My feelings about 5E D&D


4th Edition

501 to 539 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Sebastrd wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Piracy increased instead of decreased since their decision to pull PDFs...
Citation, please.

Hmmm... oddly enough, pirates don't leave any specifics of their activities, and people like you conveniently miss statements already made in others' posts.

From one of my previous posts:

"Go do a torrent search: you'll be able to find any D&D book you want, so long as you don't care that you're blatantly violating copyright laws getting them that way (note: I'm not advocating that anyone should engage in such piracy-- just pointing out that it's out there). Meanwhile, there's a lot less piracy of Pathfinder files... because a sizable portion of people are willing to buy the PDFs from Paizo and support the company, since the PDFs are legally available for a reasonably inexpensive price."

Now-- if you care to look (I think if you just look, but don't download, you're not breaking the law-- yet)-- lot more D&D books available (all over the place) now that they're no longer released on PDF legally (and yes, you can find everything WotC's done for 4E out there on the net... and still not nearly so much Pathfinder stuff on pirate sites and file sharing services.

Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe; and that is what I have to rely on, since it's not the sort of material that's openly reported anymore than corporations release public sales figures for everything. Now if that's not good enough for you to make the observation that it's growing, guess there's nothing I can do to help you, since citations from proper academic journals as to whether piracy is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same don't appear to be out there-- at least when one is specifically looking at WotC and Paizo game books. I think major media sources are still incredibly concerned with piracy, but I'm not interested in wading through all the lawyerese to get the major record label's take on all of it.


Finn K wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


I also wan't arguing it's a good thing (it's one of the main reasons I'm likely to be disappointed by D&D:Next), but it does seem to me that people who arent DDI subscribers are not always aware of just how much material is made available via PDF.
I'll keep that in mind. It does sound like DDI has changed a lot, probably for the better, since my subscription lapsed a couple'a years ago (2010).

It has definitely improved in my opinion. Nonetheless, I dont think WoTC adventures are anywhere close to Paizo's. I also much prefer Paizo's flavor material to what's put out by WoTC (though that's clearly not much more than personal taste).

To me, the essential D&D is DDI+Rules compendium - everything else is unnecessary. I wouldnt go back to playing 4th edition without the Character Builder and I suspect adventure conversion would be too painful without the monster builder (though I'm experimenting with running monsters from the books at the moment).

WoTC keep making vague references to trying to work out a way to get PDFs of the books for sale again - I struggle to see the barrier, although I sometimes wonder whether the piracy rate is a measure of size of market more than anything. (That is, I wonder if piracy of Paizo's books is increasing as they have become more established as a market leader).


I certainly hope that 5E is made available in the form of DRM-free PDFs. The notion that such PDFs hurt, rather than help, sales is mistaken.


Finn K wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Piracy increased instead of decreased since their decision to pull PDFs...
Citation, please.

Hmmm... oddly enough, pirates don't leave any specifics of their activities, and people like you conveniently miss statements already made in others' posts.

From one of my previous posts:

"Go do a torrent search: you'll be able to find any D&D book you want, so long as you don't care that you're blatantly violating copyright laws getting them that way (note: I'm not advocating that anyone should engage in such piracy-- just pointing out that it's out there). Meanwhile, there's a lot less piracy of Pathfinder files... because a sizable portion of people are willing to buy the PDFs from Paizo and support the company, since the PDFs are legally available for a reasonably inexpensive price."

Now-- if you care to look (I think if you just look, but don't download, you're not breaking the law-- yet)-- lot more D&D books available (all over the place) now that they're no longer released on PDF legally (and yes, you can find everything WotC's done for 4E out there on the net... and still not nearly so much Pathfinder stuff on pirate sites and file sharing services.

Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe; and that is what I have to rely on, since it's not the sort of material that's openly reported anymore than corporations release public sales figures for everything. Now if that's not good enough for you to make the observation that it's growing, guess there's nothing I can do to help you, since citations from proper academic journals as to whether piracy is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same don't appear to be out there-- at least when one is specifically looking at WotC and Paizo game books. I think major media sources are still incredibly concerned with piracy, but I'm not interested in wading through all the lawyerese to get the major record...

You could have just said, "I can't back that up."

At the time WotC pulled their PDFs, they were suing a handful of individuals for piracy. Additionally, they didn't appreciate that their most anticipated title (PHB2) since the 4E launch was available to torrent as a high-quality PDF within hours of its release. People literally got the PDF via legal download and immediately uploaded it to torrent sites. They didn't even bother to remove or disguise the watermarks.

Pulling their PDFs obviously didn't end piracy and, as I said earlier, I don't think it was a wise or effective decision. However, WotC felt that it would slow the pirating process, giving them a buffer of time in which to sell physical copies, and would degrade the quality of the pirated material available.

