# November 16th release for Web-based Character Builder



## mudbunny (Nov 2, 2010)

Announcement:
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Discussion thread on WotC Site:
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Here are the points from the announcement:
On November 16, Wizards of the Coast will launch a brand new web-based version of the D&D Insider Character Builder. The current downloadable version will remain functional, but will no longer be available for download or updated with content after the new version goes live. Here are the highlights of the new Character Builder:

    * New Design: Completely redesigned from top to bottom in Microsoft Silverlight as a robust character creation wizard.
    * No Download: The Character Builder is served from the D&D site
    * PC and Mac Compatible: Requires an Internet connection and Silverlight plug-in
    * Access is easy: Just enter the D&D site, log in, and launch the Character Builder from the Tool Box or the Character Builder tools page.
    * Characters in the Cloud: All characters you create are saved on our database. No need to save Character Builder files on your hard drive anymore.
    * File Import: You can easily import your character s created in the previous version to the new Character Builder.
    * Previous Data: Includes all character-building data you enjoyed in the previous versions.
    * New Data Releases: Dark Sun and D&D Essentials data will debut with the new version.



If you want to see the screenshots, you need to go to the announcements.

I will be monitoring this thread to bring stuff back to WotC.


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 2, 2010)

Will we be able to send our character files to one another somehow? As a DM, I like to have my players' Character Builder files handy so that I can better pick magic items for them and so on.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 2, 2010)

PaoloM (DDI studio manager) answered a crapton of questions. Enjoy:

[sblock]Let's reply to some previously asked questions:

1. Will these tools Replace the existing Character Builder(CB) and Adventure Tools(AT), or will they be a supplement?

Some will replace, some will supplement, some will augment, some will be completely new.

2a. What tools will be included? Virtual Table Top(VTT)?

As of today, I can only talk about the Rules Compendium (released on Oct 12th) and the Character Builder (to be released on Nov 16th).

3. Will they be built on flash, silverlight, or HTML 5?

Depending on their purpose and intended usage, we'll use the technology that better solves the problem. In the case of the Rules Compendium, it was HTML/JavaScript, in the case of Character Builder it was Silverlight 4.

4a. What is the current state of development of the web based tools?

Working on it

4b. Are  they basically working and they are just fixing minor bugs?

They are in various states of advancement. Some are even released!

4c. Is there  anything working at all?

Magic 8 ball says "Yes"

4d. Can we see some screen shots?

Yes. We posted some today and I plan to post more as appropriate.

5. Can we get regular updates on progress and problems?

That's the plan.

6. When will they be available?

First one was on Oct 12th, 2010. We'll keep releasing tools for quite a while.

7. Will they require an active connection to the internet to use?

Most of them, yes.

8. Will there be a beta-test?

Some tools will have a beta program.

9. Will there be a demo available for non-subscribers?

Depending on the tool.

10a. Will the web-based tools be updated more often? 

Now that the studio is not split in two anymore - trying to support legacy and new development - we plan to have an aggressive feature update schedule. I can't promise that updates will be more frequent than monthly, but they won't be purely content.

10b. Will the updates come faster, with less lag between a book/magazine being published and getting updated to the software?

Not for now. The current process we have between R&D and the studio makes quite difficult to release digital information earlier, but we're working on improving this publishing process as well.

11a. Are you prepared for the load this will place on your servers? 

We hope so.

11b. Can you ensure they can handle the load?

Nothing can be certain, but we did load tests for the past month with several times the number of current DDi subscribers. Everything should be fine.

11c. What if your servers go down?

Wibbles wooble but... no wait. We have redundant server farms, fully load balanced in all components.

12. When someone's account expires, what access will they retain? Any files they've created? Characters/Monsters they've built?

User created content is kept on WotC servers for at least 12 months after a subscription expires.

13. If it does replace the CB, will it be able to track resources, such as Hit Points, Healing Surges, etc, similar to iPlay4e.com?

The new Character Builder replaces the old one (or, as we call it here, Character Builder Classic) in functionality. The old one didn't track anything at play time, so the new one doesn't either.

14. Will the web tools be included in the standard subscription price, or will there be an additional fee? Will there be an increase in the subscription price?

There is no plan to increase the subscription fee.

15. Will the tools be released as a bundle, or one at a time?

One (or more) at a time.

16. How much access will WotC have to the user data collected by the tools? How will you address privacy concerns?

User generated content will link to the originating user only via a GUID. This GUID is the one provided by the WotC login and membership process that is already compliant with all privacy and security regulations. In other words, if I run queries on the database, I can only figure out WHAT paople are creating, but not WHO is doing that. Speaking of this, we plan to mine the databases constantly, in order to better understand usage patters and the kind of content pleople are most likely to use. For example, if suddenly 90% of new characters are Muls, then R&D may take a look into writing some special Mul content

17. How will data persistence be handled? Will the tools require any data installed on my system? savedata, logintools?

Nothing on the client machine, except for your login token cookie. State and data are all stored in the cloud.

18. Will any of the tools allow for shared use? Such as a VTT allowing the entire party to participate with a single account?

This would go against the Terms of Use.

19. Will it be possible to use the tools with more than one IP at a time? Such as a VTT on the PC and the compendium on the laptop?

In general, I don't see why not. There may be issues working with the Character Builder on the same character at the same time from multiple locations, so please don't do that.

20. Are there any plans to offer an API?

Plans in that area are being discussed.

21. What Operating Systems and Browsers will be supported? Will the tools be accessible via smartphone browsers? What about tablets/iPads?

See the FAQ for the supported platforms.

22. What export options will there be for characters, monsters, and other items created with these tools?  XML files? PDF Files?

At launch, we won't support any kind of export. Of course, you can always use free tools (like PDF Creator), to print your character sheet to PDF.

23. Who is working on this project? Is it the same dev team that created the CB, or are new people being brought in?

The D&D Digital Studio is working on this project. Involved are some members that worked on the legacy tools and some new faces (like me).

24. If the CB is replaced by the web-tools, will a refund be offered for people who wish to cancel their subsciption?

You should discuss this directly with Customer Service.

25. Will Dark Sun support be available with the web-tools?

Yes.

26. If the CB is replaced, will the last updated version still be available for subscribers?

No.

27. How will we be notified about updates to the Web-Based tools? Will the new email system be used, or is there some other process?

The web tools will be automatically updated, so there won't be any need for user initiated actions. Notifications will be handled as usual.

28. Is this the cool thing that the VCLs hinted at before?

Part of it

29. What benefits are you hoping we will enjoy most from the Web Tools?

Cross platfom compatibility, centralized storage, better visuals and user experience, a very solid platform for future development.

30. Will characters created with the Offline Character Builder be usable by the web tools?

Yes. You can import them from the Load screen.

31. If the CB is going web based, will it still have the same filtering abilities as the Desktop version?

If by filtering you mean campaign settings, it will have the capability but not, at launch, the user interface component for changing them.

32. Will we be able to alter magical items? 

Not at launch.

33. Will we be able to add House Rule feats and  powers, or other elements?

Not at launch.

34. Will we be able to save data(characters, monsters, etc) to your servers, so we can access them from anywhere?

Yes. That's the whole point [/sblock]


----------



## the Jester (Nov 2, 2010)

Will there be any support for homebrewed stuff? Even if it's as low-level as being able to edit a power's name and stats?


----------



## malraux (Nov 2, 2010)

So iplay4e will be effectively useless.  That's a non-insignificant loss of ability.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 2, 2010)

as a mac and at work pc user I am happy.

I may be in the minority.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 2, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Will there be any support for homebrewed stuff? Even if it's as low-level as being able to edit a power's name and stats?




Looking at #32 & #33 in PaoloM's responses... it doesn't appear that at launch you'll be able to.

But the fact that he makes it a point to specify time in his answer indicates a possibility that it might at some future point.


----------



## avin (Nov 2, 2010)

Horrible news when I'm playing away from wireless.

Boo.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 2, 2010)

I like it. We just need some character sharing and I'm all set.

edit: ugh---silverlight? Looks like I'll have to keep my XP-compatibility mode version of Firefox around a while longer.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 2, 2010)

Well, funny how when I canceled my auto-renew upon WotC's first mentioning upcoming "new" online tools  I was actually thinking for a split second that I might be to unfair to automatically assume the worst possible about WotC. But now WotC once again proved that I was not.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Nov 2, 2010)

Heh, I knew they had to be cooking with silverlight, so none of this comes as a surprise to me.

However, there will undoubtedly be some problems, both real and imagined. So fasten your seat belts and return your tray tables to the upright position as we may be experiencing some turbulence.


----------



## avin (Nov 2, 2010)

Microsoft already decided go HTML5 and Wotc embraces Silverlight? 

Fantastic...


----------



## drothgery (Nov 2, 2010)

avin said:


> Microsoft already decided go HTML5 and Wotc embraces Silverlight?




WotC had a WPF Windows app. Unless they wanted to rewrite almost the whole thing from scratch (and WotC hardly had the time or money to do that), the only way to do it as a web app was in Silverlight.

Microsoft is supporting HTML5 in IE9. That doesn't mean they're abandoning Silverlight (at all; Windows Phone 7 apps are Silverlight apps).


----------



## webrunner (Nov 2, 2010)

Hmm, the selection for picking a Leader character is called "healing".. kind of a slap to the face to the can-heal-but-not-the-focus buff-and-action-granting leaders.


----------



## AnthonyRoberson (Nov 2, 2010)

Where is the chorus of apologies from the fanboys that said I was being 'paranoid' and 'jumping to conclusions'? Hmm? Nah...I didn't think so.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 2, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> Well, funny how when I canceled my auto-renew upon WotC's first mentioning upcoming "new" online tools  I was actually thinking for a split second that I might be to unfair to automatically assume the worst possible about WotC. But now WotC once again proved that I was not.




This is unfair.  WotC made a mistake in the original character builder in allowing the entire 4E rule set available for a pittance.  While it was a great deal for value seekers (like myself), it was an unsustainable model.  I think, if we are honest, we understood that the original CB model was not going to last.

The other route that CB could have gone is micro-transactions.  To get book X for the CB, you'd have to spend a certain amount.  Once purchased, you'd have it forever.  Under this model, CB could have remained a desktop application.

Either way, the changes being made to CB are done to protect WotC's intellectual property.  There is a value to the rule set and they can't continue to give it away for next to nothing.


----------



## captainspud (Nov 2, 2010)

This has been in development for 6+ months. The MS announcement was last week.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 2, 2010)

Ouch.  iplay4e just got crushed.

A shame,  I really liked using it at the table on my ipad.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 2, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Ouch.  iplay4e just got crushed.
> 
> A shame,  I really liked using it at the table on my ipad.




Once the export function returns it'll be usable again I'd think...




Also the hint at them opening up the API could open the door for some awesomeness in the future.


----------



## captainspud (Nov 2, 2010)

Not necessarily. They've only been saying that "sharing" will be worked back in-- which could be as simple as an option to send a character to another DDI account. In fact, that's a far simpler solution than building an XML exporter.

So, yeah. Pretty sure iPlay4e and similar tools won't have anything to feed off at any point in the future..

<-- still cautiously thinks this is a positive move


----------



## Kurtomatic (Nov 2, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Ouch.  iplay4e just got crushed.
> 
> A shame,  I really liked using it at the table on my ipad.



I tend to agree, but it's possible there could continue to be a space for a 3rd party software. What will really suck is: no character export (they've said this will likely come in the future), no character API, and no mobile silverlight interface.

If WotC only releases a desktop form factor for the new online app, so you can't reasonable interact with your characters via a hand-held devices, that failure could be mitigated by allowing file exports (which puts iPlay4e back in business) and/or releasing a cloud API.

WotC has limited development resources, so I do think it in their interests to make value-added spaces available to their customers. However, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Tazawa (Nov 2, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> as a mac and at work pc user I am happy.
> 
> I may be in the minority.




I'm a home mac user and work pc user as well, and I'm not as happy. I have an older, non-Intel mac that doesn't run Silverlight. It still runs everything else fine, so getting a new computer just for DDI would be hard to justify.

I do have an old PC laptop that a friend gave me that I use to run the character builder and adventure tools now. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet the minimum system requirements for Silverlight either.

I would settle for web-based DDI applications but it's a no-go if they're based on Silverlight. I guess I'll be letting my subscription expire.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 2, 2010)

As an avid user of the character builder and the monster builder this change affects me . . .   well, not at all. 

The loss of iPlay4e affects me . . . not at all.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is.  The only thing this affects are the people who wanted to get the entire 4th Ed. "crunch" library for a one month DDI subscription.  While this is unfortunate for them, I have a hard time arguing against the decision.  The CB has already cut into sales of books at my FLGS (obviously every store is different).  At my FLGS though the overwhelming sentiment is "Why would I buy the book for $30 when its already included in my DDI account?"  The books that do sell well, not surprisingly, are the more DM oriented books like Plane Above/Below, DMG2, etc.  I personally do not have a problem with WotC saying "If you want to continue to access our content, you have to pay for it."  

That being said, I will confess that it _may_ have been better to handle this as downloadable "expansions" for the CB -- of course then people would also complain about the added cost.  My guess is that next edition may be largely, if not entirely, PDF/e-Book based.

I understand that people who use iPlay4e, etc. will be affected.  Personally though, from my experience, taking cell phones, tablets, and laptops away from the table is a positive thing.  Too often, the players who use these devices spend their time playing with said devices and not playing with the rest of the table.  

The other thing to consider here too is that this might, finally, be the first step in getting a VTT going.  Having everything web/subscription based makes it easier to develop/fix things I would think (though I am not a programmer).


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 2, 2010)

So WotC are scrapping my Character Builder and offering me an online-only alternative? No, thanks. This is not making this customer happy. I'll be cancelling my DDI account today. Great work, Wizards! 

Rather, I would be cancelling if I could. If the WotC server wasn't giving "Server Error" when I try to access my account info. 

And I can see that the fanboys are already rallying to the defense of this latest madness...

Mod edit: let's not start mudslinging, no matter how disappointed you are. Thanks ~ Plane Sailing, Admin


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 2, 2010)

Tazawa said:


> I'm a home mac user and work pc user as well, and I'm not as happy. I have an older, non-Intel mac that doesn't run Silverlight. It still runs everything else fine, so getting a new computer just for DDI would be hard to justify.
> 
> I do have an old PC laptop that a friend gave me that I use to run the character builder and adventure tools now. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet the minimum system requirements for Silverlight either.
> 
> I would settle for web-based DDI applications but it's a no-go if they're based on Silverlight. I guess I'll be letting my subscription expire.




FWIW, I'm happy I no longer have to boot Windows in Parallels just to fire up the CB.  On the other hand, given WotC's track record on software development, I don't think we'll see much after this for a while.  Furthermore, I am a little peeved that they spent time and money replicating functionality in a more restrictive way.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

Soon as I saw this my auto-renewal, up in a week or so, was set off. I'll let other people play with it for a while, see what the feedback is, see how effective WoTC is at SUPPORTING THE DAMN THING and then if they keep up with support and the feedback is positive and they actually provide some support to the other tools that they've been talking about since they started, get a new sub.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 2, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> And I can see that the fanboys are already rallying to the defense of this latest madness...



Ah yes... the madness that WotC no longer is going to let people scam the system by buying a single month's subscription to DDI and gain access to the entire suite of crunch and keep it for as long as they want without paying anything further.

What are they thinking?!?


----------



## Brys (Nov 2, 2010)

I don't like this at all.  I travel alot and use CB as a standalone app where I don't have internet access (building characters is a great way to kill time on airplanes).  I would really have liked some way of being able to use CB while not being connected to the internet.  I know this would have taken much forethought and there was probably a financial decision not to support this, but a downloadable key tied to my PC that's valid for one month (or a week) at a time would have been useful.

I will not be renewing when my subscription comes due.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 2, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Ah yes... the madness that WotC no longer is going to let people scam the system by buying a single month's subscription to DDI and gain access to the entire suite of crunch and keep it for as long as they want without paying anything further.
> 
> What are they thinking?!?




Yes, I suppose that would be the fanboy way of looking at it...

I was more thinking of the madness of kicking paying customers in the groin and telling them to enjoy it.


----------



## malraux (Nov 2, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> FWIW, I'm happy I no longer have to boot Windows in Parallels just to fire up the CB.  On the other hand, given WotC's track record on software development, I don't think we'll see much after this for a while.  Furthermore, I am a little peeved that they spent time and money replicating functionality in a more restrictive way.




Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll finish the monster builder before they decide to switch platforms again.  That would be cool.

I must say that a big announcement that the CB is at best moving sideways isn't all that exciting.  I'm not a big fan of the idea of renting applications.  Running an application inside a web-browser isn't any more appealing to me than running an application inside a virtual machine.  I really dislike the idea that fairly important elements of my hobby will be reliant on the whims of a large corporation, whereas with the old CB I could easily keep the program going for as long as I keep the program installed on a machine.


----------



## Jor-El (Nov 2, 2010)

You know, I can honestly understand why they would want to move to this kind of model, I mean, the CB as it is/was is very easy to pirate, and like has been mentioned, a person can sub for one month and get everything. 

Which honestly is a bum deal for WotC. 

The only real downside to the online only aspect is when someone doesn't have access, but that's a pretty big rarity nowadays. 

I don't know. Not really a big deal either way to me. I don't see this drawing lots of new people in, or creating any real excitement though, other than those with MACs!


----------



## Ourph (Nov 2, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Ah yes... the madness that WotC no longer is going to let people scam the system by buying a single month's subscription to DDI and gain access to the entire suite of crunch and keep it for as long as they want without paying anything further.
> 
> What are they thinking?!?



Well, WotC got around $200 out of me for DDI access since 4e came out with that model. They will be getting $0 out of me with the new model. Maybe they were thinking "All of this money that's rolling in is pretty sweet!". I hope they can still say that at this time next year.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 2, 2010)

AnthonyRoberson said:


> Where is the chorus of apologies from the fanboys that said I was being 'paranoid' and 'jumping to conclusions'? Hmm? Nah...I didn't think so.



 They're too busy forgetting anything they said before to now defend WotC by explaining why it's suddenly a good thing that they did it.

Apologist on Monday: WotC would never do such a thing.
Apologist on Tuesady: Wow, about time that WotC finally did this. It was totally necessary and is so great for us customers ...



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> While it was a great deal for value seekers (like myself), it was an unsustainable model.



 Stable at ~ 40k subscribers unsustainable?


----------



## avin (Nov 2, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Ah yes... the madness that WotC no longer is going to let people scam the system by buying a single month's subscription to DDI and gain access to the entire suite of crunch and keep it for as long as they want without paying anything further.
> 
> What are they thinking?!?




As a year-subscriber I can tell you: yup, only the fanboys defending it. Paying customers as me punished because Wotc anti-piracy ideals.

There's no Internet where we play. We gonna have to change.

There's no Internet on planes and some awful wi fi hotel connections where I do prepare my games at nights while travelling for work.

This changes brings ZERO benefits to me.


----------



## malraux (Nov 2, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> I don't know. Not really a big deal either way to me. I don't see this drawing lots of new people in, or creating any real excitement though, other than those with MACs!




I'm a Mac user and this certainly doesn't excite me.  At least not in a good way.  Locking out useful functions like exporting the character file and tying ability to use the program to having an internet account strike me as not great things.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

I wonder how this will be seen as more MMOs go free like Champions.

In my opinion, WoTC needs to give away the mechanics and make the support products, like adventurers and mosnters, where they make their money.

the mechanics side gets so tied up that they have to revamp the core system every couple of years either with a '.5' or an essentials.

Forget about it. Give away the mechancis, make 'em pay for the support.

But it might not be viable for the DDI. You can't compare it to something like Pandora where they're begging you to download the fully functional app and use that. It's for a table top game that doesn't offer a lot of table top tools. Even the 'digital' magazines don't have printable counters.

It just seems such a half ass continuation of half assed ideas.


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 2, 2010)

avin said:


> As a year-subscriber I can tell you: yup, only the fanboys defending it. Paying customers as me punished because Wotc anti-piracy ideals.
> 
> There's no Internet where we play. We gonna have to change.
> 
> ...




