us for it, I, as a customer, will forgive this incident, which I consider ultimately minor in the big scheme of things.


----------



## fnwc (Feb 3, 2008)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> Make the game the best it can be, show us some real rules info, and then let the game and the players speak for themselves.



Which you shall surely get, once 4th Edition is officially launched and available. After all, how can the game be "the best that it can be" and have "real rules" when it isn't even finished yet?

Alternatively, you can wait a month for the reports back from the public playtest -- although I think some of what's shown here might be subject to change.


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Feb 3, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> With an intro like that, did you expect us to take your comment seriously?




Maybe you should, as you're one of the posters I'm referring to.  

While the rest of your post was cute, the main difference between us is that I'm only going to offer my opinion on the subject once.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 3, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> It was the fact of an email sent out to possibly many playtesters that bothered me.



Am I right in inferring, from what Andy Collins said, that there was no such email?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 3, 2008)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> Maybe you should, as you're one of the posters I'm referring to.



I don't know whether or not I count as an unnamed "usual suspect", but I'll respond to your post, which I originally had let slide.



			
				Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> doing marketing things that feel a tad shady aren't improving my opinion.



This is not just a passing barb at an anonymous poster (which is par for the course on these threads). It's a real slur against known individuals, and thus warrants refutation (and repeated refutation, if it continues to be made).

There is nothing shady about someone asking "May I speak?" and being told "You may speak, if you have nice things to say." At that point the person chooses whether or not to speak, based on whether or not they have nice things to say.

So we know that Ari, Owen Stephens and John Rogers had nice things to say. How does it affect the content of their views, or their trustworthiness and/or reliability, that there may or may not be some other people who have different things to say, or nothing to say at all, or are still under a total NDA? Their views are what they are, and surely speak for themselves (unless you regard individual opinions simply as data points on some statistical spectrum of total public opinion).

In addition, and as I posted upthread, ARI WAS UPRFRONT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT IN HIS VIEW 4E IS NOT A PERFECT GAME, BUT IS MERELY EXTREMELY GOOD. In a comment on the game that is of necessity very general, what more were you hoping for by way of critique?


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 3, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> In addition, and as I posted upthread, ARI WAS UPRFRONT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT IN HIS VIEW 4E IS NOT A PERFECT GAME, BUT IS MERELY EXTREMELY GOOD. In a comment on the game that is of necessity very general, what more were you hoping for by way of critique?




It's quite simple. There are a lot of people here who are *absolutely sure* that Fourth Edition will _totally suck._ Therefore, any opinion other than that is clearly the work of someone who is "biased" or "intentionally misleading" the public.

Obviously, people who hold this opinion won't accept they're getting an *honest* review of Fourth Edition until someone says, effectively, "this isn't D&D," or "I'd never play this horrible, steaming pile of bantha poodoo."

Personally, I hardly find that view "open-minded."


----------



## Primal (Feb 3, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Well, Ari has already said that his comments weren't solicited by WotC and judging him by his conduct here for many years, I believe him.  He may be biased by virtue of working with 4E, but I really do believe that his statements reflect how he feels.
> 
> It's really not cool to call the guy a liar when he's said that he made these comments of his own free will.  Why is it impossible that he likes the game and isn't just blowing marketing smoke up our butts?  Ari's always been a very straight forward, nice guy here at EnWorld.
> 
> ...




I don't think I implied that he was lying? If I did, then I apologise -- that was certainly not my intention. I believe that he honestly likes the game. However, I just noted that considering how "touchy" the WoTC staff has been towards any sort of negative feedback about 4E, he might not want to express publicly any concerns he has over the system (especially considering that he he's a freelancer working for them). What I meant is that I suspect that Ari intentionally used strong expressions and even hyperbole, because that's what the WoTC designers do and probably expected him to do, too. Of course, that might not be the case. In any case I did not say that he lied about liking 4E.  