Dark Archive

Sebastrd wrote:
People literally got the PDF via legal download and immediately uploaded it to torrent sites

Actually - that's not entirely true either. The PDF issue that WotC ran into originally was leaks of PDF proofs directly from someone in the printing process. This was why so many of their PDFs hit the torrent sites before they hit their street dates.

My Google-Fu isn't turning up the source, but it was an interview with one of the luminaries - WotC used to have a guy who went around with a girl with blue hair doing interviews that talked to someone about it.

Silver Crusade

Sebastrd wrote:
You could have just said, "I can't back that up."

No, the point is more that I already explained in the earlier post why I thought my conclusion that piracy increased, rather than decreased, was correct. It's not the sort of thing that you're going to get out of a newspaper-- and although anecdotes, websearches, and other observations are not as good as getting someone to do a full research study for you (something that generally isn't possible except from the cop's eye view, when it comes to criminal activity-- which piracy is), they're not worthless. I think I have (and already had) adequately, albeit not 100% conclusively, backed up my point.

Although-- I don't think they've done anything to stop their piracy problems, or even lessen them. VagrantWhisper's account matches with what I remember from the time that WotC decided to stop distributing PDF files over the net... meanwhile, straight-from-the-printer quality PDFs of everything WotC's ever made, are still out there on Torrent, if you care to look... I think WotC got it completely wrong. Now, I do not personally take part in any criminal activities... but if you're at all web-smart, you can take a look and see that it's there. Any other sources I may or may not have? Sorry, think I'll plead the "5th" on that.


You've always been able to find almost any rpg book available for download somewhere online and still can. I couldn't say that represents an increase in piracy, but it does make wotc's pdf policy seem pointless and silly.

Liberty's Edge

VagrantWhisper wrote:
Actually - that's not entirely true either. The PDF issue that WotC ran into originally was leaks of PDF proofs directly from someone in the printing process.

It is still true that one of the legal cases revolved around piracy based on a copy of a book from DriveThruRPG.com or something isn't it? Alas I cannot find a reference to that.

Anyway here is a reference to the court case re the PHB2. And is some discussion about it.

I really think it was this act of piracy so early in the 4e release schedule that made WotC panic and pull all PDFs.

I lost teh ability to re-download some 3.5 and 4e PDFs I had purchased, but luckily I had the downloaded and double backed up so no worries there.

I am just kicking myself for not buying the 3.5 PDFs I wanted when I had the chance (I was putting it off hoping WotC would reduce the price of the PDFs to less than full retail price of the physical books).

Dark Archive

DigitalMage wrote:
VagrantWhisper wrote:
Actually - that's not entirely true either. The PDF issue that WotC ran into originally was leaks of PDF proofs directly from someone in the printing process.

It is still true that one of the legal cases revolved around piracy based on a copy of a book from DriveThruRPG.com or something isn't it? Alas I cannot find a reference to that.

Anyway here is a reference to the court case re the PHB2. And is some discussion about it.

I really think it was this act of piracy so early in the 4e release schedule that made WotC panic and pull all PDFs.

I lost teh ability to re-download some 3.5 and 4e PDFs I had purchased, but luckily I had the downloaded and double backed up so no worries there.

I am just kicking myself for not buying the 3.5 PDFs I wanted when I had the chance (I was putting it off hoping WotC would reduce the price of the PDFs to less than full retail price of the physical books).

Cool - a quick google search for "4E Leaked" gives tons of returns, but alas not the one I was looking for.

Honestly, not being able to download the 4E stuff, or even the 3.5 stuff, didn't bother me, it was the dozens of TSR produced product that no longer became available ... I mean really, the D&D Compendium was somehow contributing to all of this? Errm still bothers me.

Shadow Lodge

VagrantWhisper wrote:
Cool - a quick google search for "4E Leaked" gives tons of returns, but alas not the one I was looking for.

I'm afraid to ask.

Once I was asked by my supervisor to search for Pig Pads onlinne. Let's just say that most of the results were NOT something you want to be on your government computer.


Rockheimr wrote:
You've always been able to find almost any rpg book available for download somewhere online and still can. I couldn't say that represents an increase in piracy, but it does make wotc's pdf policy seem pointless and silly.

I 100% agree.


I read a news article about a blackbody object NASA reported in the vicinity of Neptune, and wanted to find out more about it....

What is seen cannot be unseen. :(

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In all fairness, WotC's policy was likely a result of some "I don't do Intertubes, I have my secretary for that" exec suddenly reading in "CEO Monthly" about Them Evil Pirates, getting a stroke, waking up and panicking that MILLIONS OF DOLLARS are lost every minute, before somebody had a chance to explain him how stuff really works.

