PDA

View Full Version : I hate you Wizards *shake fist*



Ramza00
2007-02-12, 10:11 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/215397200


Tired of hauling all of your D&D rules supplements to the gaming table? Having trouble finding the rule you need? The Rules Compendium supplement takes all of the game's most important rules and presents them in a single comprehensive, easy-to-reference volume for players and Dungeon Masters. In addition to presenting the rules of the game, the Rules Compendium incorporates official errata as well as behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do.

I hate you Wizards. Not releasing errata for a year and now this.

talsine
2007-02-12, 10:20 AM
awesome, releasing a book that has all the stuff that SHOULD"VE BEEN IN THE CORE BOOKS ANYWAY! /sigh.

I'll probebly buy it for the errata all in one place and because i'm a whore.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-02-12, 10:22 AM
The commentary will be interesting too, but I hope they do not charge to much for this.

Ramza00
2007-02-12, 10:23 AM
awesome, releasing a book that has all the stuff that SHOULD"VE BEEN IN THE CORE BOOKS ANYWAY! /sigh.

I'll probebly buy it for the errata all in one place and because i'm a whore.

Exactly. It should have been all done in the core books, but it wasn't.

And I will find a use for it trust me. Now me paying for it is another matter :smallwink: I buy products when they are useful or I perceive usefulness. If I feel I been gipped before I buy the product I will do more illict things and thus WOTC doesn't make money.

Ramza00
2007-02-12, 10:24 AM
The commentary will be interesting too, but I hope they do not charge to much for this.

List Price $26.95 C$34.95
Amazon Price $17.79

Legoman
2007-02-12, 10:36 AM
Give the guys a break - they have to make money somehow, right?

That said, I'll pass, as should everyone else. The DM is there for a reason.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-12, 10:40 AM
Hm. Most WotC hardcovers start at $29.95. Three buck discount. :smallamused:

In any case, I'm just wondering which items exactly constitute, "all of the game's most important rules" and whether or not the errata is just the stuff that's already been available on the WotC site or if they're pulling the "gotta buy a new book to get the new errata" trick again. The cynic in me says it's the latter.

I look forward to any reviews members of this message board have to offer in October.

evil
2007-02-12, 10:58 AM
I think it makes a good reference for the DM. If i don't know the answer I either have to make stuff up or spend time looking through the DMG & PHB. I don't like doing either. If I had a handy guide next to me that had say... the conditions for bluff modifiers, I think it would help.

Skara Brae
2007-02-12, 10:59 AM
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15278


This thread sheds some interesting light on the topic of WotC and the money issue, IMO. While it primarily addresses the breakup of TSR, it does give some insight into how WotC views the world... though, as a bit of warning, the people there aren't big fans of WotC.

Thomas
2007-02-12, 11:05 AM
I don't quite understand what possible use this book could be. The errata and FAQ are free. You can read up on the Sage's crazy rulings at the WotC site (or in Dragon, if you happen to have access to issues, or subscribe), and tricky rules issues are easily cleared out when you bring them to, say, this board. The rules themselves are already in the books.

Indon
2007-02-12, 11:07 AM
I know the title reads "Rules Compendium", but I keep seeing "D&D: Director's Cut".

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-12, 11:12 AM
The errata and FAQ are free.
No. Not anymore.

Want the latest errata and revisions on psionic powers? Gotta buy Complete Psionic.

Want the latest errata and revisions on magic spells? Spell Compendium.

And soon we're gonna get the same on magic items with the Magic Item Compendium.

And when was the last time the issued errata on any of they're newer publications? Some have had sentences or paragraphs in obvious need of correction.

WotC just doesn't appear to be playing the free errata game anymore.

Darrin
2007-02-12, 11:16 AM
I don't quite understand what possible use this book could be. The errata and FAQ are free. You can read up on the Sage's crazy rulings at the WotC site (or in Dragon, if you happen to have access to issues, or subscribe), and tricky rules issues are easily cleared out when you bring them to, say, this board. The rules themselves are already in the books.

I wonder if they're actually going to tell us whether or not Bards get medium armor proficiency, or why you suddenly needed a Strength requirement to wield a Bastard Sword/Dwarven Waraxe.

I suppose cleaning up some of the partial/swift/immediate/free action mess might be good, too.

Person_Man
2007-02-12, 11:17 AM
Dude, WTF?

This is the dumbest idea for a book ever written. Why don't they just update the SRD?

Having said that, I intend to sit in the Borders and read it, just to get their take on our rules debates.

Thomas
2007-02-12, 11:20 AM
The FAQ was updated in late December, and the latest errata looks to have been for the MM3. What's the usual delay between publication of the book and publication of the errata?


I wonder if they're actually going to tell us whether or not Bards get medium armor proficiency, or why you suddenly needed a Strength requirement to wield a Bastard Sword/Dwarven Waraxe.

I suppose cleaning up some of the partial/swift/immediate/free action mess might be good, too.

I do not understand either of these. Swift, immediate, and free actions seem clear enough (and there's no such thing as a partial action in 3.5). And what medium armor proficiency and Strength requirements?

Matthew
2007-02-12, 11:24 AM
There is a Strength 13 requirement to use the Bastard Sword One Handed. Check out the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-12, 11:26 AM
Dude, WTF?

This is the dumbest idea for a book ever written. Why don't they just update the SRD?

Having said that, I intend to sit in the Borders and read it, just to get their take on our rules debates.

Hey, we agree!

I resisted Spell Compendium for a long, long time. I figured I owned the Complete Series, why get repeated entries? But I caved, partially because it's all in one place, partially because of the allure that "it may be updated", and of course for the spells I didn't have yet. [And I have to say I was disappointed; they didn't errata much at all and many spells in there are quite obviously broken]

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-12, 11:52 AM
The FAQ was updated in late December, and the latest errata looks to have been for the MM3. What's the usual delay between publication of the book and publication of the errata?
Well, Tome of Magic was an April, 2006 release. The errata has a release date stamp of March 28. So that gives us a starting point of "pre-release".

Admittedly, there's a two-year gap between Complete Warrior and its most recent errata update. But that is it's latest update. I don't know when it was initially released. And the errata was released before August 2005, since there is a specific note calling attention to the new erratum in the document.

Complete Adventurer has a 7-month gap between publication and latest errata. Though it is possible there was an initial errata document before this, as was the case with Complete Warrior, the document does not make it obvious.

Almost all large gaps larger than these coincide with the Polymorph errata. The sole exception is Monster Manual III, which was updated several months after that incident solely to fix the Climb skill on the Conflagration Ooze.

In any case, the errata support of new publications is mostly a secondary concern to me. There's still a lot of errata that can only be obtained through the purchase of another book. I was floored when I discovered the nature of the changes to briar web just last month. I had initially assumed the "includes errata" aspect of Spell Compendium refferred to items already called out in those free errata sheets. For the most part, this assumption was dashed when I bought Complete Psionic, and saw that WotC was willing to change spells and powers without releasing free errata. But I wasn't prepared for a changed spell to be so drastically different as was the case with briar web.

Personal Note:
And all that is particularly painful, since I play a Druid in Living Greyhawk, which requires me to use the updated version of any spell I cast. I now feel obligated to by Spell Comendium if I want to continue playing my druid. It's either that or risk feeling like I'm losing out on something compared to all the other Druids in Living Greyhawk. Right now, I'm stubborn enough to stick with the latter and save some cash.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-12, 12:03 PM
The FAQ was updated in late December
To be fair, Andy Collings (aka the Sage) now answers questions online in the Ask Wizards column.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ask

Darrin
2007-02-12, 12:13 PM
I do not understand either of these. Swift, immediate, and free actions seem clear enough (and there's no such thing as a partial action in 3.5). And what medium armor proficiency and Strength requirements?

Read the Bard class description, and then read the Medium Armor Proficiency Feat. Now according to the SRD or official errata, please tell me if bards are proficient in medium armor or not.

Same with Bastard Swords and Dwarven Waraxes. In 3.0, and in the 3.5 weapon descriptions, there is no mention of a Strength requirement (nor can I think of any other weapons that have any ability requirement... even someone with 3 Str can load a crossbow). But if you look at the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, all of a sudden Bastard Swords/Dwarven Waraxes require 13 Str. So which is correct, the weapon description or the feat description?

And while swift/immediate/free seems clear enough, they're not CORE or in the SRD. And there are a couple wording issues, like with Flyby attack, where a search/replace of "partial" has resulted in some wonkyness.

Thomas
2007-02-12, 12:20 PM
Oh, funny thing, that.

Medium armor & bards: They're not; it's obvious which bit is an editing glitch. (Since nowhere else is there any indication bards are actually proficient with medium armor.)

There's no real reason the weapon descriptions should include any of the requirements of the feat, so there's no issue there - no contradiction. The weapon descriptions also don't make mention of the BAB +1 requirement. Using the weapon doesn't require anything; but taking the EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven waraxe) feat requires Str 13.

Why these haven't been addressed in errata is a good question; though I can imagine easily, since I've not noticed either in all the years I've owned the 3.5 PHB and used the SRD...

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-12, 12:20 PM
Honestly I think that requiring books to get the latest errata is a terrible idea for WotC. Sure, they can encourage people to buy the books to get those rules updates, but it's not like people aren't buying their books anyway, you know? Plus it makes the game very frustrating for people who don't have all the books, or for groups whose members have non-identical collections. And it's really not in their best interest for the popular impression of D&D to be, "oh, that game gets really frustrating because the books have conflicting rules and there's no errata."

Person_Man
2007-02-12, 12:29 PM
Hey, we agree!


