# D&D 4e Rules Compendium in online!



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Am I the first to notice that the Rules Compendium has gone online on D&D Insider?

Looks pretty functional.  Could use some improvements here and there, but pretty cool overall.  I like it.

I'd personally prefer if the powers search result panes showed whether the powers were at-will/encounter/dailys, and the errata don't seem to be included yet, but those are my only complaints with it so far.  

I do like the simplicity of it.  Funny that.

Link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/compendium


----------



## pogminky (Jun 23, 2008)

Wow - I checked but an hour or so ago - it must've just gone up!  )


----------



## pogminky (Jun 23, 2008)

It didn't have any result for kobold???


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Oh.  I don't think it has ANY monsters in it.

Just Races, Classes, Powers, Feats, Items, Skills, Rituals, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies.  

At least so far.

A searchable monster database that I could cut and paste statblocks from though?  Oooooooooh.  That'd be something cool.


----------



## AGFlynn (Jun 23, 2008)

Wonder if it notes/corrects errata so far! That would be nice.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

AGFlynn said:
			
		

> Wonder if it notes/corrects errata so far! That would be nice.




Nope.  Already checked.


----------



## useridunavailable (Jun 23, 2008)

It has the ability score adjustment wrong for Human on the Search Results page.  It's fine in the entry, though.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 23, 2008)

Link?


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 23, 2008)

Yup - just the PHB so far.  Still it is good to see something coming out there.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

Interesting... On the 6th, it was up briefly, and it was handled on the page without a popup... Now it's a popup. Wonder why they made thw change? (not that it's a bad change.)

As for monsters, I assume they'll be in the encounter builder they talked about.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Link?




I edited my first post to include a link.


----------



## AGFlynn (Jun 23, 2008)

Link!
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/compendium


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Interesting... On the 6th, it was up briefly, and it was handled on the page without a popup... Now it's a popup. Wonder why they made thw change? (not that it's a bad change.)
> 
> As for monsters, I assume they'll be in the encounter builder they talked about.




I suppose it would be nicer for using multiple applications at the same time...  Or even running multiple searches at the same time.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 23, 2008)

Notes:
- No monsters, not even playable monster races
- Nothing from Dragon/Dungeon yet (no warforged, no Class Acts wizard spells)
- There isn't even a tab for monsters


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 23, 2008)

I just did a search for "second wind" and I got some information referencing Second Wind, but nothing about the "Second Wind" ruling itself.

Not looking good...


----------



## Mercule (Jun 23, 2008)

I picked "Rogue" as my search.  Interesting results.

Of note:  Instead of two builds, there are three fleshed out builds ("Ruthless Thug" being the new one) and a stub for a fourth ("Thief Acrobat").  Those are right in line in the text.  That alone could make the Compendium almost worth the price of admission.

I hope they tidy up the interface a bit.  But, over all, that looks bloody useful.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Everything that is in there shows the source of Players Handbook.
Still, even though it's late, it's not an epic fail.  Which is promising compared to a lot of D&D software I've seen.


----------



## pogminky (Jun 23, 2008)

So it's got stuff not in any article or book?  Wow.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 23, 2008)

Christ, they can't even get something as basic as a searchable dB right.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I picked "Rogue" as my search.  Interesting results.
> 
> Of note:  Instead of two builds, there are three fleshed out builds ("Ruthless Thug" being the new one) and a stub for a fourth ("Thief Acrobat").  Those are right in line in the text.  That alone could make the Compendium almost worth the price of admission.
> 
> I hope they tidy up the interface a bit.  But, over all, that looks bloody useful.




BRAVURA WARLORD...

Resourceful Warlord...


----------



## pogminky (Jun 23, 2008)

Where are these new builds coming from?


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Christ, they can't even get something as basic as a searchable dB right.




What are you talking about?  There's nothing wrong with it.  It works just fine.  

I'm not sure whether the additional builds are newer data or older data that didn't make the cut into the PHB...  But either way that's a lot of text editing to do.  Especially when it's not in straight text form.


----------



## gill_smoke (Jun 23, 2008)

pogminky said:
			
		

> Where are these new builds coming from?



Betcha they are from the R&D department, or it is the stuff that the editors cut for brevity.


----------



## am181d (Jun 23, 2008)

Presumably the new builds are from the upcoming Martial Handbook...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 23, 2008)

I hope it has an index and not just a search box


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 23, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?  There's nothing wrong with it.  It works just fine.






			
				catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I just did a search for "second wind" and I got some information referencing Second Wind, but nothing about the "Second Wind" ruling itself.



I think this would indicate a DB search algorithm problem.  Then I ask, if it can't find Second Wind, what else is not coming up?


----------



## Vendark (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I think this would indicate a DB search algorithm problem.  Then I ask, if it can't find Second Wind, what else is not coming up?




Second Wind doesn't fall under any of the available tabs. There's no "General Rules" tab.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 23, 2008)

Vendark said:
			
		

> Second Wind doesn't fall under any of the available tabs. There's no "General Rules" tab.



I major omission, IMHO.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I think this would indicate a DB search algorithm problem.  Then I ask, if it can't find Second Wind, what else is not coming up?




It appears to be just a database of races, classes, powers, feats, items, skills, rituals, paragon paths, and epic destinies.  It doesn't appear to have anything other than those types of crunchies.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 23, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> It appears to be just a database of races, classes, powers, feats, items, skills, rituals, paragon paths, and epic destinies.  It doesn't appear to have anything other than those types of crunchies.



Agreed.  And if this is as intended, then Rules Compendium would be a misnomer.  I would consider this a Character Creation Compendium.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I major omission, IMHO.




it doesn't appear to be designed to house the basic rules of the game. Only the options.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I major omission, IMHO.



I'm sure it'll be there eventually.


----------



## Jadeite (Jun 23, 2008)

It's also regrettable that the Paragon Paths contain no links to their powers, so its handling is rather awkward.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 23, 2008)

The rogue entry,


> Alternative Class Features: Thug weapon talent (replaces rogue weapon talent)



There is no definition for this feature (although there is one for the new class feature for Resourceful Warlord)

Also, in the rogue entry, powerS:

"Disheartening strike" "Termination threat" and "Flashy riposte"


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 23, 2008)

That thing is lightning fast for me!  At the moment it does appear to be only a Part Of The PHB Compendium, but it's a decent start.  Once you've got something up it's much easier to fix things afterwards.  An index would be nice, and some more interconnectivity (like d20SRD) wouldn't be amiss either.  I could see a future iteration of this being worth paying money to get access.
-blarg


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 23, 2008)

It's been communicated very clearly in several demos, presentations, and postings that the Compendium is a datbase of character options, not rules of the game in general. Think more along the lines of the Consolidated Lists in WotC's 3.x archive rather than a 3.5 SRD.

Regarding the new character options, I wonder if they are from the upcoming FR Campaign Guidebook or Martial Power.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

I can't seem to switch to other pages when I search a keyword that has multiple pages worth of results...

Like if I look up martial, I can see page one, but I can't click on the other page numbers..

Anyone else having this issue?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 23, 2008)

deleted


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Agreed.  And if this is as intended, then Rules Compendium would be a misnomer.  I would consider this a Character Creation Compendium.



Fact: It's called the D&D Compendium, not the D&D Rules Compendium.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Agreed.  And if this is as intended, then Rules Compendium would be a misnomer.  I would consider this a Character Creation Compendium.




It seems to me that this was what they intended...otherwise I would think there would be other types of tabs than the ones I listed even if the content under them wasn't available yet.  I could be wrong though.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Very cool. I hope they add stuff like condition summaries and combat actions, otherwise its limited to just character creation. Still, a great start!


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 23, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Fact: It's called the D&D Compendium, not the D&D Rules Compendium.




You're right.

Did WotC ever refer to it as Rules Compendium, or was that simply a mass hallucination by people subconsciously connecting the word "compendium" to the Rules Compendium book that was released toward the end of 3e?


----------



## Cryptos (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I just did a search for "second wind" and I got some information referencing Second Wind, but nothing about the "Second Wind" ruling itself.
> 
> Not looking good...




Yeah, it's a bit odd that there aren't actually any Rules in the Rules Compendium, vis a vis things like flanking, combat advantage, concealment, actions, conditions, and so forth.

It's a character choices compendium, more accurately.

Without the already released errata, or the "rules" material published online, like the new wizard spells from Class Acts.

Edit:  I also see that it is not actually called the "Rules Compendium", but I still reserve the right to find it strange, and frankly, "use impaired" if not useless.