I'd really like them (both the Designers and Playtesters alike) to "tone down" the language. We already know that the game will blow our heads off -- why keep repeating that? I'd much prefer to read something like "It's a good and solid system and X and Y work better than in 3E".  And I'd also like to see more information about the "cool non-combat stuff" they've been exclaiming will be as much part of the system as the "fun factor" in combat ("More stabby! MORE STABBY!"  :\ ). 

I could give you some examples of WoTC designers and freelancers (not Ari, though) "lashing out" (on the WoTC forums) at the fans who dared to criticize DI and 4E. One of them apologised, but some of them didn't. Some of them, while not actually "lashing out" at anyone, have posted condescending and terse comments. Some have ignored the fans -- even polite questions directed at them. So, yes, they seem to be quite sensitive towards any negative comments about DI or 4E. I guess it's because they're so into 4E and cannot understand why not everyone realizes how much better and faster and whatnot the system is (when compared to 3E).  

The key issue here is that you should *ALWAYS* be polite and diplomatic towards your customers -- even when they're not. Unless, of course, you don't care one whit about whether they'll buy your products or not. But then again, I'm fairly sure that WoTC has already labeled most of the "Old Guard" as "the former customer base who won't probably buy 4E anyway". Or maybe I'm just paranoid?   

You think it'd be a "dream job" to work on D&D? I don't. I'd compare the work of a WoTC designer to that of an author or a graphic designer. First of all, there are the deadlines. Let's assume that you're going to write a 160-page module in six months -- that'd mean a page of finished text every day. And you'd probably be working on several projects at a time. Any day you feel uninspired or tired and can't get anything done, you're going to increase your next day's workload. Simply put, you'd have to be creative every day of the week. I worked as a graphic designer (my original "dream job") for a few years and in the end I had become so jaded and stressed and sleep-deprived that all silly notions of being a creative "artist" had faded from my mind. Eventually I just couldn't handle the daily deadlines and constant pressure around the clock -- so I quit. And none of my friends and colleagues in the industry work as ADs or graphic designers anymore either. 

I don't mean this as an insult, but if you consider a verbal online criticism to a public beating, I don't think you're cut for the job either. I'd take a verbal assault over a single punch any day.


----------



## Primal (Feb 3, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Let me understand -- Ari and John aren't average DMs, nor hard-working fellow gamers, and don't run games every week?  I'm willing to bet they're all three, to the contrary.




Of course they might run weekly games and work hard on their campaigns, yet note that even Andy Collins emphasized in his post that he thought their comments -- as respected authors -- would be taken "more seriously" by the gamers. So, in that context I don't think they "qualify" as your average "Joe DMs".


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 3, 2008)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> Maybe you should, as you're one of the posters I'm referring to.
> 
> While the rest of your post was cute, the main difference between us is that I'm only going to offer my opinion on the subject once.




My posts may have a unified thesis that you find repetitive, but at least they show respect for my fellow users, and my posts don't insult them.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 3, 2008)

primal, have you considered a part of this 'hostility' may be reactive?

They are also humans, and you know how fandoms can be.... creepy at times. Read on otaku and trekkies by example, if you never saw the extend of 'fandumbness'. Read on Evangelion and it's story behind the product.

I saw  personal insults, trashing, perhaps evemn death treats by pm and email,. I bet. They face heat, bad heat. So, I am not surprised some lashe back, in despair and rage.


----------



## jeffh (Feb 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).



Whether you're in a position to know what you're talking about is _very _relevant to the truth and accuracy of one's statements.


----------



## jeffh (Feb 3, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> Look, if you don't like what I'm saying, that's fine. Put me on your ignore list before you accuse me of not applying common sense to the situation. I don't really want to argue with you either.



If you can't distinguish between "not liking" what you're saying and _*giving reasons*_ for thinking it rests on a series of factual errors, and easily-avoided factual errors at that, then you're right about one thing - you do indeed belong on my ignore list.


