This just in: WotC NOT EVIL!!


Dragon and Dungeon Transition Discussion

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I've seen a lot of reference on the boards in the last 24 hours as to the 'evil of the Company.'

As far as the 'evil of WotC' goes...this isn't a small press company, staffed by three overweight Schmendricks who do all the editing, typesetting, layout, etc. on their overheated, failing Mac, publishing books promised in Feb 07 in Jan 09...

WotC is a Major Corporation: their business is *business.* If the product doesn't make money, the product doesn't get made. Period.

Now, I have yet to see any evidence that the decision from WotC has anything to do with finances; we're all just supposing, but if it's true, well, I'm always honestly amazed such a niche market makes much money anyway. That's just my personal take. I shall now don my vest of invincibility as the slings and arrows advance...

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Turner wrote:

I've seen a lot of reference on the boards in the last 24 hours as to the 'evil of the Company.'

Hey, I don't think WotC is evil, I just think they have made some incredibly bad decisions.

Liberty's Edge

It's just really, really really annoying to have to wonder if they're going to yank a license next year on a Gamma World, or a Ravenloft, or whatever, or a mindflayer. It jacks with my ability to buy things and get gushy over them.
I thought that Dungeon and Dragon were sacrosanct; there'd be no sane reason to tick off so many people by yanking that license. I guess I was wrong.
I'm just tired of getting jerked around. I can't put up with it any more. I'm tired.
No flames or arrows to you, I respect your opinion; do what you have to do. I just am sooooooooooooooooooooooo tired of it.
I don't want to borrow any more of Wizards' toys any more. There's no use. To hell with it.

Liberty's Edge

I agree, they're not evil. They gotta do what they gotta do.
I just totally disagree with what they gotta do. It's wrong. It's jacked up. I'm tired of being jerked around is all.


While it's true that WotC is not evil, the mind flayers, beholders, and other monsters who serve as its secret masters are, in fact. Except the slaad, who are merely chaotic neutral. There's a reason they're not in the SRD.

Seriously though, while I was angry at first, I've pretty much let go of the negativity I was feeling. I'm extremely excited about Pathfinder (and everything Paizo is working on, really); I wish WotC the best of luck with their online initiative, but it's something I want no part of.

Dark Archive

Heathansson wrote:

I agree, they're not evil. They gotta do what they gotta do.

I just totally disagree with what they gotta do. It's wrong. It's jacked up. I'm tired of being jerked around is all.

Nah, they're still evil. At least in a diet Coke sort of way.

Liberty's Edge

RogueMonkeyChief wrote:

While it's true that WotC is not evil, the mind flayers, beholders, and other monsters who serve as its secret masters are, in fact. Except the slaad, who are merely chaotic neutral. There's a reason they're not in the SRD.

Seriously though, while I was angry at first, I've pretty much let go of the negativity I was feeling. I'm extremely excited about Pathfinder (and everything Paizo is working on, really); I wish WotC the best of luck with their online initiative, but it's something I want no part of.

I'm getting there...


Who was it that spoke of the "banality of evil?"

WotC isn't evil, no. On the other hand, I can't help but feel this decision is frankly wrongheaded on their part. Paizo's license didn't cost them a red cent, actually PROVIDED revenue (assuming Paizo was paying them for the privelige of publishing the things), and helped keep us all in touch with the game. Oh, yeah, and don't forget the advertising.

Now we find that WotC is yanking the license, hoping to replace a fine and serviceable product that's been on the market for many years with something that will yield them more profit than they're making off Paizo with the license.

Is this evil? No. Legal as taxes. In all frankness, if they voiced an intention to keep publishing DRAGON magazine themselves, in a newsstand edition, I'd be far less upset. Sure, Paizo's done a fine job, but it IS WotC's trademark, after all.

But now, something that's been a constant in my life for 27 years is about to fall silent, and be replaced with some ghostly, ill-defined, ill-considered thing over the internet.

Yeah, I'm not happy. And why, now, am I going to give WotC money when I'm not happy with them?


