I keep telling people, that ‘incident’ with the three girls, the tequila and the horse was NOT what it looked like.Nice work Sebastian - I'm tempted to head over to the WOTC site to add my voice - now if only they'd send me my frikken password for the boards so I could post... you'd think three requests would be enough...They've heard abou you.Yah, if you think that's bad, just wait until you try to fly within the United States.
For $4.99 on cable pay-per-view, it had better be what it looked like ... j/k
|
Of course, given the heavy handed nature of the WotC boards*, I'm also surprised it hasn't been taken down by now.
*Of course, its their boards, and they did have a user agreement which everyone agreed too, so they can do whatever they want to censor the boards. It just doesn't win them many fans.
Technically, my WOTC account was made when they were beta testing the message boards, before the user agreement was writtn up, and they never made the beta testers agree to it, so even if they claimthat said posts are against the agreement, they can't use that as a reaso to delete mine... and I've called them on it before - cauing them to undelete a thread in the magic board during the Ice Age years
... but I do feel the magazine is in good hands.
Despite all evidence to the contrary :/
You know, on a personal front, I would like to suggest that you should become more pessimistic like me.:) An optimist can only be disappointed in life. As a pessimist, the world can live down to my expectations or even sometimes pleasantly surprise me... come over to the dark side. Bag on Wotc. You know you want to.
Underling is my hero :)
You know, on a personal front, I would like to suggest that you should become more pessimistic like me.:) An optimist can only be disappointed in life. As a pessimist, the world can live down to my expectations or even sometimes pleasantly surprise me... come over to the dark side. Bag on Wotc. You know you want to.Underling is my hero :)
I prefer to be a "Happy Cynic"
Sure I understand that things will most likely suck and rarely go my way but, sometimes ya just gotta laugh, ya know?
Well said, but surprising that it's coming from Sebastian. If his reaction is so vociferous then that's a clear indictment of wizards' current policy. I too would like to hear from Mr. Mohan how all these newfangled "computer" and "online" things will make my life better, instead of simply boosting Wizards' profit margins while subtracting value from my D&D products and locking me into a perpetual payment spiral subject to the whims of whatever executive WotC flack happens to be calling the shots in any given year.
And no, repackaging a couple of web enhancements and slapping some art onto them does not make them an online magazine.
Give me my Dragon and Dungeon back, dammit.
And no, repackaging a couple of web enhancements and slapping some art onto them does not make them an online magazine.Give me my Dragon and Dungeon back, dammit.
amen
Now, Sebastian, have you considered that Kim is responding in the manner that was available the last time he was editor?
I mean, it used to be, the editor wouldn't respond until the letters section came out in next month's issue.
So if you wait a month, perhaps you'll get an answer to your questions then. ;-)
That would be in keeping with how WotC has utilized innovative technology up to this point.
Maybe they'll install a hotline next, so we'll pay a long-distance fee to get a five minute pre-recorded message with 4E updates.
Now, Sebastian, have you considered that Kim is responding in the manner that was available the last time he was editor?
I mean, it used to be, the editor wouldn't respond until the letters section came out in next month's issue.
So if you wait a month, perhaps you'll get an answer to your questions then. ;-)
That would be in keeping with how WotC has utilized innovative technology up to this point.
Maybe they'll install a hotline next, so we'll pay a long-distance fee to get a five minute pre-recorded message with 4E updates.
rofl
nice
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
You are not the conquering hero. You did not earn your position as the EIC of Dragon. You stole it from Erik Mona here at Paizo. And I for one want an explanation as to what makes you qualified to follow in his hallowed footsteps. Sorry Kim, the goodwill is gone. Anything you want, you're going to have to earn.
Woah.
I haven't even read the second post in this thread, but I need to make two things absolutely clear:
1) Wizards of the Coast didn't "steal" _anything_ from Paizo. We created the magazine under a license over the course of five years of excellent cooperation and friendship with the people at Wizards of the Coast. They chose to go a different way with their brands and the end of their license, which was entirely within their rights to do.
2) There is no one in the D&D business or in the magazine publishing business whom I respect more than Kim Mohan. He is the greatest editor-in-chief Dragon Magazine has ever had, and as far as I'm concerned he can sign his name "editor-in-chief" whenever he wants to. He's certainly earned it.
No one at Paizo has any ill will toward Kim Mohan at all, and I won't tolerate it on the boards. Please refrain from personal attacks here on these messageboards.
We appreciate the heartfelt support. Believe me. But let's please try to keep it civil.
Thanks,
Erik Mona
(former) Editor-in-Chief
Dragon Magazine
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Woah.I haven't even read the second post in this thread, but I need to make two things absolutely clear:
1) Wizards of the Coast didn't "steal" _anything_ from Paizo. We created the magazine under a license over the course of five years of excellent cooperation and friendship with the people at Wizards of the Coast. They chose to go a different way with their brands and the end of their license, which was entirely within their rights to do.
2) There is no one in the D&D business or in the magazine publishing business whom I respect more than Kim Mohan. He is the greatest editor-in-chief Dragon Magazine has ever had, and as far as I'm concerned he can sign his name "editor-in-chief" whenever he wants to. He's certainly earned it.
No one at Paizo has any ill will toward Kim Mohan at all, and I won't tolerate it on the boards. Please refrain from personal attacks here on these messageboards.
We appreciate the heartfelt support. Believe me. But let's please try to keep it civil.
Thanks,
Erik Mona
(former) Editor-in-Chief
Dragon Magazine
Apologies Erik. I read that god awful editorial and it just made me see red the way that it handwaived the whole switch to the electronic version. Chris Thomasson just posted on my thread at WotC to clarify that Kim was doing a guest editorial at his behest. I assumed the actual EiC of the magazine was posting the first editorial. Given that Kim was merely acting as a guest, I can't really fault him for not going into the details.
Chris Thomasson, on the other hand, can have the criticism redirected his way, at least insofar as the editorial (and his response) was an insulting waste of space. I am aware of his credentials.