Shadow Lodge

Finn K wrote:
Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe

Come on, now. When has that ever been good enough. . . :)


Gorbacz wrote:
In all fairness, WotC's policy was likely a result of some "I don't do Intertubes, I have my secretary for that" exec suddenly reading in "CEO Monthly" about Them Evil Pirates, getting a stroke, waking up and panicking that MILLIONS OF DOLLARS are lost every minute, before somebody had a chance to explain him how stuff really works.

It certainly did seem that way, didn't it? :P

Here's hoping that they've learned their lesson in time for 5E.


Beckett wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe
Come on, now. When has that ever been good enough. . . :)

It's a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.


I think that we've seen the last of WotC's forays into PDFs, unless someone can convince the beancounters it would be good for business. And convincing beancounters they're wrong is about like convincing a messageboard lurker he's wrong. Ain't gonna happen.

Shadow Lodge

I was under the impression the WotC was now going to start doing PDF's, particularly of the older 1st and 2nd ED stuff.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Sebastrd wrote:


It's a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.

Just because an argument is fallacious does not mean the conclusion is wrong.

Begin snark: Besides, I can mathemetically prove that piracy of PDFs went up once they were no longer sold:

A = percent of PDF distribution pirated/total before discontinuing = some % less than 100%

B = percent of PDF distribution pirated/total after discontinuing = 100%

A<B QED

End snark.

Back on topic, compatibility is less important to me than convertability. I would be hard pressed to say that 2e was compatible with 3e, but most characters could be converted. One of the ways that 4e lost me was that many long-running campaigns and concepts could not even be converted to the intial 4e release. I want to be able to take established campaigns and characters and view them through the lens of the new system.


ryric wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:


It's a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.
Just because an argument is fallacious does not mean the conclusion is wrong.

True. But if your argument is fallacious, it's probably best not to use it as a springboard for making snarky, passive-agressive comments disparaging those that disagree with said argument.

ryric wrote:
Back on topic, compatibility is less important to me than convertability. I would be hard pressed to say that 2e was compatible with 3e, but most characters could be converted. One of the ways that 4e lost me was that many long-running campaigns and concepts could not even be converted to the intial 4e release. I want to be able to take established campaigns and characters and view them through the lens of the new system.

Conversion to 4E is definitely possible, but it requires some knowledge of the system. And to be fair, even conversion from 2E to 3E doesn't maintain the integrity of things.

The evolution of D&D characters over the editions reminds me a lot of Superman. The power just kept ramping up until it got a little ridiculous, and someone finally took a step back and realized that things were out of hand.


Sebastrd wrote:
to use it as a springboard making snarky, passive-agressive comments disparaging those that disagree with said argument.

Where did that happen?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sebastrd wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe
Come on, now. When has that ever been good enough. . . :)
It's a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.

Insisting that an 'appeal to authority' is the only possible proof for any claim is itself a logical fallacy.


Finn K wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe
Come on, now. When has that ever been good enough. . . :)
It's a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.
Insisting that an 'appeal to authority' is the only possible proof for any claim is itself a logical fallacy.

Actually, an "appeal to authority" is itself a logical fallacy, so it isn't possible proof of anything. However, if we're going to continue this particular discussion, it's probably best we take it elsewhere.


Interestingly, there is a school of thought which suggests that 'appeal to authority' be renamed to 'appeal to inappropriate authority'. The argument goes that, although not a proof, it is nonetheless a reasonable argument to cite a well qualified authority, especially with regard to a technical topic most people are unfamiliar with.

"I believe in the existence of global warming since that is the consensus view of climatologists" is a reasonable argument.

"I believe Star Wars is more popular than Star Trek since I have a friend who runs a video shop and he says Star Wars movies sell far better" isn't.


Finn K wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Piracy increased instead of decreased since their decision to pull PDFs...
Citation, please.
, but I'm not interested in wading through all the lawyerese to get the major record...

Question Copyright dot org. :)

Look up History of Copyright.

In fact, watch this video.

Silver Crusade

Sebastrd wrote:


Actually, an "appeal to authority" is itself a logical fallacy, so it isn't possible proof of anything. However, if we're going to continue this particular discussion, it's probably best we take it elsewhere.

As Steve Geddes observed-- "appeal to authority" is not always a fallacy. It is when you appeal to unqualified, irrelevant, unsupported, and/or biased authority, that makes it the fallacy of that name. Oddly enough, I've heard professors describe the issue almost exactly the same way SG did in his post. And, "proof", such as it can be determined in most arguments, is determined by preponderance of evidence (absolute, "yes"/"no" proofs are a matter for the formal questions of deductive logic, not the questions regarding informal logic issues).


So few people on forums of any kind use anything resembling logic.

Why are you so focused on it?