Yeah, I'm excited about Pathfinder and the module line. I'm hoping after graduation I can start work on a Paizo targeted portfolio of drawings and paintings for the two lines. We'll see what happens. I did actually buy a WoTC product today: Eyes of the Lich Queen. Nicolas Logue is one of the authors and you know if you don't support his work he'll be even more out of coconuts and pineapples or whatever the heck broke actors eat in Hawaii than he was the day previous.


WotC, the diet Coke of evil? ROTFL!


When I first read the announcement I felt like somebody kicked me in the stomach. But after a few hours and reading about Pathfinder I'm feeling pretty good about the whole thing.

*Breathe in the Pathfinder vibes... breathe out the F%#@ing A$@#&% vibes.*

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
WotC, the diet Coke of evil? ROTFL!

Reminds me of a comment a friend of mine made the other day:

"WotC's cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon is going to be almost as popular as the New Coke."


I'm not buying the "They're doing what they had to do to stay profitable" argument until someone is willing to show me their books for the last few years. There are many ways to reach and maintain profit and I think this current direction can't hide behind "Well, business is business." If that were true all competing businesses would run the same way, and they're not. Business is what you make of it. Customer service for instance. Every business has to have CS. Who had better CS? Paizo or WotC? That's a choice each company made, asking, "How much do we care about the customer?"

I hope D&D rides this out with its balls intact. That's all any of us are hoping for. Well, except for the ballbusters.


I'm certain, as any business would, that WotC has examined this decision from a number of angles. I'm equally sure that there are human people who have strong emotional attachment to the 'Dragon' and 'Dungeon' marks and their long histories. However, I'm not surprised this happened - particularly after the horrible waste that the Polyhedron/Dungeon chimera turned out to be.

However, I'm also quite certain that this is another management mistake.

First, it alienates tons of thirty- and forty-something, old school geek freakazoids such as myself. Since we can't 'trust' WotC for the maintenance of cherished product lines, we're more likely to turn to 'alternate' sources - OSRIC and GORE spring to mind. Mystara, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, etc were all abandoned. Later some were continued and some given lip service. Some are essentially run by fans and that's great but it's not the same.

As others have already said, what's going to go next? I invested in Betamax. I invested in Shark drives. I invested in NeXT. Technically superior - all gone. I learned my lesson. Now here's another thing going the way of the dodo. WotC shows it's intentions. I'm bailing.

Secondly, the authors such as Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, Ed Greenwood and others are going to benefit from this more than the D&D brand will. Amongst my network of gamer friends these names care more cachet than the D&D brand. Established authors, especially those with their own publishing companies, will find more people turning to them.

Third, removing these magazines from the shelf leaves more room for startups like Polymancer. The magazines were ambassadors for their brands. They showed the flag. Unfortunately in local Chapters stores they showed the flag next to kiddy mags. Polymancer was either in hobbies (like White Dwarf, Fine Scale Modeller) or between computer games (like Games for Windows) and IT magazines (C++ Developers Journal, SysAdmin). WotC is retreating when it should be advancing. These magazines advertised a vibrant product in mainstream stores. With it's disappearance the rising geek will turn to MMORPG player magazines and MMORPGs believing that the old school is too moldy to rock anyone's world.

Finally, the blanket statement that people are turning to the Internet for this ('Dragon'/'Dungeon'-like material) while true in a small part is also largely false. I've downloaded tons of material. I've also paid for quite a few PDF downloads (mostly old school, granted). But nothing replaces a news-stand fix. That's why I'll be subscribing to Pathfinder.

I'm also fairly certain that, after 23 years as a D&D player I'll be abandoning both modern D&D and my beloved Realms/Mystara/Krynn and moving to an alternative. Probably OSRIC. Probably Áerth.

A pity, really. But oh, well. Their loss. Someone else's gain.


I am abandoning Dungeons and Dragons. I believe, as someone said already, they will be alienating a certain type of gamer, mainly an older crowd who were with the magazine from the beginning. Those are old school gamers, like myself, who derived a certain pleasure for several adventures in one issue for a relatively cheap price. Lots of great ideas and if I didn't particularly like one adventure, skip a few pages and move on to the next.

