Nah. It's a display of an inability to reason by analogy and not applicable to the situation.
Broadcast TV will be illegal next year. You should get a satilite dish. Dish or cable TV programs will no longer be free.That's extortion.
No it's total thread jacking, and probably a misunderstanding of how HD and digital television are delivered to homes across America.
True that would be extortion but that is not what is happening. Broadcast TV will still be alive and well but only in HD/digital.
Broadcast TV will be illegal next year. You should get a satilite dish. Dish or cable TV programs will no longer be free.That's extortion.
So I can get HD/ digital tv with just a tv set and antennae?
Wow!!! I didn't know.
Back to the subject of the thread.
Sebastians right, the 1/2 orc exclusive to DDI is a product, you can buy it or save your money for something cool like a new surf board. Maybe you can use DM creativity and develop your own 4e 1/2 orc. I would like to say that is what I would do with regards to the gnome (I only have to make my gaming group and myself happy), but I'm lazy and will probably wait for WotC to do it for me. Better yet maybe Paizo can create the 4e gnome for us all.
Guess they wrapped up that whole Half-orc is the product of rape issue.
I wonder what the backstory/fluff treatment will befall the half-orc?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Guess they wrapped up that whole Half-orc is the product of rape issue.
I wonder what the backstory/fluff treatment will befall the half-orc?
Sterile warriors bred for the gladiatorial slave pits of Athas!
Oh wait, that's muls :)
In the Duchy of Urnst in Living Greyhawk, our half orcs were descended from orc mercenaries that had bred in with human slaves over the centuries. Really more of 3/4 orcs.
|
The Gnome is already built into 4th ed as a playable character. It just happens to reside in the Monster Manual. One of the playtesters is playing a gnome warlock.
Just FYI.
The only reason he's playing a gnome is because they are playing characters created for a 3.5 Eberron campaign. The same group has a warforged which had the same treatment. They have even commented about how the warforged was basically invincible (to the point of being broken) because of his resistances. The gnome isn't getting a full PC race write up in the initial set of books, and that is rubbing some people the wrong way.
|
|
I think I can articulate my frustration with the "holding core classes and races for ransom" policy of WotC's. One word. Consistancy. In most D&D games being played today, half-orcs, gnomes, druids, barbarians, etc. are assumed to be available to play. Just pick up one book, the PHB, and you can play any of these races or classes. They are also assumed to be part of most campaign settings and societies. So in 4E, you have to pretend they don't exist or at least push them to the side. Then, if you don't want to do that because it seems arbitrary to place them in limbo or eliminate them, you have to wait a while and shell out more money for them. You shouldn't have to pay extra just to get consistancy in your campaign.
|
|
I think I can articulate my frustration with the "holding core classes and races for ransom" policy of WotC's. One word. Consistancy. In most D&D games being played today, half-orcs, gnomes, druids, barbarians, etc. are assumed to be available to play. Just pick up one book, the PHB, and you can play any of these races or classes. They are also assumed to be part of most campaign settings and societies. So in 4E, you have to pretend they don't exist or at least push them to the side. Then, if you don't want to do that because it seems arbitrary to place them in limbo or eliminate them, you have to wait a while and shell out more money for them. You shouldn't have to pay extra just to get consistancy in your campaign.
I agree with the sentiment but the execution of consistency in this case would lead to a HUGE players hand book since 3E has so many PC races and core classes.
They had to take the entire corpus of 3E player options and winnow it down to the right mix to actually fit in one PHB. It is entirely legitimate to question their choices. I certainly do. I believe the lack of a druidic class may be a roadblock for me. The lack of a gnome or a half-orc will be a roadblock for others. The trouble is that they HAD to make a choice for what stayed and what needed to wait until later.
I'll tell you this much - I do not envy the folks that had to make that choice in any edition change but particularly for 4E since 3E has had far more published PC options than any previous edition.