Wow, the end of days must be drawing neigh. ;-)

Tormsskull
2007-02-12, 12:30 PM
When 3.5 came out I stopped buying anything except core books. Even if I was still interested in buying splat books, I can't imagine ever buying this. But, Wizards has been going down the tube for a while now, so this doesn't really surprise me.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-12, 12:37 PM
And when was the last time the issued errata on any of they're newer publications?
Just because I can answer my own question through the research I did for my last post:

Powers of Faerűn, released March 2006, errata added May 31, 2006.

We got ourselves a whole year's worth of publications without errata.

Also, I just noticed that Tome of Magic is listed as having been released in March, 2006. This is verified when I check the copyright page of that book. My statement that it was released in April was brought upon by the March, 2006 issue of Dragon advertising a "Sneak Peak" at Tome of Magic. This lead me to believe the book was released the following month rather than the same one. (Of course, subscribers to the magazine get their issues about a month ahead of time. So, it's a truer sneak peek for them.)


And it's really not in their best interest for the popular impression of D&D to be, "oh, that game gets really frustrating because the books have conflicting rules and there's no errata."
I usually avoid this, but since I do have some semi-relevant content above...

QFT

:wink:

brian c
2007-02-12, 12:40 PM
There's no real reason the weapon descriptions should include any of the requirements of the feat, so there's no issue there - no contradiction. The weapon descriptions also don't make mention of the BAB +1 requirement. Using the weapon doesn't require anything; but taking the EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven waraxe) feat requires Str 13.

I agree with you, and just to add on: you can use a bastard sword and take the standard non-proficiency penalty even if you have less than 13 STR. Also, if you're a dwarf (counting dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon) then you have no need to the exotic proficiency feat and can use a dwarven waraxe normally no matter what your strength is. The 13 str requirement is only for taking that feat (using the weapon well), not for using the weapon in general.

Thomas
2007-02-12, 12:54 PM
That's my point exactly. It's a requirement for the feat, not the weapon. A dwarf doesn't need the EWP (dwarven waraxe) feat.

Dragonmuncher
2007-02-12, 08:10 PM
Medium armor & bards: They're not; it's obvious which bit is an editing glitch. (Since nowhere else is there any indication bards are actually proficient with medium armor.)

You're probably right, but really, there would only be two places where "bards are automatically proficient in medium armor" would pop up. One would be the Medium Armor proficency feat (where it appears), and the other would be the Bard class entry (where it doesn't).

The class entry probably takes precedence here, meaning they're not proficent in it, but it's not THAT obvious- one says they do, and one says they don't.

Everyman
2007-02-12, 08:31 PM
For many a year, I dreamed of working for WotC. I've always loved designing mechanics and writing scenarios for new materials. However, this...
...
This made me cry.

That's right. I actually cried when I saw that page.

Unless this book is compiling EVERY rule system to date (core, psionic, incarnum, ToM, ToB, etc), this is just erratta in a can. It looks nice, but there is nothing in there but empty rules calories.

Please, oh please let there be more to this book then just erratta and rule clarifications. It might be worthwhile if they at least put a lot of emphasis on the "behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do".

Please, WotC...don't let me down.:smalleek:

Ramza00
2007-02-12, 11:54 PM
Unless this book is compiling EVERY rule system to date (core, psionic, incarnum, ToM, ToB, etc), this is just erratta in a can. It looks nice, but there is nothing in there but empty rules calories.
That sums it up perfectly, beautiful said yet ugly at the same time.


Please, oh please let there be more to this book then just erratta and rule clarifications. It might be worthwhile if they at least put a lot of emphasis on the "behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do".

Please, WotC...don't let me down.:smalleek:
And I don't know if I trust the idea of "designers intent" anymore after reading the enworld exchange about the designer of complete scoundrel. He purposefully wanted to grant ninja fighter feats (not allow ninjas to grab fighter only feats) since there really is no reason to do ninja compared to rogue, and you will still have d6 hps, 3/4 bab, and 6 skill points, and the weaker sudden strike (compared to sneak attack). Well of course the other designers quickly saw that and threw the ax to the other designer's intent.

Foeofthelance
2007-02-13, 12:32 AM
This doesn't sound too suprising. WotC wants to make money in a much more ham fisted manner now then it did in years pass, and publishing a book of what shouldd be free content (though maybe the commentaries should be published seperately as a some sort of journal set up) is just in keeping with this. After all, they have to keep their masters in Hasbro (who still own WotC as far as I recall) for. When you have a smaller company trying to be profitable for a bigger company it can be especially tough, and I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason things aren't alot worse is because Wizards already has a cornered market.

Ah well, just another reason to give that little yellow rat a good kick up his striped rear end.

Legoman
2007-02-13, 12:53 AM
Guys, if you don't like the books, Don't buy them. Then, they'll have to make better books.

This is how capitalism works.

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 01:00 AM
Guys, if you don't like the books, Don't buy them. Then, they'll have to make better books.

This is how capitalism works.

Incorrect. They'll go out of business, and we'll have no books. Then someone else will come along, bemoan the lack of books at all, and pick right back up making crappy books for maximum profit and minimum cost outlay.

THAT's how capitalism works. :smallmad:

When all that matters to a company is making profit, quality tends to fall by the wayside. See also: TSR (Lorraine Williams era), Dell Computers, Best Buy, Walmart, America et al.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-13, 01:03 AM
The best part is that everyone's pissed they're charging money for it, but everyone wants to at least read through it.

THIS is capitalism at it's best. They're selling what you want, regardless of if you'll shake an angry fist at them while you do it :D

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 01:12 AM
The best part is that everyone's pissed they're charging money for it, but everyone wants to at least read through it.

THIS is capitalism at it's best. They're selling what you want, regardless of if you'll shake an angry fist at them while you do it :D

As opposed to selling deliberately incomplete/broken product (references: Monte Cook's blog, personal conversations with Jon Pickens (my uncle) ), and then charging you for its fixes? Yeah...that's ethical.

Here...I'll sell you a car. Open the hood, look inside. Six cylinders, good condition, brand new model. Much better than that old 4-cylinder you drove for 20 years. Great, sold for $90! Oh...you want SIX spark plugs? It runs on just 3... Oh well, that'll be $30 extra.

You'll note I didn't say it was illegal, or wasn't what was actually happening...

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-13, 01:14 AM
Ethics? They're wizards, not clerics.

Zangor
2007-02-13, 01:17 AM
Ethics? They're wizards, not clerics.
And especially not Paladins.

Thomas
2007-02-13, 01:23 AM
When all that matters to a company is making profit, quality tends to fall by the wayside. See also: TSR (Lorraine Williams era), Dell Computers, Best Buy, Walmart, America et al.

D&D players are a bunch of spoiled wimps anyway. We RuneQuesters went years with no publications what-so-ever (some ten without any RuneQuest stuff), and we did fine!

And we made our own HeroQuest rules and we liked! In the snow! Uphill both ways!

Ramza00
2007-02-13, 01:34 AM
Do not do that its "capitalism line" I am an economics major and a Libertarian I love capitalism. Yet at the same time I recognize when I am getting gipped.

What WOTC is doing is the old fashion tactic of "bait and switch"

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 01:47 AM
D&D players are a bunch of spoiled wimps anyway. We RuneQuesters went years with no publications what-so-ever (some ten without any RuneQuest stuff), and we did fine!

And we made our own HeroQuest rules and we liked! In the snow! Uphill both ways!

Gah. Don't remind me.

Look on the bright side. We could have the opposite problem.


We could be playing Rifts...

Legoman
2007-02-13, 02:07 AM
Do not do that its "capitalism line" I am an economics major and a Libertarian I love capitalism. Yet at the same time I recognize when I am getting gipped.

What WOTC is doing is the old fashion tactic of "bait and switch"

If you don't like the stuff you're being sold, pop over to the home-brew forum, and have fun sifting through an entire database full of information and ideas.

Failing that, read some books (Not the new pulp fantasy crap, some literature,) and tell a compelling story through the game without the need for some fancy gimmick. And if you need some sort of fancy gimmick, then use the existing framework of the rules and add something else in.

There is absolutely no need to collect any sort of rule-books. You are paying Wizards to do your thinking for you. For something like Tome of Battle, that's understandable. Spell Compendium? Sure.

For rules? Or the Draconomicon, for instance? Move on, and have fun thinking.

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 02:13 AM
Yeah. This is kinda low. They are lazy enough to let so much bad wording and typos and such into their books (which they charge an arm and a leg for). Then they string you along saying they'll provide the fixes to the books for free online. Then, they apparently change their minds and try to turn a profit from their laziness. It's kinda insulting really. I feel used.
:smallfrown:

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 02:17 AM
Well, it is actually how capitalism works. We have hundreds of game companies, most die off as they make poor products at bad prices. Some make poor products at great prices (Cheapass Games) and do well. Some make good products at acceptable prices (WotC.) Honestly, if you think you can do better, please, do so.
I am not saying I think this book is a sound business decision (capitalism allows for stupid decisions, after all.) WotC might well go downhill because some other game company comes along with something of higher quality and eats their lunch. It seems, however, that WotC has found a decent level of quality vs. price. Would you pay an extra 10$ per book to have them perfectly edited? Perhaps, but WotC doesn't think so. Would you pay 25$ for a book that has all the same rules, just up to date in one place? WotC seems to think so. The part where capitalism works is that you can either buy it or not, and WotC will either do well, or it will not. Perhaps someone else will take their place. But that's capitalism: producers making their own choices, and consumers making theirs, with winners being those who get the most consumer choices.