I'm a supporter of WotC and I'm not going to be one to say that I'm canceling my subscription or that I'll never forgive them for these changes or anything like that.  But I agree that, as someone who pays annually, this change does nothing to help me, and it does have some negative impact on me (not being able to use the Character Builder on a plane, in a crappy hotel, etc.).  

It IS a blow to people who use Windows and pay continuously for DDI.  Now, if they end up with better tools down the line, then maybe I'll feel like this is a good move.  And I do appreciate that this makes the Character Builder available to Mac users (though I'm not one).  But it makes me worse off than I would have been had WotC kept updating the Classic Character Builder, even though I've done nothing wrong.

I'm guessing they did the math and decided that, if someone like me is disappointed by the change but will keep paying for DDI because they support the product in general (as I will), then what's the down side for them?  Pretty cold, but accurate.  

It just feels like a bad business practice to make your product worse for your best customers.  Maybe they decided that it had to be done to combat piracy, but making the user experience worse for good customers seems like a mistake in my opinion.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 2, 2010)

not amused about no houserule buttons...

i can say it, because i didn´t tell you they won´t make CB online only...

actually I am happy they switch to a web absed application, because now I can go to friends without a laptop and create characters wherever I want... and more important, access them wherever I want...

pdf creator as export tool works well enough for me.  I play 4e was a  neat idea, but actually I really did not use it...


----------



## HeirToPendragon (Nov 2, 2010)

*My open letter to WotC*

I posted this on their forums, but I wanted to post this here too. The CB Online announcement has forced me to leave the game. Here is my open letter to WotC.



Dear Wizards,

With this new announcement, you have made my D&D Insider subscription  pretty much worthless. I do not always have constant internet  connection nor do I feel that I should need it in order to use a service  I have rightly paid for believing it to be an offline software.

I have just canceled my online renewal subscription to D&D Insider.  I understand that you are trying to possibly prevent piracy or are  wanting to deliver content to smartphone users, but by removing the  software you are hurting people like myself who do not have a smartphone  and can't always get to the internet.

This is a disappointment, for you guys have made a really good product  with the character builder. It is very well done. But you have destroyed  it's usefulness for me and thus I have alienated me as a paying  customer.

In fact, by removing the character builder from me you have pretty much  assured that I am leaving D&D all together. I don't buy the splat  books as the character builder made them useless, and I'm not going to  start buying them as you errata the information the very month they are  printed. I am very displeased in the direction that 4e is going, and I  was once one of your biggest supporters. But every few months you show  more and more of your true colors and I am no longer happy with the  product.

The constant erratas have made my books that I do own completely  worthless, not to mention that they were overpriced and of poor quality  to begin with. The blatant fact that you do not play test anything that  comes out, something we all observed as early as the Battlerager. The  complete and total blunder with the miniatures line, consisting of  removing the miniatures game, claiming to make all future minis viewable  then pulling a 360 on that idea within six months, and let's not forget  the poor craftsmanship/paint jobs of most of the newer minis. And of  course the unnecessary additions of side products blatantly made to  increase sales, including Essentials and Gamma World. You have been  waving around your true colors for months now and this latest change has  caused me to take notice.

Thank you for the time you have given me WotC, but I can no longer to continue to support your actions.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 2, 2010)

Well, the CB is losing a lot of functionality for most users, which is unfortunate, but not really a surprise. WOTC needed to bring things in-house more to disallow the 10 a year people from downloading to 5 different people and using all the content for a pittiance. 

Also, bringing mac people online was a good idea. Lots of them out there. 

In the future, I think this will encourage WOTC to develop more tools online now that the data is safer for them.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 2, 2010)

Hey guys,

I can understand that the announcement is annoying some of you, that's OK. What is not OK is to throw around the 'fanboy' word, as it is being rude to anyone who has a different opinion to you.

If that isn't clear, please email me.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, the CB is losing a lot of functionality for most users, which is unfortunate, but not really a surprise. WOTC needed to bring things in-house more to disallow the 10 a year people from downloading to 5 different people and using all the content for a pittiance.
> 
> Also, bringing mac people online was a good idea. Lots of them out there.
> 
> In the future, I think this will encourage WOTC to develop more tools online now that the data is safer for them.




And yet wouldn't it have been better to get the iPad users on board?

One step forward, one step back.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 2, 2010)

HeirToPendragon said:


> In fact, by removing the character builder from me you have pretty much  assured that I am leaving D&D all together.




I'm not sure that I understand your rationale here - even if you never buy anything from WotC again for the reasons you give, why not continue to use your current investment in rules, adventures, campaigns etc? There isn't anything that stops your existing stuff being great for running fun games for years to come - it's what we all did in the pre-internet days anyway!

So I'm not entirely sure that I understand your rationalisation?

Cheers


----------



## thewok (Nov 2, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> They're too busy forgetting anything they said before to now defend WotC by explaining why it's suddenly a good thing that they did it.
> 
> Apologist on Monday: WotC would never do such a thing.
> Apologist on Tuesady: Wow, about time that WotC finally did this. It was totally necessary and is so great for us customers ...?



This "fanboy" "apologist" always has believed that the CB should be online-only.  Giving people permanent access to material they didn't purchase was likely an unintended drawback to the builder, and it made horrible business sense.

DDI is a companion to the books--not a replacement.  People forgot that.  They told people _*on WotC's own forums*_ to buy a couple of books, then get a month of DDI to get all the data.  It was foolish to think Wizards wouldn't respond.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Nov 2, 2010)

*An open letter to WoTC*

To whom it may concern at Wizards of the Coast:
I was among the very first subscribers to DDI, and as a person who gets his players to use his copy of character builder to make their guys in a role-playing space void of internet access, I am extremely disappointed. 

I have been putting up with a lot of fumbles from WoTCs customer service lately. I USED to buy PDFs so my players could build their guys easily; WotC took that away from me. I USED to pay for my players to build characters when we play, WoTC took that away from me. I'm just thankful WoTC can't break into my house and take my books away, because I'm sure they want to do that to me too.

As a person who has purchased THOUSANDS of dollars of books from WoTC, who payed HUNDREDS, if not more THOUSANDS of dollars on WoTCs PDFs while they were still available. As a person who DIDN'T ask for a refund by choice when DDI updates were missed. Not to mention the potential TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars I’ve spent buying Magic: The gathering.

Not only that, but throughout my years of loyalty to you I have also taught HUNDREDS of people how to play your games, and have brought HUNDREDS more in as fellow consumers of your products.

 I’ve had enough.

I never once complained when a new edition or “edition update” came out just a year or two after the most recent edition came out. I never complained when it seemed like the newer books were needed in order to have a balanced game. I never complained about the printer quality, I never complained about the prices, and I never complained about the directions WoTC chose to go before.

I’m done. 

This has finally been the straw that broke this camel’s back. WoTC, you have just lost an extremely loyal and valuable customer. 

I hope your future endeavours work well for you, and I still hope you succeed, you’re just going to have to do it without me.

Sincerely
Lord Xtheth


----------



## drothgery (Nov 2, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> And yet wouldn't it have been better to get the iPad users on board?




Turning a .NET WPF Windows app into a Silverlight app is a much, much smaller development effort than turning it into a pure web app.


----------



## AndrewDB (Nov 2, 2010)

Lord Xtheth said:


> a person who has purchased THOUSANDS of dollars of books from WoTC, who payed HUNDREDS, if not more THOUSANDS of dollars on WoTCs PDFs while they were still available. Not to mention the potential TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars I’ve spent buying Magic: The gathering.




What's the exchange rate where you live? I would love to know how much you spent in USD.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

drothgery said:


> Turning a .NET WPF Windows app into a Silverlight app is a much, much smaller development effort than turning it into a pure web app.




You'll notice I didn't ask about the development effort, but the size of the audience. 

Then again, there's another old saying. In For a Penny, In For A Pound.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 2, 2010)

HeirToPendragon said:


> And of  course the unnecessary additions of side products blatantly made to  increase sales, including Essentials and Gamma World.




Dude, you almost made me piss myself!  Hilarious...

How dare a company make new products to keep its customers interested and to turn a profit!  First MicroSoft (really, what was so wrong with MS-DOS that we needed to switch to a GUI?) now this!


----------



## Scribble (Nov 2, 2010)

OnlineDM said:


> I'm guessing they did the math and decided that, if someone like me is disappointed by the change but will keep paying for DDI because they support the product in general (as I will), then what's the down side for them?  Pretty cold, but accurate.
> 
> It just feels like a bad business practice to make your product worse for your best customers.  Maybe they decided that it had to be done to combat piracy, but making the user experience worse for good customers seems like a mistake in my opinion.




Eh...

It's only bad business practice if not making the product "worse" was good business sense. 

What I mean is: 

No support for Mac users was bad business sense.

Essentially letting people pay 10.00 a year to download all of the released rules  was bad business sense (and probably actively pulled away from book sales.)

Delivering it in a format that was easily pirated was bad business sense.


So... with one swoop they can offer support to more people, return the DDI to more of a set of tools designed to support the game (as opposed to replace the hard back books at a lower cost) and help protect themselves against pirate torrents of the CB updates going out.

I'm sure there will be some people who quit subscribing and playing D&D altogether out of spite... But my sense is this will be far offset by people who:

Buy a subscription now that they can use it on their mac

Change to a year long subscription now that it no longer makes better sense to just wait and subscribe every few months


In a way I'm not sure if I consider it punishing their best customers, as opposed to punishing those who took advantage of an unintentional "good deal."

Their best customers probably already had a year long subscription to begin with.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 2, 2010)

Wizards of the Coast no longer had my money, I am not renewing my DDI subscription for the simple reason that it no longer does the job I want it to. I have enough 4E, so that is that.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Nov 2, 2010)

AndrewDB said:


> What's the exchange rate where you live? I would love to know how much you spent in USD.



 Lately our dollar has been good, we're at about 0.98USD
During the 3.x run, our dollar was fluctuating between 0.75-0.90USD
When the AD&D 2E stuff was arround, I think we were at 0.80ish

This is all off the top of my head, so probably not the best quotes. A good guess would be I payed an average of $1.25CAD per $1USD


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 2, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> And yet wouldn't it have been better to get the iPad users on board?
> 
> One step forward, one step back.




How is WOTC to blame for the limitations Jobs imposed on his own product?


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Nov 2, 2010)

avin said:


> Horrible news when I'm playing away from wireless.
> 
> Boo.




Thats what a printer is for.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 2, 2010)

thewok said:


> This "fanboy" "apologist" always has believed that the CB should be online-only.  Giving people permanent access to material they didn't purchase was likely an unintended drawback to the builder, and it made horrible business sense.
> 
> DDI is a companion to the books--not a replacement.  People forgot that.  They told people _*on WotC's own forums*_ to buy a couple of books, then get a month of DDI to get all the data.  It was foolish to think Wizards wouldn't respond.




In your eagerness to defend this, you are forgetting something. People pay for DDI.

Getting regular money from subscribers makes excellent bsuiness sense.

Delivering on your promises to annual subscribers makes even better business sense. If your care about your customers, that is.

But I suppose you just think me foolish...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> How is WOTC to blame for the limitations Jobs imposed on his own product?




Uh, you go with HTML5? Unless iPad doesn't launch an actual internet explorer at all and uses a purely Apple based web?

What a strange question.

"Jobs has imposed al imitation!"

"But aren't we imposing a similiar limitation using a priority based software like Silverlight?"

"Shoot that man!"


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> Thats what a printer is for.




Wow. 

I didn't realize that the DDI subscription came with paper, printer, and most expensive of all, ink.

Cause, you know, I don't print my character know when I bring it up on the laptop at Black Sun Games and if WoTC wants me to incure additional expensive that's something they're paying for right.

Right?


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> In a way I'm not sure if I consider it punishing their best customers, as opposed to punishing those who took advantage of an unintentional "good deal."
> 
> Their best customers probably already had a year long subscription to begin with.




Why are you assuming it was "unintentional"? You don't seem to credit WotC leadership with much intelligence. Of course they realised that some people would jump in and out. So what? They should focus on keeping happy those customers willing to pay full price and not try to punish those less willing.

And I find it rather amusing that you don't consider this move to be punishing to their best customers, though you define their best customers as those with year long subscriptions. I've had year long subscriptions from day 1 and I feel very much punished by this.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 2, 2010)

pdf creator... google for it...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 2, 2010)

I am more concerned about not beeing able to access the dnd homepage...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 2, 2010)

I am neither suprised, or particularly annoyed by this turn of events. I do not require access to "the cloud" to enjoy tabletop roleplaying games. 

I'm sure many players will come to discover this soon enough for themselves.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 2, 2010)

AnthonyRoberson said:


> Where is the chorus of apologies from the fanboys that said I was being 'paranoid' and 'jumping to conclusions'? Hmm? Nah...I didn't think so.



I sorry. I don't remember ever saying your were paranoid, or jumping to conclusions, but hey, if an apology makes you feel better, then I'm sorry.

Maybe I was drunk posting....


----------



## CAFRedblade (Nov 2, 2010)

Definitely mixed feelings on this.  Having a web version of the character builder is a nice option for those on other systems (Mac's, and Linux with Moonlight)  This will definitely cut down on people signing up to download updates on a yearly schedule.  And reduce, and/or make piracy difficult.  All good things.  I just don't think this is the right way to go about it.  

Unfortunately, I prefer an actual program so I can create characters anywhere on either my home PC or my laptop.  I also can't believe in the current lack of exporting characters.  I wouldn't mind the cloud synching, as long as there were copies on the pc you were using.  Of course this comes back to me wanting a fully installed program..

As a DM I want a copy of my PC's characters for review, and it's been easy up until now to request a copy of the character file from them for that purpose.  
Yes they could give me a PDF copy(with a PDF printer), that I could replicate their character, but I feel that is a needless duplication effort.  

All I can think of, is that there will be a more than likely chance that the Monster builder will be headed in this direction.  Maybe even for the Magazines as well.  

I've been a annual subscriber since nearly the beginning ( when the tools first came out.)  And now feel like I'm being punished for being a loyal customer.  Simply because they are no longer providing a product I feel comfortable using.  My sub is coming up, and I'm trying to remove the Auto-Renew, but the system is currently overloaded.  So I'm not the only one.  

DRM is best applied when no one notices. The current version of Steam comes to mind.  But it offers a fully functional offline mode(when games are not online only) This doesn't cut it for me..

I'll keep my eyes open, and re-evaluate as things progress.  I'll speak with my dollars, and if enough people of like minds do the same, perhaps it will be enough to convince Wizards that this isn't quite the direction they should be headed.

I think that's enough...


----------



## darjr (Nov 2, 2010)

> 13. If it does replace the CB, will it be able to track resources, such as Hit Points, Healing Surges, etc, similar to iPlay4e.com?
> 
> The new Character Builder replaces the old one (or, as we call it here, Character Builder Classic) in functionality. The old one didn't track anything at play time, so the new one doesn't either.




I've checked that the current CB does indeed track things during game play. I think this statement is just incorrect.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 2, 2010)

As I understand it from some of the comments made in this thread, the new CB wont work on an iPad. Can anyone who knows something about these things clarify if it is impossible or will require WotC to make an app or maybe just anyone to make an app?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 2, 2010)

Ok, I have never worked with Silverlight (WinApps all the time) but as far as I know Silverlinght allows the use of isolated storage to run applications in an offline mode (hoping some Silverlight expert could comment on this).
So my question is this, if the Silverlight CB allowed one to store copies of created characters locally and to view and print these characters offline would more people be happier about the tools. 
I think I would, though I would also like to export to an XML format also. Hmm, thinking about it, if they exported the compete data into an XML format I could create my own offline viewer.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 3, 2010)

Lord Xtheth said:


> This has finally been the straw that broke this camel’s back. WoTC, you have just lost an extremely loyal and valuable customer.




GQLLFM...  Oh wait, that doesn't quite make sense here.  Then again, people did compare 4e to WoW when it came out, so maybe it does make sense...  Hmmm...


----------



## MerricB (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Uh, you go with HTML5? Unless iPad doesn't launch an actual internet explorer at all and uses a purely Apple based web?




The problem is this: HTML5 isn't ready yet. IE9 will support a lot of it, but that's still in beta. You can't program for today based on something that _might_ be available tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the two major internet-application formats, Flash and Silverlight (although I might be reaching with calling Silverlight major) exist... and both don't work on iPad due to a decision by Apple.

Cheers!


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 3, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> Thats what a printer is for.




Or, you know, actual books.  The kind you can find in a Barns and Noble or on Amazon...


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 3, 2010)

CAFRedblade said:


> My sub is coming up, and I'm trying to remove the Auto-Renew, but the system is currently overloaded. So I'm not the only one.




I wonder how many customers WotC will lose.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 3, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> Or, you know, actual books. The kind you can find in a Barns and Noble or on Amazon...




So what kind of endorsement for online products is "use books"?


----------



## thewok (Nov 3, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> As I understand it from some of the comments made in this thread, the new CB wont work on an iPad. Can anyone who knows something about these things clarify if it is impossible or will require WotC to make an app or maybe just anyone to make an app?



The iOS used in ipads, iphones and newer ipods does not have support for Silverlight.  You'll need Windows or the full MacOS (or Linux?) to get a Silverlight plugin for a browser.

The new CB won't have an export function at release, so newer characters made with it won't be usable with iplay4e.  The Export function, however, is set for a release in an update, though it hasn't been said if the format of the files will be the same as they are now.

The funny thing I'm seeing is all the people who are saying that the new CB is going to be bad because it has no support for homebrew stuff.  But the current CB doesn't either.  Sure, you can add a text line, but the "Description" field doesn't show up anywhere in the builder or on the sheet, and these custom elements don't interact with the sheet, so you have to write them in anyway.  I'm not seeing this as a valid complaint, except as to say that real support for homebrew elements should have been in the CB two years ago.  But as a comparison?  I don't buy it.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2010)

As a PC user who's kept a subscription active for a few years, and loves the Character and Monster Builders, I see this as a hindrance for me.

I have an 8-month-old, and prepare for most of my games during lunch at work.  Offline tools are super-helpful given work's firewall restrictions.

I am glad my sub doesn't expire until late in the month so I can check it out, but I'm not a very happy customer right at this moment.

-O


----------



## Shazman (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Ah yes... the madness that WotC no longer is going to let people scam the system by buying a single month's subscription to DDI and gain access to the entire suite of crunch and keep it for as long as they want without paying anything further.
> 
> What are they thinking?!?




Yeah, people are scamming the system by using it the way it is obviously intended to be used.  For shame!  Come on people. WotC knew that people could download tons of content for a one month subscription.  They had to know this.  It was practically a selling point for the CB.  They could have made you pay for each months' updates separately, but they didn't.  People bought subscriptions and updated their CB.  They paid for a service and received the service.  No scamming anywhere to be seen.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Wow.
> 
> I didn't realize that the DDI subscription came with paper, printer, and most expensive of all, ink.
> 
> ...




I note that you've been a member since '02.  I assume you sat around with RPG books for six years just wishing you could play but for the overwhelming cost of ink and paper.

Seriously though, I lose zero functionality with this change.  When I went to play, I hit print on the character sheet.  One of my players, uses a sheet of notebook paper and a pencil.  I'm pretty sure he isn't worried about the roughly 2 cents it costs him.

That being said, I understand the complaint for those who travel a lot and take their laptops with them and like to play around with the CB.  That is a legitimate concern.  However, I also think that this is a pretty small percentage of the actual usage of the CB.  To me, this smells a lot more like the "Oh my god, WotC created a new edition and its not the exact same as my favorite edition!" arguments.  

The only "lack of functionality" this really creates is for those who only want to play with their laptop running and are not able to play in an area with internet.  I still think this is a pretty small segment, especially considering how long D&D has been around.  Additionally, while I realize everyone's mileage is different, pulling players away from their laptops, iPads, phones, etc. is not particularly bad since those items _in my experience_ only tend to distract people at the table.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 3, 2010)

MerricB said:


> The problem is this: HTML5 isn't ready yet. IE9 will support a lot of it, but that's still in beta. You can't program for today based on something that _might_ be available tomorrow.
> 
> Meanwhile, the two major internet-application formats, Flash and Silverlight (although I might be reaching with calling Silverlight major) exist... and both don't work on iPad due to a decision by Apple.
> 
> Cheers!




