![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quiz on skin disease or D&D character, posted at work. I took it.
Note, please, that even though I work for the company that makes D&D, I got this many correct because I know a skin disease when I see it. Except for one.
|
Note, please, that even though I work for the company that makes D&D, I got this many correct because I know a skin disease when I see it. Except for one.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
And I don't play DnD
Skin Disease or Dungeons and Dragons Character?
Score: 94% (15 out of 16)
</td>
From:
Rant
The thing is they know their market. Since most gamers are obseseive/compulsive about rule changes, they know their hardcore audience will continue to be duped by such blatant marketing ideas.
Am I being cheap, or cynical, or do I think the 3.0 edition rules are just fine without updates every couple of years?
From:
no subject
From:
Re: Rant
Are we going to continue to release new versions of product? You bet. If we stop doing that, I'm out of a job, and so are a lot of other people, and we do like our jobs. No one at this company is ever going to say "Well, we've done all we can! Time to call it a day!"
Are we making valid changes to the product when we release new versions of the product? You bet. I can see a HUGE difference between 4.0 and 3.5 (and I HATE 3.5, but that's because I'm not combat-happy, and my experience of 3.5 is that you have combat, you walk, you have combat, you walk, you have combat, you walk.) and I think 4.0 addresses some needed changes - 3.5 is ALL crunchy stuff. My joke is that with 3.5, there's a table somewhere to roll initiative (vs toilet paper) on whether you walk out of the bathroom with toilet paper on your shoe, and you can fail that roll. With 4.0 you get a better balance of crunchy and fuzzy, and since I hated 3.5 for that, I'm much more pro 4.0. I can even see the point for the 3.0/3.5 revision, and it's part of why 4.0 has been in development since 3.5 hit the street. This is not something we decided to do last week to get more money.
So. I can see why people are pissed at throwing down money for something that becomes obsolete, or at least harder to use, and as we do say here, we're not planning to listen to the people who are still playing 1.0 because they're not paying our salaries, but at the same time - there's NEVER no room for improvement, especially not when a product is as fundamentally fucked, in my opinion as a consumer and only as a consumer as 3.5 is. (Emphasis because this is not a locked post.) On balance, I think that 4.0 is going to be a good thing for the game, especially as we have some changes in how we think (inevitable as turnover in the department happens) and I hope it's going to bring some currently underserved groups into the game and into our sights - you would not believe how hard it is for me as a woman to get people in this company to hear me say that I play D&D (or have in the past). But if people want to view it as a money-grubbing grab...well, that's a position that's impossible to be bullet proof from.
From:
Okay
I hope you didn't take my rant personally.
I've got a friend that works for Microsoft too. :P
From:
Re: Okay
It helps that I really am genuinely behind 4.0 - I do think that, for me at least, it's a better product. It encourages more social interaction and more character development, and lessens the role of combat, and since that was a lot of why I switched to WoD, that makes sense. I actually was going to try to figure out what percentage of WoD players were female and what percentage of D&D players were male; I think the correlation is VERY high, but that's market research that people aren't interested in, as far as I can tell.
People keep falling back on how 90% of comment card replies we got, when putting comment cards in the D&D core books, were from men, but they're ignoring a fallacy: All that proves is that 90% of people who fill out our comment cards are male.
From:
WoD???
As a consumer, I'm just not a fan of planned obsolescence, and didn't understand the need for a new set of rules when I'm still learning the last version.
Which reminds me, I still need new shoes, and a different car. o.O
From:
Re: WoD???
As a consumer, planned obsolescence makes me nuts, but it's the fundament of most collectible models. It's actually a big reason I don't play collectible games (and most of the people here either still play Magic or they stopped at Ice Age, when they figured out what we were up to). The other is the random-booster model that makes me absolutely bananas.
Not sure what the comment subject was, but I was referring to World Of Darkness, the White Wolf setting (which I haven't played since before their v2.0, Gehenna). It's more story-driven.
From:
Re: And I don't play DnD
But does that mean we have lots of time for skin diseases? Ew.
From:
Yes
I enjoy the role-playing aspects of D&D, always have, but also feel the need to kill things on occasion. D&D is the perfect outlet for that. I'm not saying I'll go on a homicidal rampage if I don't get my gaming fix, but it makes the stupid people more tolerable if I can imagine them as an orc that's holding some innocent hostage, and I'll be dealing with them more effectively when I get to "game" again.
From:
Re: Yes
I've heard of Amber, but I've never played it. I've played very few actual systems, really, or at least long-term. I mean, I've played like four sessions of Shadowrun; I have no fucking clue how it works. Have you ever tried GURPS? That's a really flexible system (and it actually is!)
From:
Re: Yes
His brother-in-law would run Shadowrun for us. I LOVE that game, and am not very happy about it being revised for a 4th edition either. ;)
I don't know anyone else that plays it though, and our group disbanded after my former friend and wife moved to North Carolina.