Unless you want a government run game company, there is not much point in putting down capitalism, since there is no other alternative.

Sorry Sword Guy, you are just wrong. A company's first motive is to make a profit. How they go about doing that, high quality/high price, low quality/low price, some middle ground, that is all secondary. Sometimes they fail like TSR because of their strategy. Sometimes they make great things, but no one wants to pay the money required for it, and then they fail. While people can bemoan the fall of companies that make products they love, probably 90% of the time is it because not enough people were willing to buy the product the company tried to sell, 5% is some corporate evil (management liquidates the company etc.) and 5% is government intervention.

I also don't understand your swing at Wal-Mart. They have a pretty standard level of quality, since they do not manufacture anything themselves. The Listerine you buy there is not better or worse than from Target or wherever. It is just cheaper. Considering the wealth of products made available for less money than anywhere else, as well as the immense amount of material wealth created, I just don't understand how anyone can not say "Thanks Wal-Mart." You just can't get much more customer focused than that company.

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 02:23 AM
.
Sorry Sword Guy, you are just wrong. A company's first motive is to make a profit. How they go about doing that, high quality/high price, low quality/low price, some middle ground, that is all secondary. Sometimes they fail like TSR because of their strategy. Sometimes they make great things, but no one wants to pay the money required for it, and then they fail. While people can bemoan the fall of companies that make products they love, probably 90% of the time is it because not enough people were willing to buy the product the company tried to sell, 5% is some corporate evil (management liquidates the company etc.) and 5% is government intervention.


No, you're quite correct. A company's first motive IS to make profit. As much as possible, to please the shareholders. What I'm arguing is that a company's first motive SHOULD be to produce a quality product. Then market forces will weed out those who are not able to produce a quality product while still making a profit. Is it the way it will ever be? Of course not. Is this the way it should be? Yup.

And the swing at Walmart (and by extension, all of corprate America) was just me engaging in a healthy bit of hyperbole. Surely that's not against the forum rules, right? :smallwink:

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 02:37 AM
Well, it is actually how capitalism works.


I'd say my complaint has more to do with ethics than economics. The bottom line is that Wizards is at the top of the line when it comes to table-top RPGs. Yet they make a poorer quality product than they should make. Then, after promising to edit their work online as a way of an apology, they scrap that idea to make a quick buck. It's pathetic, obvious, and really says something about the company's integrety and credibility.

And if Wizards bothered to do things right in their books the first time, then I could understand their prices. They run a monopoly on the game that I love, and they're spitting in my face when they insist I give them more money if I want products of proper quality. The kicker is: what's going to stop them from allowing their future books to be riddled with just as many if not more mistakes and vague wordings? Any book published after this one will run into the same problem as before. In fact, I would say wizards has succeeded in giving themselves motivation for being even more lazy with their future stuff, because they can profit off of any "mistakes" they will make from here on out.

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 02:55 AM
Hehe it's cool, I don't post in red, I just debate in black.

The problem with your ideal is that putting profit behind quality makes it a hobby. You start a business to make money. You also forget the price aspect of the issue. Quality vs. Price is all a consumer perceives when they make a decision, quality being based on how much happiness they expect to get for how steep a price to them. Allow me an example.

Short example: I can get lorica segmentata made of titanium steel alloy. I know a guy in a metal shop who can commision the materials and sell the finished product to me. It will probably cost me 5000$, but it will be really nice.
I am not paying that. I am getting stainless steel for 300$.

You can buy a Maserati for a finite amount of money. Most people drive Toyotas.

The point: People do not want the best quality they can afford. They want a sufficient quality product at a price they are willing to pay.


Long example:

Say you and I decide to start a game company. "S&W Games: We Aim High." Now, to continue doing this as a full time job without our wives kicking us to the curb, we have to make money, at least enough to break even eventually. There is no way around this for it to be a business and not just you and I hanging out on weekends shooting the bull about how we should arbitrate the effect of a lucerne hammer striking a pauldron.
Now, we decide to make a book of the rules. We want it to be the highest quality book ever. The kind of book you don't let your friends touch unless they wash the Cheetos dust off their grubby fingers. So, we spend hours going over rules, and editing and re-editing. We take it down to the local game shop and brow beat as many players as possible into testing it to work out the kinks we never considered. We pour our souls into it. Hundreds of hours of labor go into it. We pay artists to put excellent art inside. We make the printers use glossy paper and hard covers, even put a special leather bound edition out.

Now, the difficult part. How do we price this marvelous edifice? The game is all in one book, so it needs to cover all our costs. If it costs 10$ per book to produce, and say 5$ per book to distribute, we have at least 15$ in. Assuming you and I need at least 40K$ per year each to stay alive, that's 80K$ in profits needed to support us, the shareholders and workers. Of course there is also the fixed costs of art and any other outside work (snacks for play testers.) Say 3K$ all in all (We bought our snacks at Wal-Mart, and paid starving college kids.) 83K$ for the run of the first year. So, say we can assume we can sell 10K copies in the first year. Very optimistic. 8.3$ per book for us and fixed costs, so 23.30$ per book. Not too shabby. About a WotC book at retail. However, that isn't retail. That is wholesale. Unless we are selling on eBay, that is not the "real" price. Retailers add about 10$ or 15$ simply due to the risk of buying a bunch of the books, and having them all sit. So in Borders our book costs 38.30$ at least. Book and game stores adds visibility, so we are more likely to sell that many. If we go eBay store, we can sell cheaper, but much fewer, so we are back to a higher price.
Will people pay 40$ for a game system that is new on the market, has no back ground material, is from untested developers, and may not be here next year? Probably not.
If we lower the quality, and sell it for 15$, will they? Maybe.
Do we make an all leather bound, gold leaf, pages made from delicate parchment made of mouse scrotum, then sell that for 1000$ with perfect contents? We could, but no one would buy it. Even with mouse scrotum pages.

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 03:03 AM
Hallavast: Why do you keep buying their game? If you are so offended by their monopoly over their own product, go buy another game. If that isn't an option design your own game.

I agree that their tactic is stupid, and insulting. If it is more offensive to you than the game is pleasurable, play something else. If not, well...

You admit yourself that they are the best game maker in your opinion, then complain they are not better. Perhaps they could be, and perhaps they can't be. I don't know. Hopefully the book is a huge collection of what they think are the most useful rules, a whole lot of books condensed into one, with all the up to date errata so you can have it all in one spot instead of spread all over.
If it isn't, and is just a book of "corrections", well, either buy it and be glad they at least put it out, or don't and keep doing it however you were up to now. It would be a shame if it were that though.

I am not saying they are necessarily acting with a great deal of integrity. I am just saying that considering they only exist because you give them money for what they make, and what they make produces quite a large amount of joy, it is odd to see them demonized.

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 03:14 AM
Hallavast: Why do you keep buying their game? If you are so offended by their monopoly over their own product, go buy another game. If that isn't an option design your own game.

I agree that their tactic is stupid, and insulting. If it is more offensive to you than the game is pleasurable, play something else. If not, well...

You admit yourself that they are the best game maker in your opinion, then complain they are not better. Perhaps they could be, and perhaps they can't be. I don't know. Hopefully the book is a huge collection of what they think are the most useful rules, a whole lot of books condensed into one, with all the up to date errata so you can have it all in one spot instead of spread all over.
If it isn't, and is just a book of "corrections", well, either buy it and be glad they at least put it out, or don't and keep doing it however you were up to now. It would be a shame if it were that though.

I am not saying they are necessarily acting with a great deal of integrity. I am just saying that considering they only exist because you give them money for what they make, and what they make produces quite a large amount of joy, it is odd to see them demonized.
Oh, no. I didn't say they were the best game makers out there. I said they are the top selling game makers out there. There is a difference. They're success depends on a game that they didn't create. The game itself is why I continue to play. It's a great game. Unfortunately, some of the publishers don't have a corresponding amount of integrity. I continue to play the game because it's what the table-top RPG community world wide plays. It is the number one game. More people play this game than any other of it's kind. And who's to say I haven't designed my own game? My posts are an honest evaluation of the way this issue was handled. Does posting a critical review of an ethical issue concerning the publishers of the game make me any less inclined to play said game? Of course not. I was playing DnD several years prior to it being bought out by Wizards of the Coast. I think I have a right to speak out against the sinister marketing tactics applied here.

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 03:28 AM
The bottom line is that Wizards is at the top of the line when it comes to table-top RPGs.
Sorry, I took that to mean you thought their table top RPG was top of the line.
WotC is the main publisher for Official products, to my understanding, which this book is. It is WotC that you are criticizing.
And that is fine. I never said you don't have the right to say it is sinister. Funny you should feel the need to point that out.
I agree that it is pretty shameful if it is just corrections to books you already bought, not a compilation. I specifically said so.

My point is that all the folks saying "I hate you Wizards!" and saying how awful they are are forgetting that WotC MADE 3.x. They built it off of 2nd edition, but it is their creation. How they decide to sell it might be stupid, but it is that decision you hate, not them necessarily. You still are going to buy all their other books you deem valuable, as well you should.

If you were to say "I hate them, and am never buying anything else ever again from them," that would be more respectable. Claiming you play because "it's what the table-top RPG community world wide plays. It is the number one game. More people play this game than any other of it's kind" only says you play because other people made that decision for you, and the game has no value to you outside that. That's just silly.

Say you love the game, and despise this idea for a book. Or say you play the game because it is what is played, and you wish something better would come along. Don't claim to love the game and hate those who perpetuate it.

