Quote from: StuartYes.  "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.

In other words, no, you wouldn't have them saying the kinds of things you're saying that they're saying. (That's what I'm saying.) You'd have them approach it differently.

But, really, "There are things I can't talk about," isn't ominious or driven by the marketing department. For example, if you could ask, I'm sure hundreds of playtesters would say, "I can't talk about that." Doesn't mean there's necessarily something wrong, just that there's information not to be revealed.

Seanchai

I like the sound of this new rule. It acknowledges the abstract nature of HP's whilst incorporating a nifty bit of tense randomization.

QuoteMonsters don't need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don't have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I'm sure my table isn't the only place that happens.) We've talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they're supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap.

I actually like this; both the stabbing downed foes and the slim chance some poor mook is going to live to crawl off and maybe even level.  Maybe I'm in the minority, and maybe they're right to streamline it for their target audience, but its one more change that tells me I'm not their target buyer.

First some history (emphasis mine)...

Quote from: Trevelyan]PR/eariler edition bashing - did it ever occur to some people that WotC might genuinely believe, having looked at both the way most people play the game and the way in which they develop new products, that PC monster parity in rules is a bad idea?

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.

Quote from: TrevelyanYour first mistake is 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.

Now back to today...

Quote from: James J SkachReally? 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?

I think you'll find that you are mistaken when it comes to what I did and did not actually claim. :rolleyes:

As for the rest, the whole point about WotC believing that their approach is better is that they believe itis objectively better whether it is or not. Hence they abse their approach on that assumption.

QuoteThey 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.

In this specific instance they've criticised a design approach, but in the apst they've been accused of directly insulting past editions. My point was mean to cover all of those cases as well.

Looking at the specific monster design point, the fact that people like their ugly kids does nothing to alter the fact that those kids are ugly. "Some people like that" is no reason not to say "That has problems which this new thing does not have". The reason you don't insult people's ugly kids is because there is a reasonable expectation that those parents won't take it too well. I see no reason to assume that people would get equally defensive of a game. Hell, WotC are even insulting their own past practices. If they are prepared to turn around and say "we, as a company, fucked up in the past, but now we've found a better way to do it" they why should everyone else take it so personally?

QuoteRight - 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?

Again, why is it reasonable to assume that reasonable people would find it insulting in the first place? And as for the unreasonable people, they're going to be insulted whatever you say.

Quote from: SaladmanI actually like this; both the stabbing downed foes and the slim chance some poor mook is going to live to crawl off and maybe even level.  Maybe I'm in the minority, and maybe they're right to streamline it for their target audience, but its one more change that tells me I'm not their target buyer.

Did you not read what you quoted? It says that monsters don't use the bleeding system UNLESS the GM has some special reason to do so. You have a special reason - you like post-fight stabbing and the chances of mooks crawling off to come back another day - so you can use it.

First some history (emphasis mine)...

Quote from: TrevelyanIf A is better than B, actually objectively better, then does it not make sense when publicising A to mention that it has a feature which improves on something that didn't work as well in B?

There, sir, is your "objectively better" goal past. Unless, of course, there a rule that says I can't reply to posts that weren't directed at me (that's from a response to Stuart).

Now back to today...(I'll leave out the roll-eyes)

Quote from: TrevelyanAs for the rest, the whole point about WotC believing that their approach is better is that they believe itis objectively better whether it is or not. Hence they abse their approach on that assumption.

I'm not sure if I get you here, but it seems your saying even is A is A, it's ok for WotC to insult people who believe A is A because they genuinely believe A is B. Is that right?   I find it hard to believe that's your position, but whatever provides buoyancy to your water craft. Of course, I'm not claiming A is A or A is B.  I'm saying it's a subjective argument, so you can't claim either.

Quote from: TrevelyanLooking at the specific monster design point, the fact that people like their ugly kids does nothing to alter the fact that those kids are ugly.

