The Ugly of WotC Boards Administration

[LordVreeg]

I really don't see what people's problem with 4e is. (And please please please no one use that thrice-damned "4$" phrase. Drives me up the bleeding wall) Yes, 4e is a transparent grab to get more money and is overhauling a system many people were happy with. However, I remember not too long before 4e was announced, people complaining about how repetitive 3e products were getting. And they were, no argument here.

Let me say this plainly: WOTC. Is. A. Business. They are in this to make money: they have to, to pay their employees, make more products, etc. If 3.5 is no longer economically viable, their options are to either keep printing material for it until they are out of business, or create a new system that offers them more profit. Why does it bother people that they go for option B?

(And I know this is off topic for this thread, but I really don't feel bad about that - this is the more interesting topic, and less hateful.)

I don't consider this off-topic.  I'd just say the conversation meandered in this direction.  In a sense, the topic could be 'strife caused by the evolution of a game, and the manner in which it is being caried out.'

And I'm as tired of it as you are.  I have not played any version of d20 for Decades, so let me tell you how much fun 70 million threads on this and every other site about this evolution is to me, who could care less.  I feel like a member of the volleyball team in a football factory college.  The whole student body is at the football game, and no one even knows there is a men's volleyball team.[note]True to life analogy[/note]

 ;)

yet your comment convinced me to weigh in.  Nice Job, Xathan.  Or Damn you, I'll try to figure which one.

I help run a good sized business.  And I will tell you why the options they chose are possibly problematic from a business sense.

1) Alienating a client base.  
This move to 4e is tantamount to Microsoft bringing out a new operating system but stopping any support for any of the earlier operating systems, and making sure that any new progamming that comes out will only run on the new system.  

2) Alienating a client base, part 2.  I may be tired of all the press, but I will say that any company that makes a business choice that irks a large percentage of their clientele base, some of which that have been clients for deceades, is a questionable busines move.  Especially if there are other options.  I am probably not the only one who has noticed some strong opinions, or to use Xathan's word, 'Hate'.  And I think part of these strong opinions are based on the amount of people who remember when 3.5 came out.  Wasn't that long ago, and so this looks a lot more of a money-making grab at the expense of the client base than merely a business making a product.  

3)Was there another way?
[blockquote=Xathan]Let me say this plainly: WOTC. Is. A. Business. They are in this to make money: they have to, to pay their employees, make more products, etc. If 3.5 is no longer economically viable, their options are to either keep printing material for it until they are out of business, or create a new system that offers them more profit. Why does it bother people that they go for option B?[/blockquote]  Because there is more than option 'A' and 'B' here.  Yes, they are a business.  Was there a way to increase sales without alientaing large protions of their client community?  Is there anything here that says that if they had created attractive 'optional upgrades' for certain types of specific games (expansion sets seem to do well for all sorts of games...), that they could not have increased their market share and profits while appearing to take care of their current client base?  One wonders.

[Xathan]

I don't consider this off-topic.  I'd just say the conversation meandered in this direction.  In a sense, the topic could be 'strife caused by the evolution of a game, and the manner in which it is being caried out.'

And I'm as tired of it as you are.  I have not played any version of d20 for Decades, so let me tell you how much fun 70 million threads on this and every other site about this evolution is to me, who could care less.  I feel like a member of the volleyball team in a football factory college.  The whole student body is at the football game, and no one even knows there is a men's volleyball team.[note]True to life analogy[/note]
yet your comment convinced me to weigh in.  Nice Job, Xathan.  Or Damn you, I'll try to figure which one.

I help run a good sized business.  And I will tell you why the options they chose are possibly problematic from a business sense.[/quote]1) Alienating a client base.  
This move to 4e is tantamount to Microsoft bringing out a new operating system but stopping any support for any of the earlier operating systems, and making sure that any new progamming that comes out will only run on the new system.[/quote]2) Alienating a client base, part 2.  I may be tired of all the press, but I will say that any company that makes a business choice that irks a large percentage of their clientele base, some of which that have been clients for deceades, is a questionable busines move.  Especially if there are other options.  I am probably not the only one who has noticed some strong opinions, or to use Xathan's word, 'Hate'.  And I think part of these strong opinions are based on the amount of people who remember when 3.5 came out.  Wasn't that long ago, and so this looks a lot more of a money-making grab at the expense of the client base than merely a business making a product. [/quote] Because there is more than option 'A' and 'B' here.  Yes, they are a business.  Was there a way to increase sales without alientaing large protions of their client community?  Is there anything here that says that if they had created attractive 'optional upgrades' for certain types of specific games (expansion sets seem to do well for all sorts of games...), that they could not have increased their market share and profits while appearing to take care of their current client base?  One wonders.[/quote]