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 03:41 AM
My point is that all the folks saying "I hate you Wizards!" and saying how awful they are are forgetting that WotC MADE 3.x. They built it off of 2nd edition, but it is their creation. How they decide to sell it might be stupid, but it is that decision you hate, not them necessarily. You still are going to buy all their other books you deem valuable, as well you should.

If you were to say "I hate them, and am never buying anything else ever again from them," that would be more respectable. Claiming you play because "it's what the table-top RPG community world wide plays. It is the number one game. More people play this game than any other of it's kind" only says you play because other people made that decision for you, and the game has no value to you outside that. That's just silly.

Say you love the game, and despise this idea for a book. Or say you play the game because it is what is played, and you wish something better would come along. Don't claim to love the game and hate those who perpetuate it.
Ok. Lets say I buy out the rights for Einstein's The Theory of relativity, k? Then I "revise" the book and reformat it (in the process distorting Einstein's words to suit my new theories). Then I discontinue any of the older editions of Einstein's work and sell my product exclusively. Would you have the same doubts about my method of complaining over the publisher's lack of discretion here? I wouldn't think so. Do you see my point? The game itself is solid. I disagree with the way it is currently being marketed.

And as to me making the decision for playing the game ... well, It's not like I can go off by myself and play a different game and expect the same effect. A player's choice of game is more than one person's decision. He has to comply with his peers' choices too. Furthermore, consider how many DnD supplements there are compared to just about any other ttrpg. Often times games will go out of business, and the game books aren't in print anymore. In other words, DnD is kinda the only game in town.

Thomas
2007-02-13, 04:01 AM
I'd say my complaint has more to do with ethics than economics. The bottom line is that Wizards is at the top of the line when it comes to table-top RPGs. Yet they make a poorer quality product than they should make. Then, after promising to edit their work online as a way of an apology, they scrap that idea to make a quick buck. It's pathetic, obvious, and really says something about the company's integrety and credibility.

You mean "top of the pile." Top of the line would imply their product is the best, or among the best, which is quite a way from the truth.

It's a fine game for playing D&D, but that's about it.

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 04:15 AM
You mean "top of the pile." Top of the line would imply their product is the best, or among the best, which is quite a way from the truth.


I believe I clarified my meaning well enough.

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 04:27 AM
Actually, Hallavast, you are still wrong. People update and build upon theories all the time.
If you are contending that 3.x did not really add anything significant enough to 2nd edition to warrent being pretty much a whole new game, well, I don't know what to tell you. Reworking the entire skills, leveling, feats, classes, monsters... You seem to be implying that every car ever made rips off Henry Ford because they have 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine.

WotC did buy out D&D, and then pretty radically reshaped the game. Judging by the fact that 1st and 2nd edition books do not sell for piles of money on eBay, it would seem the general concensus is for the better.
Again, I have no problem with people questioning the marketing decision of this. I do have a problem with people saying they hate WotC while they continue to play their game and buy their books. That is simply vile.

D&D is no where near the only game in town. There are hundreds of other rpgs out there. Go buy one, and introduce all of your friends to it if you do not like D&D. If you simply dislike 3.x, go on eBay or even Amazon and get a pile of 2nd edition, or even first. I will sell you all mine if you'd like. No one is tying your hands here. There are plenty of different types of games played all over. Even if you are from a middle of nowhere area, just talk your group into trying something new. You might find it terribly fun.

I am sorry, but your cries of "The big mean toy maker won't sell me their game exactly how I want, forcing me to decide what I want to spend my money on to enjoy their fine product, because I don't want to learn another system" really don't melt my heart.

greenknight
2007-02-13, 04:43 AM
Ok. Lets say I buy out the rights for Einstein's The Theory of relativity, k? Then I "revise" the book and reformat it (in the process distorting Einstein's words to suit my new theories). Then I discontinue any of the older editions of Einstein's work and sell my product exclusively.

But doesn't that happen with just about everything? The new model comes out, and the old model is pushed out the door. Microsoft's Vista is a good recent example of that. Now that it's released, XP is the old model and is in considerably less demand. Soon enough, you'll be well behind the times if you're still using it. WotC is actually an exception to that rule, since they re-released those older editions for sale in PDF format (which you can buy here (http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?manufacturers_id=4) and here (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=159), for example). They obviously aren't selling 3.5e D&D exclusively, although naturally enough that's the edition the new material is designed for.


And as to me making the decision for playing the game ... well, It's not like I can go off by myself and play a different game and expect the same effect. A player's choice of game is more than one person's decision. He has to comply with his peers' choices too.

You're right, and that does make things more difficult. However, with a bit more work it's always possible to teach gamers a new game system, and if it has greater appeal to them than the one they were previously using, then the peer choice will be for that game system. Personally, I prefer the Ars Magica rules, but I play D&D because I can live with the D&D rules and it's easier to find players for that system. If I really disliked the D&D rules, then I'd do the work needed to get other players interested in a game system I did like.


Furthermore, consider how many DnD supplements there are compared to just about any other ttrpg. Often times games will go out of business, and the game books aren't in print anymore. In other words, DnD is kinda the only game in town.

Again, a good comparison can be made between D&D and computer operating systems like Microsoft Windows. Yes, there are alternatives (several of which are free and have some distinct advantages over Windows), but Windows is by far the dominant OS. That's partly because of marketing, but it's also because people want to have a standard. In RPGs, D&D is the standard, but at least WotC have released the d20 licence/OGL which allows others to build on and profit from it.

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 04:54 AM
As to the bit about me finding another game to play, I'll just say this: you can't play this kind of game unless you have two base criteria. The first of which is having a group of willing friends with which to play the game. The second is a steady source of gaming supplements, rulebooks, and content. If your friends aren't open to options other than DnD, and the current source of alternative gaming supplements will likely be out of print in a few month's time, then you're probably not going to have a successful time playing these games. Thus, you are back to playing DnD.


Actually, Hallavast, you are still wrong. People update and build upon theories all the time.
But do they do so to the point of eliminating all previous editions of work set down by the original creators?


WotC did buy out D&D, and then pretty radically reshaped the game.
Not really. If you take a look at TSR's Combat and Tactics which came out towards the end of their company's life, you'll find the similarities between it and version 3.0 vast and uncanny. One could say WoTC just carried out the plans that TSR had lain down. But this is all beside the point; I'm arguing marketing practices, not content.

I like playing dungeons and dragons (that's an understatement), and I'm dissapointed that the game's publishers would use underhanded and inconsiderate practices after promising otherwise.

Charity
2007-02-13, 05:18 AM
No, you're quite correct. A company's first motive IS to make profit. As much as possible, to please the shareholders. What I'm arguing is that a company's first motive SHOULD be to produce a quality product.

Companies must, by law put their shareholders first, Wizards is no different here to any other company, even the ones you like.

Sick of getting dolphin in your tuna? buy salmon.

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 05:31 AM
As to the bit about me finding another game to play, I'll just say this: you can't play this kind of game unless you have two base criteria. The first of which is having a group of willing friends with which to play the game.
Friends can be taught new games, especially if they find the marketing practices of their current game so repugnant.


The second is a steady source of gaming supplements, rulebooks, and content. If your friends aren't open to options other than DnD, and the current source of alternative gaming supplements will likely be out of print in a few month's time, then you're probably not going to have a successful time playing these games. Thus, you are back to playing DnD. This statement is false. You can easily make your own adventures, get piles of content, rules changes and the like for free, from this site, and many others like it. You can make your own content. In fact, WotC not only encourages you to do so, but to market your content in direct competition with them, using their own rule system no less. That is huge. Even more huge is the fact that you can get huge amounts of their game for free off of the internet. So, most of the rules, plenty of content and adventures are all free. All because WotC bought D&D. Send them a thank you note.



But do they do so to the point of eliminating all previous editions of work set down by the original creators?
As is otherwise posted, you can still buy all that. From WotC. Cheaper than the books were initially.


Not really. If you take a look at TSR's Combat and Tactics which came out towards the end of their company's life, you'll find the similarities between it and version 3.0 vast and uncanny. One could say WoTC just carried out the plans that TSR had lain down. But this is all beside the point; I'm arguing marketing practices, not content.

They still made a great many changes to the system. That's why it is d20 now, not d(Whatever dice we had on hand.)


I like playing dungeons and dragons (that's an understatement), and I'm dissapointed that the game's publishers would use underhanded and inconsiderate practices after promising otherwise.
If they did promise to make errata free, and are charging for it, I agree, they were wrong to break their promise. I don't know why they did. To be truthful though, I am not entirely certain they did. All I know is they seem to be releasing a filtered and condensed version of many rules into one book, with all the proper errata. I know we can buy this book, or we can not buy it. Our game will run exactly like it did last month if we don't buy it, and unless there is errata that we like better than how we were doing it before, it will run exactly like it did last month if we do buy it.

Edit: Improper conjugation.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-13, 05:46 AM
No, you're quite correct. A company's first motive IS to make profit. As much as possible, to please the shareholders. What I'm arguing is that a company's first motive SHOULD be to produce a quality product. Then market forces will weed out those who are not able to produce a quality product while still making a profit. Is it the way it will ever be? Of course not. Is this the way it should be? Yup.
If a company's first motive is not to make a profit, then the company will go under. That's the way this works.

Now, if making a quality product is the way to make a profit, then companies will do that. However, if they can get away with putting less work into it (and therefore making a lower quality end product) while still selling their product, then that produces a higher profit which they're ethically obligated to go for. After all, the company owes its shareholders, and its primary ethical obligation is to them.

There is also an ethical obligation to the customer, but it only goes so far as not cheating the customer, that is to say, not engaging in false advertising, bait and switch, or selling products designed to break or something. If you feel that that is what's going on, then feel free to report WotC to the Better Business Bureau or whichever government commission handles that sort of thing. But good luck; it's unlikely to get anywhere.