Here, sir, is the crux of the issue. Because a PR department, usually, does everything it can to make sure that people don't feel you've just called their kids ugly - whether they are or not. That's their fucking job - to assume the worst possible reading of something like that and adjust it accordingly to accomplish not calling someone's kids ugly - whether they are ugly or not.

Yeah, it's a game.  It's also a business.  In business, you don't do this stuff - not if you don't want to risk collateral damage to your product from things which very well could have little to do with the quality of your product.

Could they have commented on Monsters-as-PC's?  Absolutely - I'd expect them to if changing approach.  It's the means, not the ends...

Quote from: TrevelyanAgain, why is it reasonable to assume that reasonable people would find it insulting in the first place? And as for the unreasonable people, they're going to be insulted whatever you say.

Because that's the job of a PR/Marketing department. Unless, of course, you take the attitude that you could give a fuck about those customers. And therein lies the rub.

Okay, I havent read all 10 other pages, but after reading the OP post, i'm fully disgusted with the new hit point thing. It's sloppy AND lazy in my opinon, and ... im pretty speachless about it at this point.

Ill be back for a full and complete review soon.

Quote from: James J Skach

Quote from: trevelyanIf A is better than B, actually objectively better, then does it not make sense when publicising A to mention that it has a feature which improves on something that didn't work as well in B?

There, sir, is your "objectively better" goal past. Unless, of course, there a rule that says I can't reply to posts that weren't directed at me (that's from a response to Stuart).

Now back to today...(I'll leave out the roll-eyes)

Seriously? The post you quote above is where I was speculating as to the mindset of WotC. It's clear if you read that post in context that I'm not stating my own views on the matter. My own views were clearly and unambiguously expressed in the post which I mentioned early and which was directed at you.

QuoteI'm not sure if I get you here, but it seems your saying even is A is A, it's ok for WotC to insult people who believe A is A because they genuinely believe A is B. Is that right?

No, I'm saying that if WotC genuinely believe that A (different monster creation rules) is better than B (monsters using PC creation rules) then there is nothing wrong with saying that A is better than B. If someone who likes B takes that to mean "you suck forever and so do all your friends" then that's a problem with the player, not with WotC.

QuoteHere, sir, is the crux of the issue. Because a PR department, usually, does everything it can to make sure that people don't feel you've just called their kids ugly - whether they are or not.

But at the same time, there are some people who will insist that you just insulted their baby, their wife, their honour or any other thing simply because they like a fight. At some point it is no longer effective to pander to their insecurities at the cost of promoting a product to people who are capable of behaving a little less emotionally.

QuoteYeah, it's a game.  It's also a business.  In business, you don't do this stuff - not if you don't want to risk collateral damage to your product from things which very well could have little to do with the quality of your product.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I very much doubt WotC will suffer financially because a few people over react to the PR. In the long run most of the nay-sayers are going to buy this game (que the litany of people swearing that they won't touch it with a 10' pole)

QuoteBecause that's the job of a PR/Marketing department. Unless, of course, you take the attitude that you could give a fuck about those customers. And therein lies the rub.

If for "those customers" you mean "those customers who have decided to be predisposed to objecting to anything that WotC say" then I'm inclined to agree with them.

Quote from: TrevelyanSeriously? The post you quote above is where I was speculating as to the mindset of WotC. It's clear if you read that post in context that I'm not stating my own views on the matter. My own views were clearly and unambiguously expressed in the post which I mentioned early and which was directed at you.

That's a nice try - really.  I mean, I'd be at a loss too if I was quoted as saying the very thing I said I didn't do.  But that quote and the surrounding text from that post make no mention of WotC's mindset. In fact, the point is it raised the bar from your earlier "if WotC believes it's better" point.  go ahead and read your posts, in order.  If you honestly can't see how you inserted "objective better" into the debate, I can't really show you any other way.