Yeah; Microsoft is quite willing to make a Silverlight plugin for iOS (they've done so for MacOS).


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 3, 2010)

Given that my players did all play with Laptops, I'm terribly disappointed with this announcement, especially given that the current CB could track everything as you played.  

I'm not sure if I'm gonna keep my DDI sub, if I do it will only be for the compendium, which cuts down on my book carrying.  I WILL advise the rest of my players to stop paying for their DDI, and we will just freeze things at the classic CB (so no essentials, no Dark Sun).

I'm also going to guess the bugs in Classic CB will never be fixed.  Awesome.

This is the close to the worst news I could have received about the DDI.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2010)

Well it looks like this is the end of the road for my DDI account. It's still not coming due for a few months now, but I don't expect to renew it at this point.

I don't have free and open access to the web during the day: my employer doesn't mind if I use the CB over lunch or on a break, but no WotC website (or EnWorld for that matter) during the day. That and the fact that my FLGS where I play at doesn't have wifi.

I love the character builder, it's a killer app for 4E that puts it (in my opinion) far ahead of anyone else. The move to get people who aren't subscribing now back into the fold will largely fail, because people who share their character builder accounts and downloads will just do the same thing with this. I suppose it will get the HUGE Mac market who doesn't already run Windows to do something, so I hope it's worth it.

Time to build my own character app, methinks...or find another alternative.

I just have to say, and I don't say this lightly, that this is the absolute worst decision coming from WotC in years: take the *one *app that people, by and large, really liked (it had some problems, I'll grant you) and dump it with no real warning.

Sigh.

Hey but if you're a Mac user, bravo for you!

--Steve


----------



## jodyjohnson (Nov 3, 2010)

Cancelling sub, burning books, killing current group... then playing 1st ed AD&D in the big house with the homies from high school.*

Maybe it would be a bigger deal if most of the group weren't already playing WoW, surfing the web, watching ESPN3 or monitoring Farmville on Facebook while we are playing.  It might even cut down on the extracurriculars.

* Just a TPK.


----------



## buddhafrog (Nov 3, 2010)

*I am the guilty party*

I am the guilty party.

I downloaded a pirated copy of DDI, with several pirated updates.  As a player who hadn't played for 25 years but wanted to return to the hobby, I wasn't going to invest hundreds of $$$ into the hobby without knowing if it would be a good investment.  At that time, I didn't know that I could pay for only one month and keep the info - I would've done that.

*Both of these actions are what WotC are trying to avoid.  I understand this and certainly am not bitter*.  Yes, I "stole" their products.  However, b/c I had easy access to the game, I have ended up spending many hundreds in other D&D products this year:


maybe $400 in minis
Eberron 4e book - b/c it's cool and I wanted the feeling of flipping through a book like the old days
Essentials DM tool kit (to give to my son)
Essentials Compendium
Essentials Monster Kit (to share with my son)
lots of dungeon tiles sets
plus tons of non D&D, but hobby related products like dice, maps, etc.

I probably would have bought almost none of these if I didn't have easy access to DDI -- I was strongly considering playing one of the re-skinned versions AD&D.  In this past year, I have introduced about 30 kids to D&D 4e.  I'm positive many will continue in this hobby and spend much money over the years.

What does this all mean?  In general, I think that when a company makes entry into a hobby easy and finds additional ways to create profit, that company is heading in the right direction.  Unfortunately RPG's might be slightly different b/c such a small % of profit is from new users.  I do think WotC is doing some things to try to change this, and I really hope they succeed.

There have been a few EnWorld threads asking whether one should get a DDI subscription.  I've recommended to some of them to get a one month DDI subscription b/c the CB is so useful, and then they can cancel and keep what they've downloaded.  (I recommend everyone does this now before the switchover to web-based).  This isn't "cheating" - there are tons of people who want to play D&D but can't afford the cost of monthly subscriptions.  Some folks want all the info as soon as its available (including errata).  Others are willing to pay far less but still get the bulk of info and allow them to play.  As a company, a goal would be to make your product good enough that when these one-monthers have enough money, they will put their disposable income into your products (DDI or otherwise).  I now use the DDI so much that I was going to get my first official subscription and keep it going.  With the new info, I won't be doing that of course.  I also won't be subscribing to the new web-based version -- I'll be content to keep what I have in my current DDI version and simply play with that.  For me, I have enough 4e material to play the game I want.  If WotC continues to make good enough products, this might change - but not for now.

I'm a D&D fanboy - I love it.  There are good reasons for WotC to go this route, but on the other hand it does hinder people like myself from getting into the hobby - people who simply won't start playing if they know they'll have to keep a monthly subscription to generally make it possible.


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

*So I've figured it out ...*

Remember a couple of years ago, when people would complain bitterly about the new edition and a common response went something like "Wizards won't send the book police to take your old books"?

In the pure online subscription based model, they can take our books.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

I will continue to subscribe to DDI regardless of platform for one simple reason...

THE CHARACTER BUILDER IS JUST TOO DAMN USEFUL.

You know what?  That's the long and the short of it.  Designing characters with the program is worth ANY inconvenience WotC might throw up.

I'm not going to cancel my subscription in order to "prove some point", or to try and let WotC know that they've "lost a customer" or any other of that nonsense.  I play 4E weekly.  I like making it easier on myself.  And designing/leveling characters using the CB on a web-only platform is STILL EASIER than quitting DDI over some perceived slight and then trying to do all this work using just the books.

So basically... a WotC rep could come over to my house each and every month and _doofsmack_ me in the back of the head and I'd *STILL* pay for DDI, because THEIR PRODUCT IS JUST THAT GOOD AND I'M WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a number of you who are proclaiming that you're "done"... will discover in three months time _without_ having a Character Builder to use and trying to do everything by hand that... you know what?  Maybe having it online-only really isn't such a big deal after all.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> In the pure online subscription based model, they can take our books.



No they can't.  Because they're not your books.  They're the library, and you're paying a monthly fee to come in and photocopy the information inside their copies of the books to use on your homework projects.

Now you can still go out and buy _your own_ copies of the books if you want... but if you want to go to the one central place where all the books are stored within easy reach and can pull the info out and rearrange it a lot faster than you could at home... you just have to pay your monthly subscription for the right to do so.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a number of you who are proclaiming that you're "done"... will discover in three months time _without_ having a Character Builder to use and trying to do everything by hand that... you know what?  Maybe having it online-only really isn't such a big deal after all.



Oh, I'll freely admit that I would hate to play 4e without the Character Builder. But the content in the builder at this time is pretty impressive and I think I will be quite content to download the latest version sometime before Nov 16th and just use that as my character generation software from now on. I'm not quitting on DDI out of spite or to "send a message", I just prefer not to rent my RPG products. If WotC ever decide to offer the CB with updates as an offline app again, I will gladly start giving them my money once more.


----------



## possum (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> Remember a couple of years ago, when people would complain bitterly about the new edition and a common response went something like "Wizards won't send the book police to take your old books"?
> 
> In the pure online subscription based model, they can take our books.




Exactly.  When 5th Edition eventually comes out, so does the now online-only character builder and other tools.  Which, if someone doesn't pay attention, can actually kill 4e games of people who don't want to switch.  Really, even if they do, paper can be easily destroyed, either by a careless hand bumping into a drink or by simply being misplaced.  That's why I don't like this move.


----------



## blalien (Nov 3, 2010)

This move doesn't bother me as long as Wizards is absolutely dedicated to getting updates done on time.  Every month they miss an update, I will be on their ass for a refund.

And besides, if you're not using Dark Sun or Essentials, you can keep using the program at least until, like, April.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

Ourph said:


> ...I just prefer not to rent my RPG products. If WotC ever decide to offer the CB with updates as an offline app again, I will gladly start giving them my money once more.




While I understand what you're saying here... I just have to admit that in this day and age... what you're advocating seems weird to me.  I mean, I pay monthly subscriptions to get cable tv... to use Tivo... to use my cellphone... to play WoW... to get electricity into my home... to get fresh water into my home... etc. etc.  And in all these cases... if I don't pay for them each month, then they get shut off and I can't use them.  It's a fairly standard service/payment system.  So why would I possibly think that something like DDI would be at all different from that?

Obviously you don't see it the same way, which is cool... but honestly I just really can't wrap my mind around it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> I've checked that the current CB does indeed track things during game play. I think this statement is just incorrect.




The character sheet viewer is actually a separate application. If the export function (when implemented) is in the same format, you should be able to use it offline to track your character.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

possum said:


> Exactly.  When 5th Edition eventually comes out, so does the now online-only character builder and other tools.  Which, if someone doesn't pay attention, can actually kill 4e games of people who don't want to switch.  Really, even if they do, paper can be easily destroyed, either by a careless hand bumping into a drink or by simply being misplaced.  That's why I don't like this move.




Let me get this straight... you don't like the change of a downloadable offline Character Builder to an online web-based one... because of the _chance_ that 5th Edition will come out and WotC will completely replace the 4E CB with a 5E one (thereby eliminating all 4E info from the system), and then in addition just by happenstance that player also then manages to somehow _lose or destroy_ all his hard copy books too... then that player has no way of playing 4E anymore because he's now lost all the items that have 4E rules in them.

You know... I really don't think the Wizards Insider staff was really considering the feelings of _that_ person when they made their decision.  And quite frankly... I'm GLAD FOR THAT.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

Uh... how much money was I paying WoTC for the DDI in '02? Oh right, nothing. Yeah, a little different than me going, "Gee WoTC, you owes me paper." When I'm paying for a service and it's 'upgraded', I don't expect to lose functionality that I currently have. 

As a yearly subscriber, I paid for a service.  And for years received it. Even though many of the features initially touted were vapor ware and its still not doing everything it could do, even though some of those things, like full scale maps, appear to be VERY easy.

I'm done with it. 

WoTC inability to do things in a timely fashion, communicate with its costumers in an honest fashion, etc..., have at least temporarily, lost me as a customer. I'll check in on it in a few months, see what everyone thinks, see if the place I game ever gets internet access, etc..

Hell, maybe it'll work on Android and I can use my cell phone right? Because despite how popular the iPad is, Android too is very popular and if WoTC is 'aiming' for the future, they've got a few targets to hit.



Riastlin said:


> I note that you've been a member since '02.  I assume you sat around with RPG books for six years just wishing you could play but for the overwhelming cost of ink and paper.
> 
> Seriously though, I lose zero functionality with this change.  When I went to play, I hit print on the character sheet.  One of my players, uses a sheet of notebook paper and a pencil.  I'm pretty sure he isn't worried about the roughly 2 cents it costs him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON, I don't think the people who are cancelling are "trying to prove a point". It's because the service doesn't give us what we want anymore.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> No they can't.  Because they're not your books.  They're the library, and you're paying a monthly fee to come in and photocopy the information inside their copies of the books to use on your homework projects.
> 
> Now you can still go out and buy _your own_ copies of the books if you want... but if you want to go to the one central place where all the books are stored within easy reach and can pull the info out and rearrange it a lot faster than you could at home... you just have to pay your monthly subscription for the right to do so.




Suffice it to say then, that the library may change books and titles. Remember those people who bought, legally PDFs and were told they could download them a certain number of times?

Yeah, library my ass. 

And hey, I'm sure it's already been answered, but what happens to the IP of people when they create something on the thing eh? I recall that on Gleemax that didn't go down quite as well as WoTC thought it would...


----------



## Ahrimon (Nov 3, 2010)

As long as they add an export function fairly soon I'll be ok with it.  As it is, the idea that they have my characters and I loose access to them when my subscription runs out is completely wrong in my book.

A prefered solution would be an export function and then an offline character reader/player.  I don't want to export my characters as PDF though.  A data export so the character is usable in things like iPlay4e is what I want.  I don't care if WotC makes the app or a 3rd party does it.  I want to embrace the digital age dagnabit.

The perfect solution would be to seperate character access from the builder.  So that if for some reason my subscription expires I still have view/export capabilities for the characters I've made.  Even if I can't level them up or create new.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I'll check in on it in a few months, see what everyone thinks, see if the place I game ever gets internet access, etc..
> 
> Hell, maybe it'll work on Android and I can use my cell phone right? Because despite how popular the iPad is, Android too is very popular and if WoTC is 'aiming' for the future, they've got a few targets to hit.




Out of curiosity... what exactly is the reason why you don't like to print copies of your character and bring them with you when you play?  I mean, you obviously have access to the internet because you download the CB and its updates... so why do you need to play in a place that has internet access or an Android app (and presumably thus allowing you to read your character directly off the CB instead of a printed sheet of paper?)


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a number of you who are proclaiming that you're "done"... will discover in three months time _without_ having a Character Builder to use and trying to do everything by hand that... you know what?  Maybe having it online-only really isn't such a big deal after all.



This is a very good point, as it is very hard to create a character with the full suite of options without using the builder. On the other hand, it is possible to do something to mitigate this with a fair bit of work, which I've started on.

For me, I can't use the new character builder for the majority of the time that I have been using it, so there's not much reason to keep the DDI subscription for me any longer.

I do have some hope, however, that this will prove to be such a monumentally bad decision that some offline system will come to light, or perhaps the old builder will see some updates. We'll have to see, I suppose. I don't expect that, however.

But for me at least, off-line is a big deal, since I don't have the ability to use it online when I play.


----------



## malraux (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> While I understand what you're saying here... I just have to admit that in this day and age... what you're advocating seems weird to me.  I mean, I pay monthly subscriptions to get cable tv... to use Tivo... to use my cellphone... to play WoW... to get electricity into my home... to get fresh water into my home... etc. etc.  And in all these cases... if I don't pay for them each month, then they get shut off and I can't use them.  It's a fairly standard service/payment system.  So why would I possibly think that something like DDI would be at all different from that?
> 
> Obviously you don't see it the same way, which is cool... but honestly I just really can't wrap my mind around it.




There's a big difference between services and products.  Prior to this point, the CB was more or less on a product model, with a subscription service for updates.  Now it is transitioning from that to a purely service model.  As a consumer, I really dislike that sort of thing.  Some things are better to own than to rent.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Out of curiosity... what exactly is the reason why you don't like to print copies of your character and bring them with you when you play?  I mean, you obviously have access to the internet because you download the CB and its updates... so why do you need to play in a place that has internet access or an Android app (and presumably thus allowing you to read your character directly off the CB instead of a printed sheet of paper?)




I just wanted to reply to this, since it's been asked a lot of times by folks. The character builder is by far the best way to get lists of everything for use in a 4E game. Want to know what level 13 magic weapons are there that can be made as a dagger? You can get a list in seconds.

Want to know EVERY feat your character can take next level? The character builder.

Want a list of every level three ritual? You get the idea.

Simply put, the character builder does a much better job of being the compendium than the compendium does.

--Steve


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 3, 2010)

Hmm...

Let's do some good old fashioned organization...

THE GOOD

 *It's in The Cloud! That's like being made of magic!*: Any computer anywhere on earth can grab a D&D character. I could be squatting in a cybercafe in Uganda, or using a jailbroken LINUX-box cell phone, or viewing it while Skynet kills us all. That's pretty cool. That makes it very portable, and absolves all sorts of "can copy it x times" problems. This includes the "cross-compatibility" point. 
 *"We're working constantly to make it better."*: This means any big disasters can be addressed pretty quickly, and we're still getting new stuff.
 *Easy Updates*: Web-Based = dynamic, rapid, easily accommodated updates, all of which might happen now more than 1/month! 

THE BAD

 *It's online-only! I need to be connected to make a character!*: This sucks hard for anyone whose internet is intermittent, blocked, or otherwise hassled. However, for normal character use, there's still print-to-PDF, and there's talk of more (perhaps XML exporting). It's not ideal, but unless you *need* the CB at your tables operational in order to make a character directly at your table, you won't be hurt too much. And if you do, then you are more than within your rights to stop your subscription. 
 *They can take...our...books...!*: This is true, and, for me, is the bigger concern. The DDI has already almost invalidated 3rd party content, and now, indeed, they will be literally able to stop you from using things that they don't want you to use (you might see this circa 5e's launch in, say, 5 years). It's not an immediate concern, but it's a bit unfortunate. You need to remember, every time you are paying that you are _renting_ this content. This isn't a purchase. It's a loan. It's like you paid to go to the library. If that means it's not worth it for you, you shouldn't pay for it.  
 *Silverlight? iPad? Mobile?*: Being web-based gains a bit of cross-platform compatibility, but tethering it to Silverlight does no favors to the platforms that can't make use of it, and it's not very forward-thinking. 

THE RABID FOAMING INSANITY

 *WotC was right to stick it to those mooches!*: The issue of piracy reaches above, beyond, and through this, but piracy was not mentioned once by a WotC employee. That doesn't mean that isn't part of the reason, but it does mean they think that it stands on its own without that reason. Sharing and an API and exporting are all being looked into. The books will continue to be heavily pirated. By what's been said, mooches weren't a problem. Don't give WotC props for doing something to counteract a problem that, as far as word from the Coast is concerned, exists _entirely in your own head_. 
 *WotC owes me for everything I've done for them!*: Loyalty, shmoyalty. Companies are in the business of profit, and if you don't like the direction they're seeking that in, don't patronize the company. You have every right to withdraw your support, and you even SHOULD, if it is a big deal for you, but please don't act like they shot your puppy. They would shoot every single puppy you've ever loved if there was $5 in it for them. They are a company, not a daddy. 

I think it'll still be worth it for me to be a DDI subscriber. Tentatively. But that's a decision that's up to each person, and I respect that not everyone will think that it will be worth it. If PDF printing isn't enough for you and WotC dragging its feet on sharing, exporting, and other "nurture the gaming group" stuff is a deal-breaker for you, that's entirely fair. 

But please keep in mind:

This doesn't appear to be about piracy/"mooching." So don't get all excited for WotC killing off nonpaying customers (who may have been shelling out in many other ways). From what they've said, we can't even imagine that nonpaying customers were even a problem on their radar...or at least that it's less of a concern than getting mac users on board.

This also isn't some big violation of your trust. If you feel that it is, you perhaps have too much invested in the mercenary creators of a make-believe elf game.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Suffice it to say then, that the library may change books and titles. Remember those people who bought, legally PDFs and were told they could download them a certain number of times?
> 
> Yeah, library my ass.




Hey, if you want to believe that by paying for one month of DDI access that you or anyone else have now "bought" the crunch of all the D&D books _as if_ you had bought the books themselves... more power to ya.  It's not true... but you can believe it if you want to.



JoeGKushner said:


> And hey, I'm sure it's already been answered, but what happens to the IP of people when they create something on the thing eh? I recall that on Gleemax that didn't go down quite as well as WoTC thought it would...




Probably the same as all the characters designed for any online game I would imagine.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Out of curiosity... what exactly is the reason why you don't like to print copies of your character and bring them with you when you play?  I mean, you obviously have access to the internet because you download the CB and its updates... so why do you need to play in a place that has internet access or an Android app (and presumably thus allowing you to read your character directly off the CB instead of a printed sheet of paper?)




Ink is expensive?

the character sheets look like ass?

Ever since I've been subbing to the DDI, I've never printed out a character sheet and run it off the laptop?

WoTC owes me personally nothing.

I owe WoTC personally... yeah, nothing.

Hell WoTC, put your money where your mouth is and sponsor wif-fi at the premier level game stores. Put some goodwill gestures out there as opposed to pretending to be masters of the hidden and secret and looking like you've been meaning to bone people over the DDI updates for at least two months eh?


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 3, 2010)

What about simple things like...Internet speed for instance? I know Downunder we're seriously lagging behind. Classic CB may be bugged but it's on your PC and the update only comes when it comes, if many people are on the new CB and it's constantly being updates...how's that going to work out?


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

http://images.community.wizards.com...ns/large/7bd3a6d56dc25b39629e268cad740f30.png

Does this mean I can only use one campaign setting at a time? I've asked the question on the WotC boards but have not heard a response back.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Hey, if you want to believe that by paying for one month of DDI access that you or anyone else have now "bought" the crunch of all the D&D books _as if_ you had bought the books themselves... more power to ya.  It's not true... but you can believe it if you want to.




Please explain to me how up to this point that was NOT TRUE. Seriously, explain it to me.




DEFCON 1 said:


> Probably the same as all the characters designed for any online game I would imagine.