Now with the introduction of Pathfinder I believe is another marketing ploy by whoever. What really seperates this from buying a module or adventure from WOTC? At an extra 10.00 bucks a pop every month and not the same number of adventures, I don't really see the difference. Due to the success of the Adventure Paths, they are deciding to capitalize on this one. Hey Paizo, I was with you guys, when you went monthly, and gave us the same number of adventures for twice the price, but I'll be damned if I follow this one.

I'll be with you until September.


Clearly, rescinding Paizo's license is part of a business strategy on the part of WotC.

Whether it's a good or bad strategy, we can't really say, because they're not talking.

What we do know:

1. Dragon and Dungeon magazines were flourishing under Paizo's care.

2. WotC intends to move licensed D&D content online.

3. They aren't sharing any details of their reasoning or their plan.

In my opinion, #3 is a clumsy mistake. Why sour the waters in advance of a new launch?

Party foul, WotC.


I think they're evil.
Evil as money.


I don't think they are evil. Just a*****es.

Is there some actual reason why I should forgive their actions just because they are a big company trying to make as much money as possible? Are they actually giving me the profits? No. They are just screwing me over and thus I am taking my business elsewhere as is sensible for me, the customer.


this is complete BS i love theses mags and they have been around forever this is a horrible choice for WoTC i just payed for another 12 months of Dragon last month and was really looking forward to it this REALLY REALLY SUCKS


They are not evil, of course. But I think they are stupid. First the lame press release, then the lame-ass attempt at soothing the community with some gamers/authors/employees´ musings, and if you read it closely, it appears to me that they are trying to shift the blame to paizo: "Today, members of the R&D reflect on the Paizo announcement." Of course, paizo had to announce it - they had no choice in that matter.
And then teasing the audience with cryptic hints about what´s to come - show me some titbit, already. The small paizo shows you how to manage such a transition.

This whole thing is a bad idea and badly managed and communicated as well - what were they expecting, that the gaming community will just sit there and applaud this "bold move"?

Stefan

Liberty's Edge

Stebehil wrote:

...if you read it closely, it appears to me that they are trying to shift the blame to paizo: "Today, members of the R&D reflect on the Paizo announcement." Of course, paizo had to announce it - they had no choice in that matter.

Stefan

Hmmm...I didn't notice that nuance before, but there is a hint of mutual responsibility; no actually, you're on the mark, I think--the tone does seem to attempt to shift the blame to Paizo, with WotC sounding saddened or at least nostalgic. Hmmm, again, I mumble. Sneaky, deliberate propaganda that specifically makes you shiny and 'them' smudgey is borderline Lawful Evil...


RogueMonkeyChief wrote:

While it's true that WotC is not evil, the mind flayers, beholders, and other monsters who serve as its secret masters are, in fact. Except the slaad, who are merely chaotic neutral. There's a reason they're not in the SRD.

Seriously though, while I was angry at first, I've pretty much let go of the negativity I was feeling. I'm extremely excited about Pathfinder (and everything Paizo is working on, really); I wish WotC the best of luck with their online initiative, but it's something I want no part of.

Agreed. mostly. I don't wish WotC the best of luck. I hope they crash and burn and realize the depth of their stupidity. And I hope others join us in not taking part.


Daniel Easler wrote:


Agreed. mostly. I don't wish WotC the best of luck. I hope they crash and burn and realize the depth of their stupidity. And I hope others join us in not taking part.

At this point, I hope they come up with something so amazingly fantastic that it makes me overcome my aversion to online material and say to myself "Wow. This product is so amazingly fantastic that I consider the loss of my favorite magazines to be a small price to pay. How could I have been so shortsighted?"