As to your views - well, it's got really nice language like "'I want evewy mwonster to be spweshul' crowd." Which makes it clear your disdain for someone who might think that way. I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'll let Mr. Walker discuss that with you if he so chooses. In case you've missed it, I've specifically said I'm not exclusively of one mind or another about it. IMHO I think it might behoove them to allow for both options - as mentioned in the "if a DM really wants to they can use these rules" portion. Again, IMHO, allowing for those kinds of options throughout would be the best approach in the tradition of making the game as open as possible to as many preferences as possible.

Quote from: TrevelyanNo, I'm saying that if WotC genuinely believe that A (different monster creation rules) is better than B (monsters using PC creation rules) then there is nothing wrong with saying that A is better than B. If someone who likes B takes that to mean "you suck forever and so do all your friends" then that's a problem with the player, not with WotC.

In case I haven't made myself clear, I've got no problem with them saying they believe that A is better than B - this entire discussion is about how they say that.  IMHO, this way was not a good way to do from a PR persective.

Quote from: TrevelyanBut at the same time, there are some people who will insist that you just insulted their baby, their wife, their honour or any other thing simply because they like a fight. At some point it is no longer effective to pander to their insecurities at the cost of promoting a product to people who are capable of behaving a little less emotionally.

There is little cost in PR making sure it doesn't happen. And it's not pandering, it's simply making the attempt to try not to insult.  If they had made the same point (or, IMHO, left out the "justification" angle in this article and pointed to existing or soon-to-come information about why they think their way is beneficial) without terms such as "bogus" and "trap" I wouldn't have given it a second glance.

From you "For the love of.." post, I got the sense that you were frustrated by the responses - you should behave a bit less emotionally, no?

Quote from: TrevelyanI'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I very much doubt WotC will suffer financially because a few people over react to the PR. In the long run most of the nay-sayers are going to buy this game (que the litany of people swearing that they won't touch it with a 10' pole)

You never know - and that's why, from a PR perspective, it's best not to stir the hornets nest. Now I don't doubt that the number of people who require the monsters are handled the exact same and won't buy a product because of it is small.  But I'd venture a guess that there are quite a few people who are disenchanted with other aspects that have been called out in a similar way. To them this could be just another straw. Again, that's why from a PR perspective, you attempt to minimize these things. While you might be reasonably sure about the direct impact, it's more difficult to be sure of the the collateral effects.

Quote from: TrevelyanIf for "those customers" you mean "those customers who have decided to be predisposed to objecting to anything that WotC say" then I'm inclined to agree with them.

Yeah, because you don't want to court those people and try to get them to buy your game either, right? I mean, fuck them - they're just a bunch of emotionally fragile insecure assholes anyway, right? You should work for WotC PR, you'd fit right in...

Look, if you can't see how it would have been beneficial, from a PR perspective, to find a better way to discuss that piece of information, I can't help you. So I'll leave it to you from here on out. I've taken this too far afield from the OP - which I already covered by saying that IMHO this is one of the better ideas and missives, overall, I've seen about 4e since the whole shebang started...

Quote from: James J SkachThat's a nice try - really.  I mean, I'd be at a loss too if I was quoted as saying the very thing I said I didn't do.  But that quote and the surrounding text from that post make no mention of WotC's mindset. In fact, the point is it raised the bar from your earlier "if WotC believes it's better" point.  go ahead and read your posts, in order.  If you honestly can't see how you inserted "objective better" into the debate, I can't really show you any other way.

For the record, when I read that I took it to be referring to WotC's belief, not Trevalyn's.

Quote from: WarthurDid you not read what you quoted? It says that monsters don't use the bleeding system UNLESS the GM has some special reason to do so. You have a special reason - you like post-fight stabbing and the chances of mooks crawling off to come back another day - so you can use it.

I read exactly what I quoted.   For brevity's sake I snipped the paragraph immediately after they got done talking done my preferred play style ("bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design").  Unfortunately, I underestimated the literal-mindedness of commenters and left off the sentences describing the "dramatic reasons...  [for] story-based exceptions to the norm" which is what the writers clearly meant by "special reasons."

