PDA

View Full Version : What is happening to D&D?



longtooth878
2007-07-28, 01:39 PM
I have a few questions that I just can't seem to figure out and I am hoping some one can help me out. First off why are they (WOTC) is canceling the Dragon magazine? I know that they are going to an on-line version and I am sure that it will be the greatest thing since the D12 (grin) but I have talked to a lot of people and the Dragon is what brings people in to the hobby (or book) stores and they browse the books to see what's new. Also I heard that (WOTC) at first wasn't going to renew the Dragonlance license. I am not sure what WOTC is doing here, but it just doesn't seem smart to me. I was going to rant for awhile longer but I think I would just like some answers to put my mind at ease. :smallfrown: :smallconfused:

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 01:42 PM
First: a format switch may be a good idea. Print isn't a viable medium anymore: it costs too much.

Second: Dragonlance's license to the company that currently has it isn't being renewed, which means that WotC will be regaining the rights to the franchise--and will probably be putting something out there themselves.

Krellen
2007-07-28, 01:49 PM
First: a format switch may be a good idea. Print isn't a viable medium anymore: it costs too much.
Irrelevant. WotC wasn't facing the non-profitability of the magazine; Paizo Publishing was. In fact, WotC was making money for nothing, by selling a license to Paizo. And I didn't hear Paizo complaining about the cost of the magazine.

The only reason to do this is because WotC believes that they can make more money by putting out their own on-line version of the magazine. For me, personally, this decision has prompted me to abandon D&D; I shan't be purchasing any more WotC products.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 01:53 PM
...WotC is a company, and companies have to make money. I'd rather them make more money and continue making the products I enjoy rather than not making money and folding.

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-28, 01:53 PM
Irrelevant. WotC wasn't facing the non-profitability of the magazine; Paizo Publishing was. In fact, WotC was making money for nothing, by selling a license to Paizo. And I didn't hear Paizo complaining about the cost of the magazine.

The only reason to do this is because WotC believes that they can make more money by putting out their own on-line version of the magazine. For me, personally, this decision has prompted me to abandon D&D; I shan't be purchasing any more WotC products.

...Overreaction, much? It's just a magazine.

And, as said before, magazines aren't a very good medium anymore. I'd estimate that most magazines will have been replaced by pay-sites in the next ten years.

CrazedGoblin
2007-07-28, 02:01 PM
i like the idea of a book to read more than a website as you can go anywere (within reason) to read it but being stuck at a screen makes it less enjoyable.

But then again haveing it on screen is better as i tend to collect things and not throw anythin away hehe:smallbiggrin:

Krellen
2007-07-28, 02:02 PM
Dragon was the only good thing from D&D I'd seen in several years, actually. WotC doesn't make good products - they make unbalanced products - and there's no metaplot in the game to follow to convince me to buy them anyway.

It's not overreaction; I far prefer printed materials in my hand, and absolutely despise the internetification of media. I don't like going to a website to read my news. I don't want a web-version of gaming articles. I don't think they're in any way superior - in many ways they're inferior.

The web is a good place for groups of people to share their opinions. It is not a good place for reading the detailed articles, descriptions, or charts that make up a publication, especially a gaming publication.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 02:03 PM
i like the idea of a book to read more than a website as you can go anywere (within reason) to read it but being stuck at a screen makes it less enjoyable.

But then again haveing it on screen is better as i tend to collect things and not throw anythin away hehe:smallbiggrin:

Will you still be saying that when you get your hands on a portable PDF reader (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=16184&XID=O:sony%20ebook%20reader:corp_read_gglsrch)?

Morty
2007-07-28, 02:06 PM
Will you still be saying that when you get your hands on a portable PDF reader (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=16184&XID=O:sony%20ebook%20reader:corp_read_gglsrch)?

I don't know about CrazedGoblin, but I'll be reading books even when everyone else uses things like this. I'm not a technophobe normally, but when it comes to books, I am.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 02:08 PM
Oh, I love having books too, but there's a certain organization and utility to having everything in one place in a digital format.

Were-Sandwich
2007-07-28, 02:22 PM
Goddamit, I want one of those now. I ahve loads of long book I've downloaded from wikiSource and other places, but I jsut can't read long documents comfortably off a PC screen.

horseboy
2007-07-28, 03:08 PM
Will you still be saying that when you get your hands on a portable PDF reader (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=16184&XID=O:sony%20ebook%20reader:corp_read_gglsrch)?

Holy crap, they're still making those? I thought they died the death of the Quadraphonic 5 or 6 years ago.

Personally I'm more worried about the gaming industry as a whole. While I see the shift to electronic media as a necessary evil, I wonder if it's not prolonging the inevitable. Without hard copy there's no gaming store. Without a gaming store how do you find out about new games that don't suck. Personally I'm much more likely to trust the guy working at the store that knows me and my tastes much more than I am to trust a search engine that brings up items based on how much the items in question have paid them to be presented. Without the store how are you going to find your local fellow dorks?

Yes, the .pdf's have allowed niche games to remain in existence, but given that this is a niche hobby in and of itself, without hard copy the entire "social" portion of the gaming community is going to have to be quickly restructured before the gaming industry collapses completely.

CrazedGoblin
2007-07-28, 03:21 PM
Will you still be saying that when you get your hands on a portable PDF reader (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=16184&XID=O:sony%20ebook%20reader:corp_read_gglsrch)?

tempting... but i don't know books have a certain charm about them :smalltongue:

Damionte
2007-07-28, 03:29 PM
If it wasnt 300 bucks I would so get one,

Curmudgeon
2007-07-28, 03:47 PM
Will you still be saying that when you get your hands on a portable PDF reader (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=16184&XID=O:sony%20ebook%20reader:corp_read_gglsrch)? If you're really specific to PDFs, you're making a poor argument. I saw one of these last night. They've got good contrast and battery life thanks to the charged black/white ball technology used. But they're small and can't zoom. Since PDFs are designed for printed sheets (usually 8.5" x 11"), and (unlike HTML) can't resize the text independent of the graphics, the Reader makes you squint even if you flip the page 90 degrees to read the top or bottom portion; the text is still uncomfortably small.

For non-PDF books the Reader is OK, with limitations. You can't search. My friend has the complete Honor Harrington book series on his Reader, and can't use it to search for a name when he forgets who one of the cast of thousands (OK, maybe only several hundreds) of characters is.

The Reader is just that. It's not designed for graphics, and especially not for PDFs. It sucks with manuals because you'll have to manually flip to the table of contents or index, then page to the indicated spot and search using just your eyes. For D&D content and the Reader my answer is a resounding: No!

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-28, 04:12 PM
Dragon was the only good thing from D&D I'd seen in several years, actually. WotC doesn't make good products - they make unbalanced products - and there's no metaplot in the game to follow to convince me to buy them anyway.

It's not overreaction; I far prefer printed materials in my hand, and absolutely despise the internetification of media. I don't like going to a website to read my news. I don't want a web-version of gaming articles. I don't think they're in any way superior - in many ways they're inferior.

The web is a good place for groups of people to share their opinions. It is not a good place for reading the detailed articles, descriptions, or charts that make up a publication, especially a gaming publication.

Oh well. Have fun living in the twentieth century! I'll go over to the twenty-first, thanks.

Dervag
2007-07-28, 04:12 PM
i like the idea of a book to read more than a website as you can go anywere (within reason) to read it but being stuck at a screen makes it less enjoyable.From the producer's standpoint, electronic magazines are great because the marginal cost of each new magazine is practically zero. All they have to do is post the content and keep a server running (which they're probably doing anyway). Even though people might not pay as much for the electronic magazine as they would for the paper (and keep in mind that for some people it's the other way around), they still do well.

It's not wrong to use electronic magazines in my opinion. My one concern is that the back issues don't get lost in the shuffle, because they represent many years of good ideas for D&D.


I don't know about CrazedGoblin, but I'll be reading books even when everyone else uses things like this. I'm not a technophobe normally, but when it comes to books, I am.I've got about half again as many books as I have good places to put them, and I suspect that this will remain true for the rest of my life.

But I still buy science fiction novels from Baen Books' Webscription site. It makes it easy to get my hands on old editions, it's cheaper than buying a new paperback in a lot of cases, and it doesn't take up physical space- the novels I've bought as e-books would take up something like two feet of shelf space that I don't have to begin with.

So I'm not going to get all huffy and resentful if somebody decides to publish their magazine as an electronic document. I like paper, but I don't make a fetish out of it.


Personally I'm more worried about the gaming industry as a whole. While I see the shift to electronic media as a necessary evil, I wonder if it's not prolonging the inevitable. Without hard copy there's no gaming store. Without a gaming store how do you find out about new games that don't suck.In the online forums, like this one.

If you were to start a thread asking for games that fit some defined criteria, you'd get a volley of replies naming games. And some of them would be good games. Admittedly they wouldn't all be good from your point of view, but you don't have that guarantee even at a gaming store.


For non-PDF books the Reader is OK, with limitations. You can't search. My friend has the complete Honor Harrington book series on his Reader, and can't use it to search for a name when he forgets who one of the cast of thousands (OK, maybe only several hundreds) of characters is.I can think of books for which the lack of search would be much more annoying than in the Honor Harrington series, too. While there may technically be hundreds of characters in the series by now, most of them are bit players who appeared in one and only one novel. Of persistent characters, you have... well, maybe a few dozen; of important persistent characters, probably a dozen or so tops. And most of them have a well-defined relationship to the lead heroine, which you can use as a memory aid.

Imagine trying to do that with the Wheel of Time series.

On second thought, don't. It's far too frightening.:smalleek:

Starsinger
2007-07-28, 04:27 PM
It's not overreaction; I far prefer printed materials in my hand, and absolutely despise the internetification of media. I don't like going to a website to read my news. I don't want a web-version of gaming articles. I don't think they're in any way superior - in many ways they're inferior.