They made a mistake with the half-orc and they are trying to make up for it the only way they can. They will be placing it on their official info source. I can't blame them for that. Now if they never actually print the half-orc in a book then I would agree that they have made a real blunder. That remains to play itself out.
Personally, my group never plays as half-elves or half-orcs, so this whole thing doesn't bother me that much. We sometimes use gnomes, so it's a decent consolation to hear that they'll be in the MM.
but the execution of consistency in this case would lead to a HUGE players hand book since 3E has so many PC races and core classes.
There's a guy in the next town over from where I live. He's been changing from one rules set to another over the years to keep up with the times as well as replace players as old ones leave. (No clue if he's planning on going 4E or not yet, but ...) He has his own campaign world. It has all the standard PHB races/classes as well as a few of his own design. The campaign world is now 24 years old.
Now the PHB is changing radically. Is he suppose to rework his world to include the new races and classes? Or are players required to buy 2-3 PHBs just to be able to play existing characters in his existing game and then make half of each of those books useless when he said "these other races aren't in my world"?
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! Does anyone really think it'll take long for the half-orc's statistics to leak beyond DDI subscribers? Even if not one person in your gaming group subscribes (which I expect will be a rarity) and no one posts them on the Internet (which I imagine would be illegal), practically everyone's going to know someone able to email them the info. I mean, we're not talking about an adventure here, just a few basic stats. I honestly don't see the problem.
Even if someone isn't able to get the info, nothing's stopping you from creating your own. It's a game of imagination, after all.
|
|
Now the PHB is changing radically. Is he suppose to rework his world to include the new races and classes? Or are players required to buy 2-3 PHBs just to be able to play existing characters in his existing game and then make half of each of those books useless when he said "these other races aren't in my world"?
It does not really matter if someone's campaign was based on the PHB or all of the WotC splat books, or any work or works from a dozen third party publishers, in the end a new edition will require either a conversion of sorts, a ramping down and restart, or a continuation of use for the old edition.
Everyone will face that choice no matter what WotC had done short of not producing a 4th edition. Even then it would just be prolonging the inevitable and I leave it to then to judge for themselves when a new edition becomes an inevitable business decision.
|
|
I think I can articulate my frustration with the "holding core classes and races for ransom" policy of WotC's. One word. Consistancy. In most D&D games being played today, half-orcs, gnomes, druids, barbarians, etc. are assumed to be available to play. Just pick up one book, the PHB, and you can play any of these races or classes. They are also assumed to be part of most campaign settings and societies. So in 4E, you have to pretend they don't exist or at least push them to the side. Then, if you don't want to do that because it seems arbitrary to place them in limbo or eliminate them, you have to wait a while and shell out more money for them. You shouldn't have to pay extra just to get consistancy in your campaign.I agree with the sentiment but the execution of consistency in this case would lead to a HUGE players hand book since 3E has so many PC races and core classes.
They had to take the entire corpus of 3E player options and winnow it down to the right mix to actually fit in one PHB. It is entirely legitimate to question their choices. I certainly do. I believe the lack of a druidic class may be a roadblock for me. The lack of a gnome or a half-orc will be a roadblock for others. The trouble is that they HAD to make a choice for what stayed and what needed to wait until later.
I'll tell you this much - I do not envy the folks that had to make that choice in any edition change but particularly for 4E since 3E has had far more published PC options than any previous edition.
They made a mistake with the half-orc and they are trying to make up for it the only way they can. They will be placing it on their official info source. I can't blame them for that. Now if they never actually print the half-orc in a book then I would agree that they have made a real blunder. That remains to play itself out.
I think you missed some of my point. I'm not asking for all of the PC races in 3.5 to be in the 4E handbook. I don't think it's too much to ask for at least the same core races and classes present in the 3.5 PHB(or most of the classes) to be in the first PHB of 4E.
|
|
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! Does anyone really think it'll take long for the half-orc's statistics to leak beyond DDI subscribers? Even if not one person in your gaming group subscribes (which I expect will be a rarity) and no one posts them on the Internet (which I imagine would be illegal), practically everyone's going to know someone able to email them the info. I mean, we're not talking about an adventure here, just a few basic stats. I honestly don't see the problem.