And I stand by my use of the word "steal." Even if the EiC wasn't stolen from you, the magazines were stolen from me and the rest of the fans. If you'd prefer, they were killed, but that's neither here nor there.
I was willing to give WotC a shot at living up to the legacy you guys created for the magazines. So far, they've done the same thing as with every other aspect of the 4e launch - dumped some half thoughtout piece of garbage that isn't worthy of the brand.
|
Creative Director
|
Chris Thomasson, on the other hand, can have the criticism redirected his way, at least insofar as the editorial (and his response) was an insulting waste of space. I am aware of his credentials.
And I stand by my use of the word "steal." Even if the EiC wasn't stolen from you, the magazines were stolen from me and the rest of the fans. If you'd prefer, they were killed, but that's neither here nor there.
I was willing to give WotC a shot at living up to the legacy you guys...
Chris Thomasson is also the guy who came up with the idea for Adventure Paths in Dungeon in the first place, and in that way's the guy responsible for Age of Worms, Savage Tide, and Pathfinder. He's also more than earned the right to sign his name as editor-in-chief.
What we're saying here is that while it's okay to be disappointed with the end of the print runs of the magazines, and it's okay to be underwhelmed by the online incarnations (although I think that, in fairness, you should wait a few months for them to get the ball rolling!)...
...It's not okay to direct personal attacks at anyone. Kim, Chris, or anyone. If you can't refrain from that type of behavior, you probably shouldn't be posting to these boards.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Chris Thomasson is also the guy who came up with the idea for Adventure Paths in Dungeon in the first place, and in that way's the guy responsible for Age of Worms, Savage Tide, and Pathfinder. He's also more than earned the right to sign his name as editor-in-chief.
With all due respect, I don't care if you and Erik together with Gary Gygax himself pulled the trigger to kill Dragon and Dungeon and then created these half-assed electronic versions to post on the web, such a poor decision coupled with the launch deserves to be criticized. They had more than six months to do this right, James. Six months. They had exactly as much time as you had to put together Pathfinder in all its awsomeness and with more manpower and resources.
And what did they give us instead? A poorly formatted ecology article? An editorial not addressing the elephant in the room? Every single aspect of this product launch has been horrible. The person responsible for it deserves all the criticism they can get, and I in no way take back the statements about the editorial being a poor way to launch the new electronic magazines.
If I knew then, what I know now, this is what I would have said. And if this crosses the line between criticising the poor work of a professional and insulting someone personally, then let me know and I will quit posting:
Hi Chris,The editorial written by Kim at your behest inspired me to go ahead and use "my computer" to contact you and see if we can open up a line of communication (lord knows that when Paizo ran the magazines, I could come use "my computer" to post here and get a response within a day or so - and that was before Dragon existed only in the ether, so I'm really looking forward to the level of responsiveness you're going to be bringing to the table).
I've got an idea. Why don't you go ahead and waste our time and tell us how your particular brand of electronic publishing works and why this method is better. It's not so obvious to me or many other people on these boards. And believe me, we've been waiting for nearly six months for an explanation. But, up until this point, all we've heard is "the electronic format will be so cool, you won't even miss the print magainze."
Well Chris, I hate to tell you this, but I do still miss the print magazine. And the electronic format? It looks like a cross between what used to be on your website for free and a lesser version of the high quality work the fine people at Paizo used to do minus the portability. So Chris, please, take a moment to go ahead and justify why this electronic format is so good. Tell me why the print publications had to die and why Erik Mona, James Jacobs, and all the other kick-ass editors here at Paizo (aka, the best thing that ever happened to the magazines) aren't producing those publications. Not so cool.
Way to get off on the wrong foot. I want my explanation Chris. Come on by Paizo, and let's hear your side of the story. I've given you six months to f!@~ around. Time's up. Pencils down.
Best regards,
SebastianP.S. As a final piece of editorial advice, the word "component" means part of a whole. Given that there is no part of Dragon outside of your electronic version, the word "component" isn't really applicable. Dragon and Dungeon had a perfectly servicable online component prior to your arrival - the supplements offered on this website and these boards. Also, you might want to look at Pathfinder and the Gamemastery modules. They include a true online component in the form of the pdf file that subscribers get. That's what I want Chris. Myself and the rest of the fans here at Paizo await your arrival in this modern world of electronic supplements. I'm not sure where the all-online cyber-reality is that you inhabit, but it's not something with which I am familiar.
|
If I didn't have to "win over" customers mouthing gnarlier utterances than Seb here on a routine basis, I think the "personal attack" claim might carry some weight. I'm not going to say how it looks to me, because I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings.
The sad thing, IMHO, is he's allready "won over." He's the biggest 4e. poster child around.
I'm dumbfounded. The whole thing confuses me.
|
With all due respect (and I DO mean that. You folks and that wily Kobold at KQ are the best thing in D&D today) I think you may be doing Sebastian a disservice here. The editorial by Mr. Mohan was rather condescending. When taken with the horrendous way the transition has been handled by Wizards so far, for many of us the feeling is enough is enough.
Woah.
I haven't even read the second post in this thread, but I need to make two things absolutely clear:
1) Wizards of the Coast didn't "steal" _anything_ from Paizo. We created the magazine under a license over the course of five years of excellent cooperation and friendship with the people at Wizards of the Coast. They chose to go a different way with their brands and the end of their license, which was entirely within their rights to do.
While yes the license is theirs to do with as they please, you have already stated that you were making money and would have loved to keep the license. Those two facts invalidate the "magazines make no money so we're going digital" argument forwarded by the Wotc crew, and explicitly states that the end of Paizo's license was not your desire. Stealing may be an overstatement, but it is not that innacurate.