Yes, because crappy decesions by one company should be followed by another! Brilliance! Nice way to dance around the question amigo as opposed to going either, "I don't know because they haven't said," or "They'll keep it." Which is what I'm betting on.


----------



## possum (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Let me get this straight... you don't like the change of a downloadable offline Character Builder to an online web-based one... because of the _chance_ that 5th Edition will come out and WotC will completely replace the 4E CB with a 5E one (thereby eliminating all 4E info from the system), and then in addition just by happenstance that player also then manages to somehow _lose or destroy_ all his hard copy books too... then that player has no way of playing 4E anymore because he's now lost all the items that have 4E rules in them.
> 
> You know... I really don't think the Wizards Insider staff was really considering the feelings of _that_ person when they made their decision.  And quite frankly... I'm GLAD FOR THAT.




First off, 5th Edition will come out one day, most likely by WotC/Hasbro.  There is no doubt in my mind that it will, whether it be next year or five years from now.  And, WotC's actions in the past concerning the handling of 3rd Edition stuff after the change over to 4th leads me to believe that support for the 4E online tools will be completely unsupported following the release.

When I said that paper can be destroyed I meant character sheets, not actual books.  I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer on that point.  I still have all of my books that I've bought from the previous editions, as well as a ready-to-print character sheet folder on my computer with 47 different sheets in it.  Obviously, I can play any game I want to.

With 4th Edition, the trend seems to be geared towards using the character builder to make your character and not to use the "traditional builder" as I call it.  On the WotC forums, I've seen a Dark Sun game go into a week-long debate on whether to start the official recruitment before or after the new stuff is incorporated into the character builder.  The D&D Encounters program also seems to support this new idealogy, but granting those who used the Character Builder to create their own character extra points.

With that said, it seems to me that towards the end of the 4E life cycle, there will be groups that will rely only on the character builder for character creation and storage.  With the new web-only Character Builder, a long-going campaign of those who have decided to not switch over to 5E is indeed in peril of a single careless hand at the gaming table spilling soda all over the now only record of the characters.  

Well, I hope I kind of clarified my position somewhat.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> What about simple things like...Internet speed for instance? I know Downunder we're seriously lagging behind. Classic CB may be bugged but it's on your PC and the update only comes when it comes, if many people are on the new CB and it's constantly being updates...how's that going to work out?




Here's the thing.

NPR just did a special talking about rural areas and other places where internet access is essentially a joke. I have friends who live in northern Wisconsin so it's not like some strange and faraway place.

Anyway, the NPR bit was talking about how banks are charging $9.99 a month for paper statements and that these people in these areas are essentially boned because they have no net access.

Certainly not something WoTC is responsible for, but for at least some, simply put, a dealbreaker. The reality of the situation is that internet penetration over the whole of the United States is NOT that impressive.

Edit: The actual link!

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/28/pm-banking-without-the-internet/


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'm not going to cancel my subscription in order to "prove some point", or to try and let WotC know that they've "lost a customer" or any other of that nonsense.  I play 4E weekly.  I like making it easier on myself.  And designing/leveling characters using the CB on a web-only platform is STILL EASIER than quitting DDI over some perceived slight and then trying to do all this work using just the books.



I think you're really misunderstanding a lot of the complaints here.  While some whose names I will not name are just stirring crap, I think lots of people have serious, valid concerns.

Like I said - I do most of my prep on my lunch break.  My work doesn't allow access to the Wizards site (or ENword, etc.), even on the public wifi which allows webmail and social networking.  If I can't access DDI at the office, it's worth less (not worthless - simply worth less) to me.  I need to take that into account when I'm making my decision of what to purchase in the future.

Also, I have to say, I've been running Dark Sun for a few levels now without help from the CB.  It can certainly be done.  The lack of it for a few months has been pretty illuminating.

-O


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 3, 2010)

If something you pay to own doesn't provide the services you want or need anymore, there's no reason to keep it.


----------



## garyh (Nov 3, 2010)

I'm an annual DDI subscriber who has also bought every player and DM book (basically everything except adventures), and I'm unhappy about this.

I do my CB'ing at home on my PC, so I'm not part of the "play or prep without internet crowd" or the Mac crowd.  I'm also 100% positive my work PC won't work with Silverlight (our IT still has us using IE6), so this doesn't even let me use the new CB at work (not that that'd be a good idea anyway).

The one new "feature" with this is storing our PC's in the cloud.  For all the 200 KB they take up.  Wow.  Amazing.  And I couldn't possibly back up my CB files on my flash drive.  Oh, wait, I do...

I'm mostly peeved about the lack of an export option.  As a DM, I find it very useful to have the players be able to send me an editable version of their PC.  Now, that's not possible.

I understand why WotC is doing this, even though I've been a loyal purchaser of hard copies and annual DDI subscriber, but don't place limitations on the program and call them "features."  That's more insulting than the restrictions themselves.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 3, 2010)

For those who are just looking for actual WotC responses to questions in the thread, I have taken a serious SAN hit and will be going through the thread for you.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

You owe me.

BIG!!


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 3, 2010)

garyh said:


> I'm mostly peeved about the lack of an export option. As a DM, I find it very useful to have the players be able to send me an editable version of their PC. Now, that's not possible.




Hands up if you're a DM and approve and manage character sheets using builder.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 3, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I think you're really misunderstanding a lot of the complaints here.  While some whose names I will not name are just stirring crap, I think lots of people have serious, valid concerns.
> 
> Like I said - I do most of my prep on my lunch break.  My work doesn't allow access to the Wizards site (or ENword, etc.), even on the public wifi which allows webmail and social networking.  If I can't access DDI at the office, it's worth less (not worthless - simply worth less) to me.  I need to take that into account when I'm making my decision of what to purchase in the future.
> 
> ...




Ahmen. We are in the same boat... If they do with the DM tools what they have done with the CB I estimate I'll get less than 5% of my current use out of it.  You see well over 90% of my prep time is in transit.

Way to screw over DMs.



Katana_Geldar said:


> If something you pay to own doesn't provide the services you want or need anymore, there's no reason to keep it.




Exactly.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 3, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> Hands up if you're a DM and approve and manage character sheets using builder.




* Raises hand *


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I think you're really misunderstanding a lot of the complaints here.  While some whose names I will not name are just stirring crap, I think lots of people have serious, valid concerns.




Oh no... I understand most of the concerns.  And for quite a number of you, you make completely understandable and well-spoken reasons for why you are choosing to do what you are doing.

But even you admit there are folks here who are "stirring crap" as you put it... and I just like pointing out that the amount of hyperbole they are using to declare the sky falling is overkill and kind of silly.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2010)

surfarcher said:


> Ahmen. We are in the same boat... If they do with the DM tools what they have done with the CB I estimate I'll get less than 5% of my current use out of it.  You see well over 90% of my prep time is in transit.
> 
> Way to screw over DMs.



There will be the same thing for Adventure Tools.

I don't believe we will see a Monster Builder update until the online version is good to go.

-O


----------



## JasonZZ (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> http://images.community.wizards.com...ns/large/7bd3a6d56dc25b39629e268cad740f30.png
> 
> Does this mean I can only use one campaign setting at a time? I've asked the question on the WotC boards but have not heard a response back.




Looks like standard campaign settings (as in preference settings, not the books .  The builder probably allows for mix-and-match, but offers these as an easier option.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 3, 2010)

And I'm speaking for quite a few people here when we say we can play fine *without* online character builder (though when I get home I plan to back my copy up, just in case). I wasn't that mad on Essentials, or Dark Sun and fair go, we will be missing out on the various feats and bonuses that Dragon and Dungeon magazines bring out, but with the sheer vast number of content we do have, it's not that bad.

Personally, I didn't think it was an altogether bad thing when SWSE stopped, as it gave us a time to stand still with a good system. 

As long as I can still use builder to manage and approve I'll be fine, all I am getting is no new content...which has been lax in the last few months anyway. 

I was actually considering whether I wanted to renew my subscription or not as there seemed to be hardly any new books coming out that would be incorporated. This announcement today was just the deciding factor over a few weeks of thinking.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 3, 2010)

Obryn said:


> There will be the same thing for Adventure Tools.
> 
> I don't believe we will see a Monster Builder update until the online version is good to go.
> 
> -O



I am not a betting man, but I would put money on that.

Looks like I'll be going 100 Masterplan.  Thank goodness I didn't renew.



Katana_Geldar said:


> And I'm speaking for quite a few people here when we say we can play fine *without* online character builder (though when I get home I plan to back my copy up, just in case). I wasn't that mad on Essentials, or Dark Sun and fair go, we will be missing out on the various feats and bonuses that Dragon and Dungeon magazines bring out, but with the sheer vast number of content we do have, it's not that bad.
> 
> Personally, I didn't think it was an altogether bad thing when SWSE stopped, as it gave us a time to stand still with a good system.
> 
> ...




As a DM I don't need CB.  And I assume they are going to kill the DM tools in the same way so... Goodbye WotC )s).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 3, 2010)

JasonZZ said:
			
		

> Looks like standard campaign settings (as in preference settings, not the books . The builder probably allows for mix-and-match, but offers these as an easier option.




From the WotC Thread:



			
				PaoloM said:
			
		

> When you create a custom D&D character, you can select the campaign settings you want to use. Every choice afterwards is driven by this, and we enabled Themes only for the Dark Sun setting.
> 
> At launch, this cannot be changed, but we plan to address it later.




So, when it launches, you can apply Themes, but you cannot, say, apply Themes to your Dragonmarked Chosen of Mystara Slayer with a Warlord multiclass feat. 

Which, IMO, _suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks_.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> From the WotC Thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well obviously then you're not using it right. WoTC is beyond your simple reproach of thinking their material sucks. It's just not for you.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

That's the post that inspired my question. If that's true does it mean that I can't mix and match from different campaigns? If so that sucks. That is very bad.

Actually though, at this point I'm starting not to care.


----------



## ourchair (Nov 3, 2010)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> This is unfair.  WotC made a mistake in the original character builder in allowing the entire 4E rule set available for a pittance.  While it was a great deal for value seekers (like myself), it was an unsustainable model.  I think, if we are honest, we understood that the original CB model was not going to last.
> 
> The other route that CB could have gone is micro-transactions.  To get book X for the CB, you'd have to spend a certain amount.  Once purchased, you'd have it forever.  Under this model, CB could have remained a desktop application.
> 
> Either way, the changes being made to CB are done to protect WotC's intellectual property.  There is a value to the rule set and they can't continue to give it away for next to nothing.



I agree entirely.

I have always disliked web-based applications like this new one, mostly because it operates on the principle that you have online access everywhere you game, but I understand that they needed to make a choice between convenient for all users and losing a certain amount of money on piracy, and convenient for MOST users and not losing any at all.

I live in a country where piracy is rampant, so to be honest, I have take some sadistic pleasure knowing that players will have to either pony up or build their characters by hand. People who study the rules through the Character Builder first and the book second (if at all) will have to start learning the intricacies of the game's math. 

That said, I still consider the DDI subscription worthwhile at this point, since they are doing the updates they have always promised they would. Sure, there're delays but even without hands-on experience I can already tell that this new app is simply much cleaner than the old one and doesn't run like molasses dripping off of paper on a cold January day and to that end, this new version of the CharBuilder is probably a 'technical' improvement that allows them to clean house on the code, even if it isn't an improvement in the direction i'd like.


----------



## ourchair (Nov 3, 2010)

malraux said:


> Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll finish the monster builder before they decide to switch platforms again.  That would be cool.
> 
> I must say that a big announcement that the CB is at best moving sideways isn't all that exciting.  I'm not a big fan of the idea of renting applications.  Running an application inside a web-browser isn't any more appealing to me than running an application inside a virtual machine.  I really dislike the idea that fairly important elements of my hobby will be reliant on the whims of a large corporation, whereas with the old CB I could easily keep the program going for as long as I keep the program installed on a machine.



Me too.

To me, it's not even about "the corporation being evil". I just dislike the idea that I'm being given tools to make Character Building easier, but at any moment, whether the company collapses, gets bought by another company or the company decides to reshuffle its assets or withdraw support from the Web team, these tools will disappear.

I've always disliked the supposition that 4E is an MMO, but if I'm going to need payment to have access to my character's digital form, and lose it should the company terminate support of the product and the tools and be unable to play on the same field with others without them, then it's kind of MMO-y.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 3, 2010)

I have finished going through the first 1010 posts of the thread and have extracted the posts by PaoloM into their own thread.

I will continue updating tomorrow as I get time.

I will attempt to collect any questions from this thread, but as I have a job, wife and kids, I may miss them. To be certain that your question gets passed up (and all questions submitted to me will get passed on), try emailing me directly:

?arcel.beaudoin@g?ail.co?  (just replace the ? with m)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:
			
		

> That's the post that inspired my question. If that's true does it mean that I can't mix and match from different campaigns? If so that sucks. That is very bad.
> 
> Actually though, at this point I'm starting not to care.




It looks to me like that's the case (though they promise to fix it someday, if you wish hard enough on unicorn gumdrop fairies, maybe. ). 

For me, that's the first big hit to my personal utility of the program, and it's probably going to affect every user of the CB. I'd expect it to be Complaint #1 once the CB is out in the wild (though not until it is, because a lot of people probably assume this isn't the case...).


----------



## Keldryn (Nov 3, 2010)

*Silverlight*



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Hmm...
> 
> 
> *Silverlight? iPad? Mobile?*: Being web-based gains a bit of cross-platform compatibility, but tethering it to Silverlight does no favors to the platforms that can't make use of it, and it's not very forward-thinking.




I would argue that their decision to use Silverlight is a forward-thinking approach.

I think that people are getting too focused on the character builder as an application unto itself.  Given that the first Web-based tool is a rewrite of a tool that we already have, I think it is safe to say that this is the first component of an integrated suite of tools.  A more traditional HTML + Javascript + ASP.NET/PHP architecture could probably have done the job for the character builder alone, although as a developer with signficant experience in those technologies as well as Silverlight I think it would be faster to build it in Silverlight.   But as more tools are added to the suite, the value of the Silverlight platform will become more apparent.

The character builder is the logical place to start when launching a new suite of online tools, and if the suite grows to include a virtual tabletop, character visualizer/designer, mapping tools, and the like, Silverlight's graphical capabilities will be essential.  With characters being saved "to the cloud" by default, it makes it easy to pull those characters into an adventure design tool, or into a VTT session.  If the character visualizer is released, then it can be plugged into the character builder very easily.  

One thing that is important here is that Silverlight is essentially a platform, and the difference is much like developing games for the PC vs games for the consoles.  Cross-browser compatibility issues are the bane of web developers everywhere, and trying to include progressive new features while not having the application break on IE6, 7, or 8 can be a nightmare (and IE 9 will only work on Vista or Windows 7 installs, not XP).

Using Silverlight for the PC and Mac does not mean that iPads will be left out in the cold.  Were I in charge of making these decisions, I would probably choose to build a Silverlight client for PC and Mac to support the full suite of D&D online tools and then build a separate iOS client for the iPad that is customized for that device -- assuming that there is a large enough market to justify the expense.  

I haven't seen it mentioned here, but I've seen it on the WoTC boards, so I will mention that you don't need IE in order to use Silverlight.  Firefox, Chrome, and Safari all run Silverlight apps perfectly fine.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/dungeonsanddragons/large/87062d4844e6c251fb5ff604bc10637b.png







thats the new character sheet. The 'main' one. The other one is supposed to be the Essentials sheet.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> I've checked that the current CB does indeed track things during game play. I think this statement is just incorrect.




I have a player who used the CB to track his character stats, hp, powers used etc during play. I'm not stringing CAT-5 cable or setting up yet another wireless hub just so we can access the CB during play.

On the upside, since we can still use the CB current to October (or whenever the last update was), there is really no point in buying any more hardcovers*, so I guess I've got that going for me.

*Our general rule of thumb is "If you're going to use something from a book, buy the book so I can see how it works".


----------



## garyh (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> thats the new character sheet. The 'main' one. The other one is supposed to be the Essentials sheet.




What leaps out at me there is that none of the math is shown, at all.  Which makes the "Print to PDF" even less useful to DM's than the current ability to e-mail CB files.

All we can do is hope that the character sheet is customizable.

Which reminds me, are we going to be able to save character sheet templates with the new CB?  That was a nice feature in the current CB.


----------



## Keldryn (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> http://images.community.wizards.com...ns/large/87062d4844e6c251fb5ff604bc10637b.png
> 
> thats the new character sheet. The 'main' one. The other one is supposed to be the Essentials sheet.




I really like that new character sheet.  One of my biggest issues with the current character builder is that I can't stand the character sheets (and power cards) that it produces.  That "standard" 4e character sheet looks like a tax form, and any time I've given it to new players, they've found it confusing.  The power cards also have a terrible layout, so I hope those are dramatically improved as well.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It's a fairly standard service/payment system.  So why would I possibly think that something like DDI would be at all different from that?



Perhaps because, for the last ~2 years, it has been different from that???


----------



## jelmore (Nov 3, 2010)

Keldryn said:


> That "standard" 4e character sheet looks like a tax form, and any time I've given it to new players, they've found it confusing.  The power cards also have a terrible layout, so I hope those are dramatically improved as well.




I managed to squeeze much of the "crunch" onto a single landscape page + power cards; I don't need a space on my character sheet to record mannerisms, appearance, etc.; I can save that stuff in a text file (or Evernote, or Obsidian Portal wiki page, etc.)

One of the tricks with power cards is accounting for all of the options: martial powers can change based on the weapon being wielded, implement powers can change based on the implement equipped, etc.


----------



## Tazawa (Nov 3, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> Hands up if you're a DM and approve and manage character sheets using builder.




That would be me. I've now lost that ability due to having an old non-Intel mac and an old crappy PC laptop that won't run Silverlight. Not to mention that the character files aren't exportable.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 3, 2010)

Nyarlathotep said:


> I have a player who used the CB to track his character stats, hp, powers used etc during play. I'm not stringing CAT-5 cable or setting up yet another wireless hub just so we can access the CB during play.
> 
> On the upside, since we can still use the CB current to October (or whenever the last update was), there is really no point in buying any more hardcovers*, so I guess I've got that going for me.
> 
> *Our general rule of thumb is "If you're going to use something from a book, buy the book so I can see how it works".




Bingo.  All five of my players use the CB to track their sheets during play.  I use the compendium to run all my monsters and look up rules.  This new direction actually negatively effects myself and my group right now.  

We haven't had a character printed off in almost a year.  We save the characters to a local folder on a server so that it's always there, even if a player misses a session.

It is possible in the future, the online CB may be as useful, but right now it is a straight downgrade for my group and I, as far as I can tell.


----------



## tuxgeo (Nov 3, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> For those who are just looking for actual WotC responses to questions in the thread, I have taken a serious SAN hit and will be going through the thread for you.
> 
> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> ...



Magnificent job, Mudbunny. I'd give you posrep for that, but I've already been apprised that I have done so too recently. 

Your summary has given me a link to a post by PaoloM responding to another person who asks whether WotC owns our online characters. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one wondering about that.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Nov 3, 2010)

Just a question: In my group, I pay for DDI-subscription, and the other players use my password to download updates. The important thing is that they (the players, I'm the DM) don't spend any money. I'm not sure they would. Will this new version of the character builder allow for us to continue like we have before: I pay for it and 4 other people use it?


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 3, 2010)

Technically, what you propose is against the Terms of Service for the character builder.  

My understanding is that you could update the characters in the new DDI online version, but I doubt you could have 5 seperate computers logged in at the same time.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Nov 3, 2010)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Technically, what you propose is against the Terms of Service for the character builder.
> 
> My understanding is that you could update the characters in the new DDI online version, but I doubt you could have 5 seperate computers logged in at the same time.



I'm not necessarily looking to have 5 computers logged in at the same time. What is important to me, is that my players have the ability to use the character builder that I subscribe to.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 3, 2010)

^^
You do realize that what you are doing is illegal, right? Which is why you probably won't get a straight answer.



As a side note, has the been any word about the MB? Will they keep updating that for now?


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Nov 3, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> ^^
> You do realize that what you are doing is illegal, right? Which is why you probably won't get a straight answer.
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, I didn't know that it was illegal. Well, _in theory_, would it be possible for a completely horrible criminal to share his subscription to the character builder with other players?