Even if someone isn't able to get the info, nothing's stopping you from creating your own. It's a game of imagination, after all.
It's not just the half-orc. The gnome, bard, barbarian, druid, monk, and sorcerer are all being "held for ransom" for lack of a better term. You have to wait and pay extra for these basic core classes and races.
|
|
I think you missed some of my point. I'm not asking for all of the PC races in 3.5 to be in the 4E handbook. I...
I know what you mean. I see that as a weakness as well but it is true that the races and classes did change from PHB to PHB so this time is not all that different. Its like I said to doc - people will either adapt as the can, ramp down their existing campaigns, or stick with 3E until the time is right for a change.
|
It's not just the half-orc. The gnome, bard, barbarian, druid, monk, and sorcerer are all being "held for ransom" for lack of a better term. You have to wait and pay extra for these basic core classes and races.Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! Does anyone really think it'll take long for the half-orc's statistics to leak beyond DDI subscribers? Even if not one person in your gaming group subscribes (which I expect will be a rarity) and no one posts them on the Internet (which I imagine would be illegal), practically everyone's going to know someone able to email them the info. I mean, we're not talking about an adventure here, just a few basic stats. I honestly don't see the problem.
Even if someone isn't able to get the info, nothing's stopping you from creating your own. It's a game of imagination, after all.
WAIT! Are they really putting the barbarian, druid, monk, bard, and sorcerer on DDI?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think I can articulate my frustration with the "holding core classes and races for ransom" policy of WotC's. One word. Consistancy. In most D&D games being played today, half-orcs, gnomes, druids, barbarians, etc. are assumed to be available to play. Just pick up one book, the PHB, and you can play any of these races or classes. They are also assumed to be part of most campaign settings and societies. So in 4E, you have to pretend they don't exist or at least push them to the side. Then, if you don't want to do that because it seems arbitrary to place them in limbo or eliminate them, you have to wait a while and shell out more money for them. You shouldn't have to pay extra just to get consistancy in your campaign.
I apologize for keeping this thread back in the land of the living (and for assisting in its raising), but wanted to respond quickly to this. This articulation raises a good point, I'm glad you found the words for it. Although the transition from 1e to 2e resulted in races/classes being cut, the transition from 2e to 3e did not cut any races/classes, it only added them.
I'm still not massively upset by this because I intend to purchase the 4e books anyway and I don't mind just pushing half-orcs/gnomes into the background. If I ran a gnome or half-orc centric game or I had no intent of purchasing anything other than the core books, I would probably have stronger feelings.
That being said, this is a recurring problem for every expansion for every edition. Where were all those warlocks hiding before you bought Complete Arcane? What about those orange dragons? What happened to the wild mages between 2e and the publication of Tome and Blood? Hairy footed halflings? Where'd 8th level cleric spells come from? And who founded all these monestaries? Yeah, we're talking the core books, but the fundamental argument being made is the lack of in-game continuity. I would submit that unless you hermetically seal your D&D universe, you will always encounter this problem with each expansion and with every edition change.
Now the PHB is changing radically. Is he suppose to rework his world to include the new races and classes?
That's what I do when a new book offers something interesting one of my players want to try. I just don't see that as a problem.
Or are players required to buy 2-3 PHBs just to be able to play existing characters in his existing game and then make half of each of those books useless when he said "these other races aren't in my world"?
for me, 4e is an opportunity to to start a new campaign. I't is also a good opportunity to bring about a dramatic end to my current campaign. If you never participated in a climatic campaign ending adventure, I highly recommend it. I've done it twice, ones as a player and once as a Gm, both are campaigns and adventures, still talked about 10+ years later.
|
|
Now the PHB is changing radically. Is he suppose to rework his world to include the new races and classes?
That's what I do when a new book offers something interesting one of my players want to try. I just don't see that as a problem.