The majority of magazine reading goes on in waiting rooms in doctor/dentist/psychiatrist offices, and hospitals, and airport terminals. And I don't know about you, but my doctor/dentist/psychiatrist aren't cool enough to stock magazines like Dragon or EGM. However, 100% of the people on this board have internet access of some kind or another. So really, electronic was the way for WotC to go.

bosssmiley
2007-07-28, 04:56 PM
Oh well. Have fun living in the twentieth century! I'll go over to the twenty-first, thanks.

*pffft* The 20th was better. We landed on the Moon, had a commercial aircraft that flew twice the speed of sound, and had Salvadore Dali and art deco back then. We also had Andy Warhol to mock, the Beatles to listen to, and vermin like the Nazis to boo and hiss. The 21st century has been less than impressive so far. :smalltongue:

As for the thread topic, I'd say that - IMO as always - D&D3.5 has about reached saturation. I mean, how much further can they take the D&D core mechanics system as it stands without stripping it back to the basics and turning it into the more elegant and balanced d20/Iron Heroes/point-buy quasi-hybrid that D&D3.6 will probably be?

I may be the equivalent of the guy at the US Patent Office who said "everything's been invented" in 1900; but what more can you meaningfully do with 3rd Ed that isn't just shuffling the furniture?

As for Dungeon and Dragon going vapourware etherware, name me a games mag that hasn't gone belly up. It's a shame, but it's a reality we have to live with.

Krellen
2007-07-28, 04:58 PM
Oh well. Have fun living in the twentieth century! I'll go over to the twenty-first, thanks.
Progress for the sake of progress is not only non-profitable, it is foolish and often destructive. Whenever I hear someone say "have fun living in <some past time period>", or something similar, I just have to shake my head; what justification - other than pure profit-based capitalism - can be given for loving something new just because it's new?

Citizen Joe
2007-07-28, 05:00 PM
Points at the slew of threads dedicated to the newest published class, or the latest supplement...

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 05:03 PM
Progress for the sake of progress is not only non-profitable, it is foolish and often destructive. Whenever I hear someone say "have fun living in <some past time period>", or something similar, I just have to shake my head; what justification - other than pure profit-based capitalism - can be given for loving something new just because it's new?

Because, without progress, you are stagnant and might as well be dead.

Matthew
2007-07-28, 05:07 PM
Bah! I prefer many 'old' things to modern things, it doesn't mean they are stagnant or lacking the ability to progress.

Krellen
2007-07-28, 05:08 PM
Because, without progress, you are stagnant and might as well be dead.
That's entirely beside the point. I never said progress was bad. I said progress for the sake of progress is bad. Making - and buying - something new just because it is new is bad. And, in this particular case, supporting electronic print is bad, because the benefits - lower cost, perceived higher circulation - don't outweigh the drawbacks - less portability, eye-strain, decreased quality, highly restricted distribution (meaning you're no longer able to share your magazine or book with friends). Plus you don't get that sense of intellectualism from a collection of e-books that you get from a fully-stocked library.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 05:11 PM
Bah! I prefer many 'old' things to modern things, it doesn't mean they are stagnant or lacking the ability to progress.

There's nothing wrong with old things, merely that without progress, we'd still be using stone tools. In some cases, the old things are better--books are one of those cases. However, in today's screen-dependent media-driven society, the printed word isn't as powerful as it once was: it is shadowed by the light-emitted word.

WotC is merely keeping with the times, nothing else.

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-28, 05:12 PM
I don't need a library of books to stroke my ego, though.

Are you seriously suggesting that you're afraid people won't think you're smart if you don't own a wall covered in ink-stained dead tree?

Matthew
2007-07-28, 05:26 PM
There's nothing wrong with old things, merely that without progress, we'd still be using stone tools. In some cases, the old things are better--books are one of those cases. However, in today's screen-dependent media-driven society, the printed word isn't as powerful as it once was: it is shadowed by the light-emitted word.

WotC is merely keeping with the times, nothing else.

Sure, and I agree with the general idea, but applying it to everything is an over generalisation. Of course, much of that depends on the definition of the word progress in the context of paper magazines going digital. Personally, I am not particularly opposed to it, but I don't really see it as progress as much as reorganisation for practicality and profitability.

Krellen
2007-07-28, 05:30 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that you're afraid people won't think you're smart if you don't own a wall covered in ink-stained dead tree?
What do you think "intellectualism" means? It has nothing whatsoever to do with ego.

Having a 'wall covered in ink-stained dead tree' gives me a sense of focus and comfort, knowing all that knowledge is there and readily available. This cannot be achieved with electronic versions, which are subject to a wide array of electronic vagrancies, many of which I personally have no control over. I can protect my books from the wind, rain and heat; I cannot (reliably) protect my computer from internet outages, electrical outages or viral invasions. Perhaps it is because I am an IT professional and not a librarian, but for me there are simply far too many unacceptable risks entailed in keeping any store of knowledge electronically rather than physically.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 05:30 PM
Sure, and I agree with the general idea, but applying it to everything is an over generalisation. Of course, much of that depends on the definition of the word progress in the context of paper magazines going digital. Personally, I am not particularly opposed to it, but I don't really see it as progress as much as reorganisation for practicality and profitability.

...which is the purpose of a company. That's what they do: make money (I almost typed "make monkey" but that's an entirely different area of research). And if they don't, they die. it's a survival thing, to be constantly being "new and improved." Otherwise the competition comes in and takes over, because they are new and improved.

AslanCross
2007-07-28, 05:37 PM
I really love printed media, I was raised surrounded by books. My entire family is full of avid readers. That said, if not for the online content I wouldn't even be playing D&D. If D&D is a niche hobby in the West, it is even more so here in Southeast Asia. Very few of the books are available here, and not even large bookstores carry them--only specialty hobby/gaming stores do. Furthermore, their selection is kinda dated.

I would rather read a book in bed than read a computer screen, but I would rather have my laptop with all my references than lug around a whole bunch of books. (I don't have a car and I play D&D at school, so virtual paper helps a lot).

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-28, 05:39 PM
Sure, and I agree with the general idea, but applying it to everything is an over generalisation. Of course, much of that depends on the definition of the word progress in the context of paper magazines going digital. Personally, I am not particularly opposed to it, but I don't really see it as progress as much as reorganisation for practicality and profitability.

Wizards of the Coast are not there to make you happy. They are there to make money. If they do manage to make you happy, that's a nice coincidence, but they would gladly drop any of their fans if it would mean more money for them in the long run.

Remember that. :smalltongue:

Matthew
2007-07-28, 05:45 PM
...which is the purpose of a company. That's what they do: make money (I almost typed "make monkey" but that's an entirely different area of research). And if they don't, they die. it's a survival thing, to be constantly being "new and improved." Otherwise the competition comes in and takes over, because they are new and improved.



Wizards of the Coast are not there to make you happy. They are there to make money. If they do manage to make you happy, that's a nice coincidence, but they would gladly drop any of their fans if it would mean more money for them in the long run.

Remember that. :smalltongue:

Sure, and I have no problem with that. I couldn't really care what Wizards choose to do and not do. However, that is not what I am opposed to. I am opposed to the idea that 'without progress you might as well be dead', if progress is being defined as 'going from paper to electronic media'. It's not really progress, as far as I am concerned, it's just necessity.

Krellen
2007-07-28, 05:49 PM
Wizards of the Coast are not there to make you happy.
And they haven't, and thus I no longer buy from them. And you say I'm overreacting because I choose not to make purchases from someone that has no desire for me to be pleased with their product?

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-28, 05:50 PM
Sure, and I have no problem with that. I couldn't really care what Wizards choose to do and not do. However, that is not what I am opposed to. I am opposed to the idea that 'without progress you might as well be dead', if progress is being defined as 'going from paper to electronic media'. It's not really progress, as far as I am concerned, it's just necessity.

...How is it not progress? Is it somehow the opposite of progress? It's certainly not staying the same.


And they haven't, and thus I no longer buy from them. And you say I'm overreacting because I choose not to make purchases from someone that has no desire for me to be pleased with their product?

...What? That wasn't directed at you. :smallconfused:

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 05:51 PM
And they haven't, and thus I no longer buy from them. And you say I'm overreacting because I choose not to make purchases from someone that has no desire for me to be pleased with their product?

Surprisingly, this move probably nets them double the amount of readers that they would have if they stuck to print. So, yes, you probably are overreacting, but you're entitled to that.

Matthew
2007-07-28, 05:56 PM
...How is it not progress? Is it somehow the opposite of progress? It's certainly not staying the same.

It is just change due to economic factors (i.e. the increased cost of paper and printing), not progress on account of technical improvement. Progress would be the technical ability to sustainably print at a profit. Digital versions of Dragon and Dungeon could have been distributed in tandem with the printed media, which would have been progressive, but it would not be an economically viable form of publication.

bosssmiley
2007-07-28, 06:01 PM
It is just change due to economic factors (i.e. the increased cost of paper and printing), not progress on account of technical improvement. Progress would be the technical ability to sustainably print at a profit. Digital versions of Dragon and Dungeon could have been distributed in tandem with the printed media, which would have been progressive, but it would not be an economically viable form of publication.

So...something like Lulu.com perhaps? Lower the inventory cost of printing game books by printing to order. A similar thing might work with periodicals. Perhaps on a subscription-only basis given postage costs?

I know such a model loses some of the "browse before you buy" fun that makes flipping through a book in a game store so much better than the cherry-picked previews WOTC offer us (can any company really afford amazon.com "look inside!" previews of all their work when digital data replication is so easy?). I'm just trying to think of a "best of both worlds" model that keeps the hardcopy junkies like me happy, but gives the neophiles something too, all while keeping production costs down to a practical minimum.