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 3, 2010)

The biggest issue I have with no longer having an offline CB is the  amount of errata. Building a character becomes very difficult if you not  only look through your book (I like it this way), but also all your  Dragon magazines for the feats and powers here and there and re-checking  everything with the big errata pdf, that is not sorted after classes,  powers and races, but only after book. Looking if a single warlord power  has been errated is quite difficult. You have not even the classes  bookmarked.

Yes, the compendium has the updated rules, too, but it is also online only 

---



> Oh, I didn't know that it was illegal. Well, _in theory_, would it be possible for a completely horrible criminal to share his subscription to the character builder with other players?



Maybe. But if one of them is locked in, you are not able to access any DDI content yourself. Or posting on their boards, or anything.


----------



## tentfox (Nov 3, 2010)

Vicar In A Tutu said:


> Oh, I didn't know that it was illegal. Well, _in theory_, would it be possible for a completely horrible criminal to share his subscription to the character builder with other players?




In mudbunny's thread one of the responses is that multiple people could be logged in to the same account at the same time with no problems unless they worked on the same character. Working on the same character would give unexpected results.

He also answered a question which was that if the virtual table top, should it be included in the web tools, allowed for multiple people to play from the same account in the one game. He responded that attempting to do so is against the TOC.


----------



## Savevsdeath (Nov 3, 2010)

AnthonyRoberson said:


> Where is the chorus of apologies from the fanboys that said I was being 'paranoid' and 'jumping to conclusions'? Hmm? Nah...I didn't think so.




Im apologizing. WotC screwed us on this one, and so my money goes bye-bye. I hate the entire concept of an online CB.


----------



## buddhafrog (Nov 3, 2010)

tentfox said:


> In mudbunny's thread one of the responses is that multiple people could be logged in to the same account at the same time with no problems unless they worked on the same character. Working on the same character would give unexpected results.
> 
> He also answered a question which was that if the virtual table top, should it be included in the web tools, allowed for multiple people to play from the same account in the one game. He responded that attempting to do so is against the TOC.




These seem quite contradictory.  Why would multiple people be logged in to the same account unless that account was shared - which seems to be what is against the TOC mentioned in the 2nd statement, right?  Am I missing something?

I do think being able to share an account between a group is one of the great values of this new system (and what has me reconsidering what I wrote earlier and contemplating signing up).  Right now, if players want to use the CB, they do so on my computer.  These are all kids and none of them would consider a monthly subscription.  Having them able to view their characters at home or read through info would be pretty nice actually.  I'm not sure if that is against the TOC as stated above.

Clarification?


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Now you can still go out and buy _your own_ copies of the books if you want... but if you want to go to the one central place where all the books are stored within easy reach and can pull the info out and rearrange it a lot faster than you could at home... you just have to pay your monthly subscription for the right to do so.




Oh, you misunderstand me.  I do buy books.  I endorse DDi as a supplemental product for the books.  However, if they get out of the book publishing business and move users over to a pure subscription model, then they can indeed cut off access to online-only material at some future point.

I can see some pinhead marketroid at Hasbro thinking this is an excellent way to force people to buy in to new games as they come out.  I hope the FLGS is as important as I think it is to the Wizards business model for D&D, since the physical artifacts we buy there may be the only thing standing between a living D&D and oblivion.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Why are you assuming it was "unintentional"? You don't seem to credit WotC leadership with much intelligence. Of course they realised that some people would jump in and out. So what? They should focus on keeping happy those customers willing to pay full price and not try to punish those less willing.
> 
> And I find it rather amusing that you don't consider this move to be punishing to their best customers, though you define their best customers as those with year long subscriptions. I've had year long subscriptions from day 1 and I feel very much punished by this.




The unintentional in my statement referred to people using it as a cheap replacement for books. 

I think they rightly figured it would be a draw for people to use the DDI, but did not realize how much of a hit it would put on the physical books.


I'm sorry you feel harmed by this? As a year long subscriber I don't. The only thing this move seems to be changing for me, is the ability to export characters... And this is something they've already indicated they are updating. 

I would still say the biggest group of users effected by this are the group who only subscribe every so many months.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> I can see some pinhead marketroid at Hasbro thinking this is an excellent way to force people to buy in to new games as they come out.  I hope the FLGS is as important as I think it is to the Wizards business model for D&D, since the physical artifacts we buy there may be the only thing standing between a living D&D and oblivion.




Except this seems to be radically different then everything they've currently BEEN doing, and completely different then the way Hasbro operates in general.

WoTC has said in the past that they are big supporters of physical gaming, as well as game stores, and their actions support this.

Hasbro is all about selling family games and toys. Even their digital products emphasize family.


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Except this seems to be radically different then everything they've currently BEEN doing, and completely different then the way Hasbro operates in general.
> 
> WoTC has said in the past that they are big supporters of physical gaming, as well as game stores, and their actions support this.
> 
> Hasbro is all about selling family games and toys. Even their digital products emphasize family.




Hasbro's main business is not selling ideas, it's selling toys.  When there are ideas involved, the ideas sell the toys.  That's the way D&D is profoundly different from anything else they sell, including M:tG.  With D&D, the idea is the toy.  There is no strict need to sell a physical artifact for D&D play.

That being said, Hasbro's main interest is not families, or toys, or anything of that nature.  Their main interest is making money.  They will do whatever they see fit to make the most money possible.  We should expect nothing less from them.  I don't hate them for it, but let's call a spade a spade.  If someone at Hasbro thinks they can make more money by converting D&D to a pure subscription model, then that is what they will do.

And making the CB online-only is entirely consistent with that thought.


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Except this seems to be radically different then everything they've currently BEEN doing, and completely different then the way Hasbro operates in general.
> 
> WoTC has said in the past that they are big supporters of physical gaming, as well as game stores, and their actions support this.
> 
> Hasbro is all about selling family games and toys. Even their digital products emphasize family.




Also, moving to a subscription-only distribution model for D&D is not inconsistent with physical gaming, and it's not family-unfriendly.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> That being said, Hasbro's main interest is not families, or toys, or anything of that nature.  Their main interest is making money.  They will do whatever they see fit to make the most money possible.




Sure- thats true for every company, but what people miss when they say this is that every company needs a basic idea as to HOW they actually plan to do that; it's the thing that gets people interested in supporting your company.

People aren't just going to give Hasbro money for no reason. They have to fill a need that the people with money have.

In this case, Hasbro fills the need of families wanting to spend time together and do something other then watch TV. 

And a company (especially one as large as Hasbro) doesn't change it's default mission statement at the drop of a hat. 


My larger point, however, is if you look at what WoTC is actually doing, you can see it's in the exact opposite direction then going purely digital.  

Look at the emphasis on in store play. 
Look at how they've redesigned their products to include elements people want in a physical game. 
Look at how they've lowered the cost of the physical products. 

They're emphasis is on selling physical products, and using digital media to support that.

If they decided to go purely digital it wouldn't happen over night, and  there would be signs showing they were moving in that direction.

All signs in this case, however, point to continued support of physical product.


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> If they decided to go purely digital it wouldn't happen over night, and  there would be signs showing they were moving in that direction.




Precisely.  My claim is that the online-only character builder that requires a constant subscription could be a first move in that direction


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> Precisely.  My claim is that the online-only character builder that requires a constant subscription could be a first move in that direction




Except that if you look at everything, not just one part in a vacuum, you can see it's a move in the opposite direction.

This move returns the DDI to a supporting role, and not the primary means of acquiring D&D.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 3, 2010)

> You do realize that what you are doing is illegal, right? Which is why you probably won't get a straight answer.




I don't believe you can be arrested for violating a ToC. Last I checked, these things didn't carry the full weight of written law, and police won't show up on your doorstep if you share your DDI sub with your gaming group. Now, WotC might look into revoking your DDI sub if they think that is what happens. And it's possible that they could try and take you to court for some contract violation or something, theoretically (though there's plenty of legal arguments to use against ToC's). But _illegal_ seems a little scaremongering to me. 

Now, the broader idea of sharing a sub with a group. Regardless of WotC's actual position (which is certainly not stated at all with this update), it would be kind of dumb for them to invest much energy in chasing down people who share their DDI account. Which is why they don't seem to be doing much to stop it (they warned you that it might cause some issues if you and your friend are working on the same character at the same time). It's still smart business to let your friends sell you D&D, and the DDI. If the goal is more people playing the game, stopping group-sharing is counter to those purposes.

At least until the VTT comes along, anyway.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, the broader idea of sharing a sub with a group. Regardless of WotC's actual position (which is certainly not stated at all with this update), it would be kind of dumb for them to invest much energy in chasing down people who share their DDI account. Which is why they don't seem to be doing much to stop it (they warned you that it might cause some issues if you and your friend are working on the same character at the same time). It's still smart business to let your friends sell you D&D, and the DDI. If the goal is more people playing the game, stopping group-sharing is counter to those purposes.




Yeah... I get the feeling the only time they'd do something like this is if they started seeing a ridiculous amount of people logging in to the same account at the same time.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> The unintentional in my statement referred to people using it as a cheap replacement for books.
> ...



I use it as an easy replacement to build an character in the train or something similar. Or don't having to be online to access the compendium. The CB and the compendium are the only feasible way to keep up with the errata and don't have to double check every power during character creation between my books and the monthly errata pdf. And both CB and Compendium are now online only 



Scribble said:


> Yeah... I get the feeling the only time they'd do something like this is if they started seeing a ridiculous amount of people logging in to the same account at the same time.




Or ridiculousness many accounts 5 people are logged in at the same time. Then they will enforce a one user/ account.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 3, 2010)

Better to have the stick and not need it than to not have the stick when you do need it.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 3, 2010)

On the positive side, I can now safely ditch the Oct. CB update, and go back to Sept.'s update, which had fewer bugs, didn't have the rarity system, had the RPGA items, and actually let bards use magical instruments.

Small victories, I suppose.

I'm sooooooo glad we decided not to have everyone update so we'd have a backup, just in case.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Nov 3, 2010)

HeirToPendragon said:


> ....*And of  course the unnecessary additions of side products blatantly made to  increase sales, including Essentials and Gamma World.*




Because the worse thing a game company can do is try and increase sales....


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> I use it as an easy replacement to build an character in the train or something similar. Or don't having to be online to access the compendium. The CB and the compendium are the only feasible way to keep up with the errata and don't have to double check every power during character creation between my books and the monthly errata pdf. And both CB and Compendium are now online only




Yeah I'm not trying to argue the move is a great thing for everyone. I mean yeah no CB offline sucks for everyone.

But ultimately I think they were stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place.

If their current model was causing a dip in sales of physical product, and essentially giving away the product at a price that was unsurvivable in the long run, something had to give.

If they also wanted to support MACs but didn't have the ability to invest in an entirely separate piece of software, something also had to give.

So they choose the route with the least amount of suck, and the route that would offset that suckage the most.



> Or ridiculousness many accounts 5 people are logged in at the same time. Then they will enforce a one user/ account.




I don't know... That seems like it would take a lot more manpower then it's worth to track. I mean I log into DDI from 3 different places routinely. My desktop, my phone, and at a friends house.  I hate logging in (especially on my phone) so I almost never log out (except at my friend's place) once I've logged in.


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Except that if you look at everything, not just one part in a vacuum, you can see it's a move in the opposite direction.
> 
> This move returns the DDI to a supporting role, and not the primary means of acquiring D&D.




I want to reiterate that an subscription-only online model is completely compatible with physical play and families.

The things that support the notion that Wizards intends to continue the physical book model include the Encounters program and the retailer program that allows the FLGS to stock certain items early.  This certainly encourages people to buy the physical product and participate in the FLGS community.  These efforts make me happy, and I participate in them in every way that a customer can.

However, there are other signs that point to the physical book and object model failing, or at best they're ambiguous about what they actually mean.

For instance, the change to Essentials indicates that there had been a problem with the way Wizards was producing and selling books.  If the previous thin hardback model were completely successful, there would have been no need for the change.  Essentials is not actually cheaper -- it's equal or greater in terms of cost to match the same functionality that one had with the core three at the start of the 4e line.  When the core set came out, you had to spend $30 each on three books to get a functional instance of the game.  Now, you have to spend $20 on a Heroes book, $20 on the RC, $40 on the DM kit, and $30 on the Monster Vault.  That's a total expenditure of $110 vs. $90.  It's even more if you want to cover the player options that you got out of the first PHB.

There are other things.  For example, the miniatures line.  There have been no announcements of forthcoming releases, so they're pulling back on that aspect.  And those much-decried booster packs that came out with Gamma World?  They're making their way in to D&D, as well.  It's an attempt to maintain store presence for D&D like their store presence for M:tG.  We're going from expensive-to-produce collectibles to cheap-to-produce collectibles.  How long until we have virtually-free-to-produce collectibles in the form of online tokens that we have to sustain with a subscription?

To me, all these things could be signs of desperation about the physical product model.  Don't get me wrong: I like 4e, and I play 4e all the time.  I just think it's possible that Wizards may be lying to us and screwing us again, like they have many times before.  I think it's foolish to stick my head in the sand and pretend it could never happen.  By recognizing the trend now and letting Wizards know how we feel, we may be able to change their plans about their potential disaster.


----------



## weem (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/dungeonsanddragons/large/87062d4844e6c251fb5ff604bc10637b.png
> < img >
> 
> thats the new character sheet. The 'main' one. The other one is supposed to be the Essentials sheet.




Huh, I thought it was this one...







But I may have made this one just for fun - it's hard to say really


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> I want to reiterate that an subscription-only online model is completely compatible with physical play and families.




To a degree sure- but again I say it's not inline with how the company has operated in the past. It would be a major shift, and major shifts don't happen overnight for large companies.



> The things that support the notion that Wizards intends to continue the physical book model include the Encounters program and the retailer program that allows the FLGS to stock certain items early.  This certainly encourages people to buy the physical product and participate in the FLGS community.  These efforts make me happy, and I participate in them in every way that a customer can.
> 
> However, there are other signs that point to the physical book and object model failing, or at best they're ambiguous about what they actually mean.
> 
> For instance, the change to Essentials indicates that there had been a problem with the way Wizards was producing and selling books.  If the previous thin hardback model were completely successful, there would have been no need for the change.




Yep- I don't disagree here. WoTC has recognized that in order for physical games to stay viable in the marketplace they need to change the way they present those products.

If they idn't want the product to stay viable, why invest the effort into making them more attractive?



> Essentials is not actually cheaper -- it's equal or greater in terms of cost to match the same functionality that one had with the core three at the start of the 4e line.




Depends on how you look at it.



> When the core set came out, you had to spend $30 each on three books to get a functional instance of the game.  Now, you have to spend $20 on a Heroes book, $20 on the RC, $40 on the DM kit, and $30 on the Monster Vault.  That's a total expenditure of $110 vs. $90.  It's even more if you want to cover the player options that you got out of the first PHB.




This is why I said it depends on how you look at it. It's designed to be more "modular."

As a player I really only need one players book  I can choose either of the players books as well. 

As a DM the requirements are really Rules compendium, and monster vault. The DM's kit is nice, and filled with cool advice, but nothing in it is absolutely needed to play the game.

One copy of the rules compendium is really needed at a table. Maybe two for convenience.

If the DM already has it the player's don't really need it.

It's an easier way to get into gaming. 

Ultimately maybe it would cost more to get everything, but they've vastly reduced the need to get everything up front.

They've made it easier/cheaper to get the physical products needed to start gaming. You can take it as far as you want from there, which is no different then it ever was.



> There are other things.  For example, the miniatures line.  There have been no announcements of forthcoming releases, so they're pulling back on that aspect.




Sure, but take a look at what they're doing with tokens.

Tokens allow them to include a physical representation of all the monsters in a vault at a low cost. It would be prohibitively expensive to do the same with minis.

They've lowered the cost and lowered the amount of effort needed to get a game going at a table.

they've designed boxes that pretty much allow me to open them and jump right into the game with minimal effort.




> And those much-decried booster packs that came out with Gamma World?  They're making their way in to D&D, as well.  It's an attempt to maintain store presence for D&D like their store presence for M:tG.  We're going from expensive-to-produce collectibles to cheap-to-produce collectibles.  How long until we have virtually-free-to-produce collectibles in the form of online tokens that we have to sustain with a subscription?




My argument continues here that you're making a jump here based on nothing but fear of what COULD happen, not based on any actual signs.

You're equating a physical product with plans to go digital.  The two are only related by virtue of you saying they're related.

If anything this points towards wanting there to be more of a hook for physical products.



> To me, all these things could be signs of desperation about the physical product model.




Or signs that to keep the physical product model viable changes need to be made to make them more in line with what customers want/need, and are willing to pay for.



> Don't get me wrong: I like 4e, and I play 4e all the time.  I just think it's possible that Wizards may be lying to us and screwing us again, like they have many times before.




I've never been screwed. Sorry you have.



> I think it's foolish to stick my head in the sand and pretend it could never happen.




Who's doing that? I'm saying nothing is actually pointing in that direction. 

I could get hit by a bus while crossing the street. Since there is no bus coming, and the light is red, I figure it's a safe bet that I won't get hit by a bus while crossing the street.

When there is actually a bus coming, and I'm crossing against the light... I'll worry then!



> By recognizing the trend now and letting Wizards know how we feel, we may be able to change their plans about their potential disaster.




You seem to be inventing a trend to argue against.  I feel this is as purposeful as getting a petition together to also stop them from deciding to turn D&D into only a line of low sodium pasta sauces.

There's no real evidence of them doing this, and a lot of evidence that they're NOT doing this... so why get up in arms about something not happening?

If you really want to- hey go for it... I just think it's kind of irrational.


----------



## Echohawk (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Ink is expensive?
> 
> the character sheets look like ass?
> 
> Ever since I've been subbing to the DDI, I've never printed out a character sheet and run it off the laptop?



Is there any reason you can't just look at the PDF on your PC _without_ printing it, if ink costs are an issue? (Assuming you don't mind staring at ass too much, that is.)


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> To me, all these things could be signs of desperation about the physical product model.  Don't get me wrong: I like 4e, and I play 4e all the time.  I just think it's possible that Wizards may be lying to us and screwing us again, like they have many times before.  I think it's foolish to stick my head in the sand and pretend it could never happen.  By recognizing the trend now and letting Wizards know how we feel, we may be able to change their plans about their potential disaster.




And this is exactly why they probably won't listen to you... because you freely admit that you think WotC has and probably always are "lying" to you and "screwing" you... and yet you continue to give them your money and use their product.

Your actions are not equaling your words.

Thus one of two things can be divined from this... either you're an addict who just can't quit the game despite knowing how bad it is for you (to which WotC's response should be that it's not up to them to police your actions and you need to bear personal responsibility)... or else your words are uselessly hyperbolic and you don't _really_ believe that their sins of lying and screwing you over actually hold any weight for you (because if they did, you wouldn't still play the game).

Now while we can and do get "experts" claiming that games like WoW produce the first effect, the claim of "D&D addicts" are practically nil.  Thus, it comes down to the second point... you may _claim_ you're always being lied too, but your actions are speaking louder than your words.

And this is why I always post in threads like this... because I just like shining the light on perspective... something that quite a number of people here on ENWorld lose every single day when something happens that ticks them off.

And so long as people continue to go so far over the top to claim that the company has and will continue to "screw you"... but NOT have that actually affect your playing the game... it tells WotC that they are safer _discounting_ your opinion because it is not coming from a place of logic or reason.  It's coming from pure emotion and fear... and as we see time and time again... fear passes quickly once there's a new boogyman to bring the scares.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> The biggest issue I have with no longer having an offline CB is the  amount of errata. Building a character becomes very difficult if you not  only look through your book (I like it this way), but also all your  Dragon magazines for the feats and powers here and there and re-checking  everything with the big errata pdf, that is not sorted after classes,  powers and races, but only after book. Looking if a single warlord power  has been errated is quite difficult. You have not even the classes  bookmarked.
> 
> Yes, the compendium has the updated rules, too, but it is also online only
> 
> ...




If WoTC stays true to this path, you won't have to worry about looking through Dragon. It'll be online through a viewer or something. In for a penny, in for a pound right?