----------



## Primal (Feb 3, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> primal, have you considered a part of this 'hostility' may be reactive?
> 
> They are also humans, and you know how fandoms can be.... creepy at times. Read on otaku and trekkies by example, if you never saw the extend of 'fandumbness'. Read on Evangelion and it's story behind the product.
> 
> I saw  personal insults, trashing, perhaps evemn death treats by pm and email,. I bet. They face heat, bad heat. So, I am not surprised some lashe back, in despair and rage.




I've seen them too, yet consider this: Rich Baker has probably taken more "heat" than the rest of the WoTC staff members put together. In fact, if anyone has gotten "death threats", that'd most likely be him. Has he lashed out "in despair and rage"? Ignored the fans? Treated the fans in a condescending manner? Stopped posting? No, he has done none of those things. He still answers our queries in a polite and reasonable manner. Why? Because he *knows* that it's the fans (customers) who're actually paying his bills. It's a very simple business principle: keep treating your customers badly and you're (sooner or later) out of business.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 4, 2008)

Yet, that forget always one detail - stars, pr guys, politicians, etc... they remain human.

And even such 'image elite' can fall. 

It's weird, I read between the lines... At times, the strange mix of calousness of snark plus eerie calm... There is something that eerily feels like one or two of them is barely stoped from breaking down. You can not always 'smile up down' or whatever is the public relations term, there is a line where anyone freak out.

And fandom can be truely nasty, freaky, again.

So, I would not be surprised that one of them guys break down very publicly after the new edition is done and out. They force themselves to keep it, but it's failing, it's apparent. The masks have crack.

look like at a certain pop singer woman who made much the headlines over the past months.


(this is said as a man who suffers from mental illness  - i would NOT pass such a trial. Not without an heavy breakdown, to suicide attempt I guess.)


----------



## med stud (Feb 4, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I could give you some examples of WoTC designers and freelancers (not Ari, though) "lashing out" (on the WoTC forums) at the fans who dared to criticize DI and 4E.



I don't think this is an honest description in those situations; "dare to criticize" sounds like a polite, maybe even humble critique. What I have seen that designers etc have lashed out at has been self righteous tirades bordering the insulting.

In those situations even professionals lose their cool.


----------



## epochrpg (Feb 4, 2008)

I'm curious-- how is this different from 3.0?  A lot of the negativity I think regarding Wizards' tactics regarding 4e is that people are comparing it to how awesome they were about releasing 3e and comparing them.  

If 3e had a Gaming System Licsence, we would have said, "Oh, cool, people can make their own D&D products!".   But because 3e had an Open Gaming License, which allowed people to make their own game systems based on D&D, a Gaming System License looks restrictive & mean-spirited by comparison.

I bet when 3e was coming out, people would have been thrilled to get a preview book telling them that there will be some new class called the Sorcerer, and that Barbarians, Monks, and Half-Orcs were back in the core.  However, 3e testors were filling Eric Noah's site full of "black pages" that essentially were the entire SRD of 3e before the books were ever released, and Dragon magazine was giving up a lot of stuff in those Countdown articles, people seeing the tidbits released now compare it and say, "what a gyp!  $15 for preview books that don't have any game mechanics at all?  WHere are my black pages?"

In essence, I think the open-awesomeness of 3e's release has "spoiled" us-- and now that 4e's business model is trying to go "back to normal" instead of "open", people are feeling somehow cheated.  

Now with 3e I don't remember hearing about any "censorship" of people's playtest reports, but I also don't remember reading any playtest reports that were negative at all either...


----------



## zoroaster100 (Feb 4, 2008)

If the designers have created a great new edition, hopefully they can focus on that for now and take comfort in the fact that when it finally gets released, most fans will take it up enthusiastically.  No matter what, some will not like it, but that is a given because there is so much variety among D&D players.    I imagine no matter how confident they are about the system, I'm sure they must have some nervousness about how the world of D&D fans will receive the product once it is fully revealed for scrutiny.  But hopefully the designers will get to tell us "I told you so" in June and there will be much rejoicing.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 4, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Dragon magazine was giving up a lot of stuff in those Countdown articles, people seeing the tidbits released now compare it and say, "what a gyp!  $15 for preview books that don't have any game mechanics at all?  WHere are my black pages?"



