Well, despite all the assurances that 4th edition was, first and foremost, a traditional (read: book-based) RPG, WoTC has just announced, via the June 1st Ampersand, a D&D Insider exclusive, online-only class: The assassin. The fact that this is such an iconic class just rubs salt in the wound. There is also an exclusive race on the way, and I doubt these releases will mark the end of this disturbing trend. As biased as it sounds, this just strikes me as the latest in a cynical string of broken promises. I already withdrew all financial support after the PDF debacle; now I wish I had done so much earlier.
I hope you enjoy your thirty pieces of silver, Bill.
Well, despite all the assurances that 4th edition was, first and foremost, a traditional (read: book-based) RPG, WoTC has just announced, via the June 1st Ampersand, a D&D Insider exclusive, online-only class: The assassin. The fact that this is such an iconic class just rubs salt in the wound.
It seems to me that WotC has been pretty straightforward about its intent to explore the online market. And since when is the assassin an iconic class?
Honestly, this is a fantastic announcement. For $120 over 2 years, I get all of the DDI content (Dungeon Magazine, Dragon Magazine, the online compedium, Character Builder, ect.), and now I get new classes and races without having to buy another book. Awesome!
I like that they're using a niche class like the assassin for this, too. It's a nice bone to throw to the DDI subscribers, but it doesn't withhold an integral piece of the D&D mythos from the strictly book-based crowd.
|
And since when is the assassin an iconic class?
Since Gygax first invented AD&D perhaps?
Anyway although I do subscribe to DDI and have no issues with beta testing races/classes via DDI I am so against this move of "web-based" material (anymore than Dragon/Dungeon). This is a slippery slope if true that this will be like a special "item" you get in World of Warcraft if you buy the silly card game etc. Full blown races/classes should only be "truly" released when they appear in print (i.e. published other than on the web).
As DDI subscribers we already have pre-access to the cool things coming out, why do we need "subscribers only classes" also?
D&D to me is a PRINT game (meaning someone is nice enough to professionally print it) not a computer game with scrappy home printer jobs.
S.
|
I don't really see this as very surprising or particularly unreasonable. If they want to attract people in to use DDI they need to offer stuff. They have been doing that already with the pre-release stuff for PHB3. This is slightly different in being online-only but, frankly, it make sense to do so if you want to attract people in to the online offering. It is slightly unfortunate (I remember a furore when the print version of Dungeon had bonus material for subscribers) but, in the end, if you cough for the subscription you hope you might get extra content - it is partly what you are paying for (especially DDI).
I suspect that DDI hasn't been as successful as they had hoped, and that this is intended to help remedy that. We don't know if this is Bill's idea either so the thirty pieces of silver thing is both OTT and potentially wide of the mark (and probably against the personal attacks thing in the sticky at the top). There seems to be a view with some people that you can c0ck a snook at the "money-grubbers" at WotC while getting all the content without paying for a subscription. This isn't really the context the game operates under at the moment.
Since when is the assassin an iconic class?
AD&D - you don't get much more iconic than that.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think it fits in what people have been talking about with the books and the DDI.
As was mentioned in the '4th Edition and the "Younger Audience"' thread, it does appear that there is a division of content, keeping the dead tree books more 'G-PG' than the DDI. If this is the case, then the online only content makes sense. WotC isn't going to put the assassin, or the temptress, or the daily power Evan's spiked tentacles of forced intrusion in a book under that formula*, but they'll put it on the website with the justification of 'you have to have a credit card, which means there's an adult involved.'
*
Or they could not publish an assassin class at all. If you don't want to subscribe to DDI, the end result for you is exactly the same: no assassin class in your game.
Why be a meany about it and declare that, if you can't have an assassin class, then nobody can? I mean, it's not as if your game changes in any way because some college kids 8 miles away from you have a game with an assassin PC in it.
It's like the exclusive power cards I heard were included in some miniatures package or other. I've never laid eyes on them and never felt my game became weak because my fighter player couldn't use "shield kick".
And you didn't see that one coming?
I'm just astonished they waited that long.
As for assassins: Very iconic fantasy occupation.