But I'm not holding my breath. ;-)


Everytime something under open licence starts to make money, WoTC pulls it's licence and tries to take it in house to cut out the middle man. The problem is that they are bordeline incompetent. I bought the WoTC modual Cormyr. It has content comparable to a short Dungeon modual, at close to $30!
WoTC is owned by Hasbro, and Hasbro doesn't care about us, what we want, or what's best for the game! It is all about profit margins! Once they think that they've bled out all the money that they can with 3.5, they will revamp D&D into something new to force players to buy another whole new system Again!
While I might not agree with everything Paizo does, or like everything they put out, The company is run by gamers, and they GET IT! They know what it's like to be a gamer, and have a real passion for the game. And it means alot to us. I'll continue to support Paizo with my money, and to The Nine Hells with Wotc!

Liberty's Edge

Blackdragon wrote:
Everytime something under open licence starts to make money, WoTC pulls it's licence and tries to take it in house to cut out the middle man. The problem is that they are bordeline incompetent. I bought the WoTC modual Cormyr. It has content comparable to a short Dungeon modual, at close to $30!

I am enjoying _Cormyr_, but you are 100% right--it's not any better than a _Dungeon_ adventure.


Stebehil wrote:

They are not evil, of course. But I think they are stupid. First the lame press release, then the lame-ass attempt at soothing the community with some gamers/authors/employees´ musings, and if you read it closely, it appears to me that they are trying to shift the blame to paizo: "Today, members of the R&D reflect on the Paizo announcement." Of course, paizo had to announce it - they had no choice in that matter.

And then teasing the audience with cryptic hints about what´s to come - show me some titbit, already. The small paizo shows you how to manage such a transition.

This whole thing is a bad idea and badly managed and communicated as well - what were they expecting, that the gaming community will just sit there and applaud this "bold move"?

Stefan

*My emphasis on the quotes.

Thats pretty much how I feel.

This new internet idea for WotC might be great. It might be crap. But we don't know, because they aren't saying anything. Not even the basic stuff, like is it pay per download, subscription, payment tiers, etc. Or who is going to be writing for them. (Personally, despite my disdain for their half-assed approach to this, if WotC was going to let Keith Baker & Eric Boyd run with regular and detailed articles for Eberron & FR like the old Dragonshard articles that WotC cancelled earlier... well, I'd at least take a look at the pricing and try it)

But WotC has shared nothing about this great new initiative, other than its going to be awesome, and we should trust them.

But this half-assed approach to marketing the new initiative (hitting predictable problems that any first year marketing student could have avoided) and their "reaction" to fan uproar over cancelling Dungeon & Dragon lead me to believe that they don't actually have a plan in place, at least not yet. And that hardly inspires confidence.


Say someone walks into a lawyer's office, and tells the lawyer I just raped someone, and the cops are going to figure it out sooner or later, I would like to hire you to defend me. The lawyer sais yes of course I'll defend you.

Evil?

In my eyes, yes. Someone elses, maybe not. Evil is subjective, this isn't the D&D world, wizards isn't run by fiends. People are people, and people do stupid sick evil things. Is wizard as evil as say the lawyer or rapist? In my eyes no, but they did screw with something I love, so I hope they all develop herpies and get their dogs ran over by drunk drivers...

Scarab Sages

Fraust wrote:
....but they did screw with something I love, so I hope they all develop herpies and get their dogs ran over by drunk drivers...

Damn man, remind me never to get on your bad side. You'd think a zombie couldn't be made to shudder....

The Exchange

Fraust wrote:

Say someone walks into a lawyer's office, and tells the lawyer I just raped someone, and the cops are going to figure it out sooner or later, I would like to hire you to defend me. The lawyer sais yes of course I'll defend you.

Evil?

In my eyes, yes. Someone elses, maybe not. Evil is subjective, this isn't the D&D world, wizards isn't run by fiends. People are people, and people do stupid sick evil things. Is wizard as evil as say the lawyer or rapist? In my eyes no, but they did screw with something I love, so I hope they all develop herpies and get their dogs ran over by drunk drivers...

I personally don't think that closing down a magazine and raping someone are really in the same league of "evil". Would you want a company to go bust trying to produce a product that a few people like but which could instead be producing something lots of people like, with everyone's jobs and families and everything that entails at stake? I think most of us are extremely sceptical about WotC and their motives, but in the end it is about satisfying shareholders - you know, pension funds, widows and orphans, charities and so on. So the decision is much more nuanced than maybe a few people have suggested above. My experience of working for large corporations is that c0ck-up is much more common than conspiracy.