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 23, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> You're right.
> 
> Did WotC ever refer to it as Rules Compendium, or was that simply a mass hallucination by people subconsciously connecting the word "compendium" to the Rules Compendium book that was released toward the end of 3e?



They did in some instances, but it was usually in the same sentence that explained what it had and didn't have. The problem is that internally WotC refers to character options as Rules, but then uses mixed meanings with products such as the 3.5 Rules Compendium, which has no character options but actual rules.

While I can understand the confusion, they've always stated explained that it would not contain rules of the game, but classes, feats, races, etc. would be it's intended use.

To clarify further, this is essentially what the Character Creator will link to while creating a character.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 23, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> You're right.
> 
> Did WotC ever refer to it as Rules Compendium, or was that simply a mass hallucination by people subconsciously connecting the word "compendium" to the Rules Compendium book that was released toward the end of 3e?



Yep.  My bad on this one. 

I also looked at the thread title and assumed a correct attribution.  As a character options compendium it looks good, and will be a great help from my laptop at game time.


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 23, 2008)

So far so good.  I know it is not a ‘rules’ compendium but they do need to put in an expanded glossary, where you would find the definition of what Second Wind is.  But they are going to have there hands full with updating it every mouth with Dungeon and Dragon mag info and whatever book came out that month and doing errata.

I hope they can do it : )


----------



## Alikar (Jun 23, 2008)

ki11erDM said:
			
		

> So far so good.  I know it is not a ‘rules’ compendium but they do need to put in an expanded glossary, where you would find the definition of what Second Wind is.  But they are going to have there hands full with updating it every mouth with Dungeon and Dragon mag info and whatever book came out that month and doing errata.
> 
> I hope they can do it : )




That really shouldn't be that hard. Everything has to go through an editorial process. Once it passes that just stick the new powers or whatever in the DB.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 23, 2008)

It looks like the structure is there, but the data itself is not up to date, and it only from the PHB.


From the structure you can tell it that (at least currently)...

a) No monster information will be in it, there isn't even a suitable tab.

b) No general rule information will be in it, things like a glossary of terms or what second wind is, etc. Again no tab.

From the out of date, database you can tell...

a) It's from a draft version of the PHB, there are place holders and character builds that were cut from the final PHB. For example: - Search for Warlord then click the Class Tab, and Warlord, scroll down to see the character builds.

b) Dragon information has not been added, no new wizard powers (from Class Acts) or the new paragon path (from The Wolves of Maldeen) or the Warforged article information. It needs this information to be as advertised.

c) Errata hasn't been taken into account.

*Conclusions*

It will be useful to players more than DM's when the data is up to date. To become useful to DM's it needs a glossary (expanded beyond the one in the MM), rules information and monsters. Even for players it needs the information in the back of the Monster Manual on playing monsters added.

I feel sorry for the person or persons that is responsible for checking the database and updating it as there is a lot of work to do.


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 23, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> To become useful to DM's it needs a glossary (expanded beyond the one in the MM), rules information and monsters. Even for players it needs the information in the back of the Monster Manual on playing monsters added.



But that would render the core rulebooks obsolete, which is what they are trying to avoid.

Personally, I think they shouldn't. I think the subscription should include the rules, but then how do you prevent one from copy/pasting the rules from the Compendium and then canceling the subscription and still not buying the books?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

I think they should have an encounter builder for DM's... they mentioend that back in the "early days" as sort of the compliment to the haracter builder... Doesn't look like it's mentioned in the final page though.

Hope it's still in plans.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 23, 2008)

amaril said:
			
		

> how do you prevent one from copy/pasting the rules from the Compendium and then canceling the subscription and still not buying the books?




You're kidding right?  You aren't aware that there are pirated copies of the PHB that can be cut and pasted from right now?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 23, 2008)

amaril said:
			
		

> But that would render the core rulebooks obsolete, which is what they are trying to avoid.
> 
> Personally, I think they shouldn't. I think the subscription should include the rules, but then how do you prevent one from copy/pasting the rules from the Compendium and then canceling the subscription and still not buying the books?




Not really, as it is presented now each little bit of information is on a separate web page, within a database. Hence is only useful if you know what to search for in the first place.

If you didn't already know about "second wind" for example you wouldn't even think to search for it, and even if you did you would only get the information on that, not on cover, or concealment or anything else.

So in order to render the rulebooks obsolete, not only would you have to know every topic to search for you would have to search for each in turn then copy and paste the information out.

Painstaking and pointless work, especially considering you could get PDFs of the rules of the internet before the books even came out.

If you just want the D&D rules without paying there are much much easier ways to get hold of them.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 23, 2008)

Umm, I would hope that when I look at the rules database and type in "grapple" I would get something....

But no dice. Not useful at all.


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 23, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> You're kidding right?  You aren't aware that there are pirated copies of the PHB that can be cut and pasted from right now?



Fully aware of that, but that doesn't mean WotC should enable theft of their own material.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Not really, as it is presented now each little bit of information is on a separate web page, within a database. Hence is only useful if you know what to search for in the first place.
> 
> If you didn't already know about "second wind" for example you wouldn't even think to search for it, and even if you did you would only get the information on that, not on cover, or concealment or anything else.
> 
> ...



That's a very good point. Still, there are some persistent individuals. How many OCR'd books are there floating around on the Internet because someone had the patience to scan _and_ OCR every page of a book I'm only making a case as to why WotC might not want to put all of the rules in the database. As I said before I personally would prefer if they did. I don't want to buy the books, but I'd be partially interested in subscribing to access everything ever published for 4e.



			
				Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> Umm, I would hope that when I look at the rules database and type in "grapple" I would get something....
> 
> But no dice. Not useful at all.



Again, it's not a "rules compendium" and it was never intended to be.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> Not useful at all.




Thats a bit of a strecth...


So no one else is having that stupid can't change to a new page issue?  Grrrr if this is another issue due to my company not using the latest version of IE, I'ma be pissed!


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 23, 2008)

Looks great, I am impressed.

And I'm sure they can add extra tabs over time, a monster tab will appear in short order.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 23, 2008)

amaril said:
			
		

> As I said before I personally would prefer if they did. I don't want to buy the books, but I'd be partially interested in subscribing to access everything ever published for 4e.




Don't quote me on this but I think the Database as we are seeing it now is the paid model. The none paid will probably allow the search but the links won't open to none subscribers so it tells you what book to look in but not the actual info. At least that is what was hinted at in the Youtube presentations.



> Again, it's not a "rules compendium" and it was never intended to be.




And even if it was (and hopefully will be in the future) it's called "grab" now not grapple, search for grab and you get a range of powers, feats and skills. Which illustrates my point about needing to know the rules already to make use of the database.


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 23, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Don't quote me on this but I think the Database as we are seeing it now is the paid model. The none paid will probably allow the search but the links won't open to none subscribers so it tells you what book to look in but not the actual info. At least that is what was hinted at in the Youtube presentations.



That's how I understand it as well. What I was trying to say is that I would be more inclined to switch to 4e and subscribe to DDI if I the subscription included access to all rules beyond just character options without having to buy the books.


----------



## Zogmo (Jun 23, 2008)

*Remember a couple of things when looking at it.*

1) This is not the final product.  Nothing is final till the DDI becomes subscription based.  They are not afraid of showing their growing pains and have said recently that a lot of things will be put up unfinished so that people can comment on it and and help make it the product best for everyone when it goes live.

2) It's freaking free.  This format that doesn't have actual rules is going to stay that way so anyone can use it as a reference and it should be a great tool to get people into the game who aren't.


----------



## Vendark (Jun 23, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Not really, as it is presented now each little bit of information is on a separate web page, within a database. Hence is only useful if you know what to search for in the first place.




A search for the letter "e" appears to find pretty much everything...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

Vendark said:
			
		

> A search for the letter "e" appears to find pretty much everything...




D&D is brought to you today by the letter e... and the number y.

Wait, y is a letter too. drat.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

amaril said:
			
		

> While I can understand the confusion, they've always stated explained that it would not contain rules of the game, but classes, feats, races, etc. would be it's intended use.




Link? If true, that kinda sucks. The database they are using is wicked fast and it would be great to look up condition summaries and such. When I was at D&D Experience, that they said monsters will be added into the database with hyperlinks for the rules of all of their relevant abilities (Grapple was specifically mentioned). Did that change?


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Link? If true, that kinda sucks. The database they are using is wicked fast and it would be great to look up condition summaries and such. When I was at D&D Experience, that they said monsters will be added into the database with hyperlinks for the rules of all of their relevant abilities (Grapple was specifically mentioned). Did that change?