If I work it out I won't mention it (will be too busy making millions!!!!!!!!).

Fax Celestis
2007-07-28, 06:04 PM
Print-On-Demand is actually more expensive than mass production, if you know how many you want beforehand.

BrokenButterfly
2007-07-28, 07:41 PM
I wasn't such a big fan of Dragon, I preferred Dungeon. I felt that Wizards cancelled the license for Paizo so as to remove competition, since they're publishing more Expedition adventure books nowadays. I am pleased with the quality of these current books however, so I'm not lamenting the loss of the Paizo publications, although I recognise that Dragon has been around for ages and it sucks that it's not going to be around for even longer.

I am still a pretty big magazine reader. I simply prefer the convenience of a magazine, and holding the printed words in my hands. Not trying to get involved in a debate here, that's just what I prefer. I prefer computer gaming magazines over game sites, but I read both.

Maltrich
2007-07-28, 08:10 PM
If the day ever comes when everyone is only publishing online because it's more efficient, I swear I will print and bind my own books. I like to use the internet for discussion, and games, and sometimes reference, but if I have reading to do I go buy books, and if I have tabletop gaming to do I haul all my books around even though I have them on my laptop.

Books have personality - you can feel and smell the pages, you can fold down the corners (though I wouldn't on a magazine, since they look best glossy, not beaten), you can use them as an excuse to buy silly bookmarks, you can write in the margins, fill them with sticky notes, lend them to your friends... they're just, you know, cooler.

It's kind of a non-issue here, though, since I've stopped buying Wizards products wholesale. 3.x has way too many rules that I have to override so that I don't have to keep up with them. If I want fantasy gaming, AD&D has a much more relaxed approach to rulemaking, so my players don't notice as much when I make stuff up as I go along.

karmuno
2007-07-28, 10:18 PM
Agree with Maltrich 100%

I personally dislike the switch over to the digital format. Granted, I didn't read either magazine much, but on occasion I would buy a copy if it caught my eye at a bookstore or something. In fact, I too rarely buy WotC books other than core, simply because there is a limitless supply of fan-created material online which is free, and often better than anything WotC has put out.

Now, I understand that switching over to a digital medium is a sound business choice, since it will make them more money (at least for a while, until the numbers of gamers start to dwindle, but that's a different post), but what about civilization as a whole? Moving books over to a digital format serves no other purpose than increased efficiency (ultimately). But one of the things that set us apart from many animals is the capability to act entirely inefficiently for the purpose of art or entertainment. A digital format just seems somehow cold and uninviting to me. Now, there could be an argument that the switch is inevitable, or that it makes sound business sense, but going against this percieved inevitability to achieve a more pleasant experience is, IMO, the exact definition of civilization. I don't want to look through my hard drive or Amazon to find something to read, I want to look through my bookshelf or my attic or a used bookstore.

But really my main concern - since this is, after all, in the Gaming section - is this: Is it possible for a wizard to create an e-spellbook, or scribe e-scrolls?

Dervag
2007-07-28, 11:24 PM
*pffft* The 20th was better. We landed on the Moon, had a commercial aircraft that flew twice the speed of sound, and had Salvadore Dali and art deco back then. We also had Andy Warhol to mock, the Beatles to listen to, and vermin like the Nazis to boo and hiss. The 21st century has been less than impressive so far. :smalltongue:Hey, the 20th century wasn't really all that impressive in the period of 1900-1907 either; give things some time to develop and I'm sure you'll find times so interesting that you'll long to live in a boring and stupid age of history. I know I expect to.


Progress for the sake of progress is not only non-profitable, it is foolish and often destructive.And anti-progress for the sake of finding progress personally objectionable is equally nonprofitable, equally foolish, and often equally destructive. So what?


Wizards of the Coast are not there to make you happy. They are there to make money. If they do manage to make you happy, that's a nice coincidence, but they would gladly drop any of their fans if it would mean more money for them in the long run.

Remember that. :smalltongue:Well, that's only half the picture.

The other half of the picture is that they make money by convincing their fans to buy stuff. They can't force you to buy it. So while they may have decided to go to electronic publishing because they want to make more money, the reason they believe that e-publishing will make them more money is that they expect plenty of customers to like the magazine and to buy it, in spite of or perhaps even because of the electronic format. They made an informed guess that they could sell enough electronic magazines and eliminate enough of the useless overhead costs to make up for the fact that a few reactionaries would rather not buy the magazine at all than tolerate the change of format.


It is just change due to economic factors (i.e. the increased cost of paper and printing), not progress on account of technical improvement.Most technical improvment happens because of economic factors. The fact that somebody invented a gadget that serves some purpose that couldn't be served before doesn't mean that the gadget is worth having or the purpose worth serving. Look at the Concorde. Sure, having a passenger liner that can travel at Mach Two is cool. But the Concorde never had enough demand in the form of passengers to expand the service on a large scale. The number of people who actually wanted to use it and who were willing to pay for the increased cost of running such a complex and expensive aircraft was small. Most people were just as happy to take a slower, but cheaper plane.

So the Concorde eventually died out. It was 'progress' as in a technical advance, but the actual worth of the technical advance to its users didn't justify the cost of maintaining it.

That's the kind of progress you get when you build things simply because they are a technical advance. Whereas many kinds of things that could reasonably be considered 'progress,' such as the mass production of what used to be luxury goods so that everyone in developed societies can enjoy them, happened because someone could finally make money at them, not because they became a new technical possibility for the first time.

There was nothing stopping medieval or Renaissance craftsmen from setting up a mass production system. The technical aspect of it can be applied to almost anything. What changed was the economics of the situation.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-07-28, 11:56 PM
Dragon become an online thing is simply part of the whole "electronic initiative" that wizard is trying to do. I don't think books are going to disapeer anytime soon, but I gurantee they are going to be trying new things like this all.

Indon
2007-07-29, 12:09 AM
I imagine the Dragon change is simply because more D&D'ers are very computer-literate, and an increasing number are condusive to an online publication.

Sadly, the only time I read Dragon was when I was deployed (and so unable to get regular access to such an online pub), and I probably wouldn't read it otherwise. But I'm probably not a standard case.

As for Portable PDF's and other portable 'book' media, I'll use them when they gain the comfortability and referencibility of a physical book while at the same time being at most marginally more expensive. As-is, I feel the technology is immature.

And progress for the sake of progress is okay. It's nonconstructive (thus, nonprogressive) change which is bad. Only time will tell if the Dragon format change will turn out for the best, though I feel it likely.

It'd be pretty easy for WotC to botch this completely by:

1)Shutting down many of their free D20 information sources to be able to charge for them.
2)Showing aggression against third-party sites who want to compile portions of their information.

Which, while they seem profitable for the company, are absolutely horrible PR moves. And it'd be possible for the gamer community to make Dragon vastly less profitable by:

3)Simply shifting more towards free online D&D resources, such as Crystal Keep.

Time will tell.

Krellen
2007-07-29, 12:24 AM
And anti-progress for the sake of finding progress personally objectionable is equally nonprofitable, equally foolish, and often equally destructive. So what?
I never objected to progress. I objected to this progress, because it contains no benefits for me, the consumer.

Compare:
To read a book or magazine, I require:
Access to the media
Light

Contrast with what I need to read electronic media:
Access to the media
Compatible software
A device compatible with aforementioned software
Electricity

We can also compare the advantages:
Print:
Permanent
Durable
Inheritable
Shareable

Electronic:
Cheap
Efficient Distribution

To the disadvantages:
Print:
Subject to elements
Expensive
Inefficient Distribution
Paper Cuts*

Electronic:
Impermanent
Subject to elements
Subject to power fluctuations
Unshareable
Uninheritable

Overall, Electronic media offers virtually no benefits to customers, and in fact robs them of a number of benefits. Its benefits are solely to the business, at the expense of the consumer. So in this particular case, the so-called "progress" should be undesirable to most people, seeing as more people are consumers than are distributors.

*Yes, I threw that in there just to be silly.

Dervag
2007-07-29, 01:02 AM
Compare:
To read a book or magazine, I require:
Access to the media
Light

Contrast with what I need to read electronic media:
Access to the media
Compatible software
A device compatible with aforementioned software
ElectricityCompatible software is trivial for most standard formats. If your computer doesn't have anything that can read HTML you probably aren't seeing this, and PDF readers are standard issue these days.

The device is more of an issue, I grant, but I for one live in a civilization where computers are ubiquitous.

As for electricity, unless you are a very anomalous person you do most of your reading in environments where electricity is available anyway; it's not a serious handicap for most people living in industrialized societies.


We can also compare the advantages:
Print:
Permanent
Durable
Inheritable
ShareableMagazines aren't really all that durable. They're not made to be durable; if they are it's largely coincidence. They're essentially just a bunch of glossy pieces of paper folded double and stapled together through the fold.

Now, hardcover books are durable, but there was never any proposal to put Dragon into hardcover book format anyway.

Sharing is a serious issue, but I don't think Dragon is going to be able to stop people from sharing specific portions of the magazine de facto, regardless of the format. If nothing else, they can't stop people from printing it out and sharing 'clippings' manually.


Electronic:
Cheap
Efficient DistributionNow, what makes you think that low cost and efficient distribution aren't worthwhile traits? How important is it to you that your magazines last fifty years, compared to how important it is to someone living in, say, Southeast Asia that they actually be able to get their hands on a copy without having to pay the premium for magazines shipped half way around the world?


Electronic:
Impermanent
Subject to elements
Subject to power fluctuations
Unshareable
UninheritableWell, if Wizards does their subscription set-up intelligently, the electronic magazine itself may be highly impermanent but the access to the magazine won't be.

