Quote from: Mistwell;781334See what I think is actually going on is you say "Hasbro" and then dismiss it as some giant dehumanized mega-corporation based on vague impressions you got from events many years ago involving people who don't even work there anymore - and then I think you weigh those against actual interactions with the good people at Paizo that are much more recent and personal with you because that's where your experience is focused these days, and you conclude from that very unfair comparison that Paizo cares more.

But that's not a fair way to analyze it, because it means you have not seen how interactions go with the current group working on D&D.

So, tell us your experiences that led you to draw that conclusion that Paizo cares more than WOTC's current D&D group.

We all know the history of Wizards' late 3e and 4e era.

As a customer, when a company delivers a shitty product, it takes me a looooong time to change my mind about that company, even if they straighten their shit out.

A year of good PR does not erase years and years of bad PR.

Quote from: The_Shadow;781356It's not about taking a tricorder and measuring the "caring" levels of individuals and plotting them on a graph. It's about assessing the actions of the entities. Let's say, theoretically, that the caring levels of individuals of Company A are off the charts. They are a bunch of huggable cream puffs filled with love for their customer base. They meet and propose to give each and every one of their customer base a personal home visit and a cookie. But when they consult their superiors, and are limited by their funds, they can't do any of it. And are so devastated that the message they deliver instead of the cookie is a little off in tone.

Meanwhile Company B is filled with mercenary individuals, existing only to feed on the souls and wallets of their customers. Yet, cackling gleefully, they follow processes from Dr Flim Flam's Book of Marketing, they have a generous budget, and happen to deliver great value and are loved by their customers.

Which company cares more? Company B. Only results matter.

Which is why I said tell us what your interactions were which led you to draw the conclusions you drew.  

Are we really dodging even that basic level of standards - to describe the things that led you to your conclusion, in non-general and more-specific terms?

Quote from: Endless Flight;781381We all know the history of Wizards' late 3e and 4e era.

Right.  So, to be clear, that history is not relevant to my question, and I even went to some length to explain why that is exactly what would NOT be a fair comparison.  Seems like you are granting that now?  You're saying I am correct, you made an unfair comparison based on history with people who do not even work there anymore?

QuoteAs a customer, when a company delivers a shitty product, it takes me a looooong time to change my mind about that company, even if they straighten their shit out.

That's fine and fair, but has nothing to do with the topic.  You said the people at Paizo CARE MORE about their consumers than the people at WOTC right now.  What does this have to do with that topic?

QuoteA year of good PR does not erase years and years of bad PR.

Right.  And when someone asks you what you feel about the history of public relations with WOTC, I will think that's a useful answer.  But, it has fuck-all to do with what you said, and what I challenged.

It sounds like I was right - you have no fucking clue if the people working at WOTC care more or less about consumers than the people at Paizo, and you were basing that comment on vague generalized public relations notions from years ago based on actions from people who do not even work there anymore.  Which, as I explained, is an unfair basis to draw a conclusion about which people at which company right now care more or less about their consumers.

You're the one who posed the question to me, remember? You asked me, "I think Paizo cares more about their customers than Hasbro does. Is that reasonable?" The answer is a pretty clear "No, it's quite unreasonable", provided by "Hasbro" you actually meant "the D&D Division of WOTC", which are the people actually dealing with the products and services we're discussing.

Quote from: Mistwell;781608You said the people at Paizo CARE MORE about their consumers than the people at WOTC right now.  What does this have to do with that topic?

Don't you know the first thing about being a game geek? If a company designs a game you like, they CARE ABOUT YOU. If a company designs a game you don't like, they're PISSING AND SHITTING ON YOU.

Quote from: Mistwell;781334I think in terms of talking about companies as entities, they are fictional.  Which is why I said they are fictional entities.

Guessing the objection ties to your choice of word over any thing else, companies are legal entities, not fictional ones. They're legal constructs, but they don't exactly exist as some coherent whole as you've pointed out.

Hasbro as a company exists, but the company itself wouldn't have the capacity to care. In fact if a corporation felt emotion I'd be concerned as it'd come closer to justifying various recent US Supreme Court rulings.

Quote from: Mistwell;781604Which is why I said tell us what your interactions were which led you to draw the conclusions you drew.  

Are we really dodging even that basic level of standards - to describe the things that led you to your conclusion, in non-general and more-specific terms?

I could be. But I don't know as I haven't the foggiest idea what you are saying.

Yesterday's Escapist had one of the better video interviews I've seen with Mike Mearls. Link here.

Highlights:

They are determined to avoid the splat-a-month model and view it as harmful to overall sales of the game.

Big part of the game was to reintroduce uncertainty in combat resolution in order to promote healthy sense of tension.

Charop issues were not nearly as important to the majority of players as character options (in terms of story possibilities.)

DM Empowerment is a huge factor. Feedback showed that a majority of players don't even bother to read all the rules, but learn them through playing with others. Even many DMs read a lot less of the material than one would think.

They deliberately tried to avoid over-detailing some sections of the rules - e.g. hiding & stealth.  

Lays out the main objectives for the Starter, the PHB, the MM and the DMG.

People are very interested in setting material.

Thanks for the link.

That was a great interview. Mike covered some features of the game that I hadn't caught: the idea that some spells with concentration can take time to finish so spellcasters will have to depend on their allies to protect them. Awesome.