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 3, 2010)

I would like to point people to the thread here. It is a shorter thread, and Paolo is fairly active in it responding to questions about the actual features of the new CB. A couple of screenshots are in there as well.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

Echohawk said:


> Is there any reason you can't just look at the PDF on your PC _without_ printing it, if ink costs are an issue? (Assuming you don't mind staring at ass too much, that is.)




If the DDI includes a native way to print to PDF.

Is that correct? Does it have it?

It doesn't solve the problem of how I use the CB to look up magic items, rituals, and alchemical material at the game since the Online Compendpum is not able to be reached offline either mind you but it's a small step in keeping the CB viable for my actual gaming purposes.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> If the DDI includes a native way to print to PDF.
> 
> Is that correct? Does it have it?




Very few programs have print to pdf native. Accoding to Paolo, just as with the current CB, you would need to install a third-party print to pdf program. I use cute pdf. (free).


----------



## evilref (Nov 3, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Very few programs have print to pdf native. Accoding to Paolo, just as with the current CB, you would need to install a third-party print to pdf program. I use cute pdf. (free).




Added to which the increased priority on export, the same file system being used for characters (.dnd4e) and Paolo's interest in speaking to 3rd party app developers and I would be surprised if it took more than a couple of months before iplay4e etc. are back to full speed with the new CB. EDIT: And until then pdf should work fine, editable sheets of you wanted to run off a laptop/tablet etc.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

evilref said:


> Added to which the increased priority on export, the same file system being used for characters (.dnd4e) and Paolo's interest in speaking to 3rd party app developers and I would be surprised if it took more than a couple of months before iplay4e etc. are back to full speed with the new CB. EDIT: And until then pdf should work fine, editable sheets of you wanted to run off a laptop/tablet etc.




The fact that he said that makes me feel like they really want to open the DDI system up to 3rd party development in a way that allows them to do cool stuff without being shady, or without it just being a way to pirate info around.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 3, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> ...removed...




Fixed that for you.

It's great for me. I can access from nigh anywhere and mac users will be able to also. It may suck for people on a plane (which affects how many really?) but basically every sleezebag motel even offers free wi-fi these days. It's a good move for more people than it hurts, which would be the goal.


*Mod Edit:*  Please, folks, other people's words are not yours to fix.  Don't do this.  Thanks. ~ Umbran


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> It's great for me. I can access from nigh anywhere and mac users will be able to also. It may suck for people on a plane (which affects how many really?) but basically every sleezebag motel even offers free wi-fi these days. It's a good move for more people than it hurts, which would be the goal.




It's in Silverlight. It could have supported an offline mode as well as been online for Macs.


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> As a DM the requirements are really Rules compendium, and monster vault.  The DM's kit is nice, and filled with cool advice, but nothing in it is  absolutely needed to play the game.




The DM's Kit is the only Essentials resource that has rules for things like encounter and skill challenge construction.  It is no less a requirement than the DMG.  In many ways, it is inferior to the DMG.  That Essentials is cheaper than the core material is an illusion.  It is easier to get in to, but that's only because the Essentials characters are much easier to play.  It's an overall positive move for the game, but don't let the marketing lies fool you.

Let me put it to you this way: three years ago, I bought my nephews the core set plus a 1" circle die punch so they could play D&D 4e.  In total, I spent $98 retail.  To achieve the same breadth of functionality, I'd have to spend $130 retail on two Heroes books, the RC, the DM Kit, and the Monster Vault.  If you suppose that I only needed to buy them one Heroes book, then I'd be at $110 retail.  It's not a terrible deal because the enclosed adventures and tokens are actually pretty nice.  However, it's not any cheaper.



Scribble said:


> I've never been screwed. Sorry you have.




You've been screwed by them.  Wizards has spent the last 6-9 months using our subscription money to replicate functionality that we already had.  They could have designed the CB to operate in an off-line mode with Silverlight using the downloaded database, but they did not.  The last six months of Dragon content has done little more than contribute to feat- and background-bloat.  For instance, take that Wilden article today.  The flavor of the article makes no sense.  The feats contained therein are grotesquely situational.  This article is of no use to anyone.  It might be one thing if this article were an outlier, but garbage like this shows up in Dragon every single week.  It's telling that the most interesting things on the Wizards website last week were the free previews of Essentials material.  Outside of DDI, our books have been rendered nigh-worthless by updates, including updates for books released in the very same month as the book itself.  At this point, it's clear that Wizards isn't play-testing their games very well.  I don't think they even have a good grasp on how their own game works.  I don't know about you, but if I spend $30 on a RPG book, I expect a certain standard of quality that simply isn't met by Wizards.

I suppose it's all right, though, if you think that sort of treatment from Wizards is acceptable.  I, for one, am beginning to grow weary.

Whether some people have been screwing Wizards by subscribing for a month, downloading everything and then cancelling is a separate issue entirely.



Scribble said:


> I could get hit by a bus while crossing the street. Since there is no  bus coming, and the light is red, I figure it's a safe bet that I won't  get hit by a bus while crossing the street.
> 
> When there is actually a bus coming, and I'm crossing against the light... I'll worry then!




Your analogy works as long as no bus is runs the light.  I merely think we should keep our eyes on the oncoming traffic while we cross the road.

To make the analogy ridiculous, there is a bus: it's the subscription-only character builder.  Hopefully it will stop at the light.  Maybe it won't.  My point is that we should be aware of the bus.  Instead, you insist that it will always stop at the light.



Scribble said:


> If you really want to- hey go for it... I just think it's kind of irrational.




It's also irrational to mindlessly apologize for an entity that does not have one's interests in mind.

We are at an impasse.  Where you see no evidence of moving to a subscription-only model, I see them making a CB that works on a subscription-only model.  Where you see continued support for physical products, I see them flailing about in desperation because the old splatbook treadmill no longer works.  I don't think further discourse between us on this topic will be productive.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 3, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> How is WOTC to blame for the limitations Jobs imposed on his own product?




Mike Mearls is Steve Jobs' bowling partner, duh!


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And this is exactly why they probably won't listen to you... because you freely admit that you think WotC has and probably always are "lying" to you and "screwing" you... and yet you continue to give them your money and use their product.
> 
> Your actions are not equaling your words.
> 
> Thus one of two things can be divined from this... either you're an addict who just can't quit the game despite knowing how bad it is for you (to which WotC's response should be that it's not up to them to police your actions and you need to bear personal responsibility)... or else your words are uselessly hyperbolic and you don't _really_ believe that their sins of lying and screwing you over actually hold any weight for you (because if they did, you wouldn't still play the game).




Or it could be that the enjoyment that I get from playing the game has previously outweighed the negative qualities, and the continued ill behavior from Wizards is finally putting me in to a position where I no longer like it.  Honestly, I have been buying less Wizards stuff lately, because I'm sick and tired of the poor quality control.  It's telling that they waited until after the first wave of subscribers had already re-upped, including me, before making this announcement.

It's not like any of us can pretend that they haven't been lying to us, or giving us an inferior product in DDI.  Calling them out for those things is simply telling the truth.  Paolo today stated that the complaints about the web CB have caused them to change their priorities in terms of when certain features will be implemented, so complaining does work.  They do listen.  Unless Paolo is just lying again.

Thanks for putting me in to a false dichotomy between addict and hypocrite, though.  Any doubt that I should give no weight to your opinion has now been dispelled.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

What I don't get is why was the latest old CB update done? It seemed to me to be half baked and did more harm than good. I almost wish I could have skipped that update.

Almost. I'm probably done so I don't really need it anymore.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> The DM's Kit is the only Essentials resource that has rules for things like encounter and skill challenge construction.




Those are in the RC. They're expanded on in the DM's Kit sure, but the actual rules are in the RC.



> It is no less a requirement than the DMG.  In many ways, it is inferior to the DMG.




Again since the rules are in the other books, I'm saying it's pretty much a good buy maybe, and a good idea, but by no means "necessary."

Whether or not it's inferior to the old DMG is... subjective.




> That Essentials is cheaper than the core material is an illusion. It is easier to get in to, but that's only because the Essentials characters are much easier to play.  It's an overall positive move for the game, but don't let the marketing lies fool you.




It's easier to get into for more reasons outside of the rules.

Less for a single person to have to buy.

Clear avenues of explanation as to what is available/needed for a store to carry.

Clear avenue/explanation as to what products match your "place" in the game.

Easy to use products filled with everything needed to use them. (IE the box has the adventure, the maps, the tokens...)

Nothing to do with marketing "lies," and everything to do with what they've actually done.



> Let me put it to you this way: three years ago, I bought my nephews the core set plus a 1" circle die punch so they could play D&D 4e.  In total, I spent $98 retail.  To achieve the same breadth of functionality, I'd have to spend $130 retail on two Heroes books, the RC, the DM Kit, and the Monster Vault.  If you suppose that I only needed to buy them one Heroes book, then I'd be at $110 retail.  It's not a terrible deal because the enclosed adventures and tokens are actually pretty nice.  However, it's not any cheaper.




You get more for your money for starters, and we're still disagreeing on how needed the DM's kit is.

And again I said- it depends on how you want to get into it. You can get into it very inexpensively, or spend a lot on it. They've opened it up, to let you customize a lot more.




> You've been screwed by them.




No... I haven't. I'm sorry you feel you have.



> Wizards has spent the last 6-9 months using our subscription money to replicate functionality that we already had.  They could have designed the CB to operate in an off-line mode with Silverlight using the downloaded database, but they did not.




Doesn't bother me



> The last six months of Dragon content has done little more than contribute to feat- and background-bloat.  For instance, take that Wilden article today.  The flavor of the article makes no sense.  The feats contained therein are grotesquely situational.  This article is of no use to anyone.  It might be one thing if this article were an outlier, but garbage like this shows up in Dragon every single week.  It's telling that the most interesting things on the Wizards website last week were the free previews of Essentials material.




This is subjective opinion. You're welcome to any opinion you want. You dislike the content they are providing you. This isn't "screwing you" or me, or anyone else. It's just that you don't like the ontent. It's not like they're sitting on "better" content twisting their evil mustaches and laughing as they release inferior content for some reason. 




> Outside of DDI, our books have been rendered nigh-worthless by updates, including updates for books released in the very same month as the book itself.  At this point, it's clear that Wizards isn't play-testing their games very well.  I don't think they even have a good grasp on how their own game works.  I don't know about you, but if I spend $30 on a RPG book, I expect a certain standard of quality that simply isn't met by Wizards.




We can get into an argument about this in another thread... Suffice it to say I preffer the model that submits updates rather then ignoring them until the system overloads and they have to reset to a new edition.

If this update process keeps us from a new edition down the road- yay!



> I suppose it's all right, though, if you think that sort of treatment from Wizards is acceptable.  I, for one, am beginning to grow weary.




That's your right... It's probably not the game for you. It's a taste thing. Some would rather the game be released and that be it. Others want the problems tracked/updated.



> Whether some people have been screwing Wizards by subscribing for a month, downloading everything and then cancelling is a separate issue entirely.




What's that have to do with anything?



> Your analogy works as long as no bus is runs the light.  I merely think we should keep our eyes on the oncoming traffic while we cross the road.




Sure... but keeping an eye open and actively fearing are two different things.



> To make the analogy ridiculous, there is a bus: it's the subscription-only character builder.  Hopefully it will stop at the light.  Maybe it won't.  My point is that we should be aware of the bus.  Instead, you insist that it will always stop at the light.




Sure, be aware of the bus... That's fine and rational. But fearing it's going to hit you because it exists when it hasn't run any red lights, the driver is alert, and the brakes work... is irrational.



> It's also irrational to mindlessly apologize for an entity that does not have one's interests in mind.




Who's doing that? I'm presenting evidence to show where I'm coming from. No mindlessness involved.



> We are at an impasse.  Where you see no evidence of moving to a subscription-only model, I see them making a CB that works on a subscription-only model.  Where you see continued support for physical products, I see them flailing about in desperation because the old splatbook treadmill no longer works.  I don't think further discourse between us on this topic will be productive.




Nothing about subscription model. I was talking about digital only model.

I think we are at an "impasse."

I get tired of statements like "mindless apologizing" being applied to anything that isn't painting WoTC in a negative light.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

evilref said:


> and Paolo's interest in speaking to 3rd party app developers




Does anyone have a quote/link for this? Also, is Paolo in a position to make these statements? He's a developer right? Most of the time developers don't make this call. 

Also, has this been vetted through Legal/corporate? The last time he made statements about supplemental tools, they were not, so I'd hate to see those misunderstandings happen again.

These last questions are likely best answered by [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION] as he's the only one who may know more than the average user.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible



			
				wotc_trevor said:
			
		

> Hey all. So I wanted to do two things - clear the air a bit and let you guys know that we're definitely listening to everything people are saying in these threads.
> 
> As to clearing the air - When I said we were back on schedule for updates, I meant that from what I could see, we were on schedule to have an update each month for the coming months. As I'm sure you all know, I actually can't predict the future, but it looked like we had a solid schedule for updates and I just wanted to express that. I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer on that point, and that it led to confusion. It was never my intention to imply that we would have an update on the first Tuesday of every month for the foreseeable future.
> 
> ...




Edit: Please note there is an update to this quote to fix the incorrect phrase 'We have had an update each month'.


----------



## evilref (Nov 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Does anyone have a quote/link for this? Also, is Paolo in a position to make these statements? He's a developer right? Most of the time developers don't make this call.
> 
> 
> > Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> ...


----------



## Saracenus (Nov 3, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Mike Mearls is Steve Jobs' bowling partner, duh!




Mearls ruined Apple!


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> My argument continues here that you're making a jump here based on nothing but fear of what COULD happen, not based on any actual signs.



 Funny, that's what some people said when we said "look, they're going to turn the CB into a pure online tools and that's why they are "late" on the CB updates - because they never planed to do them at all".


DEFCON 1 said:


> And this is exactly why they probably won't listen to you... because you freely admit that you think WotC has and probably always are "lying" to you and "screwing" you... and yet you continue to give them your money and use their product.



 It's understandable that they prefer customers who still fall for their words over customers who have seen through them


DEFCON 1 said:


> Thus one of two things can be divined from this... either you're an addict who just can't quit the game



 To quote yourself from this very thread: _"So basically... a WotC rep could come over to my house each and every month and doofsmack me in the back of the head and I'd STILL pay for DDI"_

Free advice: save response time later by already preparing your defense for WotC for when the take Dragon and Dungeon Magazine and put them in some kind of online-based-viewer so that no one can download any issues anymore


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

evilref said:


> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> ...




Thanks.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Does anyone have a quote/link for this? Also, is Paolo in a position to make these statements? He's a developer right? Most of the time developers don't make this call.
> 
> Also, has this been vetted through Legal/corporate? The last time he made statements about supplemental tools, they were not, so I'd hate to see those misunderstandings happen again.
> 
> These last questions are likely best answered by [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION] as he's the only one who may know more than the average user.




In this case, I am just as in the dark as everyone else. I suspect (and this is just based on my readings of things and conversations I have had with some people at WotC), that WotC had been trying to convince those that are in charge of deciding what gets said when to loosen the restrictions some and to allow more open communication and that what we are seeing from Paolo is a result of that being at least partially successful.

As for Paolo contacting 3PPs, (again, pure speculation) it is clear that there is a portion of the population that subscribes to DDI not for the tools, but for how the tool output can be used in other tools like iPlay4E and MasterPlan. One possibility is that Paolo is trying to find out about the output formats that are commonly used and what info is grabbed from those files. Another possibility involves NDAs and a look at the output from Essentials characters so that when .dnd4e exportability is implemented, those tools that rely on importing .dnd4e will be ready to go with the appropriate updates. (again, all of this is speculation.)

But, I would be very, very surprised if Paolo was doing this *without* permission from people higher up.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Excellent. I just know there was miscommunications/misunderstandings last time and it appears Paolo is being beat-up pretty good over on the WotC boards for it. Hate seeing that happen to a guy who appears to be at least trying over there.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> To quote yourself from this very thread: _"So basically... a WotC rep could come over to my house each and every month and doofsmack me in the back of the head and I'd STILL pay for DDI"_




Hey, I freely admit that I'm an addict when it comes to the Character Builder.  Which is why I couldn't give a rat's ass whatever format it comes in.  If all of a sudden they told me that it could only be used on Macs... I'd actually start to think long and hard about picking up an Ipad.



Mirtek said:


> Free advice: save response time later by already preparing your defense for WotC for when the take Dragon and Dungeon Magazine and put them in some kind of online-based-viewer so that no one can download any issues anymore



I don't need time later.  I'll tell you it now.

The number of people who are DDI subscribers because they want Dragon and Dungeon and _don't care about the CB or Monster Tools_ I am willing to be it so infinitesimally small that it pretty much would not change subscriptions one way or another.  In fact, next month WotC could announce that Dragon and Dungeon Magazine were being outright _cancelled_, but that an Encounter Builder was being added to the Adventure Tools, and I'd be willing to bed their subscription numbers would go up for that month.

That's how unimportant the two magazines are to DDI subscriptions in my opinion.  Yeah, sure, we'd see a whole host of people still come here on ENWorld claiming "Now WotC's REALLY done it!  Strawbrokecamelback etc. etc." but when it came time to put up or shut up... they'd still keep a subscription going, because the magazines are not the real reason people subscribe to DDI.

I said it before and I'll say it again... the Character Builder is just TOO GOOD to toss away because WotC's making this lateral move with it.  And that half the people here saying they're cancelling because they're tired of being "SCREWED OVER BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST" aren't really going to do it.

Cause in the end... if it's that important to you... you'll pay for it.  Hell, when the gas companies jacked the gas prices up to $4 a gallon last year, we heard all kinds of people shouting and decrying the move and that they were going to "stop driving" because of it.  But I just went to the pumps and bought my gas as I always did, because I liked my car, I liked driving it, and it did what I needed it to do price be damned.  And it's the same way with DDI.


----------



## ghaladen (Nov 3, 2010)

*My open letter to WotC I sent them*

Dear Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, and all that are concerned:

I am writing this letter in response to my recent cancellation of D&D Insider. First a little background on myself, I play several different version of D&D weekly. AD&D (2e), Pathfinder (never got into 3.5), and 4th edition. Unlike most players I don't stand on one side or the other, I enjoy 2nd edition because my DM in that game is a storyteller and light on mechanics, and I enjoy the narrative and the loose grip on the rules. I enjoy DM'ing 4th edition because the tactical combat is a blast. And I enjoy Pathfinder because in my opinion, and I mean no offense to the current party present, it is by far the best balance between old and new D&D so far. Once again this is my opinion only, and as I gave the disclaimer above, I enjoy all three versions regularly and play/purchase all three. But since this email is about 4th edition, Wizards of the Coast, and D&D Insider.

So, while I am a software developer by trade, I tend to run my games very "Luke's Diner" if you will, eschewing as much technology as possible (although I use Skype, HD webcams, and a condenser mic to have friends from far away jump in and play with my local groups via video chat. Yes I'm a bit insane, but that setup is a whole other email). However, I find beauty in the analog. I have tons of WotC miniatures, at least 25 4e books, battlemaps tiles, etc. I'm pretty sure Dwarven Forge will be next. So that being said, I was initially reluctant with the thought of using software to roll characters, but as more and more of my players sung the praises of it, I decided to give it a shot. Turns out I really enjoyed the Character Builder, and especially building monsters with the Adventure Tools. So I got a subscription, and have ad one since February.

Fast forward to yesterday, with the recent news of Character Builder going Web-based, and not just a standard HTML interface, Silverlight nonetheless. So I will outline the issues I have:

Silverlight: So, it is great to know that Mac is officially supported, but a simple search on the web tells that the internet has begun to eschew plug-in based technologies like Flash, Silverlight and Java in favor of AJAX powered sites requiring no plugins (see the Google line of apps like Gmail, Docs, and Maps for an example of AJAX apps). And, even better, many of the newer smaller devices like the iPad don't support Flash or Silverlight. So Wizards has basically cut out a portion of their consumer base by resorting to Silverlight. Also one could argue that Silverlight is similar technology to the platform that the desktop Character Builder was based on, making the transition easier. But say, Wizards down the line decides to make mobile versions of their software. That requires a port of the software to the iPhone, to the Blackberry, to Windows Mobile. All different platforms, all different programming skill sets. Versus simply doing a single port to a native web app would support all of the above.