The real solution for this is for WotC's customers to demand a better product, and to back that up by not buying their stuff if they don't deliver. The company will either shape up quick or go under... and if you feel that their products are so bad as to be not worth buying, you shouldn't miss them.

Thomas
2007-02-13, 05:57 AM
But do they do so to the point of eliminating all previous editions of work set down by the original creators?

Regularly, yes. I think it was Russell who termed this a "paradigm shift." Einstein, Darwin... it happens rarely - that is, at great intervals - but regularly.



... and the current source of alternative gaming supplements will likely be out of print in a few month's time, then you're probably not going to have a successful time playing these games ...

Yeah, 'cos D&D is the only game that's stayed in print for years or decades.

... hahaha.

Yeah.

Nikolai_II
2007-02-13, 06:17 AM
And even if D&D would have been the only long-living one, you could still go for a short-lived system safe in the knowledge that a defunct company would never 'cheat' you in a way like WotC are doing now. :smallwink:

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 06:18 AM
There is also an ethical obligation to the customer, but it only goes so far as not cheating the customer, that is to say, not engaging in false advertising, bait and switch, or selling products designed to break or something.

Interestingly enough, this still goes to the ethical obligation to the shareholders, or themselves, should the people who run the business also be the share holders.

Companies that cheat, make bad product, engage in false advertising etc. tend to go under more often then not as customers recognize them for what they are and stay away. It is always in a company's best interest to have a good reputation with their customer base, as screwing over people who voluntarily give you money for something they want only results in them going elsewhere. One could say then you have no obligation to the customer beyond contractual, and that your only obligation is to please them enough that they come back to engage in more trade, your business' reason to exist.

The fact is there are many more people who complain about how much they think a company is screwing them over than those who actually act as though they believe it and stop patronizing the company. Most people just feel they are entitled to a "better" deal, even if they are willing to accept the current deal.

Tormsskull
2007-02-13, 06:55 AM
Forgetting about the side-track into business ethics, the way to handle this situation is very simple. You create your own campaign, with your own material. 3.5 is made so flexible, it is very easy to create new races, classes, spells, heck, entire spell systems.

So you eventually just reach a breaking point. You decide at sometime that buying another book at $30 for a few prestige classes that you find interesting just isn't worth it. Then you stop buying additional books.

There are loads and loads of homebrewed campaigns, skills, feats, classes, races, PrCs, EVERYTHING right at your finger tips. All you have to do is playtest them and see if you like them. Sure it is more work. Sure the homebrewed stuff won't come with a Wizards of the Coast stamp on it. But I'd prefer to so a little more work and save a lot more cash.

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 08:34 AM
Interestingly enough, this still goes to the ethical obligation to the shareholders, or themselves, should the people who run the business also be the share holders.

Companies that cheat, make bad product, engage in false advertising etc. tend to go under more often then not as customers recognize them for what they are and stay away. It is always in a company's best interest to have a good reputation with their customer base, as screwing over people who voluntarily give you money for something they want only results in them going elsewhere. One could say then you have no obligation to the customer beyond contractual, and that your only obligation is to please them enough that they come back to engage in more trade, your business' reason to exist.

The fact is there are many more people who complain about how much they think a company is screwing them over than those who actually act as though they believe it and stop patronizing the company. Most people just feel they are entitled to a "better" deal, even if they are willing to accept the current deal.

I think you may have missed my point...

WotC has deliberately released flawed material that they know to be an inferior product (again, reference Monte Cook's blog). They are now producing a product that promises to "fix" the flaws that they knew were there and deliberately ignored.

A direct analogy would be Microsoft charging a third of the price of a new copy of Windows for a download of a security patch for IE. They know it's a vulnerable OS/browser, but released it anyway, and are now charging the customer money so they can have a working product.

That, not anything about economic theory or the reasons a company exists, is why I'm upset at WotC. And it is the reason my primary gaming company has been FASA/FanPro for the last two decades.

Indon
2007-02-13, 08:37 AM
So you eventually just reach a breaking point. You decide at sometime that buying another book at $30 for a few prestige classes that you find interesting just isn't worth it. Then you stop buying additional books.


Well, in this case, it'd be a matter of fixing the rules yourself.

"No, you do NOT get 43 3'rd level spells, Bob. You get 4 3'rd level spells and 3 4'th level spells. No, I don't have the errata. I've got DM fiat, and that's all I need to have."

And on the economics topic, I feel that a corporation can put quality ahead of (or perhaps equal to) profit as a very viable business tactic; that sort of thing builds up consumer loyalty and brand name in a way that is cheaper and more lasting than advertising, and that can, for instance, lead to better business when profits take a slump.

Thomas
2007-02-13, 09:37 AM
And even if D&D would have been the only long-living one, you could still go for a short-lived system safe in the knowledge that a defunct company would never 'cheat' you in a way like WotC are doing now. :smallwink:

You don't need published support for games, anyway. I haven't bought books for most of my two dozen RPGs in years, and they're still as playable as they ever were.

Heck, in the absence of official products, RuneQuest fandom really blossomed into something amazing. Generally, the fan stuff (online, in fanzines, in con-books) is much better than most of the old published stuff was.

In the age of the Internet, you'll never be lacking support for your favorite game.

My old red box D&D is still quite playable (even if the books haven't endured the test of time too well... that's what happens to RPG books bought for 12-year-olds, though).

Person_Man
2007-02-13, 10:35 AM
As opposed to selling deliberately incomplete/broken product (references: Monte Cook's blog, personal conversations with Jon Pickens (my uncle) ), and then charging you for its fixes? Yeah...that's ethical.

Here...I'll sell you a car. Open the hood, look inside. Six cylinders, good condition, brand new model. Much better than that old 4-cylinder you drove for 20 years. Great, sold for $90! Oh...you want SIX spark plugs? It runs on just 3... Oh well, that'll be $30 extra.

You'll note I didn't say it was illegal, or wasn't what was actually happening...

Actually, Microsoft's entire business model is built entirely around selling incomplete products and then charging companies for regular updates. Last time I checked, they were one of the largest and richest companies on the planet.

D&D, owned by Hasbro toys, is pretty similar. Thanks to their name recognition, marketing power, and historical legacy (a lot of us grew up playing D&D, so it will always have a high nostalgia value), 50% of all roleplaying related products sold are D&D products. Since D&D is the roleplaying game that most people understand and own, its the game most people play, because many gamers don't want to go through the hassle of forcing all of their friends to buy rules for another game. D&D is a basically good product. But it has many, many flaws, contradictions, and imbalances. So Hasbro makes a constant stream of supplements to add content and "fix" problems, which people buy because its the game most people are playing (even though investing in 6 copies of a different RPG sourcebook would probably end up being cheaper).

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 10:49 AM
Actually, Microsoft's entire business model is built entirely around selling incomplete products and then charging companies for regular updates. Last time I checked, they were one of the largest and richest companies on the planet.


I didn't say it wasn't a profitable business model. I just maintain that it's despicable and unethical. That's my opinion and I'm a-stickin' to it. :smallbiggrin:

Truwar
2007-02-13, 11:01 AM
Yeah, if only they would release everything we wanted in one book and sell it for $30.00 US. Then we could get exactly what we wanted without having to pay too much and Wizards could quietly go out of business.

Tormsskull
2007-02-13, 11:08 AM
Yeah, if only they would release everything we wanted in one book and sell it for $30.00 US. Then we could get exactly what we wanted without having to pay too much and Wizards could quietly go out of business.

"The Point" Armor Class: 10

Your Attack Roll: 1

Oo, Critcal miss.

Person_Man
2007-02-13, 11:20 AM
Yeah, if only they would release everything we wanted in one book and sell it for $30.00 US. Then we could get exactly what we wanted without having to pay too much and Wizards could quietly go out of business.

Within a few days of releasing a new book, someone on the internet posts a full review, along with a list of every editing mistake, confusing rule, usefulness of new feats and classes, etc. If other readers don't like the reviews they read, few people buy the book. (like this one, or Complete Psionic). In contrast, when a book is well done, pretty much everyone will run out and get it (like the PHBII).

So a better business model would be to release 4.0, to do a very thorough job of playtesting and editing it, and then hold another Eberron world creation contest, and re-release the supplements, but this time spend more then five minutes reviewing it before sending it out the door. That way they sell more books.

Heck, they don't even need to hire copy editors. Pick twenty regulars off of the bulletin boards, send them free copies a few weeks before the book goes to print, and let them edit it. They'll have a hundred people volunteering to do it for free, and everyone would benefit.

MrNexx
2007-02-13, 11:23 AM
We could be playing Rifts...

How does Rifts have the opposite problem?


If a company's first motive is not to make a profit, then the company will go under. That's the way this works.

I disagree. It has to be amongst their motivations, and I'd even argue that it has to be amongst their primary motivations, but it doesn't necessarily have to be their prime motivation.

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 11:54 AM
How does Rifts have the opposite problem?


Funny-ness due to the incredible number of supplements produced. It was in response to a comment made about not having any supplements.

Old Data. Pay it no mind.

Truwar
2007-02-13, 12:10 PM
"The Point" Armor Class: 10

Your Attack Roll: 1

Oo, Critcal miss.

Ahhh, how can I argue with logic like that?

The point is that the “Evil” Wizards of the Coast has done more to make D&D easily and cheaply (as cheap as printing a copy of the SRD, if you want) than any RPG company I know of. They also resurrected D&D, which was on its way to the nostalgia scrap heap along with the Commodore 64 and cassette tapes.

