|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:16PM
#11
|
|
|
Hi all,
Has anyone else noticed how over the past 3-4 weeks the general tone of most posts has improved. There seems to be more constructive criticism, and genuine sharing of experiences, and less ranting.
We've either scared all of the "Debbie Downers" and "Doubting Thomases" from posting, or the changes in the game are beginning to draw us toward common ground.
This is very good news. Keep it going. Thanks WotC.
You haven't scared me away. I've simply had people point out where I was using inflammatory language and ways to post an idea without seeming to be antagonistic. Instead of an Orc saying "You violated X clause of the CoC" they should instead say "You should express this thought in this way..." way more helpful. Remember people on the internet have to follow a whole different set of rules to express themselves in a clear way since you can't see facial expressions or tones of voice...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:19PM
#12
|
|
|
As much as I would like to credit it to a change in the posters, my suspicion (in part due to years spent moderating boards for BioWare back when NWN was in development) is that it is more due to natural fatigue.
When the packet drops - people are up in arms about the things they don't like. After awhile, they've made their point, often vociferously, over and over. They get tired or repeating themselves. Most move on to other things - at least until something new is released that hits their hot button and they explode all over again - ranting about how "wizards having some spells that can be cast as encounter spells can only mean that they will be able to fill their entire array of daily spells with encounter attack spells cast at daily strength and will become gods" or some such. 
Just so long as people can keep their focus on the posts themselves and give everyone the benefit of assuming that they are merely excited fans of the game who want what they truely feel is best for the game and avoid insulting each other (or the WoTC employees and freelancers) - a bit of vigorous debate can't hurt.
But we shall see in October when the next packet drops. I predict an explosion of screaming that gradually dies down to a quiet grumble.
Carl
I'm sorry CarlT, but that's not a rant its a straight forward response filled with facts. If you found it inflammatory, how would you express the same idea in a more reasonable tone without losing anything?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:29PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
As much as I would like to credit it to a change in the posters, my suspicion (in part due to years spent moderating boards for BioWare back when NWN was in development) is that it is more due to natural fatigue.
When the packet drops - people are up in arms about the things they don't like. After awhile, they've made their point, often vociferously, over and over. They get tired or repeating themselves. Most move on to other things - at least until something new is released that hits their hot button and they explode all over again - ranting about how "wizards having some spells that can be cast as encounter spells can only mean that they will be able to fill their entire array of daily spells with encounter attack spells cast at daily strength and will become gods" or some such.
Just so long as people can keep their focus on the posts themselves and give everyone the benefit of assuming that they are merely excited fans of the game who want what they truely feel is best for the game and avoid insulting each other (or the WoTC employees and freelancers) - a bit of vigorous debate can't hurt.
But we shall see in October when the next packet drops. I predict an explosion of screaming that gradually dies down to a quiet grumble.
Carl
I'm sorry CarlT, but that's not a rant its a straight forward response filled with facts. If you found it inflammatory, how would you express the same idea in a more reasonable tone without losing anything?
Personally - I would start by always clarifying the fact that it is your assumption about how it will work not (as you present it) a known and verified fact.
Laying out what you think and why you think it might actually bring some around to see it your way; stating it as if it is an obvious and known fact only divides the board into those that already agree with you and those that do not.
At the very least - it allows people to focus on the real issue which is "is there a chance that he might be right - and if so should we start lobbying to make sure they change it?" But as long as you simply state your assumptions as fact, you short circuit any reasonable discussion on the issue.
In my opinion.
Of course - since you don't seem to recognize that your assumptions may not actually represent the reality, this probably falls on deaf ears.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:36PM
#14
|
|
|
As much as I would like to credit it to a change in the posters, my suspicion (in part due to years spent moderating boards for BioWare back when NWN was in development) is that it is more due to natural fatigue.
When the packet drops - people are up in arms about the things they don't like. After awhile, they've made their point, often vociferously, over and over. They get tired or repeating themselves. Most move on to other things - at least until something new is released that hits their hot button and they explode all over again - ranting about how "wizards having some spells that can be cast as encounter spells can only mean that they will be able to fill their entire array of daily spells with encounter attack spells cast at daily strength and will become gods" or some such.
Just so long as people can keep their focus on the posts themselves and give everyone the benefit of assuming that they are merely excited fans of the game who want what they truely feel is best for the game and avoid insulting each other (or the WoTC employees and freelancers) - a bit of vigorous debate can't hurt.
But we shall see in October when the next packet drops. I predict an explosion of screaming that gradually dies down to a quiet grumble.
Carl
I'm sorry CarlT, but that's not a rant its a straight forward response filled with facts. If you found it inflammatory, how would you express the same idea in a more reasonable tone without losing anything?
Personally - I would start by always clarifying the fact that it is your assumption about how it will work not (as you present it) a known and verified fact.
Laying out what you think and why you think it might actually bring some around to see it your way; stating it as if it is an obvious and known fact only divides the board into those that already agree with you and those that do not.
At the very least - it allows people to focus on the real issue which is "is there a chance that he might be right - and if so should we start lobbying to make sure they change it?" But as long as you simply state your assumptions as fact, you short circuit any reasonable discussion on the issue.
In my opinion.
Of course - since you don't seem to recognize that your assumptions may not actually represent the reality, this probably falls on deaf ears.
Carl
Here let me throw a matrix at you:
Wizards have access to signature spells.
Signature spells can be cast once per encounter.
Signature spells are the same as non-signature spells in power.
Signature spells can be memorized just like non-signature spells.