While I see your point, I'd argue they were doing this. Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Expanded Psionics Handbook: I consider those all expansion sets to standard DnD, and they were some of my favorite 3.5 products. My question is, how much more of this could they have done before they were scraping the bottom of the barrel? If I felt 3.5 still had years of untapped expansion-type books in it, I'd be as angry as anyone else. It may just be me, but I feel that 3.5 had run out of steam, and a new system was needed to revitalize their products. That, however, is probably more an opinion than anything else.

[SDragon]

While I see your point, I'd argue they were doing this. Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Expanded Psionics Handbook: I consider those all expansion sets to standard DnD, and they were some of my favorite 3.5 products. My question is, how much more of this could they have done before they were scraping the bottom of the barrel?

How many ways have various fantasy settings interpreted magic, alone? There's a few books. What about fighting styles? Got some more. Why not throw in some fantasy sub genres, or am I the only one who doesn't see much WotC-created steampunk outside of Eberron?

I'll agree with you on the whole "look, a new class!" thing, though. While nice for flavor, it seems like anybody with a decent amount of imagination (IE: the vast majority of people who would enjoy a pen-and-paper RPG) could use one of the core classes to cover almost all of the ground that the "new" classes cover (exceptions, of course, do exist). I especially hate coming across a new class that reads roughly along the lines of, "like a rogue, a ninja's key point are stealth and it's sneak attack damage. However, unlike a rogue, a ninja does that while covered in black, and it's called Shadow Attack, not Sneak Attack."

However, I disagree with you on the new monsters and- to a lesser extent- races. While all of the new stuff does provide inspiration for flavor, at least these can provide mechanics for flavor that wouldn't otherwise be supported. A rogue can be a Ninja, but how can the core material pull off a wall of undead souls, similar to the scenes in Pink Floyd's The Wall? What if I want a chupacabra in my game?

Okay, so those last two paragraphs were off-topic, but still points that I wanted to make. Hopefully they don't derail the thread too much.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote+tHE LAST OF THE FALLEN][blockquote=vREEG]'¦1) Alienating a client base.
This move to 4e is tantamount to Microsoft bringing out a new operating system but stopping any support for any of the earlier operating systems, and making sure that any new progamming that comes out will only run on the new system.[/blockquote]

I disagree here. Any company is still perfectly capable of producing 3.5 material, as long as they don't release something as both 3.5 and 4.0. It's more like Microsoft bringing out a new OS and, while they are not supporting their old OS, they still allow people to make stuff under the old OS, which happens to be Open Source.[/blockquote]
And any other company could come out with programs that will still run on Microsofts old OS, if they want.  Sorry, the analogy holds pretty true, since you cannot produce something that will support the new and the old systems, which is the pertinent detail.  This is why it is bad business.  They are saying that 'if you want to use this supplement/program that is new and therefor made in 4e/the new OS, you have to upgrade.

[blockquote=Xathan][blockquote=vREEG]'¦Because there is more than option 'A' and 'B' here. Yes, they are a business. Was there a way to increase sales without alientaing large protions of their client community? Is there anything here that says that if they had created attractive 'optional upgrades' for certain types of specific games (expansion sets seem to do well for all sorts of games...), that they could not have increased their market share and profits while appearing to take care of their current client base? One wonders.[/blockquote]


While I see your point, I'd argue they were doing this. Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Expanded Psionics Handbook: I consider those all expansion sets to standard DnD, and they were some of my favorite 3.5 products. My question is, how much more of this could they have done before they were scraping the bottom of the barrel? If I felt 3.5 still had years of untapped expansion-type books in it, I'd be as angry as anyone else. It may just be me, but I feel that 3.5 had run out of steam, and a new system was needed to revitalize their products. That, however, is probably more an opinion than anything else.[/blockquote]

Your opinions normally make sense.  I was talking (personally) about alternate rule systems that were applicable for different styles of play, such as alternate rules for social systems, etc.  

[brainface]

How many ways have various fantasy settings interpreted magic, alone? There's a few books. What about fighting styles? Got some more. Why not throw in some fantasy sub genres, or am I the only one who doesn't see much WotC-created steampunk outside of Eberron?