If you are angry about having to pay for stuff (and D&D is a VERY cheap hobby) just use the SRD and come up with your own stuff, but don’t get all hissy about WotC trying to make enough profit to stay in business.

MrNexx
2007-02-13, 12:18 PM
Funny-ness due to the incredible number of supplements produced. It was in response to a comment made about not having any supplements.

I'd still disagree. While Rifts has a fair number of supplements, it's also 16 years old. A look through the catalog gives it 58 products, or about three and a half per year.

I realize you're trying to make a joke, but there are better targets... like WotC. A quick check of their catalog shows that between 2004 and 2006, they had 69 products game books come out between adventures, core, FR, and Eberron. That's not counting miniatures, novels, etc. Just those things listed as "accessories" and "adventures" that were books.

HealthKit
2007-02-13, 12:24 PM
awesome, releasing a book that has all the stuff that SHOULD"VE BEEN IN THE CORE BOOKS ANYWAY! /sigh.

This is what I felt after buying Races of the Wild.
And I'm guessing the other Races book were like this too. :smallannoyed:

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 12:25 PM
I'd still disagree. While Rifts has a fair number of supplements, it's also 16 years old. A look through the catalog gives it 58 products, or about three and a half per year.

I realize you're trying to make a joke, but there are better targets... like WotC. A quick check of their catalog shows that between 2004 and 2006, they had 69 products game books come out between adventures, core, FR, and Eberron. That's not counting miniatures, novels, etc. Just those things listed as "accessories" and "adventures" that were books.

Eh, it just dates me as a gamer. Back in the mid-90's, when they'd release 8-10 sourcebooks per year, that you HAD to have or else get badly left behind in the power curve, this sort of joke was popular. Now, not so much I guess.

I could have gone with GURPS. :smalleek:


...darn kids...stay off my lawn...

Tormsskull
2007-02-13, 12:28 PM
If you are PO’ed about having to pay for stuff (and D&D is a VERY cheap hobby) just use the SRD and come up with your own stuff, but don’t get all hissy about WotC trying to make enough profit to stay in business.


By and large, posters aren't saying they don't want to pay for new material. They are saying they don't want to pay for new material that's purpose is fixing old material, which may or may not have been released with intentional errors in it just for that purpose. That's "The Point" which is what you missed.

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 12:38 PM
They are saying they don't want to pay for new material that's purpose is fixing old material, which may or may not have been released with intentional errors in it just for that purpose.

Q. F. Farkin' T.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-13, 12:51 PM
Indeed, especially since in the past, they released errata to fix what they messed up, for free. The implication that they're going to start selling that, is what's getting people upset (for the most part).

Of course, at present this is still only an implication, since we can't see what's in the Rules Compendium, and WotC hasn't exactly announced that they're no longer doing free errata.

It's possible that the book is simply a compilation of all the weird rules from various supplements, with the mentioned "discussion of why the rules work that way" which honestly sounds interesting, but interesting filler. This is probably not the kind of book every gamer is going to want to buy, and that's okay. Not everyone needs to pick up, say, Enemies and Allies, either.

The niche I see this book filling (IF it isn't a required replacement for the formerly free errata...) is for DMs who run a lot of campaigns, or expect to be faced with pickup games, etc. With this compendium, if you have a player who shows up wanting to run an Incarnum-based character, you can quickly look up the rules for soulmelds even if you don't have that book.

Plus, there are cases where having the essential rules for something boiled down and in one place would be great. For instance, Tome of Battle (which is a great book) requires you to really sit down and read the whole thing to fully grasp how that system works, because the information is spread around. Some of it is in the class descriptions, some is in the section on maneuvers, etc. Observe the "TOB Glitch?" thread. So having one book that swiftly spells out "here is how martial maneuvers work" would be helpful.

But again, this isn't a product that every D&D player out there needs to spend 20 bucks on. I certainly wouldn't, as looking up and figuring out how all the rules work is part of the fun for me. But what I've described above is, I think, a plausible thing for them to publish, and not evil.

What's evil is if the thing is 25% rules-explanation, 25% "why it works that way" fluff, and 50% errata along the lines of "page 55 of X book states Y, should read Z because it was a typo."

Siberys
2007-02-13, 12:57 PM
And while swift/immediate/free seems clear enough, they're not CORE or in the SRD. *snip*

Swift Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#swiftActions)

Immediate Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions)

Free Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions)

the SRD disagrees with you.

MrNexx
2007-02-13, 01:00 PM
Eh, it just dates me as a gamer. Back in the mid-90's, when they'd release 8-10 sourcebooks per year, that you HAD to have or else get badly left behind in the power curve, this sort of joke was popular. Now, not so much I guess.


Been playing Rifts (and other Palladium games) for 16 years; been writing for them since 2000.

Arceliar
2007-02-13, 01:10 PM
Perhaps it's about time GITP starts holding polls and such to fix the broken content that's already in the SRD. Then compile the finished fixes in one place and slap the OGL on it. Just fixes to existing things, not a bunch of homebrew feats and stuff that'll only break the game in unforeseen ways.

Seriously, a lot of the conflicting rules and obviously broken aspects of the game are just that: obvious, at least as soon as there's any formal discussion on the matter. I mean, already in this discussion we've essentially fixed the bard medium armor thing (though that may be about the most common-sense thing to fix).

tarbrush
2007-02-13, 01:12 PM
Ahhh, how can I argue with logic like that?

The point is that the “Evil” Wizards of the Coast has done more to make D&D easily and cheaply (as cheap as printing a copy of the SRD, if you want) than any RPG company I know of. They also resurrected D&D, which was on its way to the nostalgia scrap heap along with the Commodore 64 and cassette tapes.

If you are angry about having to pay for stuff (and D&D is a VERY cheap hobby) just use the SRD and come up with your own stuff, but don’t get all hissy about WotC trying to make enough profit to stay in business.

I gotta agree here. For all that they've done some low down dirty stuff, the implementation of the OGL has, I believe, done wonders for the popularity and accessability of D&D. It got me back to it for a start. And yes, it sucks that they'd resort to the Microsoft business model. But, I can't think of any company that doesn't mix some good with some bad. For every Cityscape or Complete Psionic, there's a Tome of Battle or Complete Mage that are reasonably put together, fun books.

So yeah, boo to wizards for trying to profit from their own mistakes, but they're not all evil.

Thomas
2007-02-13, 01:35 PM
The new RuneQuest is available for free (SRDs of the basic rules, the Companion rulebook, and the Monsters book), too, but that's almost certainly D&D's influence on Mongoose; the company was pretty much built on publishing OGC d20 stuff, so it's just natural they'll see the advantages of SRDs and OGLs.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-13, 03:15 PM
D&D players are a bunch of spoiled wimps anyway. We RuneQuesters went years with no publications what-so-ever (some ten without any RuneQuest stuff), and we did fine!

And we made our own HeroQuest rules and we liked! In the snow! Uphill both ways!

Thomas, sometimes you make me sad that I'm in California and you're in Finland. Given enough resources, the two of us could take over the world with our crotchety old sarcasmness.

Darrin
2007-02-13, 04:20 PM
Swift Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#swiftActions)

Immediate Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions)

Free Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions)

the SRD disagrees with you.

Not exactly. The official SRD site on http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35[/URL] doesn't include or mention them. You have to wrestle with the Wizards search engine or dig around the errata to find them, even though they have been in almost every single core splatbook since the Miniatures Handbook.

Jans Carton lists them as part of the differences between [URL="http://www.d20srd.org"]www.d20srd.org (http://www.wizards.com/d20) and the "official version":



Since swift actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#swiftActions) and immediate actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions) have been included in official errata for core rules content such as the feather fall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/featherFall.htm) spell and the quicken spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickenSpell) metamagic feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats), I've moved the descriptions for these types of actions from the psionics rules section to the core rules section.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-13, 04:21 PM
I think you may have missed my point...

WotC has deliberately released flawed material that they know to be an inferior product (again, reference Monte Cook's blog). They are now producing a product that promises to "fix" the flaws that they knew were there and deliberately ignored.
Not that I don't believe you, but Monte's blog is kind of big. Got a link? The last half hour of hunting through it hasn't produced anything.

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 04:30 PM
2 sources. One, "If I had another shot at it":

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_144


And two (C&P'ed from the Drangonsfoot forums)

I suggest folks read the first url. It's VERY interesting reading.



http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15278&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45


Checking the c&p, I realize it was from df....copying another poster's c&p of the comments. So, I figure its all right to post since its (technically) still up here on DF (somewhere). Smile


3.5 Conspiracy Theories are true: Monte Cook tells all


Dragonsfoot Forum Index -> Edition Wars & RPG Soapbox
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Jody_Butt
Associate of the Drakon



Joined: 04 Jun 2002
Posts: 54

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:15 pm Post subject: 3.5 Conspiracy Theories are true: Monte Cook tells all

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This is a crosspost from RPGnet. I thought it would be of interest to those who are less than pleased with WotC's handling of D&D.]
I knew it. I knew it all along.

From Monte Cook: (emphasis mine)

"A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source.

That source was me. I was there.

See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.

Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.

Here I sit, in 2003, with my reviewer's copies of the 3.5 books next to my computer, and that's not what I see. It's not difficult to see how that could have happened, however. The business team for 3.0 (and I'm talking about Ryan Dancey and Keith Strohm here) are gone. Skip's gone. Jonathan's working on miniatures games. I'm gone. It's an interesting truism that in the corporate world, where long-term planning is a must but the length of time an employee stays in any one position is short, business teams and design teams rarely last long enough to see their plans come to fruition. Thus the people to propose something are almost never the people who implement it.