Or are players required to buy 2-3 PHBs just to be able to play existing characters in his existing game and then make half of each of those books useless when he said "these other races aren't in my world"?for me, 4e is an opportunity to to start a new campaign. I't is also a good opportunity to bring about a dramatic end to my current campaign. If you never participated in a climatic campaign ending adventure, I highly recommend it. I've done it twice, ones as a player and once as a Gm, both are campaigns and adventures, still talked about 10+ years later.
That's true. I think it's a much bigger deal as far as consistancy is concerned to take away (even temporarily) things considered "core", than it is to add new things. It's far easier to ignore new things you don't like than it is to add new things that should have been there in the first place epecially if it's more mechanics than fluff. They say that a lot of the changes for 4E were in response to way people played the game or complaints about the way things worked. Then we also get comments about how things were added because the picture looked cool. I think the "it looks cool" factor had a lot more wieght in their decisions. How many gamers clamored for the gnome and half-orc to be removed and replaced by tieflings and dragonborn in the PHB? My guess would be: next to none. How many people said that they would rather have a warlord and warlock than a bard and druid? Once again, I don't think this was an issue. That doesn't sound like the correct way for professional game desingers who should be more concerned about what their audience will like than what they think is cool for their homebrew campaigns. I guess we'll just have to live with it.
Just my opinion, but this whole Pay-As-You-Go idea of 4th ed. REALLY rubs me the wrong way. You can play certain races if you subscribe but not if you don't? You can create a character of certain classes for a nominal fee?? That's it, Wizards of the Coast... I'm outta here. I think the first posters on this thread were dead right... Exploitation.
By the way, anyone else remember how all you used to need to play anything you ever wanted was 1 book, paper n' pencil, a few dice and your imagination?? Sigh....
Well Richard Baker has stated that half-orcs as a PC race will be in D&D Insider shortly after 4E is released. So much for it not being necessary to play the game. So, to play a half-orc I have to buy the core books and have a DDI subscription. Hey WotC, how much does it cost to play a gnome, or goblin? Once again, WotC's naked greed rears its ugly head.
You are correct. Richard Half-Baked serves his masters at WOTC well. You will have to buy the core books, subscribe to D&D Insider, and then buy more books every year. We can expect a new release every month, whether it is needed or not.
Richard Half-Baked needs to tell his WOTC masters that if they are going to release a D&D 4.0 book every month, then price it accordingly. People will pay for quality. Paizo releases quality products at a reasonable price. Hell, sometimes their free offerings are better than the crap WOTC tries to sell every month.
Richard Half-Baked has sold his soul for corporate greed. Was it worth 30 pieces of silver?
"Et tu, Brute?" Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare.
They say that a lot of the changes for 4E were in response to way people played the game or complaints about the way things worked. Then we also get comments about how things were added because the picture looked cool. I think the "it looks cool" factor had a lot more wieght in their decisions. How many gamers clamored for the gnome and half-orc to be removed and replaced by tieflings and dragonborn in the PHB?...
I think a lot of the changes like tiefling in and gnome out, as a player character race has a lot to do with the designers preference than anything else. These guys like their tiefling worlocks (So do I), and Dragonborn warlords (BLaaah!). They are in a position to shape DnD as they see fit and are doing it. Do I like all the changes? No, but with some patience I'll get what I like for some extra cash (those bastards). I would have perferred to wait for the tiefling worlock and dragonborn warlord in the PhB II, then spend the extra cash (those bastards). Such is the free market economy, if they will pay, charge them for it!
|
|
Do I like all the changes? No, but with some patience I'll get what I like for some extra cash (those bastards).
We have always required supplemental material to get all of the options we want in our game. This is nothing new. I agree that some folks will miss their favorite race/class combo at the start but that will change over time as it always has.