For instance, I buy e-books from Baen Books' Webscriptions. They cost about six dollars a pop, less for older books. They're not permanent, and it's a pain in the butt to back up my downloaded copies. But Baen keeps track of subscriptions; they're very good about that. Which means that if I lose my copy, I can download another. It costs Baen effectively nothing to do that.

There's another advantage of electronic media for you- replaceability. As long as Wizards keeps a customer database, you have access to the magazines you bought even if you lose your first copy.


Overall, Electronic media offers virtually no benefits to customers, and in fact robs them of a number of benefits. Its benefits are solely to the business, at the expense of the consumer.Low cost can easily be a benefit to the consumer; not all consumers are indifferent to prices.

doliemaster
2007-07-29, 01:07 AM
I never objected to progress. I objected to this progress, because it contains no benefits for me, the consumer.

Compare:
To read a book or magazine, I require:
Access to the media
Light

Contrast with what I need to read electronic media:
Access to the media
Compatible software
A device compatible with aforementioned software
Electricity

We can also compare the advantages:
Print:
Permanent
Durable
Inheritable
Shareable

Electronic:
Cheap
Efficient Distribution

To the disadvantages:
Print:
Subject to elements
Expensive
Inefficient Distribution
Paper Cuts*

Electronic:
Impermanent
Subject to elements
Subject to power fluctuations
Unshareable
Uninheritable

Overall, Electronic media offers virtually no benefits to customers, and in fact robs them of a number of benefits. Its benefits are solely to the business, at the expense of the consumer. So in this particular case, the so-called "progress" should be undesirable to most people, seeing as more people are consumers than are distributors.

*Yes, I threw that in there just to be silly.

Actually, things you download can go onto a a floppy disc or any other type of disc, so it can be permanent, as for elements, I never lost my computer unless the power went out, so nothing elemental short of a serious storm is going to knock out my power. Unshareable? Let people come over to your house. Uninheritable, did I not mention floppy disc?

Now lets look at book advantages- Permanent? Ink will wear if not taken perfect care of, and durable? If I throw a cup of water on my screen, I have to clean it, a book? I have to get a new copy. You still have inheritable, and you should put in can gain value, but overall, books don't have much of an advantage in MOST situtations, I'll admit I would perfer to read a book than a screen, but just PRINT it, most things can be printed, and since paper is becoming more expensive[or will be] and it kinda destroys the enviroment, I think eletronic is a good thing. Although this is just my opinion.


Oops Ninja'd. Oh well.

ALOR
2007-07-29, 01:21 AM
First: a format switch may be a good idea. Print isn't a viable medium anymore: it costs too much.


that is true, but on a personal note, it's incredibly disapointing.
I don't have a lap top, Diamonds form faster than my printer can print, and i don't have the money to buy a pdf reader or a laptop. So when dragon turns to it's digital format i'll probably be left on the sidelines. Which is fine, i understand all about progress and whats good for buisness. most people probably have some way of bringing thier digital Dragons with them to the gaming table.
Still I do feel that the game i love is turning into something i did not forsee. I imagine that i'm not the only one who can't afford new gadgets for the gaming table. I do feel that WotC is isolating some of thier fanbase by doing this.
Really it's probably sour grapes. But I must agree with the OP that My favorite hobby is changing and personally i don't think it's for the better

JadedDM
2007-07-29, 01:22 AM
...WotC is a company, and companies have to make money. I'd rather them make more money and continue making the products I enjoy rather than not making money and folding.

Query: Why assume that WotC's only two options are either A) Grab us by the ankles and shake us until they have every red cent or B) Go completely bankrupt? I have to believe there is SOME kind of middle ground there.

Besides, even if WotC went out of business, that would not spell the end of D&D. They'd probably sell it to someone else, just like TSR did.

ALOR
2007-07-29, 01:31 AM
Besides, even if WotC went out of business, that would not spell the end of D&D. They'd probably sell it to someone else, just like TSR did.

actully that doesn't sound like such a bad idea :smallbiggrin:

The_Werebear
2007-07-29, 02:08 AM
This saddens me. While I never read Dragon frequently, I much prefer reading things on paper than on a computer screen. I can curl up with a good book or a magazine. It is a lot harder with a laptop.

The shift towards total e-media is much more disturbing on more levels than just being against my personal preference, but that is a discussion for another time.

Hunter Noventa
2007-07-29, 03:12 AM
But really my main concern - since this is, after all, in the Gaming section - is this: Is it possible for a wizard to create an e-spellbook, or scribe e-scrolls?

Only if it's Open Sourcery.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-29, 03:51 AM
I find it foolish. Mainly because I just know they're going to require credit cards or Paypal, or some other method which is far less convenient than me travelling 45 minutes on a bus to my FLGS and waving cash/ATM card in their face and getting something I can flip through, and even smell. Yes smell. Without smells, reading a document on the screen is boring.:smallsigh:

Edit: Besides which you just know someone is gonna upload cracked issues the same day they're released. I personally guarantee it. Not that I would be the one doing it, seeing as I'll probably have to start backordering as and when I'll actually be able to pay them.

shaddy_24
2007-07-29, 06:43 AM
I really like Dragon magazine, even though I only got into DnD recently. I probably won't check it out online though. I don't like reading computer screens for too long, they often cause my eyes to dry out. So it WotC starts putting all their stuff online, I probably will be left out by it. Also, fewer new people would have access to the magazine. A lot of people have said that they began playing because they read Dragon magazine. If it is only online, fewer new people are going to find it.

And if they start putting all their stuff online and stop releasing books, then the game industry would collapse, since new people would almost never discover the game. If they could only find it by searching online, and they don't search for it, they wouldn't know about it. Then, there would be a lot less new people playing the game, and the company would be losing money. So we won't have to worry about everything becoming e-only.

Cruiser1
2007-07-29, 07:11 AM
Somewhat regrettably, online viewing of media is the way of the future. Paper is becoming more expensive and environmentally impactful. Those of us who grew up with books prefer them, but the younger generation who's grown up with computers are comfortable with them and even prefer them. A similar change happened 100 years ago when horses were replaced with automobiles.


If the day ever comes when everyone is only publishing online because it's more efficient, I swear I will print and bind my own books. I like to use the internet for discussion, and games, and sometimes reference, but if I have reading to do I go buy books, and if I have tabletop gaming to do I haul all my books around even though I have them on my laptop.

Books have personality - you can feel and smell the pages, you can fold down the corners (though I wouldn't on a magazine, since they look best glossy, not beaten), you can use them as an excuse to buy silly bookmarks, you can write in the margins, fill them with sticky notes, lend them to your friends... they're just, you know, cooler.

If the day ever comes when everyone is only driving motorcars because they're more efficient, I swear I will raise and breed my own horses. I like to use machines for my mill, and grandfather clocks, and sometimes taking the steam train, but if I have travelling to do I go use my horse, and if I have to go into town I haul out my stagecoach even though I live near an automobile dealership.

Horses have personality - you can feel and smell the sweat, you can comb down their fur (though I wouldn't on a stallion, since they look best wild, not beaten), you can use them as an excuse to buy silly clothes, you can put ribbons in their manes, fill them with oats, lend them to your friends... they're just, you know, cooler than these newfangled "cars". :smallwink:

Krellen
2007-07-29, 09:45 AM
Considering how many horse stables still exist, how many people still go horseback riding, and - at least in my area in the Southwest - how many people actually do still get from place to place by horseback (including to places you can't get by automobile), I'm not sure how your analogy is relevant, except perhaps to point out that books shall never disappear.

Golthur
2007-07-29, 10:08 AM
Also, keep in mind the effects of DRM, proprietary formats, and decaying media. Libraries are already having problems keeping proper archival copies of digital works, either because:
The media decays (most recordable CDs have only limited lifespans, magnetic media like floppies are much worse).
The program needed to read the format no longer exists, and the creator of the content (who no longer exists) never bothered to share the internal details of it.
The content is protected with encryption (DRM) and thus is "locked". Without the "keys", which, if the creator no longer exists, are no longer available, the content can't be read.

All of these are significant problems with electronic media, not so much of a problem with books. :smile:

We run the risk of having our collective culture no longer accessible to us if we continue too far down this path.

Matthew
2007-07-29, 10:22 AM
Most technical improvment happens because of economic factors. The fact that somebody invented a gadget that serves some purpose that couldn't be served before doesn't mean that the gadget is worth having or the purpose worth serving. Look at the Concorde. Sure, having a passenger liner that can travel at Mach Two is cool. But the Concorde never had enough demand in the form of passengers to expand the service on a large scale. The number of people who actually wanted to use it and who were willing to pay for the increased cost of running such a complex and expensive aircraft was small. Most people were just as happy to take a slower, but cheaper plane.

So the Concorde eventually died out. It was 'progress' as in a technical advance, but the actual worth of the technical advance to its users didn't justify the cost of maintaining it.

That's the kind of progress you get when you build things simply because they are a technical advance. Whereas many kinds of things that could reasonably be considered 'progress,' such as the mass production of what used to be luxury goods so that everyone in developed societies can enjoy them, happened because someone could finally make money at them, not because they became a new technical possibility for the first time.

There was nothing stopping medieval or Renaissance craftsmen from setting up a mass production system. The technical aspect of it can be applied to almost anything. What changed was the economics of the situation.

Sure, and I'm not saying progress cannot occur as a result of economic pressure. In this case, though, changing from printed to electronic media as an exclusive form of publication does not strike me as progressive, just economic. It may eventually become progressive if the change facilitates something that could not have been achieved through the printed media, but that does not seem to be the case at the moment (though perhaps there is an argument to be made for environmentalism, which could be considered 'progressive' if the conditions were appropriate).

Tough_Tonka
2007-07-29, 10:58 AM
You know if WotC puts some creativity they could probably add some nice features that couldn't be present or more difficult to present in a magazine.

Like different formats besides images and text, perhaps a podcast section where some of the articles, interviews and shorts stories are read and can be downloaded into your computer or mp3 player so you can listen to them later.