Please don't ask me fore a link. It's been in several sources, and I don't know which. Just trust me when I say it. I'm sure others who have been keeping up with 4e have heard/seen the same thing.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jun 23, 2008)

Well, color me unimpressed.  I was expecting something at least as nice as www.d20srd.org.  What I see isn't even usable.

Ken


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 23, 2008)

I just had a thought regarding the D&D Compendium and the GSL. The GSL restricts development of software. The GSL is designed for other publishers to create D&D compatible options. D&D Compendium probably won't include those 3PP options. See a problem?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 23, 2008)

amaril said:
			
		

> See a problem?




Wizards won't be freely publishing other people's work in their database, requiring you to actually buy the third party product to get that material?

I see it, but I don't perceive it as a problem.


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 23, 2008)

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> Umm, I would hope that when I look at the rules database and type in "grapple" I would get something....
> 
> But no dice. Not useful at all.



Well its not a 3.5 compendium, Grab is the new close combat hugging of choice in 4th ed, also as stated it is not a rule compendium but if it was, you'd want to be looking for Grab, grapple as far as I'm aware only exists as a special ability on specific monsters


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

amaril said:
			
		

> Please don't ask me fore a link. It's been in several sources, and I don't know which. Just trust me when I say it. I'm sure others who have been keeping up with 4e have heard/seen the same thing.




I've been keeping up with it. Maybe I just missed it, but I never saw mention of it. I'm not saying it isn't true as things tend to change quite a bit, but when I talked to Wizards at D&DXP, I asked those questions and they said it was forthcoming.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 23, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Well, color me unimpressed.  I was expecting something at least as nice as www.d20srd.org.  What I see isn't even usable.



Funny.  Keeping in mind that it's a beta, I think it compares well to d20srd.  I like the layout, or at least what the layout suggests it will become, and the search is a lot faster.

I agree, though, with what a lot of people have said about the need for an index -- I think.  For as fast as their search is, I can probably type in what I'm looking for faster than I could browse and click on d20srd.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 23, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Well, color me unimpressed.  I was expecting something at least as nice as www.d20srd.org.  What I see isn't even usable.
> 
> Ken




And how long did it take for that linkable hypertext SRD to exist after the release of 3e?  Note that the SRD came out in 2000.  d20srd.org?  Registered in 2004.  It's been a whole 3 weeks since 4e came out.  Cut them some slack.  There's a lot of data there.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 24, 2008)

*News Release*

I haven't read the entire thread yet, just the first few pages.  So forgive if I am being redundant.

If you are concerned about the things missing from the D&D Compendium today, you should read the news release Wizards also put out today regarding the compendium:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/news&news=dnd_insidernews_20080623a


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 24, 2008)

Vendark said:
			
		

> A search for the letter "e" appears to find pretty much everything...




It would still be a lot of work to get something that isn't half as good as the leaked PDFs.


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Wizards won't be freely publishing other people's work in their database, requiring you to actually buy the third party product to get that material?
> 
> I see it, but I don't perceive it as a problem.



My concern is that with the OGL or even the d20 STL, 3pp applications could be created and distributed, and those applications allowed users to enter in 3pp data.

Under the GSL, there will be no legal means to allow 3pp GSL options in a software application.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

amaril said:
			
		

> My concern is that with the OGL or even the d20 STL, 3pp applications could be created and distributed, and those applications allowed users to enter in 3pp data.
> 
> Under the GSL, there will be no legal means to allow 3pp GSL options in a software application.




Yeah under the GSL... 

So publish your software rules free, and let people add their own stuff for WoTC as well as 3PP.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 24, 2008)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> I haven't read the entire thread yet, just the first few pages.  So forgive if I am being redundant.
> 
> If you are concerned about the things missing from the D&D Compendium today, you should read the news release Wizards also put out today regarding the compendium:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/news&news=dnd_insidernews_20080623a




Got it. Don't like it, though. Wanted the rules in there. And yes, yes - I understand that the rules were never supposed to be included. Doesn't change my opinion.

Personally, I feel that without the rules, this offering is of very, very limited utility.

Also, just to be an ass - it seems sorta dumb to call it the "Rules Compendium", no?

Wis


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 24, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> It looks like the structure is there, but the data itself is not up to date, and it only from the PHB.
> 
> 
> From the structure you can tell it that (at least currently)...
> ...



I've said from the start that Configuration Management of the data will be a big issue.


----------



## Vendark (Jun 24, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Also, just to be an ass - it seems sorta dumb to call it the "Rules Compendium", no?




If it was called the Rules Compendium, that would be dumb.

But it isn't called the Rules Compendium.


----------



## Lazybones (Jun 24, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Funny.  Keeping in mind that it's a beta, I think it compares well to d20srd.  I like the layout, or at least what the layout suggests it will become, and the search is a lot faster.
> 
> I agree, though, with what a lot of people have said about the need for an index -- I think.  For as fast as their search is, I can probably type in what I'm looking for faster than I could browse and click on d20srd.



It would be a lot more useful to me if I could access the info off-line. I used the 3.0/3.5 SRD all the time at work (where all games sites are blocked) to check something during a break, or even on the road from my PPC. I suppose a mass cut-and-paste could end up creating a good base document for portability.


----------



## Henry (Jun 24, 2008)

My initial impression: I just plain don't like it. It's got lots of potential, but as used to the plethora of online tools as I have been over the last seven years, asking me to revert to something that looks less functional than the 2nd Edition Core Rules CD from almost fifteen years ago is a bit much. I completely understand that it has to have time to expand and grow, but as of right now, it has a LOT of growing to do -- a good 100%, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I'm hopeful that the tool will be expanded to cover rules and monsters before it will be of real use to me. Otherwise I'm sticking with fan made tools until such time as those are taken away, in which case it's probably back to some OGL-based game, likely, for its broader support.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 24, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> And how long did it take for that linkable hypertext SRD to exist after the release of 3e?  Note that the SRD came out in 2000.  d20srd.org?  Registered in 2004.  It's been a whole 3 weeks since 4e came out.  Cut them some slack.  There's a lot of data there.




That was done by some unpaid guy on the internet in his spare time -- like, while working a real job.

Supposedly the DDI has been brewing up with a team of full-time professional programmers for a year or more and all they've got at launch + 3 weeks is a search box and copy and pasted text?


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 24, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> That was done by some unpaid guy on the internet in his spare time -- like, while working a real job.
> 
> Supposedly the DDI has been brewing up with a team of full-time professional programmers for a year or more and all they've got at launch + 3 weeks is a search box and copy and pasted text?




Ever read "The Mythical Man-Month"?  It's part of a system, hence the difference.  It's just a system you aren't seeing yet.  d20srd.org is text.  This is a cross-referenceable database with filters (not yet available) and the ability to be used by other D&DI apps.

I don't mean to sound like a fanboy.  But for 3 weeks in, this app doesn't deserve scorn.  That said, I agree that the D&D Insider folks have so far still over promised and under delivered.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 24, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Ever read "The Mythical Man-Month"?  It's part of a system, hence the difference.  It's just a system you aren't seeing yet.  d20srd.org is text.  This is a cross-referenceable database with filters (not yet available) and the ability to be used by other D&DI apps.
> 
> I don't mean to sound like a fanboy.  But for 3 weeks in, this app doesn't deserve scorn.  That said, I agree that the D&D Insider folks have so far still over promised and under delivered.




The stuff that's not yet available sounds good -- and I look forward to it, and if they just started this project 3 weeks ago then it's okay.

But I have to wonder what they've been doing about the DDI for the last year besides advertising it.


----------



## Hawke (Jun 24, 2008)

That was my biggest fear... I don't mind they don't have a 3.5 SRD or that they were saying they want to make me pay for it... but... I hoped that D&D:I would have at least as much. As it stands 3.5SRD is much much more useful and this is a step backwards compared to the srd website. So... "Here, we're going to give you less and charge you for it now! You're welcome!"


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2008)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> It would be a lot more useful to me if I could access the info off-line. I used the 3.0/3.5 SRD all the time at work (where all games sites are blocked) to check something during a break, or even on the road from my PPC. I suppose a mass cut-and-paste could end up creating a good base document for portability.



I can buy that.  Actually, I would buy that. 

I don't have a local copy of the SRD -- by the time I decided to pony up for a copy of d20srd, they weren't taking donations (maybe it was temporary, I'm not checking right now).

One of the reasons I never grabbed the SRD was because I use a heavily expanded rules set.  Since most of that is WotC stuff, and the new Compendium is supposed to incorporate all future WotC stuff, it's looking, potentially, a lot better.  Even if it stays in its current form.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 24, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> a) No monster information will be in it, there isn't even a suitable tab.
> 
> b) No general rule information will be in it, things like a glossary of terms or what second wind is, etc. Again no tab.