Paizo is not a public company, and while I have no idea as to the owndership structure I suspect the management have a pretty big stake. So they can please themselves by-and-large - and as they are gamers that means pleasing us too. But Paizo is still a profit maximising company - if Dungeon and Dragon were not successful, they would have junked it years ago themselves - they wouldn't have any other option.

I upset a guy a few weeks ago on these boards by telling him (lightheartedly) to get a life. This is upsetting but it isn't, in the scheme of things, an absolute disaster of biblical proportions. Nothing ever stays the same - D&D has had quite a chequered history, mostly down to incompetence rather than evil intent, which demostrates this clearly. I am certainly saddened by the news about the two venerable mags, but if WotC are going to do something with them I will look at it first before coming to any conclusion.

Liberty's Edge

Fraust wrote:
Say someone walks into a lawyer's office, and tells the lawyer I just raped someone, and the cops are going to figure it out sooner or later, I would like to hire you to defend me. The lawyer sais yes of course I'll defend you. Evil?...

Hmmm...I just recently heard that WotC is closely associated with Wolfram & Hart Law Offices...

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Fraust wrote:

Say someone walks into a lawyer's office, and tells the lawyer I just raped someone, and the cops are going to figure it out sooner or later, I would like to hire you to defend me. The lawyer sais yes of course I'll defend you.

Lawyers have an ethical duty to defend even the guilty. They can't lie, hide evidence, put a lying witness on the stand, or do a bunch of other things, but there is an ethical duty to defend someone in this scenario. There's a range of arguments about why such a duty exists, but obeying that duty is not evil.

Of course, I would not want to defend such a person, and thus I do not practice criminal law. That being said, I am thankful that there are those who would.


Andrew Turner wrote:
This just in: WotC NOT EVIL!!

Yes, they are. They were before this decision, they are now, and they likely will be in the future. Though to be fair, it might only be Hasbro that is evil.

Also, to be fair, this decision isn't part of their evil -- just their stupidity.

IMHO :)

Jack

Dark Archive

Sebastian wrote:


Lawyers have an ethical duty to defend even the guilty. They can't lie, hide evidence, put a lying witness on the stand, or do a bunch of other things, but there is an ethical duty to defend someone in this scenario. There's a range of arguments about why such a duty exists, but obeying that duty is not evil.

Of course, I would not want to defend such a person, and thus I do not practice criminal law. That being said, I am thankful that there are those who would.

Not to threadjack, but (as a law student) I agree wholeheartedly with Sebastian. Besides, if the lawyer in Fraust's hypothetical case refused to represent the rapist, all that would happen is that the guilty rapist would go to another lawyer and lie about his innocence. If all lawyers refused to represent the guilty, all defendants would be forced to lie to their attorneys and get substandard representation.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

PulpCruciFiction wrote:


Not to threadjack, but (as a law student) I agree wholeheartedly with Sebastian. Besides, if the lawyer in Fraust's hypothetical case refused to represent the rapist, all that would happen is that the guilty rapist would go to another lawyer and lie about his innocence. If all lawyers refused to represent the guilty, all defendants would be forced to lie to their attorneys and get substandard representation.

And not to hi-jack further, but where are you in the law school process? I vaguely remember you saying you were a second year; does that mean your doing the summer associate gig, clerking, or some other option? Just curious - we literal rules lawyers need to stick together. ;-)


I'm not going to turn this into a debate on the definition of evil, nor do I really care to argue as to the alignment of wizards, but I would like to point out that I said in my post that I didn't think what wizards did was the same as my hypothetical rape situation.

Lawyers do what lawyers do, and I'm not here to argue or badmouth anyone (except maybe bush, but that's a different topic), and infact a very good friend of mine is currently in lawschool. I'm glad we have people who will defend someone no matter what, and do the best job they can, but I also get a little frustrated when someone full on rapes their best friend's daughters, and plea bargains it down to exposing himself to a minor (something that recently happened near where I live).


