Quote from: James J SkachYour second mistake is in assuming that a car company PR machine would allow it to officially call the old style names. Now I'd be surprised if they didn't point out how the new design gets X more horsepower, or lowers fuel requirements by Y percent. Note how those are objective facts that can be measured. But I doubt they'd call the old design approach a "trap," or "bogus," particularly if they didn't have the objective proof to back it up.

This is absolutely correct.  Normally, a professional PR strategy would go something like:  "Our old product was good -- but the new product is SOOOO much better".

You don't want to say your old product was bad, or had bad parts -- unless that's something almost everyone in the public was already saying:

"The old Olestra was a good idea -- but it had some pretty bad side effects.  But the new Olestra doesn't have ANY side effects, and is a great product!"

Quote from: StuartThey certainly can, and again it's a sign of a dysfunctional company not to have proper control of their own website.

You're missing the point. This isn't about a company having control of its website, it's about a marketing team or department having control over the website.

Quote from: StuartThe key isn't your technical ability or knowledge of publishing material to the web -- it's whether you are authorized to publish material on the official company domain name, and under the official company logo.  These make a big difference in a legal sense -- something I've had reiterated to me by several lawyers.

Now you're way off topic.

Quote from: StuartThere isn't a homogenous "anti-4e crowd"

Oh, sure there.

Quote from: StuartAs for the common messages from WotC -- Do you listen to the podcast?  Did you see the video from Gen-Con?  They make frequent reference to "things we're not allowed to talk about" as well a s a lot of very standard messaging there, and if you're reading AdAge you should be able to recognize that's not a coincidence.

Let me ask this: If you were controlling the content of the podcast, blog, or whatever, would you have staff making frequent references to "things we're not allowed to talk about"?

I know I sure wouldn't. Kind of makes me think those things aren't part of an organized marketing campaign created and controlled by the marketing team.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartYou don't want to say your old product was bad, or had bad parts -- unless that's something almost everyone in the public was already saying:

There is the rub. Most of what they list as problems ring true for me. And a lot of people I know.  I suspect this is more an issue with your perceptions not aligning with the designers and what they are getting as feedback and from their marketing info gathering. Thus their perception of what the majority of D&D customers, and potential customers are saying.

Quote from: SeanchaiLet me ask this: If you were controlling the content of the podcast, blog, or whatever, would you have staff making frequent references to "things we're not allowed to talk about"?

Yes.  "This game is awesome, and we can't wait to tell you more about it!"  "Okay, we just got word we can share how awesome this new dice mechanic is" etc.  That's perfectly fine.

Quote from: James J SkachYour first mistake is in assuming that their approach is objectively better.  It's an argument I'm not going to have here - you want it, start another thread and we'll see. But I've seen no objective proof that the Monsters-shouldn't-be-treated-the-same as objectively better.

Your first mistakeis in thinking that it actually has to be objectively better, when all that matters is that the design guys and consequently the marketing department think that it is. We can safely assume that the design team do think it's better for the simple reason that it's the approach they've taken. If they didn't believe it was the best approach why would they take it?

QuoteYour second mistake is in assuming that a car company PR machine would allow it to officially call the old style names.

Your second mistake is in thinking that WotC have actually been calling 3E names. They've stated that it had problems, but have still insisted that it's a good game.

QuoteAnd still, I'd bet the new Mustang PR did not go about saying the old Mustang was "bogus" design as they understand that would alienate the Mustang customer base.

I rather imagine that they didn't say it because it wasn't necessary. People like upgrading their cars while some people are significantly less eager to upgrade their edition of D&D.

3.5 still works, it doesn't run out and start to fail it's MOT. It will never be subject to increasing running costs. In theory, there is no reason for anyone who already has 3.5 to buy 4E.

So WotC need to stress the ways in which 3.5 doesn't work as well as 4E as part of a strategy to encourage people to swap something that already works and has a lot of supplimental material for something that might work a bit better but has none of that additional material. I don't see how highlighting some of the problems with 3.5 and the ways in which 4e desing theory (since they aren't sharing the details yet the theory is all that's available) improves on that.

It's a rational way to approach the problem.

QuoteUnless, of course, they really didn't care about the existing customer base and were really looking at severing those ties and hoping to gain an entirely different customer base.

Or maybe they just didn't realise how ridiculously thin skinned some of the existing customer base could be. If WotC say 3.5 could have been better how does that directly offend you? Simple answer is that it shouldn't, not unless you're already looking to be offended.