I don't really understand the "no tabs" comment.  Look at how the graphics are laid out.  It would be trivial to just make the popup wider and add more tabs when they need them.


----------



## Harr (Jun 24, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Ever read "The Mythical Man-Month"?  It's part of a system, hence the difference.  It's just a system you aren't seeing yet.  d20srd.org is text.  This is a cross-referenceable database with filters (not yet available) and the ability to be used by other D&DI apps.




It doesn't look like it is. When one power references another power, it's not linked. It's just text. The text search is not a keyword or tag search but an actual simple text search (ie, as noted above, you can input 'e' and every page will come up since every page contains some word which has the letter e). In other words, the script itself is looking at the info as just text, so it's hard to imagine there's some other thing in there that's not.

I'd bet money that in the end, _"the character builder uses the database to build your character!"_ will basically sum up to _"the character builder lets you search for/choose a power then copy-pastes the text from that power onto your character sheet!"_ period.

I'm not gonna completely dismiss the possibility that there's some hidden genius in there somewhere, but right now I don't see anything that I (or anyone else who knows basic PHP/MySQL) couldn't have whipped up in a couple week's worth of bored nights. Especially if I have a pdf PHB to copy-paste from.

In fact, if you gave me a year to make an app like this, and I goofed off for eleven and a half months then panicked and crammed for two weeks to throw out the fastest possible thing I could, it would look much like the Compendium does right now. That's not intended to be a slam, even if it sounds like one; it's just the truth.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 24, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Ever read "The Mythical Man-Month"?  It's part of a system, hence the difference.  It's just a system you aren't seeing yet.  d20srd.org is text.  This is a cross-referenceable database with filters (not yet available) and the ability to be used by other D&DI apps.
> 
> I don't mean to sound like a fanboy.  But for 3 weeks in, this app doesn't deserve scorn.  That said, I agree that the D&D Insider folks have so far still over promised and under delivered.




Actually, only we the consumers have had the product for 3 weeks. WotC has had a finished product for at least a couple of months, and have allegedly been working on the DDI for a year. And though it is of little consequence now, the compendium was promised to be availalbe on June 6, not June 23. I'd say this small amount of completed work with so little functionlity does, in fact, deserve a lot of scorn.


----------



## VictorC (Jun 24, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I'd personally prefer if the powers search result panes showed whether the powers were at-will/encounter/dailys




It does


----------



## thegrizz (Jun 24, 2008)

I am very happy to see them getting this stuff up.  I really wish they would of launched DDI with the rule books, but I would much rather have a good product late, than a crappy product on time.


----------



## broghammerj (Jun 24, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Well, color me unimpressed.  I was expecting something at least as nice as www.d20srd.org.  What I see isn't even usable.
> 
> Ken




Agree d20srd.com is the gold standard.  Hire the guy to make the compendium and call it a day.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 24, 2008)

thegrizz said:
			
		

> I am very happy to see them getting this stuff up.  I really wish they would of launched DDI with the rule books, but I would much rather have a good product late, than a crappy product on time.




You can´t say that! Is there nothing that disappointed you? No minor detail that shows how sucky the product is? Come on, concentrate!


----------



## broghammerj (Jun 24, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> And how long did it take for that linkable hypertext SRD to exist after the release of 3e?  Note that the SRD came out in 2000.  d20srd.org?  Registered in 2004.  It's been a whole 3 weeks since 4e came out.  Cut them some slack.  There's a lot of data there.




D20srd.org is free and likely someone's labor of love. So who cares if it took awhile.  Rules compendium will cost me $15 per month along with a whole lot of other wizbang items that I can't apparently live without.  At least I think I can't live without them because that is what everyone tells me but I haven't actually seen anything that would prove it.

Look, WoTC has to wow me with their software.  I mean WOW me.  Their history with software development and support is horrid.  E-tools never got updated.  It's fine to release a Beta version online after your core products have already been released.  It's another thing to keep it updated in a timely fashion to continue with the future production run.

For $180 per year I can buy 4 add on books beyond the core books.  That is exactly how many extra 3.5 books I own.  That may speak to what I think of WoTC non-core material.  Now you're asking me to trust them that this will be great so I can invest a lot of money and have the whole DDI project pulled later.  

To win me over WoTC has to invest in me before I invest in them.


----------



## Zogmo (Jun 24, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Supposedly the DDI has been brewing up with a team of full-time professional programmers for a year or more and all they've got at launch + 3 weeks is a search box and copy and pasted text?




Please post source for this info. Thanks.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jun 24, 2008)

Well after seeing that the D&D Compendium is definitely not what I thought it was going to be.  I'm less likely to subscribe to the D&D Insider now.  So far the only thing I like/would use much is the Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 24, 2008)

Zogmo said:
			
		

> Please post source for this info. Thanks.




WotC was hiring for digital initiative at least Jan 2007 -- and DDI was announced at last GenCon I believe.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2008)

So, based on a beta release, we're not wowed.

Damn, you guys are nasty.  

It's a BETA release.  As in it's not finished yet.  It's been up for a couple of hours and people are already claiming it's a failure.  Holy crap, are you guys so emotionally tied to the idea that all things 4e are crap that you cannot even possibly give the slightest benefit of the doubt here?

Everyone's talking about the d20.srd  Yup, gold standard.  Anyone remember what the site looked like when it first went up?  I do.  It was hard to read, and organized like spaghetti.  

Jeez, back down a touch.  If you were actually paying for this, THEN you have the right to bitch.  A free beta test that's been up for less than 24 hours is a bit short to be making prouncements from the mountain.


----------



## pogminky (Jun 24, 2008)

It's o.k for players.  Without monsters I'm not sure I'd use it much as a DM.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 24, 2008)

pogminky said:
			
		

> It's o.k for players.  Without monsters I'm not sure I'd use it much as a DM.




Actually, if you check the article explaining the D&D Compendium, it _is_ intended for players, not DMs.

It's the resource you use to look up all the powers you could take when you gain a level, as it has all of them from every official D&D 4e source listed. (Or at least, that's the idea).

I'm hoping that there'll be something similar for DMs sometime soon, although I'm fine with them holding back on that until it's a pay site.

Cheers!


----------



## pogminky (Jun 24, 2008)

> if you check the article explaining the D&D Compendium, it is intended for players, not DMs.




Yeah, I know.  But I wanted the Compendium to be more than a PC only tool - it didn't seem to be that until today.  I had hope for greater utility.  Never mind.  It's still ok - just not what I wanted.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jun 24, 2008)

As a player, I think what I've seen so far is great. (Yes, I agree it could be better, with cross-linking and whatnot.) Given that it will include _everything_, even the powers and feats and classes that come from books I might not own (or Dragon articles I might not be bothered to flip through), it seems like it will be well worth the price of DDI for this feature alone. Already the ability to sort feats will simplify feat selection; filtering for your race/class/deity/tier will make that rather tedious aspect of character management _much_ easier.

As a DM, I'm already missing the d20srd.org's monster stat blocks. Maybe we'll see something along those lines in the future, but it's not part of what's been announced.

And just to be pedantic:



			
				broghammerj said:
			
		

> For $180 per year I can buy 4 add on books beyond the core books. . .




A year's worth of DDI will actually cost $119, assuming you don't buy month-to-month. (Granted, that's still the cost of 4 supplements. . . .) But remember, the Compendium will contain the character crunch from _every_ supplement put out over the course of that year, plus everything from Dragon mag! Maybe you don't want to spend $119 a year on D&D--fair enough--but if you do, it's hard to imagine that this isn't a reasonable way to spend that money!


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 24, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It's the resource you use to look up all the powers you could take when you gain a level, as it has all of them from every official D&D 4e source listed. (Or at least, that's the idea).




Erm isn't that what the Character Builder should do anyway?

This to me just looks like a basic web front end for the database the character builder should use.

It's great if it actually does keep up to date, but at the moment the data isn't even up to date with the released core books, or the errata. 

If it is going to be a player resource then it still needs the races from the back of the MM adding.

I wonder how long it will take to add the information from Dragon.

If they can't do the updates quickly then it will lose value.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 24, 2008)

I like it so far.  Even in the last hour it's been useful as a distinct method of reading material from the book if for nothing else.

It looks really helpful for DMs who are making classes or powers.  Let's you do comparison and 'syntax' checks really easilly.

Any DB could do that, but that doesn't reduce the utility of this tool right now.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 24, 2008)

It has definate potential to be incredably awesome.  A long way to go but definate potential.  Very nice for an early beta.