So, one has to surmise that the new business team determined that sales were slumping slightly earlier than predicted and needed 3.5 to come out earlier. One also has to surmise that someone -- at some level -- decided that it was to be a much, much more thorough revision than previously planned. Some of this is probably just human nature (two of the 3.0 designers were out of the way, and one would only work at Wizards of the Coast for about half the design time) and some of it is probably the belief that more revenue would be generated with more drastic changes. The philosophy of 3.5 has changed from being a financial "shot in the arm" into something with significant enough changes to make it a "must-buy." Perhaps they thought to strive for the sales levels of 2000. Perhaps there was corporate pressure to reach those sales levels again."

(And on the subject of "lies", oh, sorry, I mean, "changes in direction"):

Monte: "Despite what Wizards has said, there are conversion issues between 3.0 and 3.5." [Hmm...haven't I heard that argument somewhere else here on RPGnet?]

(And on the subject of miniatures -- a personal favourite of mine):

Monte: "The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition."

(And on the subject of art -- which came up recently here on RPGnet):

Monte: "And the big one: The vast majority of the art in the books is the same. So we're expected to plunk down $90 for three books that cost us $60 three years ago, and most of the art is the same?"


The complete article can be found here:

http://www.montecook.com/review.html
_________________
Bend over for the 3.5E solution!

Back to top


Valerian
Envoy of Dragonsfoot

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 04:57 PM
Ah! Found the specific rant from whence these quotations from Monte are pulled:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

Matthew
2007-02-13, 06:58 PM
Games Workshop have been doing that successfully for years. Sell game, sell models for game. Now if Wizards would just make some half decent models...

Seriously, though, the last time I read Gygax's view of 'where TSR went wrong' it was that they didn't copy Games Workshop's business model.

Marius
2007-02-13, 07:26 PM
2 sources. One, "If I had another shot at it":

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_144


And two (C&P'ed from the Drangonsfoot forums)

I suggest folks read the first url. It's VERY interesting reading.

I've read it twice and I still can't find why what they did is so evil. They didn't released a flawed game knowing what the flaws were, the released 3.0 knowing the there were going to be flaws (but those flaws weren't planned or else Monte would be just as guilty as Wizards). Of course they ended up changing a lot of stuff, you may like the changes or you may not but they didn't had those changes ready when 3.0 went out. Also those changes were free as WotC updated the SRD so you could get them for free.
They did all that to sell books and earn more money but I don't think that it was evil, it's just marketing.

greenknight
2007-02-13, 07:45 PM
I read those articles you linked to Swordguy, and in the end, I think Monte makes some good points. But he also makes some points I disagree with, and even with all the bad things he points out, overall he admits 3.5e is a good thing.

Now here's one point on which I strongly disagree with Monte:

If I were in charge of the world (or at least D&D), I'd make sure that in a revision, there were no actual rules changes that could retroactively alter a character or a campaign.

To me, what Monte is referring to is edition based rules errata, and I don't think players should have to pay for it. Sure, include it with the most recent printings of each book (including a page which tells the purchaser what errata is included), and make the errata available for free online, but don't release a whole new edition (or sub-edition) for it, since IMO that's just ripping the players off. In fact, isn't that exactly what people are complaining of on this thread with the Rules Compendium? Judging from the reaction here, Monte's got it seriously wrong if he thinks that's what 3.5e should have been. Fortunately, even though Monte states that was the original plan, even he admits 3.5e is significantly more than just a collection of errata.

The subject of "mastery" as he puts it is a good one. But that's why you put a .5 on the edition - to warn players that while this is similar to what has gone before, it isn't the same. Every edition has had something like that, in 1st Ed it was Unearthed Arcana, 2nd Ed got the class splatbooks, and then the Player's Option books, and 3.0e got 3.5e (so far). Most of the core game mechanics are the same, so a lot of that mastery reallly is retained, but yes, some specific changes were made, and there are going to be issues if you want to convert some 3.0e characters to 3.5e. But if you want fixes without major changes, use the 3.0e errata - that's what it's there for.

He is right about the save-or-die type spells, although I'm not sure whether his solution is the best one. I'd need to think about that some more, but while I liked the idea of tying spell effects to character level (similar to Holy Word and a few other spells), I think his idea of hitting PCs with spell effects they can't cure themselves is a bit harsh. He's definately going overboard IMO when he writes of regularly afflicting 1st level PCs with Blindness, for example. That just reeks of a "screw the party over" type mentality, and that's bad for gaming.

He's also right on a lot of other issues, like facing, the new weapon size rules and the lack of playtester credits. I'm not sure I agree about the shortened duration of the buffing spells (I believe that was done for game balance), removing caster level requirements and collecting material from other sourcebooks (which is great for players who make a point of sticking mainly to Core Rules - like me). And personally, I couldn't care less if the new books contain different art - although if the new art would cause them to charge more for the updates, I say stick with the old art! As for PrCs causing XP penalties, he's right about that being a mistake, and it was corrected in the main 3.5e FAQ (although it should also be listed in the errata, IMO).

newsance
2007-02-13, 08:43 PM
I wonder if they're actually going to tell us whether or not Bards get medium armor proficiency, or why you suddenly needed a Strength requirement to wield a Bastard Sword/Dwarven Waraxe.

I suppose cleaning up some of the partial/swift/immediate/free action mess might be good, too.

For what it is worth, I purchased a core rulebook in November.

This has apparently been fixed as mine says under Armor proficiency (medium) Special: Fighters, barbarians, paladins, clerics, and druids automatically have Armor Proficiency (medium) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

No mention of bards.

Marius
2007-02-13, 08:47 PM
For what it is worth, I purchased a core rulebook in November.

This has apparently been fixed as mine says under Armor proficiency (medium) Special: Fighters, barbarians, paladins, clerics, and druids automatically have Armor Proficiency (medium) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

No mention of bards.

Well since they don't have Armor proficiency (medium) I don't see why they should mention Bards there.

From the SRD: Bards are proficient (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#weaponArmorAndShieldProficienc y) with light armor and shields (except tower shields).

Talyn
2007-02-13, 08:48 PM
Regarding Monte Cook:

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know EXACTLY what is going on regarding his rant about WotC policies, but wasn't he just fired from that same company? Didn't he then proceed to go out and write his own system on the d20 Open License (which, IMHO, is terrible, but I know many who disagree)?

He's not exactly an unbiased source.

Also, regarding the Errata - just don't buy it. And, seriously, quit whining. If you want to go to the trouble of gathering all the Errata from across the internet, organizing it and printing it out, then do so and save a few bucks. Or just do what I do - ignore it until it becomes an issue, then pencil in your own personal house-rule fix.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-13, 09:44 PM
You can't gather all the errata, since some of them are only available in books. There are rules updates in spell compendium, the special edition core books, complete psionics and god knows where else which never made it to published errata.

Siberys
2007-02-13, 10:54 PM
Not exactly. The official SRD site on http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35[/URL] doesn't include or mention them. You have to wrestle with the Wizards search engine or dig around the errata to find them, even though they have been in almost every single core splatbook since the Miniatures Handbook.

Jans Carton lists them as part of the differences between [URL="http://www.d20srd.org"]www.d20srd.org (http://www.wizards.com/d20) and the "official version":

They're an integral part of the Psionics rules - which IS SRD content. I'm sure it's there. I've always used d20srd.org, though, so I'm not sure, but I'll bet it is.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-13, 10:57 PM
Regarding Monte Cook:

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know EXACTLY what is going on regarding his rant about WotC policies, but wasn't he just fired from that same company? Didn't he then proceed to go out and write his own system on the d20 Open License (which, IMHO, is terrible, but I know many who disagree)?

He's not exactly an unbiased source.


Well, as you don't know EXACTLY what is going on, would you at least state what you know IMPRECISELY is going on?

I don't know Monte Cook, but I've spent a significant amount of time reading articles he has written on his website and in everything I've read, he's been upfront and honest in the manner in which he presents opinions and facts, whether what he is presenting is opinion or fact, and the reasoning and/or evidence behind those opinions and facts.

Making negative implications about his credibility as you are, without backing those implications up with any factual argument is classless IMHO.

Yahzi
2007-02-14, 12:41 AM
I think it was Russell who termed this a "paradigm shift."
Thomas Kuhn said that.

Lord Russell would have never engaged in such post-modernism.

:D


As for WotC, I think it's possible to acknowledge the nature of capitalism, and still feel they're not really doing quite the job they should.

Wehrkind
2007-02-14, 02:39 AM
Making negative implications about his credibility as you are, without backing those implications up with any factual argument is classless IMHO.
He just said "but wasn't he just fired from that same company?" You may be new to the business world, but getting fired tends to make you foster a grudge against the company. People typically don't get fired without A) Doing something wrong, and thinking they didn't, and this being vindictive about it, or B) Doing everything right, and their boss is a prick, so they get fired and vindictive towards the company. Note those two are nearly identical in the person's mind. Even when people get laid off and it isn't exactly the company's fault they get upset about it. My previous job was a similar situation (I fortunately had quit and gotten a new job ~1 month prior), and very close relationships that had lasted for years (some of the people had been working together for over 10 years in various companies) suddenly got split up over it. It happens.
So don't call him classless because he said someone who was fired might be angry at their former company and are inclined to say things that are biased. It has little to do with credibility and lots to do with human nature.

Now, to those who posit that quality can and should be put before profit, how does a company that does so stay in business? All the quality in the world does not make you a cent if no one is willing to pay for it. That is why sometimes publishers put out books that may be less than perfect: sometimes those bills have to be paid whether there may be errors yet unfound or not.