Quote from: TrevelyanYour first mistakeis in thinking that it actually has to be objectively better, when all that matters is that the design guys and consequently the marketing department think that it is. We can safely assume that the design team do think it's better for the simple reason that it's the approach they've taken. If they didn't believe it was the best approach why would they take it?

Really? So now you're moved the goal? I mean, you're actually the one who claimed it was objectively better. If it's not, why would you risk hurting sales by using possibly insulting verbiage about something that is a subjective difference?

Quote from: TrevelyanYour second mistake is in thinking that WotC have actually been calling 3E names. They've stated that it had problems, but have still insisted that it's a good game.

They aren't calling 3e names - they're calling a design approach/play style (heresy!)/preference names. All I've said is that there are people who prefer that systems have Monsters and PC's work the exact same way. 3e happens to have this in abundance, but that's a side issue. Whatever other games out there have a similar approach that some fans might like - well, they've just called their kids ugly, too.

Quote from: TrevelyanI rather imagine that they didn't say it because it wasn't necessary. People like upgrading their cars while some people are significantly less eager to upgrade their edition of D&D.

3.5 still works, it doesn't run out and start to fail it's MOT. It will never be subject to increasing running costs. In theory, there is no reason for anyone who already has 3.5 to buy 4E.

Right - its' not necessary - so why the fuck would you do it? The whole point is it's not necessary and yet they called it bogus anyway.  Why? What good could come of it? Was there a way to say it better? Why would you use terms that some people by find insulting?

Quote from: TrevelyanSo WotC need to stress the ways in which 3.5 doesn't work as well as 4E as part of a strategy to encourage people to swap something that already works and has a lot of supplimental material for something that might work a bit better but has none of that additional material. I don't see how highlighting some of the problems with 3.5 and the ways in which 4e desing theory (since they aren't sharing the details yet the theory is all that's available) improves on that.

It's a rational way to approach the problem.

As I've said - most of this particular text does that in pretty good ways. It stays away from possible insulting words and so forth - I mean, my god, even in a section called "What We Hated" they did a pretty good job of it. So what purpose the digression about Monsters working differently (only a line or two that said "and this won't complicate monsters because, remember, they won't work the exact same as PC's in this version!" would have sufficed) that includes calling another approach "bogus" and a "trap?" As Stuart says - it's bad from a PR perspective and seems like the editing from that view is lacking.

Quote from: TrevelyanOr maybe they just didn't realise how ridiculously thin skinned some of the existing customer base could be. If WotC say 3.5 could have been better how does that directly offend you? Simple answer is that it shouldn't, not unless you're already looking to be offended.

This is the old "if you're offended, that's your problem" gambit. It's true to a certain extent, but it leaves all responsibility on good sense and politeness. There are a plethora of places that's perfectly acceptable - like here! - but company PR is not one of them; or shouldn't be.

And please quit making this about me - as I said before I've got no problem with this particular change, the overwhelming majority of the text, and don't have a problem with monsters working differently.  This is not about me, no matter how much you'd apparently like to think it is.

I don't see why WotC doesn't take the approach in their marketing that they're nudging the game in a different direction in response to what today's players want.

Instead, they claim that 4E will do exactly the same thing that earlier editions did, only better. Not only is that simply false, but it basically says that earlier editions were shitty at what they were trying to do (rather than trying to do different things).

Isn't it better to market 4E as a different version of a line of games, rather than a fix of the most recent version? Wasn't 3.5 meant to be the fix?

Funny, I get the "continually improving" vibe from what I read both in substance and tone.  Same game with more refinements building on past refinements that worked but still had some shortcomings.

But then I'm capable of remembering the games I have played in the past. :rolleyes:

Am I the only one who thought of "maximum negative HP = 1/2 maximum HP" solution halfway through the article?

I dunno. I've probably said this before, but it really REALLY needs to be said: anyone that thinks all monsters/opponents MUST work exactly like PC's is not a GM, has probably never really been a GM and probably isn't planning to BE a GM.

Either that or they are filthy Wushu players...








Seriously: The only excuse for a GM to want to grunt out complete character creation rules (plus the Monster shit... cause most 'monsters' are not human, they got their own powers too...) for every opponent is that they are a fucking masochist at heart and enjoy the pain of taking eight hours to plan for a single throw away fight against a pack of goblins...  I, for one, have much better things to do with the free time between games.

As a player? Sure, I don't mind if the GM does all that, heck, I might even appreciate the craftsmanship he puts into his NPC's before I butcher them. And sure, I find it mightily annoying that the NPC's in WoW have access to badassatude my PC will never attain because they don't follow the rules... but that really doesn't apply to tabletop RPGs for a whole raft of reasons.