Honestly, I'd much rather see a new edition than more books on alternate fighting styles and magic systems. I'm not sure one is more money-grubby than the next, really. And honestly I think a new edition would get more play in the group I'm in (several casual players who own no splat books), so that's the one I'm in favor of :)

[LordVreeg]

How many ways have various fantasy settings interpreted magic, alone? There's a few books. What about fighting styles? Got some more. Why not throw in some fantasy sub genres, or am I the only one who doesn't see much WotC-created steampunk outside of Eberron?

and I am personally very happy that it works for you and your group.  It has little affect on my either way.
But one is more money grubbing if you are making clients buy the core books again.  That is the difference.  By changing the core ruleset, you are asking people to buy something they already have.  I am sure that you have a PHB, etc.  And now you have the pleasure of buying another one, if you want to be able to able to use anything that WotC puts out again.  Now you can buy the New Tome of Magic, compatable with 4e.  They can do all the expansions over again, and they will.

[SDragon]

Right, and in the meantime, players who actually do buy the occasional splatbook get screwed over, not only because they have to buy the redesign of what they already own, but also because redesigning old stuff doesn't leave WotC any time to produce new material. For example, the only splatbook that I've seen have a decent mechanical implementation of how I envision Xiluh shamans, was a third party book based entirely around the new class. WotC, as far as I know, never released anything along those lines. They'll probably be so busy re-releasing old stuff that they won't release anything like that for 4e, either. It's a shame, too, because I can see a book like that really adding interesting options to the game.

[Hibou]

It's a little late to chime in at this point with this I believe, but I'll say it anyway: I can't wait for 4e, even though I'm not likely to purchase it anymore, and this is because of a fledgling hope that they will change the way the system is developed and make it feasible for the system to go on for a much longer time. I've dreamed of a system for 4e that consists of PHB/DMG/MM 1/2/3 as core rules, and then puts out more and more specific, unnecessary splats and adventures only.

I saw in there somewhere that the move to 4e alienates the fanbase, but it also appeals to larger ones, and some of us that are impressed with the changes will hop over too. Musicians especially seem to be famous for this sort of thing and the fans feel the band has sold out to make money - but more often than not, a neutral bystander just sees it as an evolution that allows the target to grow and improve.

[LordVreeg]

Hey, I am that neutral bystander!
(but not innocent...that's for sure)

[SDragon]

Musicians especially seem to be famous for this sort of thing and the fans feel the band has sold out to make money ...

You listen to Punk Rock?

[Ra-Tiel]

http://www.thealexandrian.net/

That guy pretty much sums up why I'm not keen on fourth edition.

That guy is made of whine and fail. :-/
[spoiler]
His solution for save-or-dies (SoDs), for example, horribly breaks the game, even more than SoDs did in 3.0. Making all death effects deal 4d6 points of Con damage just asks for casters abusing stuff like Arcane Thesis, Twin Spell, and Metamagic Rods of Maximize Spell to tweak the Con damage to a level where you automatically die even if you actually succeeded on your saving throw. Further, he's referencing disintegrate (not directly, but clearly understandable from his "side effect of turning a creature into a pile of dust"), which is not a death effect but a mere transmutation spell (that already was changed from SoD to 40d6 damage). Further, he disregards Phantasmal Killer from his "spell level 6th to 9th" list, as this is at spell level 4th the earliest "real" SoD. Finally, he apparently has no grasp on the difference between "ability damage" and "ability penalty" (as he is talking about ability damage inflicted by lasting spells suddenly disappearing when their duration runs out - which ability damage just won't do).

His complaint about "per day" abilities is equally bad. He simply fails to realize that "per day" abilities are not meant to be the bread and butter of a character's maneuvers and moves, but instead fall into the category of "spectacular finishing moves". For example, when the rogue from his example was fighting the evil warlord ontop his castle's main tower, or near a cliff, he can make him "slide" off the edge, sending him falling to his death with an insane flurry of pressing strikes (or move him into an extremely bad position where your fighter buddy can cleave his head off). It's not something you do with every goblin that crosses your path. However, this has been stated repeatedly by WotC. What "The Alexandrian" is trying to describe, are the "at will" and "per encounter" abilities instead.