Or even mp3s of "gaming music" and play when you play DnD or Starwars d20 or whatever.

Maybe flash animations and games as well as pictures. They could even post movie clips for things like the new Dragonlance Movie or the occasional Video Game and Convention articles.

I geuss you could argue that dragon magazine could just put a CD with their magazine, but then they'd have to rap it so you couldn't read it in the Bookstores. Then again on an internet format such things wouldn't have to be posted all at once; they could just add new articles and fluff as the month goes on.

Reinforcements
2007-07-29, 11:05 AM
I guess it's something of an interesting discussion, but segueing the talk of these two magazines being canceled into a talk of all books being made electronic seems kinda ridiculous. I mean, we're hardly anywhere near that happening.

Anyway, I subscribed to Dragon. It wasn't very good. I am not upset at all at this decision, and I think that many people are vastly overreacting. Those are pretty much my entire feelings on the subject.

Stephen_E
2007-07-29, 11:12 AM
Oh, I love having books too, but there's a certain organization and utility to having everything in one place in a digital format.

<Twists head to look at the 130 metres of shelving in bedroom. Thinks about the other 60+ metres in the lounge.>
Yeah digital has utility, but somehow it doesn't have the feel of been surrounded by walls of books.:smallsigh:

Stephen

Yahzi
2007-07-29, 04:03 PM
Wizards of the Coast are not there to make you happy. They are there to make money.
But... they make money by making me happy.

I know Bill Gates has all but erased this ancient economic notion, but I'm a traditionalist.

:smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2007-07-29, 04:05 PM
Considering how many horse stables still exist,
Ya, but when was the last time you saw an 8-track tape player?

:smallbiggrin:

I think we can all stop worrying. Digital media won't replace print until it's a lot better experience. At that point, we might find ourselves actually OK with it.

horseboy
2007-07-29, 04:15 PM
Compatible software is trivial for most standard formats. If your computer doesn't have anything that can read HTML you probably aren't seeing this, and PDF readers are standard issue these days.

The device is more of an issue, I grant, but I for one live in a civilization where computers are ubiquitous.

Where is that? I live in the United States of America. In my part of the country computers are far from ubiquitous. I worked in a home improvement store. More than half of our customer base didn't own a computer. Fewer still had internet access. I'm one of three people I know with what passes for "high speed" access. In the city I worked, there was a gaming store. They're loosing all of those customers for Dragon.


As for electricity, unless you are a very anomalous person you do most of your reading in environments where electricity is available anyway; it's not a serious handicap for most people living in industrialized societies.

It's not like the Amish really play D&D. :smallwink: Course, there are a couple of houses down in the valley without power. And if power does go out, you're the better part of a day until they can find where the tree went down on the line, provided a tornado hasn't ripped a pole out. Oddly enough, I still find power out here more reliable than in Curtis Bay.


Magazines aren't really all that durable. They're not made to be durable; if they are it's largely coincidence. They're essentially just a bunch of glossy pieces of paper folded double and stapled together through the fold.

Now, hardcover books are durable, but there was never any proposal to put Dragon into hardcover book format anyway.

No, but they used to have boxes they gave RPGA members to store them in that prolonged their lifespan greatly.


Well, if Wizards does their subscription set-up intelligently, the electronic magazine itself may be highly impermanent but the access to the magazine won't be.

That's all well and good for the hard core d20 fans, but as been pointed out, what about the newbs and the recreational d20 fans? You know, the ones that only bought when a cover article catches their eye. Magazines frequently are "Impulse buys." That's why they're at the end of the check-out aisle at a grocery store.


Actually, things you download can go onto a a floppy disc or any other type of disc, so it can be permanent, as for elements, I never lost my computer unless the power went out, so nothing elemental short of a serious storm is going to knock out my power. Unshareable? Let people come over to your house. Uninheritable, did I not mention floppy disc?

Now lets look at book advantages- Permanent? Ink will wear if not taken perfect care of, and durable? If I throw a cup of water on my screen, I have to clean it, a book? I have to get a new copy. You still have inheritable, and you should put in can gain value, but overall, books don't have much of an advantage in MOST situtations, I'll admit I would perfer to read a book than a screen, but just PRINT it, most things can be printed, and since paper is becoming more expensive[or will be] and it kinda destroys the enviroment, I think eletronic is a good thing. Although this is just my opinion.


I go through a hard drive in usually about a year (Curse you Seagate!) Usually also without warning. In order to make sure I've got a copy of a .pdf I have to keep a copy on my hdd, my back up hdd, three Cd's (master storage, travel copy and over at a friend's copy) and a spare copy on a different system, usually that of a friend or relation. I've found that this way is really the only way I can keep a copy for more than a year.

I have copies of Dragon Magazine (and my old comics) sitting in a drawer since the 1980's. For stuff I'd use A LOT, once in a while I take it to work/the library and xerox off something pertinent. Barring an Act of God, they're going to be there.

longtooth878
2007-07-29, 04:44 PM
Well the stuff WOTC is doing reminds me of the stuff that TSR in late 80's and early 90's did where they didn't care about their fan base. I still have nightmare of them trying to bring back Buck Rodgers or some junk that they are going to cram down our throats(Eberron). I just think that E-Dragon or what ever they are going to call it is a bad idea. Just because it is more efficient to do it isn't necessary better(fast food). I am sure the idea sounded good on paper (he he) but I for one just think it wasn't to wise.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-29, 04:50 PM
Ah. See, when I see a thread titled "What is happening to D&D?", I expect to see a discussion of how design principles have changed over the years. Perhaps discussion of hallmarks versus sacred cows, of per-day versus per-encounter versus per-always-so-sucks-to-your-assmar abilities, of campaign settings, of the relative capabilities of soldiers and sages, of how the game is presented to outsiders, and so on. I didn't expect to see more lamentations of a lousy magazine that will be no more.

I guess that'll teach me.

Edit: I guess I should make my point a little more obvious before somebody comes in and smites me for apparently being off-topic or trolling or what have you.

There's a lot more to this question that what has been made of it here. D&D has come a long way from its roots, and the medium of its delivery is perhaps the smallest, most irrelevant detail of its journey. Is there room for criticism in this respect? Yes - there's always room for criticism. But right now, mountains are being made of molehills, and all too often I see what is perhaps the most flagrantly stupid bit of ad hominem I've ever seen. That is, the sentiment of "I don't care what they release digitally, I won't buy it because it's not a magazine."

This is explicitly putting the horse before the carriage. Or the carriage before the cart -- I don't honestly remember how that saying goes, and sayings all too often get themselves backwards. (See also: "I could care less.") There is a lot of material being released. There always is. If you judge ideas solely based off of their creators, you're going to make bad decisions. A lot of them. And I say that referring to WotC's ever-looming digital initiative, third-party publications, and the tendency to allow anything that has made it to the printed word.

And so the fish did decree, "Think."

Arbitrarity
2007-07-29, 05:08 PM
So, which is better, per-day, or per-encounter mechanic?

Not in power terms. In balance/logic/gameplay terms.
:smallwink:

Dervag
2007-07-29, 06:09 PM
Where is that? I live in the United States of America. In my part of the country computers are far from ubiquitous.In mine, they are; same country, multiple civilizations perhaps?


I worked in a home improvement store. More than half of our customer base didn't own a computer. Fewer still had internet access. I'm one of three people I know with what passes for "high speed" access.What percentage of your customer base subscribed to Dragon or bought it from the gaming store? And does it require high speed access to download a magazine-sized PDF file?

Without a high speed connection it may well take a nontrivial amount of time to download, but that doesn't make it impossible.

Now, you're right that they do almost certainly lose customers who do not possess a computer to download to. Do you think they actually don't care? They do want to sell the magazines, after all.

Look, I'm not saying I consider the switch to an electronic magazine an improvement. What I'm saying is that before you decide that it's a degradation and that Wizards of the Coast is a horrible evil scheming pack of bastards who don't deserve your business because of the switch, you might want to consider that they wouldn't be doing this without some cost/benefit analysis of their own. If they're losing customers in one place, they're almost certainly expecting to pick up customers somewhere else. I, for instance, do not subscribe to Dragon magazine and don't have convenient access to a gaming store. But I might very well start buying the magazines online, though I'm not certain whether I will or not. So it could be that they're expecting to pick up people like me who game, do not subscribe to Dragon, and own a computer to offset the loss of people who game, subscribe to Dragon, and do not own a computer.


That's all well and good for the hard core d20 fans, but as been pointed out, what about the newbs and the recreational d20 fans?Well, I definitely qualify as a recreational d20 fan; recreational fans will not have trouble finding out about the magazine if Wizards advertises intelligently. And I suspect Wizards of the Coast doesn't expect newbies to be introduced to d20 through the magazine. If they pick Dragon up and haven't played before it's not likely to make a lot of sense to them; they'll probably put it back down much as I might put down a magazine about bass fishing.


You know, the ones that only bought when a cover article catches their eye. Magazines frequently are "Impulse buys." That's why they're at the end of the check-out aisle at a grocery store.The National Enquirer and Time are; Dragon isn't. At least not in any of the grocery stores where I live.

Dragon is a hobby magazine that is unlikely to appeal to many people who don't already share the hobby.


I go through a hard drive in usually about a year (Curse you Seagate!) Usually also without warning. In order to make sure I've got a copy of a .pdf I have to keep a copy on my hdd, my back up hdd, three Cd's (master storage, travel copy and over at a friend's copy) and a spare copy on a different system, usually that of a friend or relation. I've found that this way is really the only way I can keep a copy for more than a year.I don't have such problems; my hard drives don't die very often. Maybe I'm just lucky. Moreover, as I said, while the electronic file copy of the magazine may be impermanent the access to the magazine need not be, and your objection about the impermanence of the file is less of an issue at best if access to a fresh copy of the file is permanent.