Quote from: SpikeI dunno. I've probably said this before, but it really REALLY needs to be said: anyone that thinks all monsters/opponents MUST work exactly like PC's is not a GM, has probably never really been a GM and probably isn't planning to BE a GM.

Wrong.  I am a GM, I've been one for nearly 20 years, and I expect to be one for some time to come.  I also expect PCs and NPCs to follow the same rules.

QuoteEither that or they are filthy Wushu players...

Strike Two!

QuoteSeriously: The only excuse for a GM to want to grunt out complete character creation rules (plus the Monster shit... cause most 'monsters' are not human, they got their own powers too...) for every opponent is that they are a fucking masochist at heart and enjoy the pain of taking eight hours to plan for a single throw away fight against a pack of goblins...  I, for one, have much better things to do with the free time between games.

No, I do it to ensure that everything is fair, legal and above-board so that when the players do fuck up they can't shrug it off as bullshit fiat or crap NPC design.  Once I've finished making a NPC, I save it for later reference and will reuse it as required; for everything else, I have online resources (d20 NPC Wiki, for example) or print materials I can repurpose as necessary.  The work may be front-loaded, but once done it stays done; stat blocks are reusable.

QuoteAs a player? Sure, I don't mind if the GM does all that, heck, I might even appreciate the craftsmanship he puts into his NPC's before I butcher them. And sure, I find it mightily annoying that the NPC's in WoW have access to badassatude my PC will never attain because they don't follow the rules... but that really doesn't apply to tabletop RPGs for a whole raft of reasons.

Console, PC and MMORPGs do that for the same reason that those media use a lot of other cheats: they have to do that for technical reasons that don't apply to tabletop RPGs.  That's why the excuse is lame, tired and weak; the constrictions of electronic adventure games don't exist in our analog, tabletop medium so we should not hold to their standard either.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerConsole, PC and MMORPGs do that for the same reason that those media use a lot of other cheats: they have to do that for technical reasons that don't apply to tabletop RPGs.  That's why the excuse is lame, tired and weak; the constrictions of electronic adventure games don't exist in our analog, tabletop medium so we should not hold to their standard either.

I still hold you to be a masochist. For example, playing with people that will bitch if their characters don't win based on 'crap NPC design'.  Tell me, Brad... did your dragons, twenty years ago, also use character creation rules or were they just dragons out of the MM?

As for this: I agree, but I felt it unnecessary to explain in detail; which is why I left it out. That does NOT mean that tabletop 'opponents' must be held to a 'higher standard' by any means, however. It just means that there are different reasons for doing things they way they do.

Quote from: jibbajibbaI think I understand HP systems pretty well ... as you get more experience you get more hit points and bigger scary monsters do more damage.. right ?

My point wasn't that you don't understand how the hitpoint mechanic is used in actual play. I think every gamer understands this, and everyone who I've introduced to a system with hitpoints for the first time grasped it immediately, so that I wouldn't claim this seriously.

My point is that you don't understand the reasoning behind the usage of hitpoints instead of more realistic solutions. Where hitpoints are used, realism isn't a high priority - it's more about simplicity and workability, and for this priority, they work absolutely fine.
Not every game is a physics simultion first and everything else second, and not every gamer objects if someone can sport a 10-arrows-piercing in his belly and still be able to run away. (And now of course someone must step into the discussion and point out that in D&D losing 10d6 of 80 hitpoints due to arrow-fire doesn't have to mean that you have actually arrow wounds, and so on and so on, but I think most people here know this 30+ years discussion already quite well.)

Quote from: SpikeI dunno. I've probably said this before, but it really REALLY needs to be said: anyone that thinks all monsters/opponents MUST work exactly like PC's is not a GM, has probably never really been a GM and probably isn't planning to BE a GM.

Exactly. It's often a good idea to have a set of highly detailed PC rules to give the players witheir single game piece a lot of things to do, and the GM something more coarse-grained with less management need so that he can quickly whip up and send out his bunch of faceless orc fighters.

If you want to have everything work after the same rules (what is especially a viable goal if you aim for a more simulating game), you should make sure that you start with the GMs need of managing large hordes of NPCs so that this task can be done easily.

Quote from: blakkieBut then I'm capable of remembering the games I have played in the past. :rolleyes:

Yeah. Being upset about WotC saying that previous editions weren't all that and a bag of chips is made easier by wearing nostaligia-colored glasses.

Seanchai