Add my voice as another vote to at least get the glossary up there is not the entire rule set.  While I would love to be able to look anything up through this I at least want to see all the details of what the powers/feats/class features do.  I know it kind of does that already but please give me a second here...

So, this power makes a critter "stunned"?  What does "stunned" do and how is that different from "dazed" or any of the other dozen or so status effects?  At least let me click on 'stunned' and have the system give me the details of what that status does.


----------



## Samadhi (Jun 24, 2008)

It's nice to see some of the DDI stuff actually going live, but as someone said this could have been pulled together with 3 weeks work. By one guy. 

 It's free, so I'm not complaining. I know, there will be a fee at some point, and when that point comes my expectations will be a lot higher. For the time being my expectations are pretty low. 

Free text searching with no filtering or intelligence? Okay.
No cross reference between entries? Sure
No master index or categorisation of similar powers / feats etc? No problem.

 But using beta content with errors? Come on WotC, someone needs a light slap for that. 

 As another poster said, I'm happy to wait for a good product. I'm annoyed waiting (eagerly) for a shoddy one. Let's hope the full 'paid for' version is a lot better.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Jun 24, 2008)

At the very least, this will prevent me from flipping through my book so much to make sure the players are using their powers properly.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 24, 2008)

Wasn't the Compendium supposed to be useful to the players and DM when using the game table? I might be wrong on this, so correct if I am, but I thought in some of the marketing stuff we've seen over the past months we were told that the compendium would be handy for the virtual table. If there's going to be no monster stat blocks, or rules for combat, I don't see much utility to the DM. He'll still have to keep thumbing through his books for that info while trying to play online. Especially since the virtual game table will not help adjudicate anything.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 24, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Wasn't the Compendium supposed to be useful to the players and DM when using the game table? I might be wrong on this, so correct if I am, but I thought in some of the marketing stuff we've seen over the past months we were told that the compendium would be handy for the virtual table. If there's going to be no monster stat blocks, or rules for combat, I don't see much utility to the DM. He'll still have to keep thumbing through his books for that info while trying to play online. Especially since the virtual game table will not help adjudicate anything.




That was my understand as well, it had game rules you could reference immediately. I could easily be wrong though, probably am.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Wasn't the Compendium supposed to be useful to the players and DM when using the game table? I might be wrong on this, so correct if I am, but I thought in some of the marketing stuff we've seen over the past months we were told that the compendium would be handy for the virtual table. If there's going to be no monster stat blocks, or rules for combat, I don't see much utility to the DM. He'll still have to keep thumbing through his books for that info while trying to play online. Especially since the virtual game table will not help adjudicate anything.




This is exactly what I understood, and I don't think we were wrong to understand it this way.

If this is what the final implementation of the Compendium is supposed to contain (only presumably that will have "more of the same"), I am extremely unimpressed, as it doesn't contain stuff that's actually difficult to find, only things I can locate easily anyway! Not a lot of point in that.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I understood, and I don't think we were wrong to understand it this way.
> 
> If this is what the final implementation of the Compendium is supposed to contain (only presumably that will have "more of the same"), I am extremely unimpressed, as it doesn't contain stuff that's actually difficult to find, only things I can locate easily anyway! Not a lot of point in that.




Hrmm... true, right now, with everything being in the PHB, it's pretty easy to find. Will the same be true in say 2 years when there are a TON of different sources for powers?

Do you know instantly where every feat or spell is for 3e? (if you do I will seriously be IMPRESSED!)

Things like this show their utility in the future when stuff gets more complicated. Plus it gives you a way of knowing what's out there without having to comb through a ton of books.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 24, 2008)

I'd like to point out that it's bad schedule estimates such as "this could be done in 3 weeks by one guy!!!" that caused D&DI to come out late in the first place.  You guys say you are superior to the D&DI team.  But I'm noticing how you're the same.


----------



## Jadeite (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Things like this show their utility in the future when stuff gets more complicated. Plus it gives you a way of knowing what's out there without having to comb through a ton of books.




Like this?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/lists

If the Compendium only contains informations relevant to character creation it would have been better to just include it in the character creator.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Hrmm... true, right now, with everything being in the PHB, it's pretty easy to find. Will the same be true in say 2 years when there are a TON of different sources for powers?
> 
> Do you know instantly where every feat or spell is for 3e? (if you do I will seriously be IMPRESSED!)
> 
> Things like this show their utility in the future when stuff gets more complicated. Plus it gives you a way of knowing what's out there without having to comb through a ton of books.





That assumes that it is kept up to date with everything. Even given that no MM stuff will ever appear in it it so far doesn't have errata or the Dragon information which is also supposed to be "core." It will be useful in the future only if it is kept up to date and so far the track record is not good.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

Jadeite said:
			
		

> Like this?
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/lists




Yes, just like that, only with added features, and, hopefully, faster updates.



> If the Compendium only contains informations relevant to character creation it would have been better to just include it in the character creator.




It's not only relevant to character creation. Since each power is essentially its own rule, it will be a big help to prevent those, wait, are you sure that's how that works? Hrmm maybe not, let's look it up... where was that again? moments...

Plus it will be good for people like me, the DM, who want new ideas to mine, but don't have the time/ energy to look through the books.

Let me say, what can I do that's arcane... and uses acid... etc...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> That assumes that it is kept up to date with everything. Even given that no MM stuff will ever appear in it it so far doesn't have errata or the Dragon information which is also supposed to be "core." It will be useful in the future only if it is kept up to date and so far the track record is not good.




Well, that goes without saying, but I'm not going to assume it won't be.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Well, that goes without saying, but I'm not going to assume it won't be.




Inductive evidence for WotC's online tools:



Mastertools

eTools

Gleemax

Magic Online 3.0

Compendium


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Hrmm... true, right now, with everything being in the PHB, it's pretty easy to find. Will the same be true in say 2 years when there are a TON of different sources for powers?
> 
> Do you know instantly where every feat or spell is for 3e? (if you do I will seriously be IMPRESSED!)
> 
> Things like this show their utility in the future when stuff gets more complicated. Plus it gives you a way of knowing what's out there without having to comb through a ton of books.




Oh, I agree, but not including the rules means they're basically still forcing me to waste my time finding the rules that go with the power. They don't EVEN give me the page reference for the rule, which is pretty rude.

Also, if you don't think that there will be additional rules in future books, then I'll go as far as to say that I'm quite certain you're wrong. Not being able to look up monsters or diseases, for example, severely hurts it's usefulness.

As it stands, this is not a feature I would be willing to pay money for. 

Comparisons to 3E are ill-warranted, I would add. In 3E, the way spells and abilities were handled, you couldn't possibly write them all down without adding several dozen pages to character sheets. In 4E, if a player DOESN'T have them all written down, I will be mad with him. It's not like there are that many. We shouldn't need to be referencing these things with any degree of regularity outside of chargen/advancement. Which is not time-critical stuff, and the page-number version or even just using your noggin would be close enough, frankly.

PS - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insidernews/20080623a

The above makes it clear that this is what they intend it to be, but they say they are listening to feedback, so presumably if we tell them it's not good enough, they may listen.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Inductive evidence for WotC's online tools:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Shrug? I'm not going to attempt to prove it will do what it's supposed to? If you want to assume it won't work, that's fine. 

My comment was really only that the usefulness of something liek this only gets really apparent when there are tons of places to find the info, and this becomes an easy searchable catalog.

If you assume it won't be updated (for whtever reason) then yeah it probably won't be that useful? But that's a separate argument then whether the tool itself is useful.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree, but not including the rules means they're basically still forcing me to waste my time finding the rules that go with the power. They don't EVEN give me the page reference for the rule, which is pretty rude.




Again, I'm assuming that the basic rules of the game will be in known locations. The PHB. 

If I'm looking up a basic rule, I know to look in the PHB.

If I'm looking up a random power, then it gets tricky.



> Also, if you don't think that there will be additional rules in future books, then I'll go as far as to say that I'm quite certain you're wrong.




Shrug. That's fine. However, the basic rules are the things everyone should always know for the most part. If I say make an attack roll, as the Dm I'm going to assume you know how to do that.



> Not being able to look up monsters or diseases, for example, severely hurts it's usefulness.




I agree it would be nice to have a way to look up these elements too. They talked about an encounter builder, as the mirror to the character creator. I'm guessing (unless that was scrapped) that stuff will be in there.



> As it stands, this is not a feature I would be willing to pay money for.




Rock on. It's your money spend it how you want to. 



> Comparisons to 3E are ill-warranted, I would add.