Foul business practices to third party developers: So there is a lot of history involving WotC's stance on third party applications, but in context I'm referring to the constant cease and desists towards the Compendium Helper for iPhone, MasterPlan for Windows, and just about any other application which imports compendium data from DDI. Now, with lack of a download option for the dd4e files, the latest casualty seems to be iplay4e. While one could argue that yes, it is WotC's intellectual property, and yes these programs are using DDI content without the consent of WotC, this attitude towards developers that want to fulfill the needs of the 4e players that WotC can't (or won't) is downright shameful. Wizards should be heralding and supporting the ingenuity of these developers, especially since they required the user to have a DDI account, meaning WotC is profiting on these applications' mere existence!

Foul business practices to consumers: In my eyes, with the constant coveting of their rules/content/software, Wizards is basically telling their consumer base "We don't trust you, the people that buy our goods and services. There are a few among you that pirate our blessed software and content, so we will punish everyone for their misdeeds". Don't have an internet connection where you're at (or often in my case, trouble connecting the laptop to a hotspot)? Too damn bad!.Hope you either printed out your character. Economy has been hard on you and you can't afford your DDI sub this month? Too damn bad. Hope you have a damn good memory, because your character is ours. Have children in your gaming group who do not have financial payment methods? Too damn bad! Either buy multiple subs or they luck out, since sharing is now against the Terms of Use. This is an atrocity coming from the same company who did the most amazing thing and open sourced the d20 rules 10 years ago. Now WotC has pulled a complete 180 and turned into the Microsoft of roleplaying. Sad times. 

Pulling PDF rulebooks: This was a great idea, and Wizards was one of the first to get into the PDF business, even offering a free PDF for every book purchased (which was an awesome idea). I was excited at this idea, especially because I have an iPad now and can carry all my Pathfinder books in PDF form to games instead of 20 pounds of books (and not worry about them getting worn). Not so with 4th edition, WotC pulled that plug early. Yes, I am aware that Dungeon and Dragon are in PDF form, but honestly I don't use either. The rulebooks are what I need in digital form. So by not offering digital version to those that need them, you give users no choice but to pirate them, exposing their machines to viruses and other malware, when most of them would happily part with cash for both digital and print versions. All in the name of stopping piracy. Once again, punishing all for the actions of a few. 


So with the above being said, I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for Wizards of the Coast, and their almost mob-style tactics. I have a sneaking suspicion that these are the actions from the execs from either WotC, or possibly even Hasbro. That being said, I have nothing but respect for Mike Mearls, Chris Perkins, Jeremy Crawford, and rest of the designers/developers of D&D, both past and present. It's almost like I buy CD's to support the bands I love, but I hate the recording industry.
So in this case I will still by the books and physical products for as long as they are sold, in order to support the developers, but I cannot stand the actions of the company they are employed by. So with that, my subscription to D&D Insider is canceled, and I say good riddance. My group will continue to stick with the books and paper, and continue with 4th edition, but without the burden of DDI. This could all be my hare-brained imagination running wild, but I do feel that WotC deserves a reason why they will no longer see $120 from me per year, and this is it.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Cause in the end... if it's that important to you... you'll pay for it.  Hell, when the gas companies jacked the gas prices up to $4 a gallon last year, we heard all kinds of people shouting and decrying the move and that they were going to "stop driving" because of it.  But I just went to the pumps and bought my gas as I always did, because I liked my car, I liked driving it, and it did what I needed it to do price be damned.  And it's the same way with DDI.




Hehe... gas is far more important to me than a gaming tool. I have to get to work to make money to pay for my house so I need gas. Businesses need gas to deliver their widgets. Nobody needs the DDI or the CB. They are very useful, but this reckoning you would pay $40-50 a month for the CB?


----------



## bargle0 (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think we are at an "impasse."




Yes, an impasse.  Wizards has the means to go to a digital-only subscription-based distribution model.  They have withdrawn access to material before, recently, with the removal of RPGA material from the Compendium.  Wizards has already made radical changes to the way they present the game including the publishing of Essentials, dropping support for the existing CB tool, and other smaller measures.  I believe that if they go to a digital-only subscription-based model, then we will be in a position where they will withdraw access and we will have no other means to get at the material.  I gave no time frame for this possibility.

Yet you believe that the mere suggestion of this conditional is irrational.  If I had suggested at the dawning of the 3.0 era that Wizards could end  Dungeon and Dragon as physical magazines and turn them in to  subscription-based digital content, would I be called irrational?   Maybe.  If I had suggested at the dawning of the 4.0 era that in little  more than two years, Wizards might scrap the at-will/encounter/daily  power structure for certain new classes?  My contribution here is no  different.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> Yes, an impasse. Wizards has the means to go to a digital-only subscription-based distribution model. They have withdrawn access to material before, recently, with the removal of RPGA material from the Compendium. Wizards has already made radical changes to the way they present the game including the publishing of Essentials, dropping support for the existing CB tool, and other smaller measures. I believe that if they go to a digital-only subscription-based model, then we will be in a position where they will withdraw access and we will have no other means to get at the material. I gave no time frame for this possibility.




Speculative reasoning is speculative.  WotC may do a lot of things.  For all we know, this could be the tip of the iceberg you so rightly suggest.  Likewise, this may be the tip of a vast gold-mine for us that WotC has simply yet to develop.

We're living in a digital age, the idea that hardbacks and paper are the way of the future is a lie plain and simple.(I know you're not suggesting this).  When Wizards published hard and paperbacks only, they were in a position of control.  You got access to their info by paying for it.  When they added digital versions of books and DDI, IMO, they lost a lot of that control due to pirating.  With this move, Wizards in now in a position of control again, control of the things that make them money.  The position every company wants to be in.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> Yes, an impasse.




Thank you for the Wikipedia link. (I'm not sure why you felt the need to put it there though.)



> Wizards has the means to go to a digital-only subscription-based distribution model.  They have withdrawn access to material before, recently, with the removal of RPGA material from the Compendium.  Wizards has already made radical changes to the way they present the game including the publishing of Essentials, dropping support for the existing CB tool, and other smaller measures.  I believe that if they go to a digital-only subscription-based model, then we will be in a position where they will withdraw access and we will have no other means to get at the material.  I gave no time frame for this possibility.




That's fine- I'm not arguing against the idea that if they go all digital + subscription model and withdrawal access we wouldn't have any means to get it back.

I'm arguing that all signs point towards them NOT doing this, so there's no need to fear.

If those signs start showing up- then we can be fearful... But at the moment? Everything points towards them continuing to highlight phsyical product as being the core of the game.




> Yet you believe that the mere suggestion of this conditional is irrational.




Nope- not the mere suggestion. The fear of this happening when all signs are pointing towards it not happening, and the shown business model points towards Wotc favoring physical products.



> If I had suggested at the dawning of the 3.0 era that Wizards could end  Dungeon and Dragon as physical magazines and turn them in to  subscription-based digital content, would I be called irrational?   Maybe.




For suggesting it as a possibility in the future? No- for saying it was something to be afraid of based on the current happenings at the time? Yes.




> If I had suggested at the dawning of the 4.0 era that in little  more than two years, Wizards might scrap the at-will/encounter/daily  power structure for certain new classes?  My contribution here is no  different.




In this case there were signs that WoTC was opening up the way classes worked long before Essentials.



If you really want to tell them to continue supporting physical books? Buy physical books! They want to sell them to you!


----------



## Kurtomatic (Nov 3, 2010)

Regarding the Silverlight sub-topic, while I don't work with it directly myself, I was still getting that nagging feeling that I'd missed a meeting or something. So for the coding gear heads here, I found this afternoon's Silverlight article on Ars useful:

Silverlight, HTML5, and Microsoft's opaque development strategy [ars technica]

Disclaimer Edit: 
Upon reflection, I'd like to note that the above article is flawed, but I still found it _useful_. The takeaway here is that there is still a strong case for using non-HTML5 frameworks for the near future, and Silverlight solves some specific problems for WotC that make it better than existing alternatives.


----------



## buddhafrog (Nov 3, 2010)

bargle0 said:


> Whether some people have been screwing Wizards by subscribing for a month, downloading everything and then cancelling is a separate issue entirely




I agreed with much this poster wrote, however I have to comment on this idea which I've seen written about a lot.

NO ONE SCREWED WotC by subscribing for a month, downloading the info, and then cancelling.  It was one of the options WotC gave people.  They did this probably to offer an easy entry into DDI with the hope/belief that people would find the value and stay subscribed.  The fact that many people did not continually subscribe is b/c:


folks didn't see the value in doing so - the updates were not valuable enough (useful/frequent, etc), or
folks just didn't have that type of monthly cash to drop -- and these folks won't pay for the new version either

As a business, you want to make your entry very easy and cheap, and be a good enough product to keep people throwing money your way.  That is what the one month DDI goal was.  It wasn't cheating the system.  Just sayin'.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 4, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Very few programs have print to pdf native. Accoding to Paolo, just as with the current CB, you would need to install a third-party print to pdf program. I use cute pdf. (free).




then perhaps, just perhaps, WoTC needs to include a native PDF program? I know that at work I use Pro Rep, a productivity program, and it has one so it is possible. If you're going to be 'politely' boning people with your lack of export abilities, providing an in-house work around woudl be one small gesture that "we're working on it" might actually mean that. (Looks at Monster Builder which is still beta...)


----------



## evilref (Nov 4, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> then perhaps, just perhaps, WoTC needs to include a native PDF program? I know that at work I use Pro Rep, a productivity program, and it has one so it is possible. If you're going to be 'politely' boning people with your lack of export abilities, providing an in-house work around woudl be one small gesture that "we're working on it" might actually mean that. (Looks at Monster Builder which is still beta...)




Given how good the various third party pdfcreators are, I sincerely hope they don't try to do any native pdf generation. With the exception of adobe products themselves (CS3/4/5) i've never encountered any software that can generate pdfs anywhere near as well as a 3rd party app specifically designed to do so. Moreover printing to one is as quick and easy as, well, printing.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 4, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Ah yes... the madness that WotC no longer is going to let people scam the system by buying a single month's subscription to DDI and gain access to the entire suite of crunch and keep it for as long as they want without paying anything further.
> 
> What are they thinking?!?




And what about those of us that have been DDI subscribers form the get go and like the way the CB was before?

What about WotC telling all of us that the CB update was on schedule a few weeks ago?

What about that you cannot have access to digital copies of your characters unless you continue to pay for DDI?

What about the new CB has less features that the old CB?

What about those of us that do no like some of the changes, and if we use the new CB, all those changes are there no matter what?  As far as I am concerned, they have lied to the (so called) D&D Insiders for over 2 months now.

D&D is not an MMO.  My biggest complaint about the CB "Classic" (as they are calling it now) is that it does not have enough support for custom campaigns, custom items, custom feats, etc.  This tool will have even LESS of that.

Also, what about NEW tools.  They have basically started over.

Also, what happens when 5th edition comes out and all of the online digital tools are now for a game that I do not play?  With the current CB, you can still use the program.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 4, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I will continue to subscribe to DDI regardless of platform for one simple reason...
> 
> THE CHARACTER BUILDER IS JUST TOO DAMN USEFUL.
> 
> ...




Or they will just use something else and someone else get's their money

or they will continue to play 4E and not buy anything else

or they will move on to something else that they think is a better company to deal with


----------



## BobTheNob (Nov 4, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> D&D is not an MMO.  My biggest complaint about the CB "Classic" (as they are calling it now) is that it does not have enough support for custom campaigns, custom items, custom feats, etc.  This tool will have even LESS of that.



How do you know that? How does anyone know anything about the breadth of options and power this new tool will offer? How can anyone speculate as to its framework and expansibility...did you work on its development?

We dont know, but we are so willing to go on the offensive.

All this venom, these threats of cancellation. This anger. Has anyone out there actually used this tool and can give us some feedback? In interested to hear.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 4, 2010)

WotC has said this stuff in their boards, go check it out. They mentioned no export (less than current offering) & no customization of items or feats (less than the current one offers). 

Now they _can_ add that, but what they will roll out on the 18th does not have that.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 4, 2010)

BobTheNob said:


> How do you know that? How does anyone know anything about the breadth of options and power this new tool will offer? How can anyone speculate as to its framework and expansibility...did you work on its development?
> 
> We dont know, but we are so willing to go on the offensive.
> 
> All this venom, these threats of cancellation. This anger. Has anyone out there actually used this tool and can give us some feedback? In interested to hear.




I can tell you FOR SURE that these features are not in release.  They have said so themselves.  All you have to do is go read abotu the features, and what the lead person is saying about it.  You can't even mix campaigns at release.

Sure, maybe someday, but not at release, and nobody knows when.  My feelings are that after the release of the CB, their focus will be on the MB, and we will see data only updates for a little while to the CB.

My guess is that it will be even more diffcult for them to have personalized custom content that you add when everyone is using what is essentially a shared copy of the program.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a number of you who are proclaiming that you're "done"... will discover in three months time _without_ having a Character Builder to use and trying to do everything by hand that... you know what? Maybe having it online-only really isn't such a big deal after all.





  Ooooh you know what? I bet we will. Couldn't you have actually told us that we will all RUE THE DAY while you were at it? 

Look, here's the thing. A tabletop roleplaying game that is so cumbersome and ponderous as to nigh REQUIRE attachment to an electronic teat of streaming data just might be a tad too ridiculous for the gamer that just wants to have fun and doesn't want a hobby that feels so much like work. 

Pointing out that someone who refuses to rent rather than purchase some of their gaming material may regret trying to enjoy playing without it isn't what I would consider a top notch endorsement of the game as a whole. 

Nice try.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 4, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> Or they will just use something else and someone else get's their money
> 
> or they will continue to play 4E and not buy anything else
> 
> or they will move on to something else that they think is a better company to deal with




And it won't be the first time.

I know gamers that walked away from WoTC when they made Dragon and Dungeon PDF.

I know gamers that walked away when they stopped selling the PDFs.

I imagine this will be more of the same.

One of the hints WoTC might want to take is that revamping your rules to more closely mimick the old styles won't bring back the people who left because they think the company is run by a company that feels its consumers are criminals.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE (Nov 4, 2010)

*worse than criminals*

cretins! Criminals don't pay expressly for the privilege of being sent to jail. 

Keeping my character under lock and key to protect their IP is not a fair trade, for any money. My character is MY IP, and no way am I paying them to hold it hostage in their cloud.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 4, 2010)

It seems like what people want is an offline program that can view and edit their characters.  Anyone have thoughts on how it could work? Maybe very limited capabilities, like only a few characters can be loaded at a time, but for those characters you can look at all the rules those characters need, including all power selections for their level +1 and under. I feel like something like this would be a good middle ground.

The web tools keep track of how many characters you currently have loaded into the offline tools, and you have to log-on with the 'offline tools' and add or delete characters you made in the web tools. Then you take your offline tools to the internet-free zone and play with that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 4, 2010)

I've never subscribed to DDI.  I have used CB character sheets for pregens build by enthused players with CB, and I have done a few characters with my current DM's copy.  It's not a bad program, though it has some limitations. 

One of those limitations is it basically let players download /everything/ they needed to build a character - the contents of quite a few $35 books.  Anyone with the patience to update only once or twice a year was making off with quite a lot of 'consumer surplus,' which WotC would understandably want to capture.  We can only speculate on the prevelence of such 'passes,' but WotC unavoidably has hard data on the phenomenon.  Aparently, it was enough of a problem that this strikes them as a better idea.

....

For myself, I don't use character sheets for 4e, I put everything down on index cards.  The actual sum total of your character apart from things like powers & items that fit conveniently on index cards take up about 3 index cards, themselves (basic stats, skills, mundane gear/cash) and it's more convenient to have a 'deck' than a sheet + a deck.   JMHO, IMPX.


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 4, 2010)

renau1g said:


> WotC has said this stuff in their boards, go check it out. They mentioned no export (less than current offering)




in priority development, but not at launch



> & no customization of items or feats (less than the current one offers).



in development, but not at launch



> Now they _can_ add that, but what they will roll out on the 18th does not have that.




I am planning to evaluate the new CB on release and consider my options afterwards.  But count me excited for the possibilities the new platform could offer.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 4, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> ...
> Look, here's the thing. A tabletop roleplaying game that is so cumbersome and ponderous as to nigh REQUIRE attachment to an electronic teat of streaming data just might be a tad too ridiculous for the gamer that just wants to have fun and doesn't want a hobby that feels so much like work.
> ...



 The CB is not required, one of my players knockked out a 3rd level warlord from just the PHB while the rest of us were doing the prelimenaries of a Chaos Scar adventure, 2 weeks ago. I got to say having a cleric, a warlord and a Ranger in the party, the monsters might as well not show up.
I though the orb wizard was bad enough.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 4, 2010)

People keep saying it lets you download every book.

No, it doesn't.

It lets you download the mechanics of each book.

Which is one of the reasons I keep saying WoTC needs to give the rules away and focus on the elements that cannot be handled with mechanics.

Hell, make several boxed set adventuers every year with nandouts, miniatures, and other bits. Include some things in there so that they double as board games.

Put more effort into cordinating the miniature releases with the release of adventurers.

Make the miniature line as profitible as it was where people were talking that it was more protifible than the books.

Make more effort into the physical hand outs, like the stuff Gale Force 9 is doing.

So much WoTC could be doing to promote the game as opposed to their efforts to control the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 4, 2010)

Since it keeps coming up, I'll keep mentioning it:

*They didn't mention "getting the rules for cheap" as one of the things this was meant to solve.*

The CB still contains all the character data on every book written and you can access it all for a single $10 payment, whip up your character (or a few) for 30 levels in a month, and then have, functionally, everything you need to play 4e, just like you would've before. 

That's still an awesome selling point for it. 

Going web-based means you don't have a lot of the rules you never use on your hard drive.

That was never a big attraction for anyone with the CB as far as I can tell.

The big deal was that I could make a character using all the rules available to 4e at the time. 

That's still true.

The people who get boned on this update are not the value-seekers who pay $10 and then go.

The people who get boned on this update are (a) the people with unreliable internet connections when they play and prep, and (b) the people who pirated the info.* The former sucks and they should be cancelling their subs if they can't work around it. The latter kind of sucks, in an abstract way, but WotC can't be making products to appease people who don't pay for the product, so it's hard to blame them for it.

WotC is kind of betting there's more mac users who want DDI out there then there are folks with unreliable internet  currently subbed...which is a bet, as a businessdude, that I would probably take, too.

* There's some fallout with "people who don't want to rent the rules" and "people who don't want to feel like they're being treated as potential criminals" and "people who think this is an elaborate attempt to steal their derivative works" and a few others, but those are mostly niche -- though they could in total wind up to be more than that.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 4, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> in priority development, but not at launch
> 
> 
> in development, but not at launch
> ...




I know it's in development, but Bob asked what everyone was saying about reduction in options. Remember, soon is the ubiquitous word


----------



## renau1g (Nov 4, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The CB still contains all the character data on every book written




It also means that if/when Wizards moves onto the next edition you can't access said materials (assuming wizards follows everyone else in supporting your current offering rather than past ones). The fact that people are excited about a loss of functionality confuses me.

Also, your comment about niche people is interesting. Have you facts to back it up? I've seen a lot more than "niche" over on Wizards boards...


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> WotC is kind of betting there's more mac users who want DDI out there then there are folks with unreliable internet  currently subbed...which is a bet, as a businessdude, that I would probably take, too.




There's a little more too it then that as well.

Pulling it to an online DB means they now only have to have one DB to support/update which means faster updates, and easier fixes when something does go wrong, as well as not having to support multiple databases everytime they build a new tool. 

So on the back end they update one DB and it updates info in all systems.
This gives them less work and splits their team a lot less. Freeing up man hours for other projects.

This means new tools should come out faster, and it's easier to create things like ipad apps, and such, and none of it really slows down their update process very much.

On the front end you don't have to worry about updating all of your tools. They just do it all automatically.  You don't have to worry about making sure all of your tools on different devices are the same to transfer characters or monsters or whatever around, as they'll be that way automatically. 