Again, look around you. There is abundant evidence that even if people want more quality, they are not willing to pay for it. Unless you have a market where money is no option, such as extremely high end sports cars, or yachts, you have to make a product that is priced for your market.

Also, for those who say they should have spent more time play testing, and simply had the char-op folks comb through it for errors and imbalances, consider that people are still finding crazy combos, broken feat sets, and odd rule glitches. It's been how many years since all this came out? And we still have arguments about whether druids are indeed "teh winzor?" Obviously somethings take enormous amounts of time to work out.

Creating rules for how a fictional universe runs down to 6 second increments is not easy.


Edit: And also Swordguy: He said they knew there would be flaws, not that it necessarily WAS flawed and they knew it. That is the difference between being realistic and evil. Every time I get in my car and go home from work, I know there is the possibility the schedule I put together is going to need changing. I don't purposefully make it flawed just to give the guy who comes in after me something to do, but I realize that I am not perfect, and there might be changes that need to be made.
With simpler products, such as toothpaste, you can be much more certain of quality control. Colegate still has a supply chain that works in reverse to deal with returns, however. Expecting a vastly more complicated product to be perfect and require no tweaking even after a huge modification (which 3.0 was) is simply unrealistic.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-14, 10:15 AM
He just said "but wasn't he just fired from that same company?" You may be new to the business world, but getting fired tends to make you foster a grudge against the company. People typically don't get fired without A) Doing something wrong, and thinking they didn't, and this being vindictive about it, or B) Doing everything right, and their boss is a prick, so they get fired and vindictive towards the company. Note those two are nearly identical in the person's mind. Even when people get laid off and it isn't exactly the company's fault they get upset about it. My previous job was a similar situation (I fortunately had quit and gotten a new job ~1 month prior), and very close relationships that had lasted for years (some of the people had been working together for over 10 years in various companies) suddenly got split up over it. It happens.
So don't call him classless because he said someone who was fired might be angry at their former company and are inclined to say things that are biased. It has little to do with credibility and lots to do with human nature.

I might not be new to the business world as well. I might, in fact, have been intricately involved in the mechanisms for terminations for years in a corporate environment and have a pretty thorough understanding of the psychology and sociology involved.

Regardless, throwing out the "didn't he get fired" and "doesn't he have a competing product" statements as an implication that the facts and opinions he expressed were uncredible, with no supporting evidence that anything he said was untruthful, is a pure character attack.

And, as I might not be new to the business world, I might have seen those types of character attacks used quite often. Maybe throw out a, "He's not a team player." to really cast him in a negative light with no evidence to back it up...

Wolf53226
2007-02-14, 10:55 AM
Regardless, throwing out the "didn't he get fired" and "doesn't he have a competing product" statements as an implication that the facts and opinions he expressed were uncredible, with no supporting evidence that anything he said was untruthful, is a pure character attack.


He never said that anything in the article was untruthful, all Talyn said was that Monte has a reason to be prejudicial against them. That isn't a character attack, it is FACT, Monte has a reason to dislike Wizards. Personally, I agree with what Monte says, but that doesn't remove the fact that they are written by someone who is potentially biased in opinion. Personally I feel that Monte gets greater pleasure seeing D&D thrive than he would from Wizards downfall, but that is my opinion and could be wrong.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-14, 11:16 AM
He never said that anything in the article was untruthful, all Talyn said was that Monte has a reason to be prejudicial against them. That isn't a character attack, it is FACT, Monte has a reason to dislike Wizards. Personally, I agree with what Monte says, but that doesn't remove the fact that they are written by someone who is potentially biased in opinion. Personally I feel that Monte gets greater pleasure seeing D&D thrive than he would from Wizards downfall, but that is my opinion and could be wrong.

http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-charattack.htm

"Character Attack – attacks that are directed against a person rather than his/her arguments."

Matthew
2007-02-14, 11:57 AM
Why on earth would that matter? Potential bias should always be identified and taken into account when examining anything anybody says. It is a standard part of examining discourse.

Ramza00
2007-02-14, 12:10 PM
Why on earth would that matter? Potential bias should always be identified and taken into account when examining anything anybody says. It is a standard part of examining discourse.

It should be taken in account in examing the evidence, it doesn't make his arguements disapear just because he can/is biased. A biased person can make points too :smallwink:

Seriously this thread is still going?

Wolf53226
2007-02-14, 12:27 PM
You know, I could continue this argument and show how only having one side of the argument, that of Monte Cook's, it is also a logical fallacy to assume that he is correct and not being biased. But since we may never get the Wizards side to that story, it just seems pointless to continue down that road.


I will turn lurking back on.....NOW!

Ramza00
2007-02-14, 12:46 PM
You know, I could continue this argument and show how only having one side of the argument, that of Monte Cook's, it is also a logical fallacy to assume that he is correct and not being biased. But since we may never get the Wizards side to that story, it just seems pointless to continue down that road.


I will turn lurking back on.....NOW!
RAWR.... Good Answer :smallbiggrin:

MrNexx
2007-02-14, 01:49 PM
On the other hand, one could point out (as he does) that Monte continues to make money through the continued publication of the core 3... as he is reliant on the OGL to publish Arcana Unearthed.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-14, 03:33 PM
Why on earth would that matter? Potential bias should always be identified and taken into account when examining anything anybody says. It is a standard part of examining discourse.

There is a difference between identifying potential bias and insinuating bias. If you're going to question someone's credibility on a public forum, you should provide concrete evidence that such bias in fact exists, not merely the possibility that it exists. For all we know, everyone who posts a negative statement about WotC could be a disgruntled former employee, someone whose work was rejected or someone who is jealous of other people getting paid to do something they do (in their mind) just as well for free. I mean, none of them are using their real names, so they must have some ulterior motive...

Matthew
2007-02-14, 03:53 PM
Sure, but nobody is free of bias. All Talyn is saying is that given Monte Cook's relationship with Wizards of the Coast, he's not exactly an unbiased source (which is different from saying he is biast).

The difference between anonymous criticism and sourced criticism is that we can look at the author and ask questions about what he is writing with regard to what we know of his attitudes or opinions expressed elsewhere.

Personally, I have no problem with what Monte Cook wrote (it seems believable to me), but I do occasionally detect an undercurrent of bitterness (warranted or unwarranted) from him with regards to his former employers.

Hallavast
2007-02-16, 03:15 AM
Cook was stating that several events had occured. This wasn't some idle opinion from a disgruntled former employee. This was testimony. Thus, the fact that he's biased or not is really irrelavent unless one states or implies that Cook is blatantly lying due to his bias. I think this is why "observing possible bias" here might upset some people. Trying to convince other people (directly or otherwise) that a man is lying without presenting evidence is inappropriate at best.

It isn't a question of possible bias. It's a question of implying that this man is a liar because of that bias.

Zincorium
2007-02-16, 07:54 AM
Cook was stating that several events had occured. This wasn't some idle opinion from a disgruntled former employee. This was testimony. Thus, the fact that he's biased or not is really irrelavent unless one states or implies that Cook is blatantly lying due to his bias. I think this is why "observing possible bias" here might upset some people. Trying to convince other people (directly or otherwise) that a man is lying without presenting evidence is inappropriate at best.

It isn't a question of possible bias. It's a question of implying that this man is a liar because of that bias.

Not really questioning you, but there is a large gray area between outright lying and an unbiased source. There is a very real and, barring testimony from someone else at WotC with a different perspective, undiscernable possibility that he either under-emphasized or left out information that we as interested onlookers might consider important when trying to see the whole picture, while emphasizing other portions simply because that's what he was writing about.

As great or shady as Monte Cook may be, it's rather unreasonable to expect an article written by him to contain all facts of the matter without speculations as to why they might have been that way.

Wehrkind
2007-02-16, 10:12 AM
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/l...charattack.htm (http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-charattack.htm)

"Character Attack – attacks that are directed against a person rather than his/her arguments."
It is also known as 'ad hominim'. It also only applies to someone's arguments. Cooke does not put forward a logical argument, only a fair amount of uncorroborated facts that people are using in their 3rd person arguments. That makes the contents of his blog hearsay at best. Considering Cooke does nothing to give facts or sources to back up his claim, his personal reasons for saying what he does are subject to a consideration of bias. Particularly since Wizards is not available for a counter testimony.

To restate, arguments are sound based on the logical consistency and the soundness of their premises. Thus they are immune to who says them.
Assertions of truth with no evidence available to confirm, deny or even support these assertions, those are subject to personal credibility.

It's the difference between your toddler telling you "If you want to lose weight, and eating that cookie will make you gain weight, you do not want to eat the cookie" as opposed to your toddler replying when asked as to the location of a missing cookie "I didn't eat it."

krossbow
2007-02-16, 11:05 AM
Not really. What Monte was saying is corroberated as fact on the wizards board if you want to go check that; hihg level d&d simply comes down to who has the worse initiative and rolls badly.


High level spells are all so insanely dire that simply rolling a 4 or 5 becomes a huge problem. Thats a problem.



IMO, arcana evolved is much better than D&D; while miss a couple class concepts, the magister is a much better wizard than the wizard is, and it doesn't break the system at high levels. Plus, templates and ladening spells doesn't break the system anywhere nearly as much as metamagic.
________
Rc162 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_RC162)

lumberofdabeast
2007-02-17, 12:30 AM
Stuff like this is why I've never bought a book and never intend to. Anything that isn't in the SRD, I can just make up on the fly or check a less fortunate friend's book.