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I personally don't think that closing down a magazine and raping someone are really in the same league of "evil".

My new favorite line. LOL! That is a precious sound byte!

Dark Archive

Sebastian wrote:


And not to hi-jack further, but where are you in the law school process? I vaguely remember you saying you were a second year; does that mean your doing the summer associate gig, clerking, or some other option? Just curious - we literal rules lawyers need to stick together. ;-)

I'm actually wrapping up my 3L year at this point. I opted to skip the clerkship step and go straight for the money, so I'm going down to Atlanta to work in the litigation department of a big firm. I'm hoping that the combination of a southern city and a firm with a lifestyle reputation will mean that I still have a couple hours a week to get together and game, but we'll have to see how that goes. You've probably mentioned it before, but what kind of law do you practice?

Ahem...yeah...WotC is at least stupid, though I'm not yet convinced that they're evil.


I don't think that stupidity=evil.

On the other hand, Wizards has said nothing about what they're going to do. Quite frankly, if this is what the future holds, I kind of fear what's going to happen to the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk and their other campaign settings.

If Wizards cuts the rug out from under D+D, and lets it float freely in the wind, I'll be really cranky.

If they make 4th edition just to screw over the OGL rules set, then that's moneygrubbing parlance, and I just won't switch.

I don't find a lot of what's going on very funny. I spend THOUSANDS of dollars a year on things that Paizo and Wizards did collectively.

And the thing I looked forward to most every month was Dungeon and Dragon.

Was it all GOOD? No. Everything has clunkers, guys. Let's face it. But, on the other hand, Wizards has produced far more clunkers than Paizo.

Complete Mage?: WTF? If you don't take Abjurant Champion, you are completely crazy. This is the most common PRC rebuild in my Forgotten Realms World EVER. This one is up there with Ranger/Wizard/Master of the Yuirwood. What the heck. Add Abjurant Champion to THAT!

Cormyr: No comment. This had tons of pretty artwork and that was it. This adventure looked like it was literally thrown together.

Tome of 9 Swords: I don't know what they were thinking when they released this book, but it's unbalanced, broken, and makes the game not fun for standard classes.

Magic of Incarnum: Huh? Would someone please explain to me why it is necessary to do this instead of creating a Dwarven Warsmith PRC that dwarf fighters can use to enchant weapons?

Complete Psionic: Divine Psionics? Right. And I'm the Queen of the May!
This was the most RIDICULOUS idea ever. Next up on the list of brilliant Wizards ideas...Divine Fighters! Oh, wait, that's Tome of 9 Swords. I shudder to think of what stupidity will be released in Complete Champion next month.

Game balance is screaming from some of this stuff. I honestly believe that Wizards doesn't playtest ANYTHING.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

PulpCruciFiction wrote:


I'm actually wrapping up my 3L year at this point. I opted to skip the clerkship step and go straight for the money, so I'm going down to Atlanta to work in the litigation department of a big firm. I'm hoping that the combination of a southern city and a firm with a lifestyle reputation will mean that I still have a couple hours a week to get together and game, but we'll have to see how that goes. You've probably mentioned it before, but what kind of law do you practice?

Ahem...yeah...WotC is at least stupid, though I'm not yet convinced that they're evil.

Corporate law in a big firm in San Diego. They alleged family friendlieness as a selling point as well, and though I believe it is true with respect to other big firms, it's still not a very leisure friendly lifestyle. Part of it is having young kids, but part of it is just the hours. I am lucky to get in a game a month.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

To all those regular posters: I tried to let it pass, I really did.

Balabanto wrote:
Game balance is screaming from some of this stuff. I honestly believe that Wizards doesn't playtest ANYTHING.

Do you? If not, how do you know it's unbalanced? Your superior knowledge of game balance vis-a-vis the full time designers at WotC? Just curious.


Well, Sebastian, I run 4-5 games a week plus about 5 pickup games that occur infrequently. I have more GMing experience than most people will ever acquire in their lifetimes. I'm 37 years old. I'm a VERY conservative gamer compared to a lot of the people that are out there.