Usually, you can pull it off with the general rogue, or with any class really, unless you do classes the old way - dig a trench 10 foot deep and let them walk in it, with no chance to go off that path.
There's a world of difference between publishing a class through an online only distribution model (btw, I don't exactly remember a lot of clamoring for the assassin class until it was announced last night) and creating a game that can only be played online. I didn't buy Dungeonscape in 3.5e, so I didn't get to play with the factotum class. Big whoop. Tempest meet teacup.
What I find funny is that one of the main complaint people have had for DDi is the lack of content for the price charged. Yet now WoTC has announced a planned increase in content and now people are upset that it is On-line content only.
I am surprised how they can really think that only subscribers will get access to these new race and class.
I mean, what prevents one guy from a gaming group, subscribed to the DDI, to print this content for his friends ?
I am not preaching for piracy, not at all, i am very much for copyrights and licenses, but since when all players from a group all need to own all the books ?
It is obvious that they lend each other some stuff, books or printouts from the web.
This is particulary true for game masters who by nature often propose to their players some new game options, such as races, classes, feats or whatever, from books that they are the only ones to own.
Big whoop. Tempest meet teacup.
Argh! Thou shalt be charged with the mixing of metaphors.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What I find funny is that one of the main complaint people have had for DDi is the lack of content for the price charged. Yet now WoTC has announced a planned increase in content and now people are upset that it is On-line content only.
Oh don't get me wrong. As for what the content is, to quote Spike, "I'm overwhelmed with 'not caring very much'."
Indeed, if they're dividing their model as I suggest, it's rather clever.
"DDI:Assassin. 'I kill people for a living. I get paid for it. And, no, I don't take PayPal or American Express.'"
Folks, I didn't say it was surprising...only extremely unfortunate, and completely contrary to the (affirmed by WoTC) mantra that "D&D is a pen and paper game first." Online content is fine, but taking a class out of the 1E PHB and making it online only is something completely different. When the full range of iconic options isn't available (ever) in traditionally published, what we end up with, while it might be fun, it isn't a pen and paper game. Call me a curmudgeon if you wish, but here's the thing: I like technology; it just can't replace books. Besides, the PDF fiasco totally undermines any attempt by WoTC to play the "we're just embracing technology" card.
And as for the assassin as a DDI only class vs. never being published at all; false dichotomy (obviously). Which is of course the point; it should have appeared in a book.
|
|
Maybe. I personally much prefer books and the online stuff is likely to get less use from me because I like it less. But I have to respect (to some extent) the commercial imperatives of WotC and (by and large) what is good for them is good for D&D. I'm not crazy about this decision, but it isn't remotely a deal-breaker for me (or anyone who is subscribing, I suspect - maybe deep down you are annoyed you cancelled?).
Also, the assassin is only really iconic for those who remember 1e. That may be quite a few players but plenty of people only started playing D&D with 2e or 3e, so something that was in a book from maybe 1985 and not really repeated since then is not as iconic as, say, the druid (and even he wasn't in 2e, IIRC). Classes and icons seem to come and go.
More stuff that Paizo's reply systme wants to repeat.
Matthew:
Thank you for your polite response, and for your kind words about my previous posts.
In answer to one of your question: Yes, I feel betrayed. I sat not thirty feet from Slavicsek when he was asked if DDI was going to amount to a fundamental change in the way D&D was published, and he responded with an emphatic "no." He went on to say that it would remain, first and foremost, a pen and paper RPG. To me, having the assassin appear online only is, beside itself being a violation of that promise, the setting of a very troubling precedent.
As for my anger being rational; I'm quite sure it isn't, and it is probably coloring my reaction to the whole situation. But this is just the latest in what I believe is a series of missteps in the latest version of the game I love, and have been playing for 25 years. And I'm afraid, when all is said and done, what D&D becomes, I won't even recognize.
|
|
and for my next trick,
I'm going to go the 3.x forums, and tell them how wonderfully 4th edition is doing, and how paizo broke its 'backwards' compatibility promise.
And this is why, the paizo 4th boards are a feeble place, not people from 4th edition, but asshats from paizo. Thanks again for the news scope guys.