2) There is no one in the D&D business or in the magazine publishing business whom I respect more than Kim Mohan. He is the greatest editor-in-chief Dragon Magazine has ever had, and as far as I'm concerned he can sign his name "editor-in-chief" whenever he wants to. He's certainly earned it.No one at Paizo has any ill will toward Kim Mohan at all, and I won't tolerate it on the boards. Please refrain from personal attacks here on these messageboards.
Again, I would respectfully point out that Sebastian's post took issue with Mr. Mohan's words, not Mr. Mohan. The 'attack' was on his editorial, which frankly, was abrasive enough to be salt in the wounds to the frustrated fans who are still scratching their heads and wondering where their magazines went. Wizards has had TWO years to begin to plan this change and 6 months since the cancellation of the print magazines was announced. Continual requests for explanation have been met with platitudes or vague PR speak. Even the relatively detailed responses by Wizards continually harp upon the idea that magazines are now unprofitable. The implication is that they did you guys a favor by taking a non-profitable albatross off of your collective back. This does not seem to jive with our (as a community) understanding of events. This continual disconnect between what they say and what they do is a source of extreme frustration for many of us when dealing with Wizards.
We appreciate the heartfelt support. Believe me. But let's please try to keep it civil.Thanks,
Erik Mona
(former) Editor-in-Chief
Dragon Magazine
I will point out that an apology to Mr. Mohan was issued on the Wizrds board after it became clear that he was not in fact the current editor in chief. That Mr. Mohan was a guest editorialist was really not made clear.
I find myself in the unusual position of defending someone I normally disagree with on these boards (the Great Wheel is not bad, dammit!). I understand your need to maintain cordial relations with Wotc and also your deep respect for the contributions of the folks who have worked in the field before you. It is this respect for tradition and attempt to reconcile with our hobby's wayward founders that is one of the reasons we love you guys here. The fact remains that the folks at Wizrds have yet to show any of us how their offering is better, and many are losing patience with this entire sordid affair. Sebastian's post (outside of one statement) I think sums the feelings of many here, and I for one was happy to see an attempt to hold the folks at Wotc Di accountable for their lackluster launch.
I hope that this post may go some way toward making the cause of the posts made by Sebastian (and others) understandable.
I think that Kim Mohan giving his name to such stuff is primarily doing himself a disservice, with the credits he has. Even if Sebastians rant was a little over the top, he still has a point: I don´t see how what WotC has shown up to this date is any improvement, quite the contrary. Even if you say some of it is the usual starting trouble, it is still weak overall, no matter what kind of credit the folks behind have. (A Web enhancement and a weak Ecolgy piece is not what I expect from Dragon - the folks at Paizo have set high standards here.) And putting a big name on this does not improve it, sorry.
C´mon, Kim and Chris, we know you can do (and have done) better!
Stefan
..although I think that, in fairness, you should wait a few months for them to get the ball rolling!...
...It's not okay to direct personal attacks at anyone. Kim, Chris, or anyone. If you can't refrain from that type of behavior, you probably shouldn't be posting to these boards.
Whew, I'm glad I didn't attack them...
You are a gentleman and a diplomat, JJ! This reply isn't directed at you really, it is not a disagreement.
So because I can say this I will: they have had a few months to get the ball rolling. It should be rolling by now. I teach British literature and when my classes start the ball is rolling. Granted that I am not paying for Dungeon or Dragon online, but if I was responsible for editing and my company was riding a few rough spots and avoiding some snowballing rage I would want to have all my ummm... monkeys typing... umm... furiously?
What they do now will determine whether or not some of us (meaning me) will pay later.
I've got Mohan edited issues and they are great. So are my Paizo Dungeons. As a customer, I've got no bad feelings for anyone over at WotC other than the fact that delve format has recently wasted my money and some of the minis they made me buy to get the ones I want are trash. But, like a lot of guys here, I WAS insulted by an editorial that seemed oblivious to reader sentiments - I didn't feel the hurt for more than a few minutes, though, because I'm here and Pathfinder is great.
You guys really got the ball rolling. Thank you, Paizo.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Yeah. How am I supposed read Dragon sittin' on the can? :PTruer words were never spoken. You may be kidding, but bathroom reading time is my favorite time of the day, especially if the day is particularly stressful. I like my throne time, and there is no finer bathroom reading than a fresh copy of Dragon or Dungeon...I don't relish the thought of draggin my laptop into the can with me. Ugh.
And here is my main beef with the change. And it's put into writing by someone much more eloquently than I ever could.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Nice work Sebastian - I'm tempted to head over to the WOTC site to add my voice - now if only they'd send me my frikken password for the boards so I could post... you'd think three requests would be enough...
It was me Mothman... I send them counter requests telling them not to let you in ;)
...
What they do now will determine whether or not some of us (meaning me) will pay later....But, like a lot of guys here, I WAS insulted by an editorial that seemed oblivious to reader sentiments - I didn't feel the hurt for more than a few minutes, though, because I'm here and Pathfinder is great.
Exactly. What they are showing us with this first issue of the DDI (and the other free ones to come) will determine if we want to subscribe.
I have to say that I was deadset against it when it was first announced, I thought it would be crap.
Then we find out that James has a new Demonomicon feature coming out, and Nick has the final part of his Victor St Demain trilogy in the first online Dungeon. And I think this isn't that bad. I don't like the format, but I like the authors/content they are lining up. And I start to lean towards subscribing if this is the status quo and not just front-loading the first issues.
Then this editorial comes out and is basically insulting to anyone that liked the print format, without explaining why the online is better. If print is so dead and the way of the past, the most common reason trotted out by WotC PR, then why do they seem to go out of the way to alienate the previous subscribers?
Afterall, you'd think they'd need/want our money/subscriptions too. IMHO, its not like the paying customer base is going to jump exponentially just because they moved the format to online.
*But even now, I'm not 100% decided against the DDI. If they improve the formatting issues, and it continues to be content from authors I like (ie. James writing Demonomicon articles) I'll probably still subscribe.
