What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[renau1g]

Also, avoid using confusing terms like "bloodied" when hit points are abstract. Whenever possible, do not use titles like "warlord" when that word evokes different meanings to different people or different meanings in-game than metagame. Misleading words cause big arguments.

Like fighter....or rogue? Those mean different things to different people as well.

 

[Wicht]

Like fighter....or rogue? Those mean different things to different people as well.

In what way can the 3e fighter and rogue classes be considered counter to any common stereotypes associated with those words? Just curious.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'. Hit because it also refers to a blow that strikes armor but does not penetrate. And damage and hit points because they include not just physical injury but luck, skill, divine protection, etc.

Likewise, for most people cleric does not conjure up images of a guy in plate armor swinging a mace. Most clergymen are fairly peaceable types, even those in history.

The only reason we don't find these terms confusing is because we've been playing the game for so long.

 

[Wicht]

Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'.

I have been very fortunate then. Noone I ever taught to play, including 4 year olds, ever found those terms confusing. Of course, I never tried to make it mean anything other than physical damage either.

Meanwhile, I admit that when I think cleric, I think priest, not armored warrior. Of course, most of the illustrations of clerics in the game focus on the priestly aspects more than the armor. And whenever anyone says, "what is a cleric," I answer, "priest." Never created any confusion for my games.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Of course, I never tried to make it mean anything other than physical damage either.

That's actually a house rule, at least I know that in 1e and 3e it is. And it leads to the problem of a high level fighter becoming superhumanly tough and durable, as resistant to injury as a rhinocerous.

I'm not saying it's the wrong way to go, just that any interpretation of hit points is problematic.

 

[Wicht]

I'm not saying it's the wrong way to go, just that any interpretation of hit points is problematic.

If you say so. Never been a problem in my games, but I'll take your word for it that it is so.

 

[NoWayJose]

Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'.

On the other hand, "hit" is arguably an abstract term:
-to deal a blow or stroke to

If your PC is "hit", it could mean lots of things. A glancing blow on armor is still a "hit". But that's OK when hit points are abstracted and doesn't require a hit to penetrate armor. When you say "you are hit" metagame vs "you are hit" ingame, there need be no dissonance.

"Damage" is also arguably a generic word:
- injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness

Damage can correctly imply a wound, concussion, shaken confidence, damaged morale, etc.

Unfortunately, the real meaning of the word "bloodied" is pretty damn specific:
- To stain, spot, or color with or as if with blood
- To make bleed, as by injuring or wounding

The metagame definition of bloodied is NOT the in-game definition of bloodied (it can be, but it usually isn't).

So yes, "bloodied" is a misleading term, and I think that's just the tip of the iceberg, and I think the overall lack of caring about reconciling 4E metagame elements to fluff is one reason why a) 4E reads so badly and b) 4E can feel very gamist, a big obstacle to attracting the Disenchanted.

 

[Jack99]

First of all, sorry for the phrasing of my sentence, it was quite a bit short of stellar.

So, it was three years ago, I don't keep names in my mind that long. Basically, every question I asked about anything was responded to with very terse, condescending answers. The individual in charge of the large die at the WotC booth acted as if I'd just insulted his grandmother when I asked "So what is Dreamblade?"

"Well, if you tested it, you'd know. Did you actually *play* any of our games?" was his answer.

I can totally see why answers like that would piss someone off. But going from what you tell us, it seems to me that whoever you talked to probably is a nobody, not one of the designers or developers, which I assumed (and that’s really never a good idea in communication) you meant in your initial post.

With that in mind, I am not sure I understand why one low-ranked employee can turn you off from buying WotC’s products. Now, if it was Mike, Bill, James or someone like that, I could (maybe understand why one rude representative could turn you off the game you like. Unless you didn’t already not like it, in which case what happened with the representative has little influence on your choice to not support WotC anymore.

Either way, you are of course entitled to feel however you want, I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong. Just that I do not understand why you react like that.

Cheers

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Wandered here and all over but with excellent temperament great points around. Thread's almost to 1,000 posts, I think I'm good with unsubscribing from this now . . .

 

[caelum]

With that in mind, I am not sure I understand why one low-ranked employee can turn you off from buying WotC’s products. Now, if it was Mike, Bill, James or someone like that, I could (maybe understand why one rude representative could turn you off the game you like.

Personally, I don't think you should have to keep track of who the designers are (and I don't think many fans do, and I don't think that WotC thinks they do - hence the massive turnover at the company). And if somebody is rude to me, whether a customer service representative or a manager, my opinion of the company goes down.

I have a hazy memory of similar reports from a year or two ago. I bring this up not to slam WotC but to mention that, if memory serves, Scott Rouse immediately jumped in, apologized, and promised to look into the matter. That kind of representation and forthrightness impressed me, and I think that kind of engagement with the community is another thing WotC can do to make me more willing to give their products a look.

It is a shame that his voice (and lurkinglidda's) are gone and haven't been replaced, leaving a void in this community, at least. I don't frequent WotC boards, though I imagine their replacements are more engaged there.