A little history...until very recently, I was a "people from 4th edition." I like 4th edition. A lot.
I didn't post this to bash 4E; I posted it because I thought former fellow 4E players might be incensed as I was at the way WoTC is handling 4E. Not everyone who disapproves of WoTC's business practices is convinced 4E sucks.
Don't bother, it's pointless.
Maybe. I personally much prefer books and the online stuff is likely to get less use from me because I like it less. But I have to respect (to some extent) the commercial imperatives of WotC and (by and large) what is good for them is good for D&D. I'm not crazy about this decision, but it isn't remotely a deal-breaker for me (or anyone who is subscribing, I suspect - maybe deep down you are annoyed you cancelled?).
Also, the assassin is only really iconic for those who remember 1e. That may be quite a few players but plenty of people only started playing D&D with 2e or 3e, so something that was in a book from maybe 1985 and not really repeated since then is not as iconic as, say, the druid (and even he wasn't in 2e, IIRC). Classes and icons seem to come and go.
I'm not annoyed that I lack access, because I don't. I subscribed for a year, so even though I've cancelled, I could download the assassin just fine. And taken alone, this wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me, either. But eventually the weight of decisions I am not crazy about has grew too great; the PDF situation was (for me), the straw that broke the camel's back. So my anger is probably disproportionately heaped upon this particular announcement, just because it is the latest.
And yes, I did start with 1E, so you're probably correct about my perception of the assassin being skewed. To me, this is one step from the fighter appearing online only.
Usually, you can pull it off with the general rogue, or with any class really, unless you do classes the old way - dig a trench 10 foot deep and let them walk in it, with no chance to go off that path.
Very true, sir. I guess my problem is that the best way to pull off something as archetypal as an assassin isn't going to be in any D&D rulebook, anywhere.
and for my next trick,
Really? At what point did this discussion seem to be a 4e vs. 3e game system debate? Even those who are not happy with this decision seem to be discussing 4e as business practice of WoTC, not 4e as the a game system.
Again, don't bother. It's pointless.Really? At what point did this discussion seem to be a 4e vs. 3e game system debate? Even those who are not happy with this decision seem to be discussing 4e as business practice of WoTC, not 4e as the a game system.and for my next trick,
I tried...I really did.
It's just that I had high hopes for this thread to bring forth a really interesting discussion on WoTCs new initiative. I really am hoping that it won't degenerate into a 3e/4e fight.
But... as you mentioned, you are simply venting irrational frustration. You don't like the direction the game is going, and in the end, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it - and I remain somewhat frusrated by the idea that I'm playing the game 'wrong' because I enjoy online content - but I can certainly understand the idea that your ideal world features a D&D that doesn't ever touch the web.
But while you are entirely entitled to that opinion, I think you have done Bill a major disservice by accusing him - and WotC - of 'betrayal'. And I still think your language in your first post was way out of line towards him.
You're aren't playing the "wrong" game; I didn't mean to give that impression. Whatever you enjoy is the right game. Honestly, I wish I didn't enjoy 4E; it would make it easier to write-off. But, though I am no longer a customer, I did enjoy 4E, and so I find WoTC's missteps in managing it all the more frustrating.
I also *like* online content, but online only classes go too far. If I can't pick up the PHB (be it 1, 2, or N) and play an assassin, a class that has been around since 1st edition, how is that in keeping with D&D being a pen and paper game? And I do view it as a betrayal, but concede my language was quite strong. In any case, it is as you say: I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree.
It's just that I had high hopes for this thread to bring forth a really interesting discussion on WoTCs new initiative. I really am hoping that it won't degenerate into a 3e/4e fight.
Ditto. Maybe if I admit my language was incendiary and try to turn things around a bit:
For those of you who believe this decision is appropriate, and in keeping with D&D remaining a primarily pen & paper experience, what would be unreasonable for WoTC to publish exclusively online? Fighter? Sorceror? Or perhaps it isn't a class at all?
How much is "too much"?
|
|
Again, don't bother. It's pointless.Really? At what point did this discussion seem to be a 4e vs. 3e game system debate? Even those who are not happy with this decision seem to be discussing 4e as business practice of WoTC, not 4e as the a game system.and for my next trick,
I tried...I really did.