But they are making it extremely hard for me to justify subscribing with their backhanded customer relations and inept PR, even if I love the content and it was 100% Were-Cabbage ;-)
If I were the boss at Hasbro, someone would be getting an ass chewing. If this is supposed to be the debut issue, somebody is slacking are plain incomptent. That online Dragon sucks.
|
|
What we're saying here is that while it's okay to be disappointed with the end of the print runs of the magazines, and it's okay to be underwhelmed by the online incarnations (although I think that, in fairness, you should wait a few months for them to get the ball rolling!)...
...It's not okay to direct personal attacks at anyone. Kim, Chris, or anyone. If you can't refrain from that type of behavior, you probably shouldn't be posting to these boards.
Is there a better person/place to direct the disappointment? It really feels to me like the people most directly responsible are not really listening or paying attention. I agree with others in that they have had just as much time to "get the ball rolling" as Paizo has had with regards to the Gamemastery line and especially Pathfinder. AND Paizo has to deal with printing presses and so on. It seemed to me like WotC already had all the articles written for this issue of Dungeon and Dragon AND it still didn't need to go to the presses. (And it is a good month later than they should have come out.)
I can't really get on the messageboards at WotC much (nor do I really wish to) so I don't know if Kim or Chris have issued a response -- but they should AT LEAST acknowledge that they have read the concern and will address it soon.
This is pretty basic customer service stuff -- all people really want to know is that they are being heard and that their concerns are being addressed. WotC is doing neither.
So, again, in Sebastian's defense, who/where should these concerns be addressed where they will actually be addressed?
James is not saying you can't express your disappointment here, he's saying no personal attacks.
|
|
James is not saying you can't express your disappointment here, he's saying no personal attacks.
I don't think that Sebastian (or others) simply want to "express" themselves. I think that they want to be heard and addressed. That hasn't happened yet simply by expressing themselves.
So if people are not being heard through normal "expressions" and people are not supposed to attack the people who put their name on incredibly poor PR, then where are people supposed to go where their issues will be addressed?
(I largely agree with what Sebastian said, but not necessarily his method. That said, to my knowledge there still hasn't been a response made. Which suggests that it failed. People still are waiting for a good response. What does it take to get one?)
James is not saying you can't express your disappointment here, he's saying no personal attacks.I don't think that Sebastian (or others) simply want to "express" themselves. I think that they want to be heard and addressed. That hasn't happened yet simply by expressing themselves.
So if people are not being heard through normal "expressions" and people are not supposed to attack the people who put their name on incredibly poor PR, then where are people supposed to go where their issues will be addressed?
(I largely agree with what Sebastian said, but not necessarily his method. That said, to my knowledge there still hasn't been a response made. Which suggests that it failed. People still are waiting for a good response. What does it take to get one?)
There actually was a response from Chris Thomasson here on post 99.
But that being said, it didn't really address much, other than to say the Kim Mohan wasn't the editor for Dragon, he was just writing the editorial for the lead issue of the DI.
Oh, and the Dungeon editorial out sometime this month will address all these questions. Which is fair enough. I think the questions raised by Sebastian and the tone of the original editorial do deserve response. And if they were actually answered in an editorial instead of a messageboard post, all the better.
|
|
and it's okay to be underwhelmed by the online incarnations (although I think that, in fairness, you should wait a few months for them to get the ball rolling!)...
You mean because "since April" hasn't been enough time to get the ball rolling? Or "since the decision was made (well before being announced)" hasn't been enough time to get the ball rolling?
Sorry, James; not directed at you (at all), but this thing has been absolutely mis-managed by WotC since the original announcement lo these many months ago.
Just to pull an example off the top of my head, the Ecology of the Death Knight PDF download looks the same as the article posted on the website. No elaborate layouts for the D&D DI, no sir! Let's just copy the HTML and slap it in a PDF so people can feel like they're browsing the DI website ... even when they're not.
Yes, it's still early yet, but honestly .. I am so not impressed with anything they've had to say (or anything we've seen so far) about moving Dungeon and Dragon online. I'm with those who aren't very excited about reading all that content online, and if WotC can't even be bothered to frame it in a more magazine-like layout for the downloaded PDF version then why bother making such a fuss about how much more totally awesomer it's going to be?
Maybe the final collected PDF issues (assuming there will be such a thing) won't look like they just slapped a bunch of HTML pages together for a quick buck, but given WotC's track record in handling online content so far you'll have to pardon me for (still!) being skeptical.
I do have to say, I've liked a lot of what's come out so far about 4e, and I'm definitely going to at least check it out once the real rules are released, but then of course they're going to make it sound like the Best Thing Evar every chance they get. If it truly makes the game better, then I'm in, but as with everything else from WotC we are forced to Wait And See.
|
|
There actually was a response from Chris Thomasson here on post 99.
While I am generally loath to request large portions of posts put up here, can you please copy and paste the response? I can't access gleemax (and many would say that I am better off as a result).
Oh, and the Dungeon editorial out sometime this month will address all these questions. Which is fair enough. I think the questions raised by Sebastian and the tone of the original editorial do deserve response. And if they were actually answered in an editorial instead of a messageboard post, all the better.
I really and truly hope that they do in an open and intelligent manner.
When...
How Did We Get into This?
Well, I won't belabor the obvious by telling you how electronic publishing works, and I won't waste your time by going into the details of why this new method of magazine delivery is better than shipping printed copies to postal mailboxes and retail outlets.