To suggest that W&M has nothing useful in it for playing D&D (any edition, really) is pretty bizarre. It has no action resolution or character build mechanics, but it is utterly full of high-quality discussion of world-building with the goal of supporting (rather than hindering, as too many past D&D campaign worlds and system features have done) heroic fantasy RPGing.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's quite simple. There are a lot of people here who are *absolutely sure* that Fourth Edition will _totally suck._ Therefore, any opinion other than that is clearly the work of someone who is "biased" or "intentionally misleading" the public.



So because Ari doesn't think 4e sucks people feel free to accuse him, in effect, of deceptive conduct? You may have correctly divined the reasoning process, but it's pretty bizarre.

Which I guess was your point. I guess I just find the pointless, unjustified and vitriolic insults a bit hard to put up with. (And I feel sorry for the actual targets of them.)


----------



## Ourph (Feb 4, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I don't think this is an honest description in those situations; "dare to criticize" sounds like a polite, maybe even humble critique. What I have seen that designers etc have lashed out at has been self righteous tirades bordering the insulting.
> 
> In those situations even professionals lose their cool.



I disagree.  I think the term "professional" implies a certain level of decorum that precludes losing one's cool, even in response to the most annoying of customers/critics.  The problem is that WotC has designers/developers trying to be professional PR/marketers and they aren't qualified for those roles.

In almost any other field, all developer comments would be filtered through a PR department before being released to the public.  WotC is both 1) very generous; and 2) very silly to not be following that sort of protocol with their customers.


----------



## malladin (Feb 4, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I don't think this is an honest description in those situations; "dare to criticize" sounds like a polite, maybe even humble critique. What I have seen that designers etc have lashed out at has been self righteous tirades bordering the insulting.
> 
> In those situations even professionals lose their cool.




Really, real professionals, law enforcers, social workers, educators, health care staff and emergency service personnel to name a few, cope with worse abuse and maintain a professional demeanor-thats part of being a professional. If they can't I'm not convinced games designers, which is hardly a profession in the strict sense anyway, who don't like what people are saying about what they do should be given more leeway in their behaviour. Not if they want to be classed as professionals anyway. Its not like their doing anything actually important to society as a whole unlike real professionals where you can understand it to some degree due to the meaningful pressures they face.  Sorry, lashing out not only demonstrates poor personal professionalism, but is a negative reflection on the employer. This concerns the real world of professional, not fandom, and not everyone likes how you do your job, learn to live with it or move on and don't excuse people for not doing the same.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 4, 2008)

malladin said:
			
		

> Really, real professionals, law enforcers, social workers, educators, health care staff and emergency service personnel to name a few, cope with worse abuse and maintain a professional demeanor-thats part of being a professional. If they can't I'm not convinced games designers, which is hardly a profession in the strict sense anyway, who don't like what people are saying about what they do should be given more leeway in their behaviour. Not if they want to be classed as professionals anyway. Its not like their doing anything actually important to society as a whole unlike real professionals where you can understand it to some degree due to the meaningful pressures they face.  Sorry, lashing out not only demonstrates poor personal professionalism, but is a negative reflection on the employer. This concerns the real world of professional, not fandom, and not everyone likes how you do your job, learn to live with it or move on and don't excuse people for not doing the same.



Humour isn't lashing out. It's not the same as punching a fan in the face or something like that.
Or is it lashing out, but in healthy, sensible manner. In a fair manner.

But why am I even reacting to this post? The fact alone that the post claims that game designer is not a profession alone sounds too arrogant to be worth discussing. So I stop. Now.


----------



## malladin (Feb 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But why am I even reacting to this post? The fact alone that the post claims that game designer is not a profession alone sounds too arrogant to be worth discussing. So I stop. Now.