It's just that I had high hopes for this thread to bring forth a really interesting discussion on WoTCs new initiative. I really am hoping that it won't degenerate into a 3e/4e fight.
Well, there are some on both sides who won't let that happen, unfortunately, and people on NO side (like, oh, me, for instance) or people who understand you can criticize a business decision without being anti will just have to make a conscious effort to ignore people who refuse to let it go.
Usually, you can pull it off with the general rogue, or with any class really, unless you do classes the old way - dig a trench 10 foot deep and let them walk in it, with no chance to go off that path.Very true, sir. I guess my problem is that the best way to pull off something as archetypal as an assassin isn't going to be in any D&D rulebook, anywhere.
Hey, no argument there: Going one way exclusively is dumb.
Going two ways exclusively, like not having PDFs for some print books, while at the same time having electronic only source material, is really dumb and/or hypocritical.
|
Well, despite all the assurances that 4th edition was, first and foremost, a traditional (read: book-based) RPG, WoTC has just announced, via the June 1st Ampersand, a D&D Insider exclusive, online-only class: The assassin...I already withdrew all financial support after the PDF debacle; now I wish I had done so much earlier.
My one question is this, How did you know about the assassin being the first on-line class if you don't support them financially, I couldn't ed past the first paragraph beause I don't have a DDI subscription. I think the dumb thing is you need a subscription to find out if it'worth getting a subsription.
My one question is this, How did you know about the assassin being the first on-line class if you don't support them financially, I couldn't ed past the first paragraph beause I don't have a DDI subscription. I think the dumb thing is you need a subscription to find out if it'worth getting a subsription.
Step 1: Announce release to DDI subscribers months in advance, who then promptly go onto every major RPG messageboard and repeat said announcement (after getting them speculating with a teaser two months ago, i.e. "The Art of the Kill" sidebar on True Assassins). Save money on a virtual viral marketing campaign; word of mouth takes care of itself.
Step 2: Near the time of actual release, splash banner adds up on the WoTC D&D website (like they did for the PHB2 class previews), and maybe a few others, like EN World.
For those of you who believe this decision is appropriate, and in keeping with D&D remaining a primarily pen & paper experience, what would be unreasonable for WoTC to publish exclusively online? Fighter? Sorceror? Or perhaps it isn't a class at all?
How much is "too much"?
Personally, nothing is too much. WotC could go online only and it's still a primarily pen & paper game for me, because of how I play it not how content is delivered. In fact there's a whole heck of a lot that WotC (or anyone) could do with electronic distribution that WotC has only barely scratched the surface of. I'm still going to sit around the table with my friends and roll dice like I have for decades, but, for me personally, the whole electronic distribution vs. physical books just doesn't matter to me. Both formats have their own pros and cons. What matters to me is playing the game, not how I get content from WotC.
Of course, I'm quite fine with those who disagree with me and prefer physical books and never want to deal with PDFs. I'm also fine with people who like butter pecan ice cream even if I don't. It's a preference.
Perhaps I'm in the wrong, but I think the assassin was an "Optional" class in 1e, and it was in the DMG. I know that's where the monk was (I remember quite clearly wondering why monks could do quivering palms, because at that age, I associated monks with guys like Friar Tuck, not Jackie Chan.)
I'm relatively sure the assassin was considered optional content, one that the DM was well within his rights (even more than usual) to disallow. I know my DMs said no, pre-emptively, because they didn't want evil PCs, which I think the class was considered to be by definition back then.
By my perspective, a class that was marked optional when it was first created, and by definition, contains content of the more mature leaning (Their career is based on proactive murder,) they're trying to keep on the web instead of the books, is a well considered choice for DDI.
Whether or not the class was optional in earlier editions is kind of a moot point anyways, as I doubt that the 4e version will be all that similar.
You are wrong.
Thanks for the correction. My 1E books are in storage, and I'm working from imperfect memory.