At its very least, printed magazines and books are a comodity. They are actually worth something. I can sell them again on ebay, amazon, or even the local bookstore if I so desired. WotC is asking me to pay money for a couple of pdfs -- which are ultimately worthless in the long run. So I too would like to see a response to why the DI is soooooo much better than a printed magazine.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't like to respond to blatant attack posts, trolling, or open flaming, but this one got me.Let me tell you something: Kim Mohan is just about one of the coolest people I know. This guy is a legend. He's worked for this company--whether under the auspices of TSR or Wizards of the Coast--for over twenty years. He's an amazing editor and font of knowledge. He was one of the longest-tenured and best Editors-in-Chief of Dragon in the magazine's history. And he's also one of my professional mentors. I owe a great deal to Kim. I asked him, as a personal favor, to write this editorial. He has a unique perspective that he brings to this transition -- more on that in a sec -- and I really enjoyed reading about his thoughts as we're moving the magazines digitally. So don't attack Kim for writing the editorial. If you want to attack someone, feel free to use me for target practice. I don't mind. But come on, going after a guest editorialist? Let's leave the blame where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere.
I also want to reiterate a couple of points we've tried to be very clear on.
First, this is a period of transition. Sure, it would have been great to move things smoothly and seamlessly overnight to the new site, but that's just not a possibility. We have a lot of plans in the works for the content. We're just now -- as in October 1 was the first day -- starting to roll back the curtain some. Why didn't we launch more content earlier than this month? Because it wasn't our time. Paizo's last print issues, Dragon #359 and Dungeon #150, were September issues, everyone. Those excellent issues deserved their time in the sun. It didn't make sense to us to put Dragon and Dungeon content up before those issues had their time on the newsstand.
Second, yes, we're rolling content out gradually over the course of the month. Part of our job is to keep our fans coming back every day to see what's new on the site. But it's still going to be there, and it's still going to be free for the next several months. It's just not going to be in the big lump you're used to seeing.
You're going to see many of the same sorts of article content you're used to seeing. You're also going to see a lot of different stuff. Heck, the change to Design & Development came because there was so much to talk about, we couldn't fit everything into one monthly installment. So we took the same basic principle and applied it to a series of shorter articles.
If you look back at the wind-up to 3E in Dragon, you'll see that once a month, we did a single preview article, usually of 2 or so pages (believe me, I was there, working on those issues). One of the great things about moving this content online is that we're able to give you so much more, so much more quickly. Is it as much as you'd like to see? Probably not. And is it as much as we'd like to share? Not really. But we've got reasons for keeping some things behind the curtain for the time being, the biggest being that the game is still being playtested and developed. Everything we share is subject to change, but the more we can be sure of a topic before we explore it, the better a job we feel like we're doing for you.
There's one reason why the move to digital is superior to print. Here's another quick one: When something needs to be changed in an article, we can respond very quickly to make that change. Can't do that in print, and if you don't think there haven't been times folks on the staff of the magazines wished they could have credited the right artist for an article, or pulled a piece of art, or just taken one more editing pass before the magazine went to print, you're kidding yourself.
Now I'm stepping on the toes of my Dungeon editorial, which is going to start talking about some of these very issues, among some other stuff. So I'm going to go back to work.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And, for the sake of posterity, here is my response and apology re: Kim (typos and rambling included):
Well then, I really do owe an apology to Kim and I give it to him with all sincerity. I had thought the person writing the editorial was the EiC of the magazines, and given the way it failed to address the most compelling issue on the table (the change to an electronic formation), I was pretty angry.
And while I appreciate you taking the time to respond, you haven't really addressed most of the concerns I've raised. You had six months to put together a stellar launch and you lead with a poorly formatted ecology, an editorial that hand-waived the transition away, and only marginal electronic elements. I suppose the fact that you can correct mistakes to salvage a bad product is wonderful, but I guess I'd prefer something high quality to make a first good impression. I guess on the bright side, at least you didn't crash the servers.
I'll be looking forward to your Dungeon editorial.
Edit: No, I take that back. You did respond substantially just by responding. I'm still unimpressed that in the time it took Paizo to create Pathfinder, you couldn't put together a launch of Dragon to blow us all away, but I do appreciate you living up to their level of responsiveness. And I do honestly look forward to your Dungeon editorial and do sincerely hope it changes my mind.
|
|
If you look back at the wind-up to 3E in Dragon, you'll see that once a month, we did a single preview article, usually of 2 or so pages (believe me, I was there, working on those issues). One of the great things about moving this content online is that we're able to give you so much more, so much more quickly. Is it as much as you'd like to see? Probably not. And is it as much as we'd like to share? Not really. But we've got reasons for keeping some things behind the curtain for the time being, the biggest being that the game is still being playtested and developed. Everything we share is subject to change, but the more we can be sure of a topic before we explore it, the better a job we feel like we're doing for you.
Ok, this one got me. I was there for the 3rd edition transition and I really felt like the articles in Dragon Magazine regarding the transition were stellar. They each took one aspect of the game and did a brief overview explanation about what it was and how it worked. Even the 3.5 transition did things similarly and I felt that they were well done. The closest thing to those articles that has been done for 4e as near as I can tell was the article on the elves which had more to do with what elves are or aren't than the real effect they will be having on the game. I'm not expecting everything all at once. But I would like to see something more 'solid' than what they have provided so far.
Ok, this one got me. I was there for the 3rd edition transition and I really felt like the articles in Dragon Magazine regarding the transition were stellar. They each took one aspect of the game and did a brief overview explanation about what it was and how it worked. Even the 3.5 transition did things similarly and I felt that they were well done. The closest thing to those articles that has been done for 4e as near as I can tell was the article on the elves which had more to do with what elves are or aren't than the real effect they will be having on the game. I'm not expecting everything all at once. But I would like to see something more 'solid' than what they have provided so far.
An oft repeated point on ENWorld is that we have more information now than we did at the same time in 3E's release. We're not even two months out from the announcement. Also, it seems like a lot of mechanics either aren't changing (roll a D20, add modifers, aim high), or have already received a preview in Star Wars SAGA.
I'd love it if WotC would just post their rough draft of the PHB, but it sounds like things are still being tweaked. Rather than seeing a series of articles "Here's how the fighter works," "No, here's how it works now," "Ok, we're keeping this from the first article and that from the second," "Last time, we promise: The Fighter," give them some time to get everything where they want it. I expect we'll be seeing some solid previews by the new year, if not sooner.