We always spend our money on new game stuff - complaining about it is our second favorite gaming related past time next to actually playing. But regardless we always buy new stuff.
|
|
This is true. However, these classes and races that are being left out of the first PHB, have crossed the line from optional to basic, and perhaps, necessary. The half-orc, gnome, bard, barbarian, druid, monk, and sorcerer have been in the core D&D PHB for the past 7 plus years. Many people playing today haven't known D&D without these options being in the PHB. For the sake of consistancy and normalcy, these options should have been given top priority over things like tieflings, warlocks, dragonborn, and warlords. The newer core classes and races practically scream additional, optional content. They should be in the PHBII instead of gnomes, barbarians, and druids. But what do I know? I'm just a customer that buys (at least used to buy) WotC products. Why should they keep me happy? They can operate without profit, right?
|
|
This is true. However, these classes and races that are being left out of the first PHB, have crossed the line from optional to basic, and perhaps, necessary. The half-orc, gnome, bard, barbarian, druid, monk, and sorcerer have been in the core D&D PHB for the past 7 plus years. Many people playing today haven't known D&D without these options being in the PHB. For the sake of consistancy and normalcy, these options should have been given top priority over things like tieflings, warlocks, dragonborn, and warlords. The newer core classes and races practically scream additional, optional content. They should be in the PHBII instead of gnomes, barbarians, and druids. But what do I know? I'm just a customer that buys (at least used to buy) WotC products. Why should they keep me happy? They can operate without profit, right?
I can appreciate the sentiment but taking that stand means that the PHB can never change. No one can add popular or innovative races or classes. No one can remove classes or races that are moving towards the fringe. How is that a good thing?
|
|
I don't mind adding new classes and races here and there, but taking away or leaving out almost half of the core classes seems to be a little extreme. I can see leaving out one or two for space considerations. I can almost see leaving out gnomes if people have shown that few people want to play gnomes. I don't think that's the case, though. It may sound a little paranoid, but I truly believe that these core options are being held back deliberately to lure people into buying the PHB II and III or subscribing to the DDI. They know people will want them if for no other reason than to keep consistancy in their campaigns and game worlds. So they decide to give you a few in this book, a few in that book, a few on the DDI. I know they have a right to do it, but it still seems sleazy to me.
Every half-orc character I've ever met had only two words in their character background: "Hulk Smash!" And gnomes are on the opposite end of the spectrum; I've yet to see an effective gnome with the exception of a beguiler (maybe).They are tradition only for tradition's sake. They have no redeeming qualities.
Kind of like trolls?
|
|
I don't mind adding new classes and races here and there, but taking away or leaving out almost half of the core classes seems to be a little extreme. I can see leaving out one or two for space considerations. I can almost see leaving out gnomes if people have shown that few people want to play gnomes. I don't think that's the case, though. It may sound a little paranoid, but I truly believe that these core options are being held back deliberately to lure people into buying the PHB II and III or subscribing to the DDI. They know people will want them if for no other reason than to keep consistancy in their campaigns and game worlds. So they decide to give you a few in this book, a few in that book, a few on the DDI. I know they have a right to do it, but it still seems sleazy to me.
I agree that it may be a marketing strategy but my guess is that they are basing it on the research they conducted over the years. It may be that they did a poor job with that research. Perhaps not. I do not mind them redefining the core if it is justified by the market research if that was done well. Only time will tell if they hit the mark.
Do I like all the changes? No, but with some patience I'll get what I like for some extra cash (those bastards).We have always required supplemental material to get all of the options we want in our game. This is nothing new. I agree that some folks will miss their favorite race/class combo at the start but that will change over time as it always has.
We always spend our money on new game stuff - complaining about it is our second favorite gaming related past time next to actually playing. But regardless we always buy new stuff.
THIS IS NOT THE WAY IT USED TO BE! In the past, all that you needed to play were the three core books. Everything else was extra. NOW, the greedy bastards at HASBEEN (Hasbro) have set things up so that you have to pay the fee every month (kind of like Warcraft) or you can't play. You will need to have DDI, or you will miss out vital information. They deliberately left out core classes in order to force us to get the DDI.