Reinforcements
2007-07-29, 06:42 PM
Well the stuff WOTC is doing reminds me of the stuff that TSR in late 80's and early 90's did where they didn't care about their fan base. I still have nightmare of them trying to bring back Buck Rodgers or some junk that they are going to cram down our throats(Eberron). I just think that E-Dragon or what ever they are going to call it is a bad idea. Just because it is more efficient to do it isn't necessary better(fast food). I am sure the idea sounded good on paper (he he) but I for one just think it wasn't to wise.
Trying to compare Eberron to TSR's ridiculous Buck Rogers idea is, frankly, absurd. I think some are a little too eager to go, "Wizards is doing something I don't like! DOOM!"

Thinker
2007-07-29, 06:42 PM
So, which is better, per-day, or per-encounter mechanic?

Not in power terms. In balance/logic/gameplay terms.
:smallwink:

per-encounter > per-day.

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-29, 07:37 PM
Somewhat regrettably, online viewing of media is the way of the future. Paper is becoming more expensive and environmentally impactful. Those of us who grew up with books prefer them, but the younger generation who's grown up with computers are comfortable with them and even prefer them. A similar change happened 100 years ago when horses were replaced with automobiles.



If the day ever comes when everyone is only driving motorcars because they're more efficient, I swear I will raise and breed my own horses. I like to use machines for my mill, and grandfather clocks, and sometimes taking the steam train, but if I have travelling to do I go use my horse, and if I have to go into town I haul out my stagecoach even though I live near an automobile dealership.

Horses have personality - you can feel and smell the sweat, you can comb down their fur (though I wouldn't on a stallion, since they look best wild, not beaten), you can use them as an excuse to buy silly clothes, you can put ribbons in their manes, fill them with oats, lend them to your friends... they're just, you know, cooler than these newfangled "cars". :smallwink:

What are you trying to demonstrate? How many logical fallacies you can committ in three paragraphs?

tannish2
2007-07-29, 08:32 PM
*pffft* The 20th was better. We landed on the Moon, had a commercial aircraft that flew twice the speed of sound, and had Salvadore Dali and art deco back then. We also had Andy Warhol to mock, the Beatles to listen to, and vermin like the Nazis to boo and hiss. The 21st century has been less than impressive so far. :smalltongue:

As for the thread topic, I'd say that - IMO as always - D&D3.5 has about reached saturation. I mean, how much further can they take the D&D core mechanics system as it stands without stripping it back to the basics and turning it into the more elegant and balanced d20/Iron Heroes/point-buy quasi-hybrid that D&D3.6 will probably be?

I may be the equivalent of the guy at the US Patent Office who said "everything's been invented" in 1900; but what more can you meaningfully do with 3rd Ed that isn't just shuffling the furniture?

As for Dungeon and Dragon going vapourware etherware, name me a games mag that hasn't gone belly up. It's a shame, but it's a reality we have to live with.

hey give #21 a break, were less than a decade in and already were getting another cold war and some wacky religious fanatiscs who hate everyone... and this time we have TWO broad groups, in one its seperated into tinier groups that all hate each other too..... sure, they dont wear black, but thats a bit cliche. weve even got one of them taking over a democracy, and screw the moon, we can go to mars, or even the 20th century(well, that might be closer to 22nd)..... were getting the whole 20th century in the first 20 years of the 21st, then theres the rise of communism(AGAIN) and all this happy shiny fun crap, but this time we can do it with the internet, YAY (i blame all you old people who were able to vote in the past 8 yrs for all this, i know i sure as cake didnt do it)


Progress for the sake of progress is not only non-profitable, it is foolish and often destructive. Whenever I hear someone say "have fun living in <some past time period>", or something similar, I just have to shake my head; what justification - other than pure profit-based capitalism - can be given for loving something new just because it's new?
it can be because its shiny, or because your bored

Matthew
2007-07-29, 08:43 PM
per-encounter > per-day.

Yeah, that's the nature of power creep.

GenLee
2007-07-29, 09:16 PM
Back to the original question, I think. Has anyone heard what the nebulous e-thing that WotC is going to try?

CaptainSam
2007-07-30, 06:44 AM
As for Dungeon and Dragon going vapourware etherware, name me a games mag that hasn't gone belly up. It's a shame, but it's a reality we have to live with.

White Dwarf. 30 years old this year.

Were-Sandwich
2007-07-30, 06:56 AM
Yeah, but for the lsat few years its been less a gaming magasine and more a giant advert/catalogue.

TranquilRage
2007-07-30, 11:00 AM
WotC screwed Magic the Gathering. They had an awesome idea, turned it into an awesome card game. Then they realised that the best way to make people keep buying was to make more and more powerful cards in each new expansion. So that they did. Then they switched to a web model where they can sell basically nothing (read: "Electronic Card", but you can ask for your nothing to be converted to something). Now it has reached a point that for enough money you can get first turn kills, as their business model must do. So they look elsewhere.

Now they own DnD, where they already know that to keep you buying they will sell expansion books with more and more munchkin classes in and changing the rule sets often.

WotC has its hands, mouth and feet firmly latched to the cash cows nipples and its a'yankin n a'suckin for all its worth. I realise companies are supposed to make money, but not at the expense of alienating/screwing over its client base. Restraint is a wonderful thing.

horseboy
2007-07-30, 11:01 AM
Yeah, but for the lsat few years its been less a gaming magasine and more a giant advert/catalogue.

And, honestly, Dragon was different from that, how?

PlatinumJester
2007-07-30, 11:06 AM
If Dragon Magazine ends then how will Rich Burlew make money. Apart from T shirts and books, his main income must be from Dragon Magazine. Does this mean we'll have to pay for OOTS :smallfrown:

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-30, 11:10 AM
If Dragon Magazine ends then how will Rich Burlew make money. Apart from T shirts and books, his main income must be from Dragon Magazine. Does this mean we'll have to pay for OOTS :smallfrown:

Uh. I'm pretty sure his main income is from his comic compilations, OOTS merchandise and occasional work for Wizards and White Wolf. That's certainly enough money to life off of.

And you do pay for OOTS. Just indirectly, through buying merchandise and compilations. :smallwink:

Kiero
2007-07-30, 11:19 AM
Personally I'm more worried about the gaming industry as a whole. While I see the shift to electronic media as a necessary evil, I wonder if it's not prolonging the inevitable. Without hard copy there's no gaming store. Without a gaming store how do you find out about new games that don't suck. Personally I'm much more likely to trust the guy working at the store that knows me and my tastes much more than I am to trust a search engine that brings up items based on how much the items in question have paid them to be presented. Without the store how are you going to find your local fellow dorks?


Depends on whether the gaming store forms a part of your gaming or not. I've never had much use for them, haven't visited one regularly since I was out of school.

I get my recommendations from the internet, from fora where I can discuss the contents and get reviews before I buy. What more online stores need to start doing is having excerpts you can read online to assist in the purchase decision. But all in all, I have no problem with most of the hobby being online.

I never bought more than a couple of issues of Dragon, thought it was a waste of paper. I look forward to the day when all print media has gone online, and stops wasting trees.

horseboy
2007-07-30, 11:44 AM
Depends on whether the gaming store forms a part of your gaming or not. I've never had much use for them, haven't visited one regularly since I was out of school.

I get my recommendations from the internet, from fora where I can discuss the contents and get reviews before I buy. What more online stores need to start doing is having excerpts you can read online to assist in the purchase decision. But all in all, I have no problem with most of the hobby being online.

I never bought more than a couple of issues of Dragon, thought it was a waste of paper. I look forward to the day when all print media has gone online, and stops wasting trees.

The problem with online sources is all too often they're corporate shills, that or tard monkeys. You don't know who they are, to know if they're trustworthy.

Edit: Besides, there's more trees in the US now than when the Washichun showed up.

ALOR
2007-07-30, 12:42 PM
I never bought more than a couple of issues of Dragon, thought it was a waste of paper. I look forward to the day when all print media has gone online, and stops wasting trees.

yes, but in gods name what will we read while in the bathroom??? :smallamused:

bosssmiley
2007-07-30, 12:58 PM
White Dwarf. 30 years old this year.

Wow, I remember WD when it was a gaming mag (with D&D modules, and Runequest stuff, and LARPing and PBM articles), rather than the monthly GW hobby catalogue it has been for some time (about 200 issues) now. I made the mistake of picking a copy up the other day thinking "Ah, 'Eavy Metal", "Games Day Features", "Battle Reports". 12 pages of LOTR model catalogue entries in the front of the mag later... :smallyuk:

Yes, I'm a beardy old grognard. Yes, I acknowledge that GW has a right to feature their product in what is their mag'. But, much like GQ Magazine, WD is now little more than a catalogue masquerading as a gaming mag.

Nice try though Cap'n Sam (and your taste in cities rocks! :smallcool: )

tannish2
2007-07-30, 01:25 PM
Depends on whether the gaming store forms a part of your gaming or not. I've never had much use for them, haven't visited one regularly since I was out of school.

I get my recommendations from the internet, from fora where I can discuss the contents and get reviews before I buy. What more online stores need to start doing is having excerpts you can read online to assist in the purchase decision. But all in all, I have no problem with most of the hobby being online.

I never bought more than a couple of issues of Dragon, thought it was a waste of paper. I look forward to the day when all print media has gone online, and stops wasting trees.
all print media going online? have you ever read that one book by that old dead guy who owned the time machine, let me look up the name... ... ... ... farenheit 451? yes, its a good idea... and its not like civilization is already going that way... yet another reason 21st century is better than 20th, even their (soon to be ash) books are coming true! YAY!

Fax Celestis
2007-07-30, 01:38 PM
As for Dungeon and Dragon going vapourware etherware, name me a games mag that hasn't gone belly up. It's a shame, but it's a reality we have to live with.