This thread is called "My feelings about 5E DD".

Lighten up, people.


I think the best approach for D&D Next (based upon their stated goals) is to have a stripped down version of the game, very basic withe few rules and options (I guess similar to what Essentials is now but I don't know 4E that is just what I have heard). Then have later releases create greater complexity depending on the flavor the group wants to play. This way the platform is there to add complexity but those who dislike complexity can still pick up and play the system.

I guess the difficult thing would be releasing modules to account for different playstyles. Dungeon though each month could release an adventure for the varying complexities. This is how Dungeon did it in the beginning when Basic D&D and AD&D were released together. The difference would be that the system would be modular to allow the DM and players to build in the complexity themselves should they so choose.

Shadow Lodge

That's a very good point I hadn't even concidered.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

So few people on forums of any kind use anything resembling logic.

Why are you so focused on it?

This thread is called "My feelings about 5E DD".

Lighten up, people.

Sorry. I like formal logic. Like many enthusiasts, i occasionally forget that most people arent and that not everyone enjoys analysis of analysis. :/


2 people marked this as a favorite.

D&D 4th edition put D&D in the grave. D&D 5th edition has taken the body out of it's grave, burned it, and then spread the ashes over the Gulf of Mexico. D&D 6th edition will have to resurrect the body so they can kill it again.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about just animating it and commanding it to go lose itself so that no one else can raise it later. . .

Sovereign Court

My feelings about 5E D&D - sub thread, when did you know 4e would crash and burn:

When they replaced half-orcs with teleporting fey elves.

My weekly DM is on the playtest group for 5E and true to his non-disclosure agreement I know:

a) There is or is not a 5th edition D&D coming out.
b) There is or is not a playtest for it.
c) There is or is not a non-disclosure agreement.

That said, my old 3.5 groups have gone to one playing PF AP's and the other rotating through all those old game systems we've had gathering dust (Gamma World, Warhammer RPG, Traveller's, Chill (yeah I'm dating myself) plus we play Society at Cons or when everyone can't make it.

5E is going to have to be epically good and fill a flavor niche I'm not sure I need.


Meattroller that is also how I feel about D&D Next as well. I have sooo many other things waiting on the backburner to play: Cthulhu, Star Wars, Conan the RPG that I am not sure once I have played out what I want to do with 3.5 that I would even want to move to a new edition. Plus by the time I am done running what I want to run (much less what I could run) from 3rd edition, WOTC will be releasing 7th or 8th edition.

I thought 4E would do poorly when they trashed the older versions of the game. Reminds me of something I read in a comic once, I think it was Secret Wars

Wolverine wrote:

"Cyclops may be a jerk but he's our jerk". [/spoiler] No one wants someone else trashing something they like even if they trash it themselves.


The thing is, I'm waiting on Eberron 5th ed. :)

What I want from D&D Next is the core rules, the psionics addition, and Eberon 5th ed.
:)

Shadow Lodge

I'm actually interested in just Ravenloft and Dragonlance. Eberron I can take or leave. It's too new in my opinion to really care so much about the storyline, but I wnat some spotlight on those two settings.


Leafar the Lost wrote:
D&D 4th edition put D&D in the grave. D&D 5th edition has taken the body out of it's grave, burned it, and then spread the ashes over the Gulf of Mexico. D&D 6th edition will have to resurrect the body so they can kill it again.

RAWR! I'm steaming mad!

Dark Archive

More than likely, I'll give it a chance. However, I'd like to either drop FR and Eberron and focus on a new "default" setting, or bring back Planescape.


Meattroller wrote:

My feelings about 5E D&D - sub thread, when did you know 4e would crash and burn:

When they replaced half-orcs with teleporting fey elves.

^This is why they can't afford to do this:
Dennis Harry wrote:
I think the best approach for D&D Next (based upon their stated goals) is to have a stripped down version of the game, very basic withe few rules and options (I guess similar to what Essentials is now but I don't know 4E that is just what I have heard). Then have later releases create greater complexity depending on the flavor the group wants to play. This way the platform is there to add complexity but those who dislike complexity can still pick up and play the system.

They need to have some "module" stuff in the first release. Otherwise they will miss the mark with a lot of fans that will try the system but dislike the simplicitic options and stop playing before the further module books come out.


Dennis Harry wrote:
I think the best approach for D&D Next (based upon their stated goals) is to have a stripped down version of the game, very basic withe few rules and options (I guess similar to what Essentials is now but I don't know 4E that is just what I have heard). Then have later releases create greater complexity depending on the flavor the group wants to play. This way the platform is there to add complexity but those who dislike complexity can still pick up and play the system.

Based on everything they've said thus far, I assume this is exactly what they're doing.

501 to 539 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / My feelings about 5E D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.