No one forces me to do ANYTHING! DO YOU HEAR ME?! DO YOU HEAR ME?!
I am really asking the question, by the way. I have a new voice system set up...I guess its not working...
I agree that it may be a marketing strategy but my guess is that they are basing it on the research they conducted over the years. It may be that they did a poor job with that research. Perhaps not. I do not mind them redefining the core if it is justified by the market research if that was done well. Only time will tell if they hit the mark.
While I obviously don't have access to the market research, I don't think it is a great stretch of the imagination to think that they have something that says warlocks are more popular than monks, or tieflings are more popular than gnomes, or draconic races are really popular (wasn't Races of the Dragon and Dragon Magic fairly popular books?).
CEO
|
OK, cool, WotC, keep grinding the stone, this is so neat I'm giddy! My wife and I are going to have so much extra money not falling for all this greedy poo I can't wait to see what we can do! Hawaii, new bathroom, London...wheee!
-DM Jeff
Don't worry DM Jeff, I'm sure we will come up with some fiendish new products to take away all of that extra money. Hawaii? Baahhh. :)
-Lisa
|
|
Do I like all the changes? No, but with some patience I'll get what I like for some extra cash (those bastards).We have always required supplemental material to get all of the options we want in our game. This is nothing new. I agree that some folks will miss their favorite race/class combo at the start but that will change over time as it always has.
We always spend our money on new game stuff - complaining about it is our second favorite gaming related past time next to actually playing. But regardless we always buy new stuff.
THIS IS NOT THE WAY IT USED TO BE! In the past, all that you needed to play were the three core books. Everything else was extra. NOW, the greedy bastards at HASBEEN (Hasbro) have set things up so that you have to pay the fee every month (kind of like Warcraft) or you can't play. You will need to have DDI, or you will miss out vital information. They deliberately left out core classes in order to force us to get the DDI.
No one forces me to do ANYTHING! DO YOU HEAR ME?! DO YOU HEAR ME?!
I am really asking the question, by the way. I have a new voice system set up...I guess its not working...
Dude - chill. You can play 4E with just the three core books coming out in this year. But we always buy the supplements. I don't know anyone passionate about gaming that ever sticks to the core of a game they love to play.
|
|
Well, depends on what you mean by "sticks to the core".
Stick to the core means that gamers either buy or write their own extensions to almost every game we play more than a few times. The vast majority buy. Some, like yourself, write.
The core rules of any RPG are just a springboard to a deeper dive.
'Core' has a clear and specific meaning in D&D -- Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual. More than that isn't core.
...Most of WotC's vision for the game is far too superhero-y and garish for my tastes, so it would really be a waste of money to buy their stuff and have to rewrite it myself anyway.
We're on the same page here.
I find it interesting that, when we go to movies, we don't (usually) look for heroes with lots of super-powers. For me, that carries over into roleplaying.
4/e seems to suggest I'm in the minority. Am I?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Dude - chill. You can play 4E with just the three core books coming out in this year. But we always buy the supplements. I don't know anyone passionate about gaming that ever sticks to the core of a game they love to play.
I thought the D&D podcast made it clear that core would be more than three books. ... They talked about core monsters being released in MMII, MMIII and the like.
The problem with this becomes the difficulty of marketing modules to those gamers who don't want to buy more than three books. I think doing away with core will hurt them in other products down the road.
I thought the D&D podcast made it clear that core would be more than three books. ... They talked about core monsters being released in MMII, MMIII and the like.
I haven't listened to the podcast.
Are they expanding the definition of core, or are they spreading traditionally-core material around? There's a difference. I've been assuming the latter.
I don't have a problem with DDI content per se. If DDI subscribers get access to new super-kewl uber powers for their money, that is all well and good. As DM, I still get veto power over whether or not they can use it. So it doesn't even matter.
What I do have an issue with is taking something that you originally provided as a normal part of the game (i.e. the SRD), removing it entirely, and then repackaging it for a separate charge.
Does WoTC have a legal right to do it? Of course they do.