And yes, I knew when I posted it would be an easy house rule.  Past a certain point, though, I'm better off trying to run another game than brief players on a long list of house rules.  As I said in my last post, maybe they are right, but every release I've seen puts me more in the PHB at most camp.

Quote from: James McMurrayFor the record, when I read that I took it to be referring to WotC's belief, not Trevalyn's.

OK, I must not be expressing myself. I get where the confusion is now.

This isn't about whether it's Trevalyn's or WotC's "belief."  His statement is that A is objectively better than B. Trev or WotC can believe anything they like - and that's kinda the point. They can't prove it's objectively better.  Once that's the case, once they can't say "now with 27% less preparation time (*typical results, actual results may vary) and no impact on play!" or some such, they're dealing in opinion. And if you're a company trying to sell a new product it's best not to state opinions a) as facts, and b) as facts that call the kids people with another opinion ugly.

Perhaps that helps clarify what I'm trying to say.  If that was the problem, my inability to communicate my issue, I apologize.

Quote from: James J SkachThis isn't about whether it's Trevalyn's or WotC's "belief."

Clearly it was a few posts ago.

QuoteHis statement is that A is objectively better than B. Trev or WotC can believe anything they like - and that's kinda the point. They can't prove it's objectively better.  Once that's the case, once they can't say "now with 27% less preparation time (*typical results, actual results may vary) and no impact on play!" or some such, they're dealing in opinion. And if you're a company trying to sell a new product it's best not to state opinions a) as facts, and b) as facts that call the kids people with another opinion ugly.

Maybe I wasn't expressing myself clearly either. It doesn't matter whether you think it's an opinion or not. What matters is that WotC think it's a fact.

They don't endeavour to support this with statistics, instead they have offered an argument, made across several publicity pieces, that mandating a rigid monster creation system based on that used for PCs is both time consuming and restrictive without providing the promised gain in terms of balance. Is that not basis enough for them to make the claims that they do?

QuotePerhaps that helps clarify what I'm trying to say.  If that was the problem, my inability to communicate my issue, I apologize.

Laying aside the "whose belief is it anyway" argument, I think I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree.

For clarity, I do agree that WotC could avoid making comments which have predictably annoyed some poeple. But I think that they have a rationale for making those comments based on what they persieve as the objective superiority of the new design principles.

I also think that any potential customer who declares that he will not buy the new edition on the basis of the PR points we have been discussing is either lying to himself about his likihood of buying the game, or lying to us about his original intentions. A very tiny minority of people might be so emotionally insecure that this one issue is a deciding factor for them, but they have bigger problems.

Personally I don't understand the whole attitude that people have to supporting or "punishing" companies on the absis of PR. If the game is good then why do I care that the PR department are a group of offensive, socially maladjusted, baby sacrificing satanists? Likewise, if the game is a pile of pap then I'm not going to play it simply because PR issued a nicely worded formal apology for all their failings and promised to try harder next time.

Quote from: James J SkachOK, I must not be expressing myself. I get where the confusion is now.

This isn't about whether it's Trevalyn's or WotC's "belief."  His statement is that A is objectively better than B. Trev or WotC can believe anything they like - and that's kinda the point. They can't prove it's objectively better.  Once that's the case, once they can't say "now with 27% less preparation time (*typical results, actual results may vary) and no impact on play!" or some such, they're dealing in opinion. And if you're a company trying to sell a new product it's best not to state opinions a) as facts, and b) as facts that call the kids people with another opinion ugly.

Perhaps that helps clarify what I'm trying to say.  If that was the problem, my inability to communicate my issue, I apologize.

It looks like it was me who was not being clear. I took it to mean "WotC believes it to be objectively better" not a statement of actual objectivity.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt looks like it was me who was not being clear. I took it to mean "WotC believes it to be objectively better" not a statement of actual objectivity.

That was exactly the point I intended to convey