Pyramid and Knights of the Dinner Table, for two.

Matthew
2007-07-30, 01:44 PM
Yeah, KotD is apparently actually benefitting from the disappearance of Dragon and Dungeon. Of course, as the magazine is part comic book and part gaming magazine it has a fairly wide appeal (and I think the production costs are fairly low). By way of comparison, Knights Illustrated went under after only about forty issues or so.

Tormsskull
2007-07-30, 01:46 PM
Now they own DnD, where they already know that to keep you buying they will sell expansion books with more and more munchkin classes in and changing the rule sets often.


Yup. That's why I will very likely not buy anything from Wizards again except for Core Books (if even those). Which is the one thing that is very nice with tabletop RPGs, you don't have to purchase the latest and greatest in order to play the game (though it won't suprise me if they try to do just that).

Orak
2007-07-30, 01:58 PM
I keep seeing people complaining about the direction that WotC is going. They use arguements that everything used to be better in the good old days of Dungeons and Dragons and even Magic the Gathering.

I played in the beginning of both of those genres and the improvements that WotC have done to both are them are outstanding. If they feel that going digital with the Dragon and Dungeon magazine lines will be an improvement I would support them in.

Now let me give some information to back up my statements.

D&D used to have a ton of rules that made no sense and there were a lot of character ideas that were unfeasable. Take a 2nd ed rogue with 23 dex. It takes an epic amount of work to achieve, but the rogue has a near useless increase to his stat. (look it up, the benefit of strength compared to dexterity is laughable). Now in 3.5 you can have a high dex character and he can fill a dynamic roll in a party. He can actually do something better than other characters. I have played a similar character in multiple editions and only in 3.x was it fun. With 3.x there are so many options available to players and DM's that just weren't there before. I could rant for pages about the frustrations of playing in 2nd ed but that is for another day and a different thread.

Magic the gathering. I played that at its conception and for the first few years. I remeber when The Dark was released. It was incredibly painful to buy and entire box of cards to only net a few that were a minor improvement over the ones that came before it. The newer sets each have facets that improve and overpower the cards that came before it. But as a player that is what you want, something more than before. Where is the thrill if ripping open a foil package if you know that you already have something better sitting in your collection and so does everyone else.

In summation, WotC gave new life to the games that I love to play and they have my backing for a long time to come.

edit: And as to the longevity of paper vrs electronic. I used to have a large collection of dragon and dungeon magazines but after years of moving I only have a few ratty copies left. If I wanted to bring back all those old mags all I would need is 24 hours of internet service and I could be perusing all my old copies in digital format.

horseboy
2007-07-30, 08:55 PM
D&D used to have a ton of rules that made no sense and there were a lot of character ideas that were unfeasable. Take a 2nd ed rogue with 23 dex. It takes an epic amount of work to achieve, but the rogue has a near useless increase to his stat.

A 2nd ed rogue couldn't have a 23 dex. Of course it took "epic amount of work" because you were breaking the rules. Likewise of course a stat that high was of little use, because it wasn't built to go that high. Yes, 3.x is much easier to munchikin. Whether or not that's a good thing is of personal taste.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-30, 09:08 PM
A 2nd ed rogue couldn't have a 23 dex. Of course it took "epic amount of work" because you were breaking the rules.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, you could. It just took an inordinate amount of work to get there.

mudbunny
2007-07-30, 10:15 PM
WotC has its hands, mouth and feet firmly latched to the cash cows nipples and its a'yankin n a'suckin for all its worth. I realise companies are supposed to make money, but not at the expense of alienating/screwing over its client base. Restraint is a wonderful thing.

Yes. How horrid is it that WotC is forcing us to buy the books and be munchkins. Giving us no options to decide for ourselves what books to buy.

Dervag
2007-07-30, 10:15 PM
all print media going online? have you ever read that one book by that old dead guy who owned the time machine, let me look up the name... ... ... ... farenheit 451? yes, its a good idea... and its not like civilization is already going that way... yet another reason 21st century is better than 20th, even their (soon to be ash) books are coming true! YAY!You made that up.

Objecting to the existence of online media by citing Fahrenheit 451 doesn't make sense based on the book. Fahrenheit 451 was about censorship. The problem wasn't that books were becoming an unpopular, it was that people were running around and burning them with flamethrowers because they were subversive. E-books have absolutely nothing to do with that, and nothing Bradbury had to say in that book can be reasonably interpreted as an objection to e-books or electronic magazines.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-30, 10:22 PM
You made that up.

Objecting to the existence of online media by citing Fahrenheit 451 doesn't make sense based on the book. Fahrenheit 451 was about censorship. The problem wasn't that books were becoming an unpopular, it was that people were running around and burning them with flamethrowers because they were subversive. E-books have absolutely nothing to do with that, and nothing Bradbury had to say in that book can be reasonably interpreted as an objection to e-books or electronic magazines.

Especially since the internet didn't even exist yet.

Stephen_E
2007-07-30, 10:26 PM
You made that up.

Objecting to the existence of online media by citing Fahrenheit 451 doesn't make sense based on the book. Fahrenheit 451 was about censorship. The problem wasn't that books were becoming an unpopular, it was that people were running around and burning them with flamethrowers because they were subversive. E-books have absolutely nothing to do with that, and nothing Bradbury had to say in that book can be reasonably interpreted as an objection to e-books or electronic magazines.

Not entirely. Part of the subversive nature of books is that once they're out there you can't control what they say. E-media you can, in theory at least, overwrite/alter/remove the data to say what you want. And as China has shown, the state can to a large extent "control" the internet if it wants to.

IIRC in Fahrenheit 451 everyone got their infomation from 3-D TV. I've read futures where voice recognition software gets to the point that you do everything on computer by voice and point-click icons. Basically most people never learn to read.

Stephen

ArmorArmadillo
2007-07-30, 10:37 PM
Has Pathfinder been mentioned yet?

Paizo is making a new periodical that continues the tradition of dragon and dungeon, and then WotC is making their own magazine.

If X and Y are both positive, then X + Y > X.

I really don't like it when people try to set up WotC as some kind of greedy and apathetic company; from what I've experienced as a D&D and Magic player, they've consistently improved and built upon both games faithfully; despite a large number of players who consistently criticize them for leaving their roots.

I'll buy sourcebooks when I think sourcebooks are worth buying.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-30, 11:08 PM
Not entirely. Part of the subversive nature of books is that once they're out there you can't control what they say.And, conversely, "You can't stop the signal, Mal."

There. At least 90% of the Serenity fanbase is on my side, which means that no power in the 'verse can stop us.

Dervag
2007-07-30, 11:10 PM
Not entirely. Part of the subversive nature of books is that once they're out there you can't control what they say. E-media you can, in theory at least, overwrite/alter/remove the data to say what you want. And as China has shown, the state can to a large extent "control" the internet if it wants to.But you can't control a downloaded document, any more than you can control a book. You can stop people from making the document available, but you can forbid people from printing a book, too.

China is quite capable of controlling the print media, too; as was the Soviet Union in its day.


IIRC in Fahrenheit 451 everyone got their infomation from 3-D TV. I've read futures where voice recognition software gets to the point that you do everything on computer by voice and point-click icons. Basically most people never learn to read.

StephenSo?

Reading is a valuable skill because of what it allows us to do; if we didn't need to do it it wouldn't be any more valuable than flint knapping (which used to be an extremely important skill but isn't anymore), or the ability to memorize an epic poem and recite it for your supper (which was, interestingly, made obsolete by reading itself).

Now, you can make a case that reading remains useful no matter how good the voice recognition technology gets. But if that's true, then reading will not become obsolete and the question is moot.

Krellen
2007-07-30, 11:33 PM
But you can't control a downloaded document.
Tell that to the RIAA, and all the people they've sued, fined, and jailed.

horseboy
2007-07-30, 11:40 PM
What on earth are you talking about? Yes, you could. It just took an inordinate amount of work to get there.

Short of being an elf on Athas and using 10 wishes to get you that last point. That's pretty much the only way it would have been possible.

tannish2
2007-07-30, 11:41 PM
Not entirely. Part of the subversive nature of books is that once they're out there you can't control what they say. E-media you can, in theory at least, overwrite/alter/remove the data to say what you want. And as China has shown, the state can to a large extent "control" the internet if it wants to.

IIRC in Fahrenheit 451 everyone got their infomation from 3-D TV. I've read futures where voice recognition software gets to the point that you do everything on computer by voice and point-click icons. Basically most people never learn to read.

Stephen

exactly, and to a later post im too lazy to quote you CAN controll things onece its DLed, you either hack into the persons computer (or if its legal it would be made easier) and then do it, onece its downloaded to the server its there, it cant be changed

(NOTE: anyone who says 2.0 was better and had fewer nonsensical/useless rules than 3.0 obviously never played second edition, and if they say its better for role playing... all players wore the heaviest armor they could get, except rougesthieves(who were utterly useless) and wizards, all wizards cast exactly the same way and there were a LOT of extra sourcebooks for it as well, if u want simple play a core books only campaign )

EDIT: wait nvm that cant change onece its downloaded to the servers HD part was a lie, as this edit demonstrates, for someone with skill it would be just as easy as editing your post, you CAN stop the signal, but you CAN hide a book, or copy it in code

Stephen_E
2007-07-31, 01:10 AM
But you can't control a downloaded document, any more than you can control a book. You can stop people from making the document available, but you can forbid people from printing a book, too.

China is quite capable of controlling the print media, too; as was the Soviet Union in its day.