Now, you can choose to agree with me, or not. But quite frankly, on any night where I'm not working late (And there's quite a few of those), I'm usually running a game of some sort.

Yes. I have no life. Yes. It bothers me. Yes, I know I'm addicted to RPGs. But, on the other hand, I've never done drugs or robbed a bank either.

Still, a Prestige Class should give you abilities that make the character cool. Not BETTER, just cool.

If you see a PRC that makes EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER OF A GIVEN TYPE BETTER, chance are, it's probably unbalanced. Abjurant Champion falls into this category, as does Incantatrix.

Now let's look at Paizo's screwup, and there's really only one. But you're going to dislike me for it.

Age of Worms adventure path: I really didn't like this adventure path because of one simple reason. Player Characters have no fear. The whole thing is worms and slimy alien tentacle monsters once you break level 10.

Plus, mechanically "Hunter of the Dead" and "Ranger" break this adventure path into tiny little pieces. If you take Favored Enemy: Undead and rack it to the maximum with 20 levels of Ranger, and it's in your party, this entire adventure path becomes screaming goo. If all it takes is 20 levels of a core class to annihilate the adventure, it may be too easy. Except Kyuss. He's nasty, but beatable.

So that's my gripe. Comparative level of screwups.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Balabanto wrote:

Well, Sebastian, I run 4-5 games a week plus about 5 pickup games that occur infrequently. I have more GMing experience than most people will ever acquire in their lifetimes. I'm 37 years old. I'm a VERY conservative gamer compared to a lot of the people that are out there.

So, are you playtesting in those sessions, or does the above experience make you more qualified and informed on game balance than the people who consider that topic 40 hours a week, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and also run, participate in, and enjoy games on the side. Maybe you could get a job at WotC since you know so much. They'd probably be at least as impressed by your experience as I am.


Balabanto wrote:
I don't think that stupidity=evil.

Nope, but I think WotC (or Hasbro) has a dose of both.

I think they're making decisions that have (and will continue to) alienate customers. That's stupid.

Are they evil? Not really. But they have (more than once) crossed a line between reasonable business practices and shameless exploitation that hurts employees and customers alike. IMHO.

I'm going to leave those unsubstantiated accusations out there for all to enjoy.

Regards all.

Jack


Balabanto wrote:
Game balance is screaming from some of this stuff. I honestly believe that Wizards doesn't playtest ANYTHING.

With respect to anyone else in the discussion, I think Balabanto is onto something here. There are quite a few classes and prestige classes out there that have been debated ad nauseum, and with good reason. WotC has, IMO, shown a willingness to sacrifice quality for quantity at times.

While I think they do playtest their material, I wouldn't be entirely shocked if I were shown to be wrong.

Two more cents :)

Jack


Sebastian wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

Well, Sebastian, I run 4-5 games a week plus about 5 pickup games that occur infrequently. I have more GMing experience than most people will ever acquire in their lifetimes. I'm 37 years old. I'm a VERY conservative gamer compared to a lot of the people that are out there.

So, are you playtesting in those sessions, or does the above experience make you more qualified and informed on game balance than the people who consider that topic 40 hours a week, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and also run, participate in, and enjoy games on the side. Maybe you could get a job at WotC since you know so much. They'd probably be at least as impressed by your experience as I am.

You don't have to work in the industry to recognise CRAP! It's high handed to imply that because we don't make our living at D&D, we can't tell if it's good or bad. I've been playing 22yrs, and I've seen some cool stuff come out of D&D, and I say this reluctantly, due to the fact that I've never converted to 3.0 or 3.5 (I have most of the books, but we read them and decided to stick with 2ED and convert the things from 3.5 that we liked.) The Epic Level Handbook was great, as was Book of Vile Darkness, but as Balabanto said, most of what WoTC has put out has been alot of fluff and no hard content. THeir moduals are no deeper that they were with TSR. And this new format (Delve?) It looks like it was written for children (Which in my guess it was.)The push has been to make D&D less of a roleplaying game, and more of a traditional boardgame. The bottome line is Money!