I used 3e because it's a game that has a lot of little rule breaking rules in various different sources. I could have just as easily said GURPS, or RIFTS, or any number of ganmes that have powers and such located in more books then one.



> In 3E, the way spells and abilities were handled, you couldn't possibly write them all down without adding several dozen pages to character sheets. In 4E, if a player DOESN'T have them all written down, I will be mad with him. It's not like there are that many.




I'm not talking about just durring play. I'm talking about in general. 



> We shouldn't need to be referencing these things with any degree of regularity outside of chargen/advancement.




Why not?

Maybe I'm trying to decide how my charactr will advance? Or what my next character will be, or if Im the Dm what kinds of things I might put together for the chicken mage of elwick... All things that I need to think about what options are available.



> Which is not time-critical stuff, and the page-number version or even just using your noggin would be close enough, frankly.




Depends on how you value your time? 

People constantly ask for indexes of things when they're found in multiple sources... How many Can we get an index of Dragon magazines were there in the past?

That's all this thing is... An index with a bunch of added features (ability to search, to browse, to copy directly from it... plus if all you want is the index that's free...)

I could just as easily take a boat to get to Europe, but it's worth more timewise to fly.

if YOU personally don't think you will use it, GREAT! Don't buy it... But don't say it's a bad tool just because you personally find no use in it. 

I don't work on cars, but I can see how a torque wrench would be a good tool for someone that does.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> if YOU personally don't think you will use it, GREAT! Don't buy it... But don't say it's a bad tool just because you personally find no use in it.
> 
> I don't work on cars, but I can see how a torque wrench would be a good tool for someone that does.




What are you even talking about now? It doesn't do what they implied it would, and it's not got any potential to be useful DURING play if your players actually write stuff down.

It doesn't contain monsters, monster abilities, diseases, traps or the like, so it's useless for improvising stuff.

It's only possibly purpose at this time is to speed up chargen or advancement for players. As far as I can tell, it has literally no features directly useful to a DM.

What really disgusts me, I have to admit, is that you think it's "just fine", when WotC themselves say it could be changed. That's a downright bad attitude imho. You know it has issues and you choose to ignore them.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What are you even talking about now? It doesn't do what they implied it would, and it's not got any potential to be useful DURING play if your players actually write stuff down.




What did your feelings get hurt? Ok, great they thought it would have more use durring play, but now it doesn't appear that it will to you.

I make the descision to buy things based on whether or not I can use it. I don't base it on what they said they wanted it to be in the past. 

I can see a use for a searchable index of powers, abilities, classes, feats, rituals, etc. 

If you don't feel the tool is useful to YOU that's your right, but to say the tool will be absolutely useless because you can't use it at YOUR table?




> It doesn't contain monsters, monster abilities, diseases, traps or the like, so it's useless for improvising stuff.




AgainI think it would be cool to have a resource for those things, which is why I'm hoping they haven't scrapped the encounter builder.

I can also see why they would keep that stuff seperate from the index of feats and powers and such. 




> It's only possibly purpose at this time is to speed up chargen or advancement for players. As far as I can tell, it has literally no features directly useful to a DM.




DM's need that stuff too man.  I'm building an adventure and I want a ritual that does X. Or to give an NPC a certain type of power, or to give out a certain magic item...



> What really disgusts me, I have to admit, is that you think it's "just fine", when WotC themselves say it could be changed. That's a downright bad attitude imho. You know it has issues and you choose to ignore them.




If I disgust you so much, stop posting to me? You have a way of coming off very insulting my man. 

Sure, there can be features that would make it even more useful. If they're added, that would be awesome. All I'm arguing is that I feel it's already useful, and saying it's useless in my opinion is a bit overdramatic.

It would be awesome and extra helpful if they also added the base rules, but I can also understand their decision not to, and feel that even if they're not in there, the tool is still useful. 

If that disgusts you? That's your issue, not mine.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 24, 2008)

Okay - so it's not a Rules Compendium.  It's D&D Compendium.  Other people keep saying saying that it was always intended to be only a player reference.  I'd like to see some links to that effect with the exception of the news post that came out yesterday. Ever since the announcement at GenCon last year, I've been under the distinct impression that it was going to be a total digital reference to the rules en masse.  I'd also like to add a link that supports my thoughts.  Ampersand from May 2007 



> D&D Insider’s free beta period coincides with the launch of 4th Edition. You get to try out the first digital components without paying the subscription fees, and you can provide feedback to help us improve your experience. The initial rollout includes Dragon and Dungeon online magazines, and the D&D Rules Compendium. This powerful online resource for players and Dungeon Masters alike will be updated with each new D&D release (whether it’s an analog game product or a digital magazine), making it the place to go in order to find what you need, when you need it.




Oh, and this one too. Ampersand from June 9th


> The D&D Character Builder application lets you create a D&D character, manage that character, print a character sheet, and save different versions of that character as you experiment with the various options and build concepts. Once you use this program to create a character, you'll never want to use any other method. Plus, it works directly with the D&D Rules Compendium, so you know you're always pulling from the latest rules material available.



There's that Rules Compendium phrase again.

Also note, Scott Rouse on tape from February.

"Rules Database"  "Full access to all the rules for subscribers" "purchase PDF books"


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Sure, there can be features that would make it even more useful. If they're added, that would be awesome. All I'm arguing is that I feel it's already useful, and saying it's useless in my opinion is a bit overdramatic.




I'm saying it's useless during normal play, and it's useless to GMs. That's not overdramatic, that's largely accurate. At most it's a slightly overstatment, but I think it's well within the bounds, frankly. I've never said it was totally useless (afaik), so don't make stuff up when you're quoting me, for god's sake! It's vaguely useful for chargen, but it's about to be rendered largely irrelevant by the character builder! Which lets you build and advance characters! If WotC don't see that as a problem, they've lost it.

As for rituals, why are you looking one up? You don't even need to know the rules for it if an NPC is doing it. This isn't 3E. I've RUN three adventures and I can't see ANY time we'd have used this, even though we're still learning! Everything we had to look up was a rule or stats on a monster/trap. Everything.

Why am I posting to you when you disgust me? Because I don't like to see the boards filled with fan-ish nonsense. I mean, really, at this stage, you could stop posting any content in your posts and simply have sig be two lines:

1) Take what you're given and like it.
2) It'll all be fine if we do nothing.

As for the encounter builder, I say WHAT encounter builder? You "hope" it still exists? I very much doubt that it does.

I mean, look: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/gametable

Any sign of an encounter builder there? It's not mentioned, even as part of the Dungeon Builder, say, yet it seems like it would be a pretty big deal.

The cynic in me would be unsurprised if that had been removed entirely, or, more marketably, linked to the miniatures you buy. Maybe you only get the ability to use the encounter-builder by selecting miniatures you have available. I bet corporate would love that.

So, two points for you to answer:

1) Will this still be "useful" in your opinion when the character builder exists? Assuming the character builder lets you see what the powers you're selecting do (and if it doesn't then I give on WotC's online service, I really do).

2) Do you think that the encounter builder is likely to return/appear? Like, more than 75% likely, say.


----------



## lkj (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> 1) Will this still be "useful" in your opinion when the character builder exists? Assuming the character builder lets you see what the powers you're selecting do (and if it doesn't then I give on WotC's online service, I really do).




I really, really don't want to get between you two. But your post did prompt an observation from me. 

The character builder, if I recall correctly, uses the Compendium. I'm almost certain I've seen that somewhere. On some level, one could argue that the Character Builder is an application of the Compendium.
Certainly, you can argue that they could just keep the Compendium 'backend' cuz it's 'useless'. 

But I think that the browse feature could be quite useful once there's a bunch of supplements in there. We'll see.

It's also worth noting that WotC isn't trying to sell these applications piecemeal (so far). They are supposed to be part of a suite of applications. So, maybe arguing about whether it's worth paying for an individual application-- while interesting-- won't be the point.

At any rate, I haven't formed a strong opinion about the Compendium. I'll see how it shapes up as they introduce features.

AD


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm saying it's useless during normal play, and it's useless to GMs. That's not overdramatic, that's largely accurate. At most it's a slightly overstatment, but I think it's well within the bounds, frankly. I've never said it was totally useless (afaik), so don't make stuff up when you're quoting me, for god's sake! It's vaguely useful for chargen, but it's about to be rendered largely irrelevant by the character builder! Which lets you build and advance characters! If WotC don't see that as a problem, they've lost it.




I dissagree with you, as I think it's usefull. 