And Sebastian: While I don't agree with everything you've said in your posts (and certainly not the tone of your initial rant- Kim Mohan was the EiC of the first Dragons I read, so I revere him to a degree), your last post and apology were pretty classy.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Because I'm an attention whore, I'll post what I wrote on the insulted by WotC thread regarding what I would like to see in terms of their previews v. what they have been giving:
I've been thinking a lot about responding to this thread, because, as is obvious, I've been less than thrilled with WotC's PR as of late. On the one hand, it can be hard to separate out the message from the messenger, so to the extent you are hostile to the very idea of 4e, the topic itself will probably be insulting. It's like reading a politicaly biased article on a topic on which you have an opposing viewpoint. It doesn't really matter how cogent the argument is if you find the underlying assumptions to be offensive.
And yet, I've been interested and anticipating 4e, but I've still been less than impressed with the 4e previews. Am I just being impatient? Do I want them to release more than they have? Maybe.
But, what if it's not releasing information fast enough that is a problem? I guess for me the issue is that they aren't laying any sort of foundation for their arguments. A good comparison of the right way to do things would be the old Design and Development column where they discussed the rust monster, beholder, and ogre mage and suggested changes to make them better monsters. They provided evidence of the problems with the current incarnations of the monsters, pointed out how they did not interact well with the game rules, and then suggested an alternate version. 4e on the other hand seems to be more of them just saying "here's the new beholder because the old one was dumb and hard to use. Look how cool its art is! Plus, it gets 73 attacks per round!!?!?!? But trust me, that's kewl."
The changes to the Realms and the planes are a very good example. It's not that I want them to tell me every change that will be made, it's that I want them to walk me through the problems with the Realms and the planes, the many solutions they considered and rejected, and then, and only then, a preview of what they are offering in 4e and how it addresses those problems. I realize that there would still be people that would quibble with the underlying assumptions even at that level (e.g., the now famous rallying cry of "grapple's not that hard"), but it would go a long way toward making me feel like they do know what they are doing.
As for Dragon, the issue there is distinct. The original PR given to us in April was that the new electronic version would be amazing. It's not. They really blew an opportunity to show us how cool their new electronic format could be, to prove that it would be more than just their same old web columns with the Dragon banner head. Maybe there aren't enough fans of Dragon to make them care about the presentation. Maybe they figured we were fired anyway. I suppose those are valid business reasons, and I should be no more insulted by them than any other company that ceases to produce something I like or changes it to a form that I don't, but I can't help but long for something more than an assertion that this new method is better.
In the end, this whole thing is like a break up. Even if they say it's not us, it's them, there are going to be hard feelings. Or, maybe it's a break up and they are scratching my DVDs, shaving my cat, and calling my Mom to say that I gave them syphilis. I'm just not sure.
I still have my fingers crossed.
An oft repeated point on ENWorld is that we have more information now than we did at the same time in 3E's release. We're not even two months out from the announcement. Also, it seems like a lot of mechanics either aren't changing (roll a D20, add modifers, aim high), or have already received a preview in Star Wars SAGA.
I'd love it if WotC would just post their rough draft of the PHB, but it sounds like things are still being tweaked. Rather than seeing a series of articles "Here's how the fighter works," "No, here's how it works now," "Ok, we're keeping this from the first article and that from the second," "Last time, we promise: The Fighter," give them some time to get everything where they want it. I expect we'll be seeing some solid previews by the new year, if not sooner.
And Sebastian: While I don't agree with everything you've said in your posts (and certainly not the tone of your initial rant- Kim Mohan was the EiC of the first Dragons I read, so I revere him to a degree), your last post and apology were pretty classy.
Honestly, I don't believe we have more information than we did for the 3E release and if we do most of what we do have is fairly useless (in my opinion). The change to 3E is what made me start reading Dragon again and the articles that it contained were a lot more informative than the articles WoTC has been posting. I find it rather pathetic that the only place to find a consolidated list of confirmed 4E information is not on their site (which is terrible, the previous site was much better and that is saying something since that one was pretty bad) but on EnWorld's site which sells competing products.
As for mechanics: as far as I know they have never officially stated that Star Wars SAGA is a preview of 4E (I could be wrong since there information is scattered across the four winds). In regards to the roll high article: we finally have one good article from amongst a bunch of mediocre articles which happens to also be the shortest. Go figure.
Now obviously I am not the only one who did not know that Kim Mohan was a guest editor for Dragon. As far as I was concerned he was the guy who was going to be the EiC for the next several months/years. If the idea was to launch the digital version of the magazine with a guest editor who worked on it in the past, then they should have said so! They should have said, "Hey ladies and gentlemen. With the launch of Dragon into the digital format we thought it would be nice/good/sensible to have Kim Mohan, a former EiC, guest write the first editorial". Telling us he was a guest editor may have helped just a little bit and prevented a lot of confusion.
They are dropping the ball on the details and that will kill them faster than a mediocre product.
|
|
An oft repeated point on ENWorld is that we have more information now than we did at the same time in 3E's release.
This is the first time that I have heard this.
And while it is true it also isn't true. I mean, what have they really told us. They have told us a whole lot of nothing.
They told us the Great Wheel was going to be different. Why is this important? (I guess that it is important to prepare us for that big change in the new Monster Manual.) But even with that, they haven't really told us anything about demons/devils/daemons. Will they have spell resistance? spell-like abilities? 47 attacks a round? will they heal with each attack? All they have really said is that they will be grouping things differently.
How is this "more" than before? I still feel like we know nothing.
With the elves article, they gave us even less than that. They told us what elves 'feel' or what motivates elves.
Again, how is this "more"?
Probably the most informative article has been the one on wizards. This article lets us know that wizards will have different focuses. While I understand that they can't tell us everything, they did give us some 'hard' indications of what they are planning on. However, even in this case, they still leave off the important issue of 'why' they are going this direction.