Does my experience make me more qualified than the people at WoTC? Damn right it does! That's why I don't buy anything of theirs that I can't read first (Thanks to the chairs in Barns and Nobles. Companies go out of business all the time because they don't understand what their customers want. How do I prove that I know more than WoTC? I don't buy the crap that they put out. I wait until something comes out that proves it's good. Usually through word of mouth on this board.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Blackdragon wrote:
You don't have to work in the industry to recognise CRAP! It's high handed to imply that because we don't make our living at D&D, we can't tell if it's good or bad. I've been playing 22yrs, and I've seen some cool stuff come out of D&D, and I say this reluctantly, due to the fact that I've never converted to 3.0 or 3.5 (I have most of the books, but we read them and decided to stick with 2ED and convert the things from 3.5 that we liked.)

Ah, I see your point. It was foolish of me to assume that juding the balance of the system requires you to actually play with the system. I guess I am a good programmer because I have used computers all my life. In addition, it turns out that people that code exclusively for Apple computers are equally good at coding for PC's. Hooray!

I'll try and explain this argument one more time before I give up yet again. It's actually pretty simple, but let me lay out my assumptions.

1. Playtesting is the closest means of objectively determining balance. Note, I'm not talking about how kewl the mechanic is or how much you like drow or whether you think everyone should play a drow, or any other subjective non-sequitor view of the universe and gaming you may hold.

2. The specific statement I take issue with is "WotC does not playtest their stuff." I'm not saying it's not unbalanced, nor poorly edited, nor immune from human error.

3. If WotC were to playtest, because it is objective, they would discover unbalanced material. That seems to be the implication with the statement "WotC doesn't playtest their stuff".

So, you come along and you say this stuff is unbalanced, WotC didn't playtest it! I say "how do you know they didn't playtest it." You say "because it's unbalanced." I say "How do you know it's unbalanced?" You say "Because I'm very smart and have played since the dawn of time." I say "The same is true of everyone on these boards and of WotC. How do I know you're right and they're wrong?" You reiterate, and will continue to reiterate, how smart you are and how they are not very smart. Eventually it occurs to you: If only there were some objective way to determine balance, we could answer this question!

And I calmly say "What, you mean like playtesting?"

Basically, you are making a claim that can be objectively measured "WotC did not playtest because if they had, they would have discovered problem X, Y, and Z." However, since you also have not playtested, I can't tell if problem X, Y, and Z actually exist or if problem X, Y, and Z do not exist, regardless of whether WotC playtested.

So, given the fact that you can't be bothered with objectively proving your statements, I can't be bothered to accept your statement that WotC failed to objectively test their own products.

The Exchange

Blackdragon wrote:
Does my experience make me more qualified than the people at WoTC? Damn right it does!

I don't really buy that either. These people will be game obsessives. They will ahve played loads. And they get to do it all day, everyday, because it is their job. So I suspect a certain amount of hubris in that comment. I find very little of the stuff coming out of WotC is particularly unbalanced, in my humble (no doubt, lesser than yours) experience, and an awful lot of knee-jerking to stuff on the boards.

Scarab Sages

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
... and an awful lot of knee-jerking to stuff on the boards.

You have visited 'the Internets' before right? That's what they were made for ;)

(and really, the amount of knee-jerking on all sides around here is still pretty civil)


Gavgoyle wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
... and an awful lot of knee-jerking to stuff on the boards.

You have visited 'the Internets' before right? That's what they were made for ;)

(and really, the amount of knee-jerking on all sides around here is still pretty civil)

I thought it was my restless leg syndrome acting up again.

The Exchange

Gavgoyle wrote:

You have visited 'the Internets' before right? That's what they were made for ;)

(and really, the amount of knee-jerking on all sides around here is still pretty civil)

:-) I'm surprised any of us are able to walk, sometimes.

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / Books & Magazines / Dragon Magazine / Dragon and Dungeon Transition Discussion / This just in: WotC NOT EVIL!! All Messageboards