> As for rituals, why are you looking one up? You don't even need to know the rules for it if an NPC is doing it. This isn't 3E. I've RUN three adventures and I can't see ANY time we'd have used this, even though we're still learning! Everything we had to look up was a rule or stats on a monster/trap. Everything.




Because I want to see if there's a ritual premade for me to use for something? maybe it's something I want to ut in the game as a reward, or as a fun thing. maybe I just want to see a list of rituals available. 
maybe because someone sent me an email asking how a ritual worked?
Maybe because I want to put a ritual in that my players can get access to, but I want to see if it's lready been done because why spend time re-inventing the wheel???

Who knows! The point is I can see myself wanting to have a list of rituals, and I can see myself using a searchable index of the above.

Furthermore, the point is an index of things spanning multiple sources is useful to me, and to others as well based on the amount of "We need a dragon index" posts / and letters to the editor I've seen.

A searchable index with other added features, and one that lets me not have to even have the bnooks on me???  Even better!



> Why am I posting to you when you disgust me? Because I don't like to see the boards filled with fan-ish nonsense. I mean, really, at this stage, you could stop posting any content in your posts and simply have sig be two lines:
> 
> 1) Take what you're given and like it.
> 2) It'll all be fine if we do nothing.




take what you're given and work with it. Or constuctively critisize it. Don't take waht you have and immediately pronounce the end of all days and utter ruin and horror which is what I see from a lot of people lately. 

it's pointless to do that except to sound off. It seems like you're taking this DDI thing WAY too personally. 

If you want other features say so, but don't call someone names because they dissagree with you. 

For the first time I might use my ignore list, if you can't post without insulting someone who dissagrees with you. 




> As for the encounter builder, I say WHAT encounter builder? You "hope" it still exists? I very much doubt that it does.
> 
> I mean, look: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/gametable
> 
> Any sign of an encounter builder there? It's not mentioned, even as part of the Dungeon Builder, say, yet it seems like it would be a pretty big deal.




Again I say, I hope the encounter builder is still part of the deal. I'm indicating that an encounter builder would be something as a DM I'm interested in, and it would entice me to pay money to have it. 

if it's not there, I would be less enticed to pay money for the DDI service.

At the end of the day, however, I purchase things based on what I'm being sold. I don't HAVE to buy DDI. If I feel, when they start charging for it, that it's not worth my money then I won't buy it! I'm not going to sit here and whine about it. I just won't buy it! I also won't begrudge someone for buying it because they find the things the DDI offers to be useful.



> The cynic in me would be unsurprised if that had been removed entirely, or, more marketably, linked to the miniatures you buy. Maybe you only get the ability to use the encounter-builder by selecting miniatures you have available. I bet corporate would love that.




Great so you're a cynic? I'm not. If your example proves true, it would be less incentive for me to buy it? 

You act like WoTC somehow is forcing you to buy this thing!



> 1) Will this still be "useful" in your opinion when the character builder exists? Assuming the character builder lets you see what the powers you're selecting do (and if it doesn't then I give on WotC's online service, I really do).




Yes, because sometimes I need to find this info when I'm not building a character. Also character builders are diferent then indexes. A character buider will probably work in stages. Pick race, pick class, choose powers. whereas an index is an overview of everything available.



> 2) Do you think that the encounter builder is likely to return/appear? Like, more than 75% likely, say.




I don't know? I'm not on WoTC's DDI team. I'm an end user. If it returns, I'll be happy, and it wil be something I'll be interested in buying.

They're not asking me to throw down money blindly and see what happens... It's not a bet, it's not a stock.

It's a product. If when the time comes I don't like the product, again, I won't buy it!


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm saying it's useless during normal play, and it's useless to GMs. That's not overdramatic, that's largely accurate.




Maybe it's accurate for you.  It's not accurate in my book.  I personally think that it's pretty useful during play to be able to type in "Beacon of Hope" or whatever a power name is...  And suddenly I know everything about that power.  Looking for spell effects was half of what used to slow 3.x down.  This is much faster than flipping through the PHB.

Sure a glossary would be nice too.  I'm not going to complain if they add it.  

Would I pay $15/month for what's currently available?  Of course not.  Good thing no one is asking me to yet.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble, you've convinced me of two things. First off, that Hong is worth taking off ignore, because I don't like to have more than one person on ignore, and two, that you're precisely one post away from getting on my ignore list. It'd be unfair for me to tell you that without explaining why, as you're clearly fairly young and new to this posting on the internet business, so here's why:

1) You're quoting my post but not referencing the quotes. Don't quote me if you're not going to reference me _directly_. It wastes space and confuses the issue.

2) Your posts are clearly written in _extreme haste_, full of mispellings, unecessary breaks, and typos. So I do not believe you're actually _thinking_ about what you're writing at all. I'd suggest you slow down and think seriously about what you're posting. I know your name is Scribble, but you don't need to take that literally. Edit your posts a bit. See what needs to be there, and what doesn't.

3) Specific issues:



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I dissagree with you, as I think it's usefull.




No, you're misrepresenting my position by saying that. Either you didn't read the bit you quoted. As you seem to lack malice, I feel it's the former. I'm saying it's usefulness is limited to character generation, not that it's blankly "not useful". Others may be, but I am not.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Or constuctively critisize it. Don't take waht you have and immediately pronounce the end of all days and utter ruin and horror which is what I see from a lot of people lately.




Again, either you didn't read, or you're intentionally misrepresenting my position. Quote me where I "pronounce the end of all days and utter ruin and horror". I feel am criticizing constructively. I've described what they need to add, and I've pointed out the problems with what they have. If you're generalising, "what I see from a lot of people" implies, _do not quote me and then do so_. That's downright rude. I'd advise just not generalising, and instead responding to the posts people actually write.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I also won't begrudge someone for buying it because they find the things the DDI offers to be useful.




Not reading or misleading again. I've not said that I begrudge anyone. I have said that this tool is only significantly useful in character generation, and I've played 4E and written adventures for it, so I think I have some vague basis for saying this. I'm not saying you're a bad person for liking it. I am saying that your _apparent_ attitude is not helpful to it being improved or added to.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Great so you're a cynic?




Again with the not reading or attempting to mislead. That's not what I said, is it? Re-read slowly it if you think it is.

Finally you say two things which are worth responding to properly, I presume you'd calmed down - so:



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Yes, because sometimes I need to find this info when I'm not building a character. Also character builders are diferent then indexes. A character buider will probably work in stages. Pick race, pick class, choose powers. whereas an index is an overview of everything available.




But it further limits it's potential utility, you'd agree, I think? I'm telling you as someone who has written and run adventures for 4E, that this tool is unlikely to see _significant_ use in either department. If I was building a player character right now, I might use it, because it would save time in some ways. I'm sure I'll find a use for it every third or forth adventure I write, but I think your examples regarding rituals were outright unrealistic (why would a player e-mail you when he could just look in his PHB or use this tool, for example).

It's not what I was expecting, and it's not something that's likely to useful to DMs on a regular basis in it's present form.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I don't know? I'm not on WoTC's DDI team. I'm an end user. If it returns, I'll be happy, and it wil be something I'll be interested in buying.




Yep, but this is problematic because previously you said:



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I agree it would be nice to have a way to look up these elements too. They talked about an encounter builder, as the mirror to the character creator. I'm guessing (unless that was scrapped) that stuff will be in there.




So it seems to me that the reason you don't mind these elements not being present is partially based on the assumption that product no longer in evidence will appear bearing those features. Personally as I don't see any recent mention of the encounter builder, and since the encounter builder was last mentioned, they've changed the "Rules Compendium" from a rules compendium to what amounts to "chargen/advancement info". That doesn't make me a cynic, or even a skeptic. I'd have to be something other than purely rational be assuming that a product not mentioned existed, surely?

Aaaaanyway, if you just think a bit more before you post next time (you know how hastily you wrote that post), and maybe use the Preview function, then we'll get along just fine, and no ignores will have to happen, and as part of the deal, I'll take extra care to avoid insulting you. Sound ok?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

ignore me if you want. I'm done. See ya!


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Maybe it's accurate for you.  It's not accurate in my book.  I personally think that it's pretty useful during play to be able to type in "Beacon of Hope" or whatever a power name is...  And suddenly I know everything about that power.  Looking for spell effects was half of what used to slow 3.x down.  This is much faster than flipping through the PHB.




Yeah, and if this was before I'd run 4E, I'd think that too (I don't know if you have, of course). Now that I have, and this was _never_ an issue, then I'm not seeing the utility. I expect it will come in handy one session, but I don't see this happening every session if the PCs actually wrote their powers down, particularly if they have them on index cards, as is the fashion.