Pity, since my opinion of what is and isn't professionalism is based on post graduate studies of the subject! How about your opinion?

Ultimately the only quantifiable measure of "professional" game designer is someone who gets paid to design games. Game designers do not fulfill the traditional definations of a profession; social relevence, you know like in the examples I gave, oversite by a recognised organisation/governmental department, agreed ethical codes of conduct and a recognised qualification in the field, congratulations if you can point me to a single game designer with any formal "professional" game design accreditation.

If you actually want an informed opinion, rather than just putting someone down because you don't agree with them I can happily recommend

Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: The Falmer Press.

Even going by the more general definition of a professional, someone paid to do something, my arguments still hold in comparing the behaviour of these professionals to real ones, you remember the actual point of the post. And humour can easily be used to lash out under the cover of it being 'funny' but really a way of insulting/denegrating people. I assume from your view of the nature of humour you've no problems with jokes using race, belief or gender being acceptable, especially to those they target? Even thats irrelevent since the post I was referring to stated the acceptability of lashing out.

So maybe before you call someone's opinion arrogant you might want to consider what their saying and how much you know on the subject.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 4, 2008)

Also, mental illness and problems don't stop at such lines as 'professional' or 'facing public'.

If stars can have bad moments, so them.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 4, 2008)

malladin said:
			
		

> congratulations if you can point me to a single game designer with any formal "professional" game design accreditation.




I can't point you to individuals, but here in Sweden you can take university level courses to become an official game designer. So here at least, it's considered a profession, and one which you can produce a diploma for.

/M


----------



## malladin (Feb 4, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Also, mental illness and problems don't stop at such lines as 'professional' or 'facing public'.
> 
> If stars can have bad moments, so them.




True and everyones human, but standards of behaviour are a reality of business and its an employees job to adhere to them as best they can. What I'm saying is while its understandable, lashing out is neither good practice nor something that should be argued as justified, which several posters have done.


----------



## malladin (Feb 4, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I can't point you to individuals, but here in Sweden you can take university level courses to become an official game designer. So here at least, it's considered a profession, and one which you can produce a diploma for.
> 
> /M




Wow, thats cool! Is that for computer games rather than RPGs though? I thought the British education system was liberal   Also, by professional qualification I refer to one thats needed to undertake the job, so teaching certificate etc, and is overviewed by a recognised authority. The other points and the general argument stand though.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's quite simple. There are a lot of people here who are *absolutely sure* that Fourth Edition will _totally suck._ Therefore, any opinion other than that is clearly the work of someone who is "biased" or "intentionally misleading" the public.
> 
> Obviously, people who hold this opinion won't accept they're getting an *honest* review of Fourth Edition until someone says, effectively, "this isn't D&D," or "I'd never play this horrible, steaming pile of bantha poodoo."
> 
> Personally, I hardly find that view "open-minded."




I don't agree with this at all. While I'm not converting 4E, it's mostly because I have a lot of 3.5 left to use and frankly think it's way too soon for an edition. I'll admit that I was resistant, even resentful of the publicity Wotc gave it, particularly due to the mishandling of Online Dragon and Dungeon, but that's in the past. I don't mind 4E, but I'm probably not going to play it any time soon.

I never called nor anyone else, any names. I'll admit I haven't seen every post on this thread, but I don't think anybody else came out and directly slandered a designer. If they did, I'll agree that they shouldn't have. This goes for myself.

In the end, I think Ari not mentioning the terms of what he was and was not allowed to talk about was a bad decision. I do not think he lied or embellished to promote 4E. I still would have preferred to know when I first read it that he was forbidden from criticizing it.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 5, 2008)

The fact that this book and field exists says far more about the arrogance of academics than it does about the professionalism of game designers.  Who the hell are they to say who is a 'professional' and who is not?  

Is Bill Gates a professional?  He has no oversight be a recognized organization, nor has he any 'agreed ethical codes of conduct', nor a recognized qualification in the field (a degree).