Personally, nothing is too much. WotC could go online only and it's still a primarily pen & paper game for me, because of how I play it not how content is delivered. In fact there's a whole heck of a lot that WotC (or anyone) could do with electronic distribution that WotC has only barely scratched the surface of. I'm still going to sit around the table with my friends and roll dice like I have for decades, but, for me personally, the whole electronic distribution vs. physical books just doesn't matter to me. Both formats have their own pros and cons. What matters to me is playing the game, not how I get content from WotC.
Of course, I'm quite fine with those who disagree with me and prefer physical books and never want to deal with PDFs. I'm also fine with people who like butter pecan ice cream even if I don't. It's a preference.
Understood. But do you think that was the intention when Bill stated D&D would still be "pen and paper?" I think the question was pretty clearly rooted in the concern that books would no longer be the primary content delivery mechanism. So what you suggest may work well for you (and there is nothing wrong with that), I don't think it would meet the criteria of remaining and pen and paper game for most people.
Either way, thank you for your even-handed post.
Even though this class is going to be available only online right now, it is not to say that WotC may not decide down the road to include it in an annual compilation. At the end of the day, though, it is no different than someone complaining because they can not play a swordmage because they are in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide and they do not want to pick it up because they are uninterested in any other part of the book. Sometimes you have to make choices.
Assassin is just the name being given to this shadow striker build of a class. The only classes I consider iconic are the big four (although technically the game started with three); cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief. No one is owed an assassin class. An assassin is just a killer and any class can do this and does. A shadow striker class does sound cool, though, so I imagine all those without access to D&Di will feel like they are missing out on this, what sounds to be an interesting class.
...At the end of the day, though, it is no different than someone complaining because they can not play a swordmage because they are in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide and they do not want to pick it up because they are uninterested in any other part of the book...
On the contrary, the difference is that I can't get the assassin in a book; no offense intended, but that's kinda the whole point. ;-)
Understood. But do you think that was the intention when Bill stated D&D would still be "pen and paper?" I think the question was pretty clearly rooted in the concern that books would no longer be the primary content delivery mechanism. So what you suggest may work well for you (and there is nothing wrong with that), I don't think it would meet the criteria of remaining and pen and paper game for most people.
Either way, thank you for your even-handed post.
If I remembering correcty from the time, the concern that Bill was addressing was over 4e and DDI forcing you to play D&D online (like a MMORPG) or that it would require a computer to play, instead of being principally a PnP game. The concern was not that some content would be delivered digitially; they've been doing that in 4e since June of last year.
I don't see this as anything new or different. Remember the 1st edition classes and races from Dragon Magazine? This is just more of the same.
On the contrary, the difference is that I can't get the assassin in a book; no offense intended, but that's kinda the whole point. ;-)
While the mediums may be different, it still ends up being something that you are unwilling to put out cash for. And that can be for whatever reason you have, of which I am not discounting. For whatever reasons some choose to forgo the FRPG and others choose to forgo D&Di. At the end of the day it is your choice. There is nothing unfair or wrong here.
|
|
I don't see this as anything new or different. Remember the 1st edition classes and races from Dragon Magazine? This is just more of the same.
My laptop feels funny in my lap when I'm taking my daily constitutional. No, this isn't "more of the same". Dragon wasn't an "official" rules supplement, it was a collection of houserules. 99% of those classes you refer to were NPC classes, not for player use.
How much is "too much" comes from when they pull physical books from the shelves and began forcing people to buy pdfs at dead-tree value. That would be too much... and since they have already been offering alot of DDI exclusive material since between the Assassin I don't really see the problem. Dhampyr isn't getting a book-version of it but I will use it all the same from the pdf! Even if they offered a single DDI class/race everytime they release a new PHB or heck even one every month would not be to much unless it become the primary means of distributing the game aka they stop distributing physical books, that is when I will sit up and take notice.
Since the Fighter or Sorcerer or Druid or Monk or Wizard is already printed in a book then it is kinda redundant to use them as examples for being "too much".
As for the Assassin being an iconic class well I haven't seen the Assassin since 1E as a core class. 3E had the Assassin Prestige Class and 4E has the Master Assassin Paragon Path which should really be enough. Unfortunately I am not a fan of the "ooooz assassin!" club and think they could have made a better choice for a online-class.