The "Core Mechanic" article was rather weak in my opinion. This would have been better placed in a different article or articles that dealt with other issues like an article on spell-casting, or a more in-depth article on combat examples.
So, while we may have "more", I still ask myself "more what?". So while we may have more articles and words, it still feels like we still have rather less actual material.
Let's see...
We know that elves and eladrins are "cousins".
We know that devils and demons are going to be different than they are now. (And having written that -- is rather profound. [/sarcasm])
We know that wizards will have different focuses.
We know that dragons will have to roll to hit with their breath weapon and wizards will have to roll to hit with spells which makes saving throws and AC much more similar in function.
The roll to hit with AoE stuff is good to know. The wizard stuff is interesting. The rest has been rather weak. So while there has been "more" stuff written about it, the actual stuff that is different/changed/important I feel is "less".
There have been other elements that have been talked about -- no more vancian magic, no more xp for magic item creation, no more gnomes, tieflings are 'core', etc. -- but so what? I don't want to know what isn't unless they also tell me what is along with why.
Maybe I'm in the minority here. But I don't want "more" communication. I want "better" communication.
It feels to me like they are 'talking' to us as though we were in on the design stages of 4e. They tell us half of something and then kind of conclude that it's "better" without ever telling us why it actually is better. When I read the articles, they don't read as though this stuff is actually "better" -- it reads as though it is simply "different" -- but they keep telling us that it is "better".
Maybe this younger generation actually buys stereos with volume controls that go to 11 instead of just 10. I'm still waiting to hear anything about why 11 is better than 10.
(ok, that was a lot of rambling...)
An oft repeated point on ENWorld is that we have more information now than we did at the same time in 3E's release.
...while it is true it also isn't true. I mean, what have they really told us. They have told us a whole lot of nothing.
I've got to weigh in with Moff Rimmer here. They've talked a lot, but said very little.
...and evidently done less, as I wait patiently for some evidence that the Digital Initiative offers anything useful.
|
|
I've got to weigh in with Moff Rimmer here. They've talked a lot, but said very little.
Yep. Regarding moving Dungeon and Dragon online, it's been enough happy talk to choke a horse and almost nothing concrete to back up most of what's being said. The few samples we've seen since online content started rolling out on the DND web site have fallen short of being the Best Thing Evar. Color me not blown away.
An oft repeated point on ENWorld is that we have more information now than we did at the same time in 3E's release....while it is true it also isn't true. I mean, what have they really told us. They have told us a whole lot of nothing.I've got to weigh in with Moff Rimmer here. They've talked a lot, but said very little.
...and evidently done less, as I wait patiently for some evidence that the Digital Initiative offers anything useful.
And another issue is, in the 2nd/3rd edition change, they didn't have to tell us about the Great Wheel/Demons & Devils/Elves and Eladrin, because they really didn't change much "story" wise. To tell you the truth, if they didn't have any "story" changes to report, they really wouldn't have told us much at all at this point.
|
|
I just read this thread. Yeah, I know, it's been on the boards a while, but I felt like it. Anyway, I would like to say that Sebastian officially dunked Kim Mohan in that letter. Officially. I'm glad that we have people like Sebastian on our side. If it had been up to me, I probably would have concocted some harebrained scheme involving the firebombing of Wizards' servers, then scrapped it in favor of, well, calling a lawyer. Thanks for saving me a step.
Regarding the "We know more about 4th edition, then we did at this same time when 3rd Edition came out" comment...
And this is a question, not a statement- was there as much interest in knowing about the game back then?
Here's my point: As I've mentioned elsewhere, until recently I skipped 3rd edition completely. However I remember when it came out. It might be purely my perception, and I'm completely willing to be corrected on this... but my perception was that DnD was just not as popular as it is today. That DnD had been on a downward swing for some time, and 3rd edition was bringing it out of that slump.
Now, I'm not in a position to judge, having divorced myself from DnD from 1988 to last September... But it doesn't seem to me that 3.5 is in the same state of decline that 2nd edition was back then..
Hence, we might know more about this edition than we did back with the previous one, but the difference is that people *want* to know more.
And here's the kicker that I'm really trying to get at :Because this new edition is coming out sooner in the life cycle of the Game, then it did the last time.
Just thoughts. You kids will know better than I if anything I just said has any merit.
What do we have? Only this: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
Maybe it doesn't delve into specifics too much, but did we know this much about 3E two months after the announcement? As I recall, we didn't know this much about Pathfinder two months after that announcement, but I don't recall Erik et al. being castigated for keeping secrets. That page represents more information and previews two months after the product was announced than most RPG products ever receive, and yet, it still isn't enough! Or, it's not the sort of information you're looking for.
Me, I see some pretty important stuff in what's been released. I know that my combats aren't going to tend toward 4 on 1 fights. I know that I can expect to easily build groups of different level monsters and have it work. I know that an axe fighter will have mechanical differences from a sword fighter beyond his crit range. I know XP for macic item creation is out. I know that there are conditions related to how much damage you've taken. I know that there's more to social interaction than a single roll against a static DC.
But the flavor stuff is also pretty important. Besides giving them something to talk about that doesn't involve mechanics that might still change, all of it- the change to the planes, the restructuring of demons and devils, the elf/eladrin- tells me that they aren't holding to something just because that's how it's always been done. 2E changed little from 1E, and I've found it to be the rare opinion that remembers 2E more fondly than 1E. 3E changed a lot of stuff- but it could have gone farther.
Which is what it comes down to. I welcome change, knowing that I can always step back into something more comfortable.
I just read this thread. Yeah, I know, it's been on the boards a while, but I felt like it. Anyway, I would like to say that Sebastian officially dunked Kim Mohan in that letter. Officially. I'm glad that we have people like Sebastian on our side. If it had been up to me, I probably would have concocted some harebrained scheme involving the firebombing of Wizards' servers, then scrapped it in favor of, well, calling a lawyer. Thanks for saving me a step.