Is it a smart PR move? Of course it is not. But as has already been pointed out, WoTC isn't known for its PR.
Did they make a deliberate decision to suck blood out of gamers for some evil ritual? Probably not. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Sounds more like someone realized maybe they screwed up and underestimated some of the backlash, and now they are backpeddling. Pride being what it is, someone probably decided you can't give it away for free, because that would be admitting you were wrong.
Will it make or break by decision to buy the 4e core books? Not at all. I'll still buy them, because I'm curious about the rule changes and want to see them in play.
Dude - chill. You can play 4E with just the three core books coming out in this year. But we always buy the supplements. I don't know anyone passionate about gaming that ever sticks to the core of a game they love to play.
I do not know who this "Dude" person is, but I will definately not "chill". I cannot stand (or sit) by while Dungeons and Dragons is destroyed. History will honor those who fought against the evil, greedy bastards of Hasbro/WOTC, and it will dishonor those who stood (or sat) by and did nothing. That's why I will look for other RPG's to play soon after D&D is destroyed this summer.
|
|
I do not know who this "Dude" person is, but I will definately not "chill". I cannot stand (or sit) by while Dungeons and Dragons is destroyed. History will honor those who fought against the evil, greedy bastards of Hasbro/WOTC, and it will dishonor those who stood (or sat) by and did nothing. That's why I will look for other RPG's to play soon after D&D is destroyed this summer.
Dude - chill. You can play 4E with just the three core books coming out in this year. But we always buy the supplements. I don't know anyone passionate about gaming that ever sticks to the core of a game they love to play.
Suit your self.
I can think of better things to do with righteous indignation than to rage against a game company ... but hey do what ever you want. Just don't expect me to have sympathy for you or your cause.
Its just a game. This is a leisure time activity. Wizards is just an entertainment company.
They don't kill baby seals to make their games. There are no sweat shops. And you are free to buy or not buy their products.
|
|
I don't have a problem with DDI content per se. If DDI subscribers get access to new super-kewl uber powers for their money, that is all well and good. As DM, I still get veto power over whether or not they can use it. So it doesn't even matter.
What I do have an issue with is taking something that you originally provided as a normal part of the game (i.e. the SRD), removing it entirely, and then repackaging it for a separate charge.
Does WoTC have a legal right to do it? Of course they do.
Is it a smart PR move? Of course it is not. But as has already been pointed out, WoTC isn't known for its PR.
Did they make a deliberate decision to suck blood out of gamers for some evil ritual? Probably not. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Sounds more like someone realized maybe they screwed up and underestimated some of the backlash, and now they are backpeddling. Pride being what it is, someone probably decided you can't give it away for free, because that would be admitting you were wrong.
Will it make or break by decision to buy the 4e core books? Not at all. I'll still buy them, because I'm curious about the rule changes and want to see them in play.
I agree with everything except the "normal part of the game" thing. Every edition has had a different combination of core classes and races - so there really is no "normal" state for race/class choices.
I agree with everything except the "normal part of the game" thing. Every edition has had a different combination of core classes and races - so there really is no "normal" state for race/class choices.
True. But the difference now is that for the last seven years there has been a true core, available as the SRD, and reinforced by every third party publisher that created 3.0/3.5 material. This situation didn't exist in previous incarnations of the game. WoTC created, deliberately, a certain expectation in the marketplace by creating the SRD, and established that sense of normalcy.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I do not know who this "Dude" person is, but I will definately not "chill". I cannot stand (or sit) by while Dungeons and Dragons is destroyed. History will honor those who fought against the evil, greedy bastards of Hasbro/WOTC, and it will dishonor those who stood (or sat) by and did nothing.
"Leafar ... put the bat guano down and step away from that ledge. You cannot fly and fireball is just a made up spell!!"
That's why I will look for other RPG's to play soon after D&D is destroyed this summer.
"Oh. Okay. I thought we were going for high drama. ... No, that seems fair. I'm thinking of True20."