The idea that academics claim the ability to deem some people 'professionals' while witholding that designation from others makes me cringe.  It reminds me of the so called 'Ethicists' that get trotted out by the media every time some controversial scientific advance gets made.  Such hubris.

Ken



			
				malladin said:
			
		

> Pity, since my opinion of what is and isn't professionalism is based on post graduate studies of the subject! How about your opinion?
> 
> Ultimately the only quantifiable measure of "professional" game designer is someone who gets paid to design games. Game designers do not fulfill the traditional definations of a profession; social relevence, you know like in the examples I gave, oversite by a recognised organisation/governmental department, agreed ethical codes of conduct and a recognised qualification in the field, congratulations if you can point me to a single game designer with any formal "professional" game design accreditation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 5, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> In the end, I think Ari not mentioning the terms of what he was and was not allowed to talk about was a bad decision. I do not think he lied or embellished to promote 4E. I still would have preferred to know when I first read it that he was forbidden from criticizing it.




You know, I've been ignoring this--over and over again--and I'm done being slammed.

The contents of the memo were _themselves confidential_, until Andy Collins chose to make them public. I could no more have said anything about it than I could have gone into details on the mechanics of the games. The person who first started spreading rumors and half-truths about said memo was _violating their NDA_.

Second, I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. I could not have said any more about the game--the vast majority that I like, or the few small points that I don't--without going into mechanical detail. And that's something I was, again, forbidden to do by NDA, completely regardless of anything any subsequent memo said.

So in essence, you're hammering me--over and over and over again--for not including a "disclaimer" that

A) would have violated NDA for me to include,

B) was irrelevant to my post, because it wouldn't have changed word one of what I said, and would only have made people doubt the veracity of my opinion even more than some of them already do.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 5, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> B) was irrelevant to my post, because it wouldn't have changed word one of what I said, and would only have made people doubt the veracity of my opinion even more than some of them already do.



Yes, but it's the _principle_ of the thing, apparently.

I, for one, hold you in high esteem for your (quite reasonable) reaction to the heaps of abuse being thrown upon you. That, and the game design stuff. That's cool sweet too.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I think Ari not mentioning the terms of what he was and was not allowed to talk about was a bad decision.



Ari obviously can defend himself - and has. But you keep saying the above as if repeating it will make it true. It won't.

People who had positive views were urged to share them. Ari had such a view, and shared it. That his view was positive was very clear and stated, by him, upfront.

What did he not tell you that is relevant to understanding or making sense of what he said? Nothing. What part of his view did he withhold? None, as far as I can tell. To reiterate yet again: HE SAID UPFRONT HIS VIEW WAS THAT 4E IS NOT PERFECT, BUT IS MERELY EXCELLENT.


----------



## jeffh (Feb 5, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So in essence, you're hammering me--over and over and over again--for not including a "disclaimer" that
> 
> ...
> 
> B) was irrelevant to my post, because it wouldn't have changed word one of what I said, and would only have made people doubt the veracity of my opinion even more than some of them already do.



He has repeatedly said, actually, that B) is irrelevant. Which I think amounts to an open admission that he doesn't have a leg to stand on, personally, but I'm just saying don't expect him to be moved by this, or any other, common-sense consideration. He's as good as announced that he isn't open to debating the issue rationally.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 5, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You know, I've been ignoring this--over and over again--and I'm done being slammed.
> 
> The contents of the memo were _themselves confidential_, until Andy Collins chose to make them public. I could no more have said anything about it than I could have gone into details on the mechanics of the games. The person who first started spreading rumors and half-truths about said memo was _violating their NDA_.
> 
> ...




Actually, you're right. I didn't know the memo was classified and that somebody broke their NDA by posting it. So I admit I was wrong. For what it's worth, I really do like most of your work.

I asked about the particulars of the situation in my initial post of the thread, but the discussion jumped on this subject and I guess I was arguing without all the information. I couldn't find it myself, and nobody stepped forward to correct me until now, so I just assumed I had the correct grasp of the situation.