Somewhat covered already but...
Even when you download something it can still be changed. Next time you go online (assuming you've physically taken your PC offline) your PC handshakes with the censor site and removes/flags for visit/changes the approriate files. Why would my PC handshake the cenor site you ask. Because every motherboard or operating system made/sold has it built in without you been told. Conspiracy/Fantasy you say. Probably not happening rith now, but Mircrosoft was intending to put in just such a "feature" for their own purposes a couple of years back (actually I think they did put it in some stuuf before a stink was made). As it is some recent software that's come out has such features.

I'm not sure how much control China excerts over it's printed media, but the Soviet Union certainly tried and failed to control the printed media. IIRC it was called "Samizat" or something like that. Basically an independant underground home printing/publishing industry.

Possibly a handheld electronic "book" would get around it if you never connected online and only read of memory sticks of some sort which are filled from standalone PC's. That said, controlling the access to memory sticks may be easier to controlling the access to paper (although in future paper may become more controllable).


So?



It was a "you might find this interesting" regarding the concept of the printed word falling out of favour. The possibility of written lanuage falling out of favour. It wasn't intended to be "and this proves "x"!".

Stephen

Damionte
2007-07-31, 01:55 AM
I have to agree with Orak. Some of the whines seem to be just that whines. Like folks are just itching for soemthign to whine about. Or looking for esxcuses to rail at "the man."

I've also been playing both D&D and MTG since thier first editions. Both games are much better now than they were before. Though I have to say in different ways.

D&D is a much better game now than back then. On the whole it is much much easier to play now than then. When you have a group who are familiar with the rules it runs smoothly. When you have a good GM and a bunch of noobs it still runs smoothly.

Ofcourse with a bad Gm and noob players it sucks, but so does every other game on the market.

In MTG the game got gimpier and gimpier as time went on, at least until Urza's and the cold winter came about. That brought a return for a few months of the god decks. for tournament play they ban most of the really evil stuff anyway.

Dervag
2007-07-31, 02:53 AM
Tell that to the RIAA, and all the people they've sued, fined, and jailed.They can only do that because it's illegal to distribute the document in the first place. They could do the same with 'illegal books'. It wouldn't actually be more difficult. All the techniques that you can use to monitor illegal file sharing would work just as well to monitor illegal printed book distribution.


exactly, and to a later post im too lazy to quote you CAN controll things onece its DLed, you either hack into the persons computer (or if its legal it would be made easier) and then do it, onece its downloaded to the server its there, it cant be changedAnd to "controll" books all you have to do is break into their house and steal the book (or if "its" legal it would be made easier).

A government that can control your computer files can control your books. Illegally copied books are no more legal than illegally copied music; the only difference is that illegal copies of books are harder to distribute and produce, so the printing industry has no incentive to crack down on "print piracy."

And, again, oppressive governments throughout modern history have done just as good a job of controlling books as China is doing of controlling the Internet. Books are not immune to suppression or destruction any more than electronic files are, and they're harder to hide physically because they're larger than floppy disks/CDs/memory sticks.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-31, 07:27 AM
D&D used to have a ton of rules that made no sense and there were a lot of character ideas that were unfeasable.

D&D still has a ton of rules that make no sense and ideas that are unfeasible.



Magic the gathering. The newer sets each have facets that improve and overpower the cards that came before it.
Actually they don't, there are several of the older sets that have a way higher power level than the current one. A simple example, Mirrodin > Kanigawa. Older examples of sets significantly more powerful than things released the year(s) afterwards include the Urza saga, Legends, Arabian Nights and Alpha (three of which were released before the Dark). The idea that newer sets are more powerful than older ones is flat-out wrong.



(NOTE: anyone who says 2.0 was better and had fewer nonsensical/useless rules than 3.0 obviously never played second edition, and if they say its better for role playing... all players wore the heaviest armor they could get, except rougesthieves(who were utterly useless) and wizards, all wizards cast exactly the same way
That's a load of nonsense. Thieves weren't useless (just less powerful at higher levels), wizards had a plethora of spells to cast (and could specialize in at least a dozen different areas) and dex-based fighters in leather armor have been around forever. 2nd ed obviously has fewer rules than 3rd ed; which of the two has a larger percentage of nonsensical/useless rules is up for debate, but you should check out the rules wonkery threads on 3rd ed first for some ludicrous stuff that they allow for.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-31, 07:58 AM
Been meaning to post a rebuttal to this:


I can just wipe my screen after it gets wet. Can't do the same with a book.

If something wet hits my screen and it slips to the rest of the laptop, I'm gonna be out oh, probably 2-300 times what the book would have cost me. A paper book can still be dried out, and if you're careful, you can escape with just a bit of discolouration.

Indon
2007-07-31, 09:01 AM
But you can't control a downloaded document, any more than you can control a book. You can stop people from making the document available, but you can forbid people from printing a book, too.


You can control anything on another computer remotely, but you need appropriate software installed.

This means that you can control anything on another computer... so long as that person is not a software programmer capable of reengineering what you put on his computer.

TranquilRage
2007-07-31, 09:57 AM
D&D used to have a ton of rules that made no sense and there were a lot of character ideas that were unfeasable.

Still are


Take a 2nd ed rogue with 23 dex. It takes an epic amount of work to achieve, but the rogue has a near useless increase to his stat. (look it up, the benefit of strength compared to dexterity is laughable). Now in 3.5 you can have a high dex character and he can fill a dynamic roll in a party.

You obviously didn't read my post properly. WotC have rewarded your munchkinism with "Epic" characters. Long gone are the days of enjoying being level 14 and realising how awesome you are. Now you get to be "Epic". There is no doubt 2nd has its flaws and didn't scale upwards as well as 3.5 does. That's because, like with magic, they concentrate on going up in terms of power rather than out in terms of innovation.


With 3.x there are so many options available to players and DM's that just weren't there before.

This is what i'm talking about expanding outwards. Give options and variety. Make every ability points based, scrap classes and let people pick their skill sets! Infinite variety!.
They could release a source book with that as an option. Unfortunately doing it in the way they have, with all these assorted PrCs, they have unbalanced the game even more.
And to get access to the next greatest PrC, you guessed it, new book time.


Magic the gathering. I played that at its conception and for the first few years. I remeber when The Dark was released. It was incredibly painful to buy and entire box of cards to only net a few that were a minor improvement over the ones that came before it. The newer sets each have facets that improve and overpower the cards that came before it. But as a player that is what you want, something more than before.

Expand out not up. Add new abilities, be original! Instead they reduce the cost of an awesome creature, rename it and release it as the must have in the new expansion. In the first releases of magic a 3/3 monster cost 4 mana unless it was really rare. Full stop. The relationship of Power to Cost defined Rarity. That never changed. Then, around Ice Age it did, and its gone slowly down hill since there.


Where is the thrill if ripping open a foil package if you know that you already have something better sitting in your collection and so does everyone else.

Because if you follow that path, its only got one place to go. And that is the "For enough money you get a first turn kill that requires no skill and a bit of luck" path. And that's just about where they are now.


In summation, WotC gave new life to the games that I love to play and they have my backing for a long time to come.

They backed and released magic. The only thing they have given a new life to is DnD. And they are going to do it using the same methods they did with MTG. Its already begun. I am NOT suggesting there is nothing of merit in 3.5. Rule updates normally iron out bugs, add new features etc. And thats good. But DnD has already begun to Moo.


Yes. How horrid is it that WotC is forcing us to buy the books and be munchkins. Giving us no options to decide for ourselves what books to buy.
See, now replies like this are just pointless. I never said or implied they were forcing anyone to do anything. So why reply as though I had? You just make yourself look silly. People don't have to buy the new stuff. You have the option of being confined your existing stuff, making content up on your own or in a dedicated community or quitting. Its why I quit buying Games Workshop, MTG and DnD products, because the cycle of content for profit got so out of hand for all of them in turn.

Over the course of time people will probably convert to 3.5. Because of features they like in it, or annoyance at bugs in X that arn't in 3.5. Or because some other source material they use is in 3.5. Or simply because there is very little if anything still being released to expand edition X. There is also a continual cycle of players as old ones leave and new ones get drawn into the awesomeness of RPGs and it becomes ever harder for new players to get hold of old source books.

This is why people get irritated. They like progress, they like new things, but the direction that its going isn't ultimately a good one.

And i just realised this is all completely OT

tannish2
2007-07-31, 01:04 PM
They can only do that because it's illegal to distribute the document in the first place. They could do the same with 'illegal books'. It wouldn't actually be more difficult. All the techniques that you can use to monitor illegal file sharing would work just as well to monitor illegal printed book distribution.

And to "controll" books all you have to do is break into their house and steal the book (or if "its" legal it would be made easier).

A government that can control your computer files can control your books. Illegally copied books are no more legal than illegally copied music; the only difference is that illegal copies of books are harder to distribute and produce, so the printing industry has no incentive to crack down on "print piracy."

And, again, oppressive governments throughout modern history have done just as good a job of controlling books as China is doing of controlling the Internet. Books are not immune to suppression or destruction any more than electronic files are, and they're harder to hide physically because they're larger than floppy disks/CDs/memory sticks.

u can walk through the house with a magnet, floppy disk gone, floppy must go into computer, people would be suspicious of non networked computers, and besides floppys suck, books can be used with only light and eyes, some need glasses, and non-networked computers may not even be possible in the future, mandatory wireless networking? impossible you say? go back 50 years and tell them that most people in america have computers that fit on their desks and phones they can watch movies on that fit in their hands and can go anywhere... and that we have cured ED (but still not cancer or aids, sorry) and that we can transmit signals across the world through light, and back to hidability of books V discs, there are ways to use detectory things to detect CD's(ya i was suprised too i didnt think it would be easy to find plastic and light), and floppys, and flash drives and anything else magnetic, but some houses and LOTS of furniture is made out of wood, and... so are books, you cant CHANGE a book, so if they disagree with something it says and cant tolerate that, then it has to be destroyed, which your sure to remember holy crap im going to be a good evil overlord of earth