All of these have been stated to be true in the various articles, interviews, and videos that WotC has put out. How would I express my concern knowing these are facts and still keep my tone non-offensive? Can I get an example?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:38PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
These boards tend to be very cordial - until alignment and/or paladins get involved.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:53PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Here let me throw a matrix at you:
Wizards have access to signature spells.
Signature spells can be cast once per encounter.
Signature spells are the same as non-signature spells in power.
Signature spells can be memorized just like non-signature spells.
All of these have been stated to be true in the various articles, interviews, and videos that WotC has put out. How would I express my concern knowing these are facts and still keep my tone non-offensive? Can I get an example?
When stated in this manner - it is a good start to a rational discussion.
However, you are also making a few assumptions not stated in the interviews.
You are assuming:
The signature spells will be damaging attack spells [quite possible - but the only example they gave was feather fall - a utility spell]
The signature spells are memorized using the same spell slots as the normal daily spells and thus the wizard can fill their entire allotment of daily spell slots with signature spells.
If either of these assumptions turns out not to be true, then most of your objections are no longer valid. If both of these are true, then I agree with your assessment that they would be seriously breaking the game.
The difference is that I disagree on how likely it is that both of these are true - and since it would be so clealy damaging to the game and so clearly broken compared to the other classes (and so unlike how such classes have worked in any other edition, including 4E) - I consider it highly unlikely they would be taking the class in the direction you describe.
Thus, I assume that the tiny and vague glimpse we have been given into how the mechanic will work is incomplete - and thus rather than exploding all over the forums I wait until we get some actual facts about how it will actually work.
If you want to know what I assume, it is this: Wizards will have a finite number of "signature spell slots" -["they have access to signature spells"] possibly as many as one per spell level (too many - unless they are utility spells) and possibly as few as one (likely too few) and they will be able to fill these slots by memorizing any spell they know ["These spells are memorized as are non-signature spells"] from their school into that slot OR it is possible that they will either create new spells for this purpose - or move the spells off of the normal spell list (ike the cleric domain spells) ["these spells can be cast once per encounter"; "these spells are the same as non-signature spells in power"]. But this is as much an assumption as yours - so I am stuck waiting till they decide to share. As are you.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:59PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2007
|
I don't post often for a variety of reasons. I'm in a different time zone from most of the forum for a start, so if I get involved in a discussion that a lot of people are interested in I tend to miss 10-12 pages while I sleep. By that point the conversation has mostly moved on and even if I wanted to go back to an earlier point....nobody else cares.
The biggest reason though is that I find there is a contingent of posters who disagree with me about certain aspects of the game, and do so loudly. It wouldn't bother me if there was actual debade involved but too often I see my posts refuted without any attempt to argue a point. I simply get told I'm wrong or I get ignored completely when I ask a question.
So I usually find it easier to just not reply when I see something I want to add to a debate, because it isn't worth the headache.
Unless you post often on a forum, or have a long history with it, your opinion isn't valued. That's an observation rather than a complaint. I've been a major player in other forums before, but on this one I am a very minor one so I've seen both sides of the coin. If you swim against the current of opinion of the most prominent personalities most people will just stop bothering.
It's possible that the forum has simply reached the point were many who hold differing viewpoints from the loudest members have given up. All my personal opinion and experience of course. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 10:09PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2007
|
Yeah, this place is a lot more pleasant than the norm. I've been more inclined to interact lately. I'm hopeful that it's the spirit of the edition that's factoring into this as well; it's about getting everyone to play the way they want, so it's not as though anyone can get argumentative about what the edition's supposed to play like.
But yeah, thanks to everyone for being pleasant and open-minded. I try to be as well. Keep up the good work!
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 10:28PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I don't post often for a variety of reasons. I'm in a different time zone from most of the forum for a start, so if I get involved in a discussion that a lot of people are interested in I tend to miss 10-12 pages while I sleep. By that point the conversation has mostly moved on and even if I wanted to go back to an earlier point....nobody else cares.
The biggest reason though is that I find there is a contingent of posters who disagree with me about certain aspects of the game, and do so loudly. It wouldn't bother me if there was actual debade involved but too often I see my posts refuted without any attempt to argue a point. I simply get told I'm wrong or I get ignored completely when I ask a question.
So I usually find it easier to just not reply when I see something I want to add to a debate, because it isn't worth the headache.
Unless you post often on a forum, or have a long history with it, your opinion isn't valued. That's an observation rather than a complaint. I've been a major player in other forums before, but on this one I am a very minor one so I've seen both sides of the coin. If you swim against the current of opinion of the most prominent personalities most people will just stop bothering.
It's possible that the forum has simply reached the point were many who hold differing viewpoints from the loudest members have given up. All my personal opinion and experience of course. YMMV.
You should definitely post even if you don't keep up with the conversation. Sometimes one idea can lead to many wonderful ideas, or help someone else see things differently. I think most people who post just want to add to the mix and stimulate interesting conversations. I wouldn't even call it debate. The wonderful thing about this game is that each person who plays or DMs it, sees a part of it differently.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 11:45PM
#20
|
|
|
After a few months I found this message board to be filled with nothing more than vapid posts involving single sentence respones (usually grafted onto seven quoted posts) or arguments which boil down to "I don't play like that and it doesn't feel like D&D to me".
Unfortunately the interest I had at the beginning of the year has faded. When it comes to feeling there is little reason for debate anymore and the playtest rules so far don't interest me. I'm still interested in the tactical combat rules, but for now I'm just a lurker.
|
|
|