His complaint about "marking abilities" is flawed as well. Just because there's no explicit explaination of the ingame usage of the ability in the book doesn't mean it is completely removed from the setting. Oh how I remember how much players were pissed off with WotC when they started putting descriptions into their books as to how casting of a specific spell looked like (starting with the Spell Compendium). Everyone and his dog was crying out loud about spoonfeeding and death of player creativity. And now he comes around, and asks for WotC to spoonfeed us the ingame working of every freaking ability in the core books? Also, one of the major complaints with 3.x was that a fighter (the role, not the class) has no reliable mechanic to shield the weaker members of the party. In most cases, the more agile enemies simply flew over/tumbled around the fighter and attacked the wizard or other "squishy" targets first, leaving the fighter outmaneuvered. Marking abilities are the solution to this problem, as the fighter can concentrate his attention on an enemy and while not completely block his way, can at least inflict penalties upon it (or grant bonuses to the rest of his party) if it choses to ignore the "tank".

I give him a point on his talk about marks interacting with each other. However, I fail to see why he needs to ramble on about it when he has already given the answer by himself: game balance. Stockpiling abilities (eg, like marks) is always a problem and should be kept out of the game at all costs. He basically goes on saying "I understand why they did it, but I still decide to whine about it".

When he continues to talk about the trade-offs of disassociated mechanics I nearly went "face->palm". I've seen so many good roleplaying games that had so terrible rules for combat, especially positioning and movement, that I wanted to avoid combat at all costs (even if it was completely unlike the character I was playing). I'd rather have a game with hard mechanics on that aspects, than a game where I can avoid the deathblast'o'doom from some hostile sorcerer by convincing my DM that I just didn't stand in the blast's radius. Also, the roleplaying is always done on the players' part, not on the mechanics' one. The mechanics are only there to create a balanced and fair environment for the characters to interact with. Hell, I've seen better roleplaying being done in some NWN1 module than in several sessions I had the "pleasure" to participate in.

In his talk about skill challenges there is one epic fail if I've ever seen one. Has he even read the description of the challenge? "Insight: You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance." Well, now what could a character say if he failed to "empathize with the NPC"? Perhaps something like "My lord, I really don't understand why you're upset about the loss of that village. They were only simple farmers, not much use to a noble like you."? Failing to get a feeling for "the other side" in any social situation is pretty much a definitive desaster. His next part is equally bad. Basically, he's complaining about how skill challenges were railroading because they could only be applied to a specific course of action ("For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way." instead of "Trying to get the baron to help us."). I'm terribly sure, more general skill challenges would greatly enhance the game ("Trying to free the princess.", "Trying to slay the dragon.", "Trying to convince the lich queen to give us all her gear."). He simply fails to grasp that in his example with "finding a way to get into the castle" each possible way is its own skill challenge. Also, his rant about how "talking to a guard makes climbing the wall easier" is flawed beyond conception.

Finally, if he hates "disassociated mechanics" that bad, I guess he must absolutely abhorr DnD (and all other non-freeform rpgs as well) at all. Because other than "because" no explainations are ever given for a class'/race's/monster's abilities (Why does a favored soul grow wings? Why can only humans create half-breeds? Why can the balor use blasphemy at will?).
[/spoiler]
As for his points, I'll give him 1 out of 7 possible stars, as most of his writing is just senseless ranting about something that hasn't even been released yet.



Regarding the topic at hand, I'll just say my two coppers:

#1: I barely visit the WotC forums any longer, mostly because of that amazingly stupid login process that requires a redirect and the loading of a page that takes almost half a minute to download with DSL 384 (why they just wouldn't incorporate the "email" and "password" fields into the forum layout as it was before all that Gleemax mess is beyond me).

#2: I've talked a little with Gamer_Zero, especially in the earlier stages of the transition to Gleemax, and he always seemed like a reasonable guy. Perhaps due to #1 I've missed some fundamental change in his modus operandi.

[SA]

That guy is made of whine and fail.

That is so totally getting quoted.

[Stargate525]

I dunno. I'm not following 4e, so I had to take most of his quotes at face value. And, unless I'm mistaken, everything anyone says for or against 4e with any kind of backing is 'senseless ranting about something that hasn't even been released yet.'

[SDragon]

Was G0 around before or after the Gleemax transition? If it was before, I probably saw him, but didn't take any notice. If it was after, then I've never seen him.

Actually, it's been a couple of years since I was a regular at those forums.

[Elemental_Elf]

He came on I reckon 6 months before everything switched to Gleemax, shortly before the Dragonlance-Gate scandal.