As I've said, it's* invalid * to compare this to 3E. In 3E, you had a vast range of spells, and you could not write them all down in reasonable space. As a result, you had to look them up. In 4E, each character possesses a tightly limited set of abilities, typically 2 at-wills, and a handful of encounter, daily, and utility powers. So far, the players have had those all written down, and this is clearly part of 4E's design, taking the burden off the GM looking up what spells do, and putting it on the players to keep track of what their characters can do.

On the other hand, it will be useful to making those nice cards, as I can just bring stuff up and cut & paste it, ensuring the text is correct.

So that's nice, but then I've never denied it have chargen/advancement utility (I hope!).



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> ignore me if you want. I'm done. See ya!




The response I expected, sadly. Well, if you've put me on ignore, then I don't need to! Either way works!


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> The response I expected, sadly. Well, if you've put me on ignore, then I don't need to! Either way works!




No, I haven't placed you on ignore. I'm just done talking to you about this topic, and possibly others in the future. 

You're correct, I let things get to me a bit and for that I apologize to everyone in the thread. I guess I let being called a fanboy get to me for some reason. I guess I'm tired of people attacking me because I like to look on the bright side of things, and preffer to judge something by it's benefits as opposed to its drawbacks? 

That said,  I come to the boards to talk about D&D because talking about D&D is fun. If I'm arguing with someone, and feel they're being insulting, it's not fun, and not worth my time. 

In each post, when you've dissagreed with me, you also seem to feel the need to somehow insult me as a person for my beliefs, or to try to enhance your own position I don't know. In anycase, there are plenty of people on the boards who can dissagree with me, without insulting me. These people are fun to talk to, and debate with. 

So in the future, if you want to dissagree with me, and want to debate about soemthing, cool, we can do that. But if you throw insults into the mix, I'm not going to respond. 

In anycase, I'm going to mod myself, step out of this thread, and move to another one.

happy gaming!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> 2) Your posts are clearly written in _extreme haste_, full of mispellings, unecessary breaks, and typos. So I do not believe you're actually _thinking_ about what you're writing at all. I'd suggest you slow down and think seriously about what you're posting. I know your name is Scribble, but you don't need to take that literally. Edit your posts a bit. See what needs to be there, and what doesn't.



What does this have to do with the *content* of Scribble's posts? It's condescending and pedantic. Discuss the message, not the messenger.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> In each post, when you've dissagreed with me, you also seem to feel the need to somehow insult me as a person for my beliefs, or to try to enhance your own position I don't know.




Apart from the "fan-ish" one, I didn't do it purpose, I promise! That said, there are some people I'm just abrasive to, so I completely understand. For my part, sometimes I think people are looking on the bright side so hard that I instinctively feel the need to ground them a bit, and I can be somewhat over-rough in doing that.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> What does this have to do with the *content* of Scribble's posts? It's condescending and pedantic. Discuss the message, not the messenger.




No, it's not. I point out the mispellings and typos because they're evidence of typing extremely fast and not thinking about the post or previewing it, which in turn lead to his accidentally misinterpreting/misrepresenting my position. At no point did I pick out the typos etc. and pick on them, nor would I, because that would indeed be pedantic.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> For my part, sometimes I think people are looking on the bright side so hard that I instinctively feel the need to ground them a bit, and I can be somewhat over-rough in doing that.



I daresay it's not your place to do that.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 24, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I daresay it's not your place to do that.




Oh the hypocrisy.  But now Hong's coming off ignore, I have spare slot, and you know exactly what you're doing!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Oh the hypocrisy.



Yeah, teach those optimists a lesson!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> No, it's not. I point out the mispellings and typos because they're evidence of typing extremely fast and not thinking about the post or previewing it, which in turn lead to his accidentally misinterpreting/misrepresenting my position. At no point did I pick out the typos etc. and pick on them, nor would I, because that would indeed be pedantic.



You could argue that it wasn't pedantic, though I notice you didn't refute my assertion that it was condescending. But that's enough of that. I'm out.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 24, 2008)

Hey, look - I could delete almost an entire page of comments without losing anything from the topic!

Well, not quite... but I'd appreciate it if y'all would get back on topic now and stop arguments.

Thanks


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 24, 2008)

Thank you, Plane Sailing.


----------



## Miyaa (Jun 26, 2008)

Here's my problem, which is based from a livejournal blog about the same thing...

The guy argues that DDI wants to be something that is Better than Free  that it needs to be better than what is available for free or even from other paying services. He's not impressed with their options, especially the gamer's board which when he wrote looked very unimpressive, moving tokens around a virtual white board.

It's still not that impressive. And there are other free services or items that look even better. PCGen, even if it's not going to be using 4.0 will get some rogues doing something like that. There's also Fantasy Grounds which can be tailored to 4e playing without too much problems, plus it looks better too. If you have the books and a decent SQL or spreadsheet program, you might not need to have the compendium.

The only thing that is "irreplaceable" is the Dungeon and Dragon magazines, for $15 a month or $119 a year. DDI really needs to show that it can outdo what has been out there already, or what might come around as a response to DDI.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2008)

Miyaa, there's one part of the equation you're forgetting in all that.

The RPGA.  

Sure, I could do RPGA modules on Fantasy Grounds, but, what's going to happen is they will start the new Living campaigns, the Living RPGA players will sign up to the DDI, be able to use the DDI character vault to track their characters and away they go.

The RPGA report recently talked about critical mass for the Living campaigns - the point where you have enough players that anyone, anywhere in a Triad area has access to a Living campaign.  The critical mass for an online Living campaign is only about 1000 players - that's about 200 groups, or a new game starting every hour of every day.

EVERY WOTC Living campaign had that many active players.  Each.  

That's what's going to drive the DDI.  And having these online tools are just the added bennies.  DM's for the RPGA don't need online monster tools because they're running modules.  And the RPGA modules will be designed with DDI in mind - automatically released with maps and minis.  Same with Dungeon modules if they're smart.

That's the missing piece that you aren't looking at.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 27, 2008)

Has the pay part of DDI gone live? I ask because I'm getting a 500 error.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 28, 2008)

bump. I would like to know what happened to the D&D Compendium.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 28, 2008)

Reveille said:


> bump. I would like to know what happened to the D&D Compendium.




Works for me.


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2008)

Simplicity said:


> I personally think that it's pretty useful during play to be able to type in "Beacon of Hope" or whatever a power name is...  And suddenly I know everything about that power.  Looking for spell effects was half of what used to slow 3.x down.  This is much faster than flipping through the PHB.




However, it's not nearly as useful as, say, a properly OCR'ed PDF file, which is what the original plan was before it had to be scrapped. I'd pay a significant amount (though not above half the paper book price) for a searchable PDF of any given book, because it would be invaluable in my game play and planning - moreso for the planning, but still useful at a table for many players. On the other hand, a database of race/feat/skill/power tables is not nearly as useful as if, say, I wanted to look up what blinded does on a moment's notice, or I wanted to read the entire text of order of actions in a combat round in order to clear up a rules point that my players and I were screwing up.

Given the quality of the recent Dragon and Dungeon previews, DDI would still give me some money's worth, but that D&D compendium without significant additions I find VERY subpar right now, and the sad part is that no one can make up a tool that can pick up the slack without a small fear of getting sued by WotC. 

Heck, until that fan site policy comes out, every single character sheet, character generator, house rule, and crib sheet on ENWorld right now is possibly litigious. I wouldn't normally worry (heck, I didn't worry when years ago WotC asked us to remove those module conversions, despite the gloom and doom of some people) but the language of the released GSL even leaves that with a "wait and see" attitude from me.


----------



## Miyaa (Jul 2, 2008)

I had not thought about the RPGA, and maybe that's their saving grace.

Listen, I know that the fan stuff may go bye-bye with DDI, and they may try to do everything they can to shut it down, but I suspect some people will go underground. I still think DDI has to show its products are better than what is out there, or could be made. Even if they had nothing running against them, poorly made stuff will drive people away from it. And that remains to be seen. (Okay, so I'm skeptical.)

And I know it's very early in the cycle. Unfortunately Wizards isn't doing themselves a favor by having a beta preview before everything is ready. I hope they allow a preview after they're past beta for it to work.

Seriously, though, a thousand players for, what nine Living campaigns? That's what, $135,000 a month, or perhaps upwards to $1,620,000 a year total streaming in to Wizards of the Coast just on RPGA interest alone?

Why aren't they trying to advertise as much about the RPGA as they can then? And will Hasbro be satisfied with at least a $1.62 mil bump in the revenue stream if it's assumed they'll keep that base satisfied?


----------