Wow. Setting up "sides" and approving that opening rant? I guess that goes to show how out of touch I am with some of you.
|
|
What do we have? Only this: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
Maybe it doesn't delve into specifics too much, but did we know this much about 3E two months after the announcement? As I recall, we didn't know this much about Pathfinder two months after that announcement, but I don't recall Erik et al. being castigated for keeping secrets. That page represents more information and previews two months after the product was announced than most RPG products ever receive, and yet, it still isn't enough! Or, it's not the sort of information you're looking for.
Once again, this is blocked at work. Anyone care to copy/paste it so that I can see it?
Actually, "Erik et al" gave us quite a bit to chew on. They let us know that they would be an adventure path, complete with bestiary, a focus on a part of their new world, and a few other things. In addition, they gave us a sample of what their new stat blocks were going to look like. I'm not sure what more they could have told us without giving us the actual product.
And I'm not looking for teeny tiny tidbits here and there on a smattering of different areas of the game. What they did was give us a two page article that gave what it was, how it was different, why it was different, why it was better, and usually gave an example to back it up. I have yet to see this with the 4e news.
Again, I don't want "more" -- I want "better".
Me, I see some pretty important stuff in what's been released. I know that my combats aren't going to tend toward 4 on 1 fights. I know that I can expect to easily build groups of different level monsters and have it work. I know that an axe fighter will have mechanical differences from a sword fighter beyond his crit range. I know XP for macic item creation is out. I know that there are conditions related to how much damage you've taken. I know that there's more to social interaction than a single roll against a static DC.
All that this tells me is that "it will be the same but different". But it doesn't really tell me 'how' or 'why'.
But the flavor stuff is also pretty important. Besides giving them something to talk about that doesn't involve mechanics that might still change, all of it- the change to the planes, the restructuring of demons and devils, the elf/eladrin- tells me that they aren't holding to something just because that's how it's always been done. 2E changed little from 1E, and I've found it to be the rare opinion that remembers 2E more fondly than 1E. 3E changed a lot of stuff- but it could have gone farther.
I disagree. The flavor is what I give the campaign, not what WotC tells me.
As far as 1st ed. --> 2nd ed.
Let's see -- specialist wizards, schools of magic, THAC0, bards (that was really confusing in 1st edition), 1st edition had caveliers, monks, assassins, druids, and other classes that were some form of subclass of other classes. Priests were very different.
There were actually a lot of changes with 2nd edition.
But in any case, I don't care if they are or aren't "holding to something just because that's how it's always been done." I would just like to see explanations and reasons as to their decisions.
They did this with the change to 3rd edition.
They are not doing this now.
|
|
Which is what it comes down to. I welcome change, knowing that I can always step back into something more comfortable.
And just to be clear -- I'm fine with change. But change just for the sake of change often times is bad. And that is how this is coming across. I would be fine with all of this if I had a clear understanding of 'what' they were doing, 'how' they were fixing things, and 'why' the decisions were made the way they were. They are not doing that and I wish that they were.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Again, I don't want "more" -- I want "better".
Completely agree. Like I said, take a look at the older design and development articles where they revamped classic monsters like the beholder, ogre mage, and rust monster. Note that they discuss the issues with those monsters under the current regime and don't just say "Beholders are kewler now that I, Mike Mearls, King of Designers, have changed them."
Quality information is vastly preferred over quantity of information. The playtest columns are particularly bad.
|
|
I just read this thread. Yeah, I know, it's been on the boards a while, but I felt like it. Anyway, I would like to say that Sebastian officially dunked Kim Mohan in that letter. Officially. I'm glad that we have people like Sebastian on our side. If it had been up to me, I probably would have concocted some harebrained scheme involving the firebombing of Wizards' servers, then scrapped it in favor of, well, calling a lawyer. Thanks for saving me a step.Wow. Setting up "sides" and approving that opening rant? I guess that goes to show how out of touch I am with some of you.
I can hold a grudge for a long time. Plus, it was a good rant. I was raised to appreciate a good rant.
|
Well to my mind there's a pretty significant difference between the lead up to Pathfinder and the lead up to 4th edition. In the case of Pathfinder, that product was offered as a balm to the wound of losing Dungeon magazine and its APs. And the Paizo blog seemed to give us enough of a preview to get us excited. And the presence of the editors on these boards to answer questions and alleviate anxieties also helped alot in the leadup to Burnt Offering's release. And there was (and is) the perception that Paizo was just as much a victim of wotc's decision to can the mags as we were. Paizo has less of a responsibility to convince us that Pathfinder is better than the Dungeon APs, because the lack of Dungeon was not a situation they created.
The 4th edition change offers to turn the fruitbasket upside-down. Sure, the things they're offering to fix *might* have a positive effect at your table - and then again they might not. I happen to enjoy the 3rd edition games I run. I am of a mind that this edition "ain't broke". Where I had issues with the rules, I have house-ruled to alleviate the problem.
I think the changes that have been previewed to us, the way that they have been presented, and the apparent lack of regard that Wotc has for people's concerns - these things have created the "sides". There are alot of people voicing their apprehensions, and there's not alot coming out of wotc to address them. They are being intentionally deaf right now in an attempt to not focus on the negative. But they don't get the 'free ride' that Paizo may have received from the consumer because the situation is one of their own making.
And one last thing to add to this semi-rant. The whole "give wotc time to make good" argument is kind of silly. Surely they have been working on these plans for a long time. Certainly they have known about the plans to can the mags and rewrite the rules longer than Paizo had to craft the Pathfinder series. And yet we already have two fine issues of Pathfinder in our hands. Downloading the docs doesn't crash the servers. And the editors here seem to have redoubled their efforts on the boards to keep this vocal minority engaged and happy. Given the standard set here, it's no wonder that Paizonians in particular are so pissed at Wizards' approach. We've been taught to expect better.