I apologize to you, Ari, and hope nobody drew any misconception over what I said. I never meant to imply that you were shilling.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 5, 2008)

Folks,

The whole discussion of academic classification of "professional" is pretty off-topic for this board.  Please let that section of the discussion drop.

As for the rest - I see rising tension and annoyance.  I see signs of badgering.  Please, folks, don't continue along those lines, as incivility quickly follows.  If you cannot be gracious in your discussion, I'm going to have to ask you to hold your tongues.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 5, 2008)

Edited because of mod action:

As an academic i would have loved to join this discussion. All i have to add now is this: the academic position on professionalism has been misrepresented in this thread. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 5, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I apologize to you, Ari, and hope nobody drew any misconception over what I said. I never meant to imply that you were shilling.




Apology accepted.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 5, 2008)

Illegitimi Non Carborundum


----------



## Maggan (Feb 5, 2008)

malladin said:
			
		

> Wow, thats cool! Is that for computer games rather than RPGs though? I thought the British education system was liberal




Mostly focus on mobile gaming, computer gaming. Designing board games is a part of the studies, of course.   

Sometimes I wish I was 20 years younger, so I could get back to academic studies!

/M


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Feb 11, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The contents of the memo were _themselves confidential_, until Andy Collins chose to make them public.




Poor Ari took the brunt on this, because he got a post out first. By the time I knew I was allowed to say anything, I had already seen some of the reactions to his post.

Folks, we (paid rpg game designers) all do this all the time. You look at what you are allowed to talk about, pick a few things you want to emphasize, and make a few public statements. I have done it for everything from 3e to EverQuest RPG to Saga.

I've talked to Ari. I've hung out with Ari. He was trying to share some enthusiasm, because he was allowed to. The rules under which he and I operated for these statements were not new, unique, or particularly limiting. It's just business as usual for rpg freelancers, and he and I have both worked for a lot more than just WotC. When we can, we like to talk about our work. It's fun for us, and people seem to want to read it. So you all know, from now to the end of time, if we're talking about a game that isn't out yet, there are restrictions of some kind about what we can say. Always have been. Always will be.

Ari, I hope this experience doesn't have a chilling effect on you sharing project details when you can. I, at least, still want to know what you're working on whenever I can


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 11, 2008)

OStephens said:
			
		

> Ari, I hope this experience doesn't have a chilling effect on you sharing project details when you can. I, at least, still want to know what you're working on whenever I can




Appreciate the support, Owen. 

And no, I'll still be talking about what I'm working on, when I'm allowed to do so. I'd really love to talk about the 4E stuff I've done so far, but of course I can't.

At the moment, I'm just getting started on a novel, so it'll be a little while until I do anything else with the game material. But I'm looking forward to my next D&D gig when it _does_ start.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 11, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And no, I'll still be talking about what I'm working on, when I'm allowed to do so. I'd really love to talk about the 4E stuff I've done so far, but of course I can't.
> 
> At the moment, I'm just getting started on a novel, so it'll be a little while until I do anything else with the game material. But I'm looking forward to my next D&D gig when it _does_ start.



Good luck on the novel writing gig Ari, I look forward to seeing more.  Also, if my guesses are correct and you are writing Necro's 4e book, Clark hinted that most of the Advanced Player Guide (or whatever it will be called) for 4e is pretty much done even though he has no idea what's in it. Congrats on being able to bang this out under the odd circumstances.  I know I'll be buying it on reputation only (both yours and Necro).


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 12, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Appreciate the support, Owen.
> 
> And no, I'll still be talking about what I'm working on, when I'm allowed to do so. I'd really love to talk about the 4E stuff I've done so far, but of course I can't.
> 
> At the moment, I'm just getting started on a novel, so it'll be a little while until I do anything else with the game material. But I'm looking forward to my next D&D gig when it _does_ start.




Cool! I'm really looking forward to Shades of Gray. Please let us know when your knew work goes on Amazon (though that'll be months from now).


----------