You probably won't even have to transfer characters/monsters around, as eventually you'll just open the character in another system, and changes you make in one that effect others will just be there. (IE if eventually the make a campaign planning tool, options the DM chooses for his/her campaign will be reflected in the CB for any character listed in that campaign...)

None of this is readily apparent at first glance though, so it's easily dismissed.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> NO ONE SCREWED WotC by subscribing for a month, downloading the info, and then cancelling.  It was one of the options WotC gave people.  They did this probably to offer an easy entry into DDI with the hope/belief that people would find the value and stay subscribed.  The fact that many people did not continually subscribe is b/c:




Yeah this is a good point to make. No one doing the 1 month download thing was doing anything wrong... In fact if you only cared about that part, then doing that made the most economical sense.

That's part of the issue. They created a part of the service that gave people more incentive NOT to subscribe then to subscribe, and probably didn't realize how much of an effect it would have on physical book sales.

It also basically gave pirates an easy way to share the CB info and made it incredibly cheap to do so.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 4, 2010)

RLBURNSIDE said:


> cretins! Criminals don't pay expressly for the privilege of being sent to jail.
> 
> Keeping my character under lock and key to protect their IP is not a fair trade, for any money. My character is MY IP, and no way am I paying them to hold it hostage in their cloud.




Let me let you in on a little (not so) secret: You're IP (in this case, and it's a stretch to even call it that) isn't worth a speck of fly dung. Their's is. Your "IP" is actually under their auspices because it's put out in their format/system. Plus, Drizzt clones (and the like) aren't original, they're built under the rules/guidelines/systems of WotC. You can't make a D&D movie and call it that either, even if the plot and such are your own. 

Some people will be affected negatively, and that's unfortunate, but come on people, get a little perspective.


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 4, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I know it's in development, but Bob asked what everyone was saying about reduction in options. Remember, soon is the ubiquitous word




Unfortunately too many people are saying reduced options as in permanently not going to be there.  But I do get your point.

As for "soon", if Blizzard can get away with "when it is ready" why not WotC?  After all, they have been burned in the past by giving deadlines and missing them.


----------



## Cergorach (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm currently not a DDI subscriber (not playing 4E), but the service always was interesting and the news post on the frontpage made me revistit the DDI pages.

For $72 you currently get 2000+ pages of content from Dungeon & Dragon Magazine a year, that's less the 1.5 cents a page. You have access to the D&D Compendium, the ability digitally search and copy rules would be worth more then a few bucks. Character Builder is nice, but to be honest how often do you create a new character? I think the Monster Builder is potentially more usefull, but it's still in beta.

I don't think the issue is the worth of the package, but rather the unkept promises and instead of getting more feature, getting less features. While not being able to use it offline is a serious issue for some, the ability to not export the characters is probably more of an issue, there are a ton of applications that handle offline usage quite well.  Things like i4e handle the iPhone/iPad/iPod touch end quite well, no export no using these apps. Web based wouldn't be so much of an issue if it wasn't build on Silverlight, sure short term it might have been quicker, but long term it's a stupid move (and if no one in that department said so, they are all idiots on this particular point).

The biggest issue imho is that WotC didn't keep it's promise to keep it's application updated every month and are now moving to a new application that is actually missing key functionality. Not to mention all the promises that were made regarding all the other tools that where on the 'horizon'. This doesn't give folks much confidence in WotCs ability to actually implement the missing key functionalities in the web app. It's not as if TSR/WotC has had such a great track record with their D&D applications...


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> Unfortunately too many people are saying reduced options as in permanently not going to be there.  But I do get your point.
> 
> As for "soon", if Blizzard can get away with "when it is ready" why not WotC?  After all, they have been burned in the past by giving deadlines and missing them.





Well- I think to be fair "soon" in this case meant about a month, possibly two? That's really not that long in the grand scheme of things is it?




Cergorach said:


> The biggest issue imho is that WotC didn't keep it's promise to keep it's application updated every month and are now moving to a new application that is actually missing key functionality. Not to mention all the promises that were made regarding all the other tools that where on the 'horizon'. This doesn't give folks much confidence in WotCs ability to actually implement the missing key functionalities in the web app. It's not as if TSR/WotC has had such a great track record with their D&D applications...




Sure- that's why I say it's probably always best to subscribe to something based on what you get, not based on what you are told you MIGHT get...

In my own opinion what they offer me for the money I pay is worth it, but I don't fault others for disagreeing.


As for future tools... I kind of cut them a little slack, because I feel like the current team is finally getting away from cleaning up after the last team, and some of the implementations they're making (including the online CB) seem like they're being done to ensure more ability to update/upgrade and produce more often.  But hey- I could be wrong, so as I said above... I subscribe based on what I currently get... Anything else is added awesome.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 4, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> NO ONE SCREWED WotC by subscribing for a month, downloading the info, and then cancelling. It was one of the options WotC gave people.




This I agree with, but it was a bad business model and needed to change from WotC's standpoint. The whole reason for a subscription-based service is for steady, reliable income. When the system you put out is "abused" to bypass your very basic business needs/goals (and easy to pirate) it needs to be changed.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 4, 2010)

Herschel said:


> This I agree with, but it was a bad business model and needed to change from WotC's standpoint. The whole reason for a subscription-based service is for steady, reliable income. When the system you put out is "abused" to bypass your very basic business needs/goals (and easy to pirate) it needs to be changed.




Really? How do you know that? Do you have access to WotC business records or are you just expressing a personal opinion?

I suspect it's more a matter of you having an issue with that behaviour. Your argument is certainly coloured by preconceptions and prejudice.

I don't understand why you are spending time arguing a business case for WotC. The fact is that they've killed off a valuable part of the subscription I've paid for and replaced it with something I consider inferior. If that was done because of greed or a vision of a better platform in the future doesn't matter for me right now. And being told that I shouldn't complain because it "needed to be done" is half-way insulting.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2010)

Herschel said:


> This I agree with, but it was a bad business model and needed to change from WotC's standpoint. The whole reason for a subscription-based service is for steady, reliable income. When the system you put out is "abused" to bypass your very basic business needs/goals (and easy to pirate) it needs to be changed.




What some refer to as "abuse" others would call making sure value is received for money spent. 

Steady reliable income is a fine desire but it must be remembered that to achieve that there needs to be steady reliable value produced to earn that income. 

If the content for a given month wasn't seen as a value by the customer then they chose not to purchase it. The customer didn't get access to the online resources or updates if they didn't pay. Everything they had previously purchased was still theirs to enjoy though. 

The new model seeks to increase ongoing revenue by effectively not letting the customer "buy" anything. The customer has to rent access to the material on a monthly basis. This model completely empowers the service provider and puts consumers (that want the product) into a position of helpless acceptance. 

The new model is akin to a cable TV company with a monopoly in a given area. The provider is able to get away with shoddy service and the customer either pays up or does without the service. 

It is easy to see why the provider wants to move to such a model.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well- I think to be fair "soon" in this case meant about a month, possibly two? That's really not that long in the grand scheme of things is it?




I DM exclusively.  I don't need the character builder, and I don't care what WotC does with it.  I've been a DDI subscriber from the beginning.  I will remain a DDI subscriber.  I get more than my money's worth for my subscription.

BUT.  I don't listen to any software developer who says a feature will be available "soon."


----------



## Ourph (Nov 4, 2010)

Herschel said:


> When the system you put out is "abused" to bypass your very basic business needs/goals (and easy to pirate) it needs to be changed.



I don't understand how buying a product that WotC were offering for sale (i.e. the 1 month subscription) was "abusing" any system.

Also, if this was the main reason they wanted to change, they could have simply eliminated the 1 month subscription option and forced people to choose a longer subscription term, like 6 months or 1 year. I suspect the 1 month subscription "problem" has a lot less to do with this change than many people are giving it credit for.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 4, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> What some refer to as "abuse" others would call making sure value is received for money spent.
> QUOTE]
> 
> That's why "abuse" was in quotes. It's not a nefarious abuse, but an abuse of the practical numbers, needs and ideas of a subscription-based system on the company's behalf. They probably knew it was going to happen some, but the numbers may well have been much more than they counted on, rendering the way they presented it unsustainable within the business plan.
> ...


----------



## renau1g (Nov 4, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> Unfortunately too many people are saying reduced options as in permanently not going to be there.  But I do get your point.
> 
> As for "soon", if Blizzard can get away with "when it is ready" why not WotC?  After all, they have been burned in the past by giving deadlines and missing them.




I can't comment on Blizzard as I am entirely unfamiliar with their processes, I stopped playing most VG years ago. However, everything Blizzard touches is gold right? (Wow, Starcraft, Diablo) or at least was when I was into that stuff. They may have a bit more leeway than WotC with their less proven track record of online tools (e-tools/Master tools from 3e, and the initial stuff that WotC expected to have at 4e's launch, VTT, visualizer, etc.). 



Scribble said:


> Well- I think to be fair "soon" in this case meant about a month, possibly two? That's really not that long in the grand scheme of things is it?




I hope it's that quick... maybe they'll soon get the MB working. I'm subbed up to next summer, so right now I've unsubscribed, but if they actually can put the tools out that people seem to think they've got coming, I'll reconsider.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

Stoat said:


> I DM exclusively.  I don't need the character builder, and I don't care what WotC does with it.  I've been a DDI subscriber from the beginning.  I will remain a DDI subscriber.  I get more than my money's worth for my subscription.
> 
> BUT.  I don't listen to any software developer who says a feature will be available "soon."




Shrug. I'm willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt.  In this case though- he seems to be the specific developer they've chosen to give out info on the new DDI tools, so when he says stuff I get the feeling he's not just shootin the breeze... 

Really it's less what he says and more what he comes right out and says he can't answer, or doesn't know, or is not legally able to answer, or whatever that makes me trust him a little more. It indicates to me at least that he's not just saying something he "thinks" might be the case, and that he's only passing on info he's qualified to answer, and has available to him.

Related to this... I think they're trying to figure out a good balance of info they can give out to us. 

They started with treating us all like "friends" it seems, and that backfired.

Then they went into total lock down blackout mode and that backfired...





renau1g said:


> I hope it's that quick... maybe they'll soon get the MB working. I'm subbed up to next summer, so right now I've unsubscribed, but if they actually can put the tools out that people seem to think they've got coming, I'll reconsider.




Well- if it helps he indicated that export has been moved up in priorities in features to implement. (I'm going to go out on a limb and say it sounds like they're trying to get it done for the next update at the latest, but obviously that's just a guess.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2010)

Herschel said:


> The great thing about the new system will be no more annoyingly slow updates and flexibility to add in new tools/features.




Exactly. That flexibility includes the options of _not _introducing new tools and features or taking as long they want doing so while keeping the cash flowing because customers have no option to keep what they already have if they want to do something crazy like actually _see _new tools or features before paying for them.

In other words, the new system helps WOTC more reliably charge people for promises of what is sure to be coming soon.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well- if it helps he indicated that export has been moved up in priorities in features to implement. (I'm going to go out on a limb and say it sounds like they're trying to get it done for the next update at the latest, but obviously that's just a guess.)




Yeah I've seen Paolo mention it a couple times, it's moved up to supremely important, or something that that now . To a layperson, doesn't seem like it would be too difficult either, but I'm no software dev.


----------



## darjr (Nov 4, 2010)

wotc_trevor said:
			
		

> Hey guys. I totally hear what you're saying and I've addressed the topic as best as I can, and at this point things are derailing a bit and getting awfully close to personal attacks, if not actually crossing that line sometimes.
> 
> I'm going to close this thread, but I wanted to touch on a couple things before I did that. First off - yes, I should have done a better job of clarifying what I meant when I saw there was confusion earlier. I try to let the community answer their own questions when possible and empower the VCLs to give you guys the factual information, but this was something that could have been helped with just a simple post from me. I thought the VCLs did a great job of answerwing the question, but I should have stepped in to confirm what they said. I'm sorry I didn't do that, and hopefully you won't see me make that mistake again.
> 
> ...




That quote on Wotcs forum


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. That flexibility includes the options of _not _introducing new tools and features or taking as long they want doing so while keeping the cash flowing because customers have no option to keep what they already have if they want to do something crazy like actually _see _new tools or features before paying for them.
> 
> In other words, the new system helps WOTC more reliably charge people for promises of what is sure to be coming soon.




Sure- that's a pessimistic way of looking at it... Or you can look at it as saying:

They will have more man hours available for use on new projects because they don't have to split their team between-

Updating the CB Database
Updating the MB Database
Updating the Compendium Database
Working on new Features
Developing new tools.

Now they only update one DB, and work on new features and front end tools.

In addition since the client works on both PC and MAC they only have to support one tool to offer usability on two major platforms. (As opposed to what they would have had to do with the old CB, which was PC only, so they would have had to make an entirely new MAC platform, adding another front end and another DB to the list...)

Aside from that, customers have every right to quit using the system, just like they did with the compendium.

They haven't taken your ability to use the old CB away, so if you consider your subscription having gone towards that, they haven't removed something you paid for.  They just no longer support updating that system.

All future subscription money will go towards using the tool, and accessing the library. 

It's up to you to decide if using the tool and accessing the library is worth the cost of the subscription.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Sure- that's a pessimistic way of looking at it... Or you can look at it as saying:
> 
> They will have more man hours available for use on new projects because they don't have to split their team between-
> 
> ...




Past experience with digital offerings has taught me that the pessimistic view is the only road that leads to less dissappointment. 




Scribble said:


> Aside from that, customers have every right to quit using the system, just like they did with the compendium.
> 
> They haven't taken your ability to use the old CB away, so if you consider your subscription having gone towards that, they haven't removed something you paid for. They just no longer support updating that system.




True enough in this case. My subscription ended in September and I decided not to renew. As a bonus I couldn't download the update that really porked the MB in October so mine still works OK.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Past experience with digital offerings has taught me that the pessimistic view is the only road that leads to less dissappointment.




I'm very anti pessimism for various reasons, but hey whatever floats your boat. 



> True enough in this case. My subscription ended in September and I decided not to renew. As a bonus I couldn't download the update that really porked the MB in October so mine still works OK.




No harm no foul then!


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yeah this is a good point to make. No one doing the 1 month download thing was doing anything wrong... In fact if you only cared about that part, then doing that made the most economical sense.
> 
> That's part of the issue. They created a part of the service that gave people more incentive NOT to subscribe then to subscribe, and probably didn't realize how much of an effect it would have on physical book sales.




I think its 12.95 per month, if you go monthly, right? Assuming you download once each quarter, you're paying $51.80. 20 bucks less than the year long subscription. Was it really worth it to piss so many off to potentially gain a little bit of extra income from trying to force them into becoming year long subscribers? 

The guys who also did monthly dips were also potentially missing out on getting the rules the month of release. It would have been smarter for them to stagger it out, where each month had a new splat.

And frankly, even if it hurts book sales, they are probably making more off each month of DDI than each copy of the lates book, as a result of selling direct. 

At $72 a year, DDI is comparable in price to a MMO subscription. The difference is a MMO provides a complete play experience. And has a hell of a lot more costs involved, with servers, GM's, tech support, not to mention considerably harder to code. The character builder (honestly the only real reason to be a DDI subscriber) isnt a complete game... its just a supplement to something you already own. They're taking people to the cleaners for a feat planner, and yet the ones deemed "abusing" the system are PAYING CUSTOMERS. 

PDF's are available of their books the week they come out. Piracy isnt going to be stopped by this. They spent a lot of time and effort for little benefit to anyone, to deliver something currently worse than what we had.


----------



## Cergorach (Nov 4, 2010)

If your going to use figures, please use the correct figures.

DDI = $9.99 if you pay per month

WoW = ~$156 per year

When you compare that to the $72 a year there's a BIG difference. DDI provides you with oodles of reading material, tons of reference material, but very little interactivity (as was promised). An MMO gives you virtual no reading material, but oodles of interactivity. Not really comparable gameplay... There is a reason why DDI costs less then half of what an MMO costs per year.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

ehren37 said:


> I think its 12.95 per month, if you go monthly, right? Assuming you download once each quarter, you're paying $51.80. 20 bucks less than the year long subscription. Was it really worth it to piss so many off to potentially gain a little bit of extra income from trying to force them into becoming year long subscribers?




I think with any situation like this, you have to look at everything as a whole and weigh the choices, and also account for not having all the info.

You can't take one part and assume it's the whole.

For instance:

Old CB couldn't be used by a large group of potential users. (Mac users)

Old CB forced them to split man hours maintaining more then one Database. (And if you add a new tool for Mac users, one for Ipad, and Android the situation only gets worse.)

Old CB actively promoted casual subscriptions- And it's important to note that it's not just that it let people do it, it's that it actively promoted it... Really it made better economic sense to do it. The only drawback was that you needed to be patient. (oh and it's 10 bux a month.)

Old CB cut into physical product sales (and WoTC is pro-physical product.) Since you were downloading the info "forever" the CB was actively cutting incentive to want to buy the physical product. 

Old CB not only was easy to pirate, but actively HELPED the pirates out, by supplying them with a nice DB package to use.

Freeing up man power, and adding a whole set of new potential customers, stand out as two very big reasons to switch, especially when a large percentage of the population already using the tool will be unaffected.

The other issues probably just put it over the top as something that had to be done even though it risked pissing off some users



> PDF's are available of their books the week they come out. Piracy isnt going to be stopped by this. They spent a lot of time and effort for little benefit to anyone, to deliver something currently worse than what we had.




Sure- it's not always about actively trying to stop the piracy... but why go out of your way to make it easy for them?

I mean most people lock their door at night... A thief can pretty easily smash a window, and take what he wants, but that doesn't mean we should leave the key in the lock.

Also "Currently worse then we had" is kind of unfair... None of us have actually used the system yet. 

Also little benefit to anyone doesn't apply to mac users. And while I can't speak for everyone, here are some reasons I am happy about the switch:

I can also use the CB now from any computer linked to the web, which makes me happy when I go to a friend's place who doesn't have the CB, and I want to use it. 

Or if I'm visiting my dad, and didn't bring a computer. 

Or if you're say, at school in a computer lab, or at a place that doesn't block the WoTC site, but won't let you install software. 

Or if I get to the game and realize I forgot my character, I can just log on and print him out.

Also if they DO manage to make updates more often it benefits me.

I can understand people who like to use the system offline, being upset because they no longer can... But this doesn't effect me. I use the CB in places that have internet access, and even if I don't I have a phone with an unlimited data package that can tether very easily- so I'm all for it.


----------



## Festivus (Nov 4, 2010)

Cergorach said:


> An MMO gives you virtual no reading material, but oodles of interactivity. Not really comparable gameplay... There is a reason why DDI costs less then half of what an MMO costs per year.




I think it depends on which MMO you play and how you play it.  I found World of Warcraft to have a pretty good story, if one stopped and bothered to read the quests and text presented.  I do agree however, there is oodles of interactivity.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 4, 2010)

FWIW, I am collecting questions about the functioning of the new CHaracter builder on the WotC website in the thread here. If you have a question you would like answered, post them there or post them here (and make sure to tag me so that I see it) and I will add it.

Trevor has assured me that he will do his best to get as many of them answered as possible.


----------



## Ahrimon (Nov 4, 2010)

Silverlight question:  Does silverlight have to be pre-installed in order to run the new CB?  If so, that limits the "run anywhere" pro to "run anywhere where silverlight is pre-installed or installable by me".

I'm still leaning towards this being a positive.  Especially once exporting is done.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 4, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> Silverlight question:  Does silverlight have to be pre-installed in order to run the new CB?  If so, that limits the "run anywhere" pro to "run anywhere where silverlight is pre-installed or installable by me".
> 
> I'm still leaning towards this being a positive.  Especially once exporting is done.




Silverlight works exactly the same as Flash - it's a browser plugin. If you don't have Silverlight installed when you go to a Silverlight-based site, you'll be prompted to install it.

Silverlight (as it was a couple of years ago, when I looked at it) had notoriously poor file-handling capacities, and this was by design. This is most likely the reason why export (a function that would generally take a day or two to implement in pretty much every other Microsoft development technology) is not available on release. I'm not sure if the new versions of Silverlight work better in that respect...

Speaking of which, _what_ new versions of Silverlight? Microsoft pretty much declared Silverlight dead as a general development platform a couple of days ago, stating that it will be repurposed as a dev platform for Windows Mobile. It's actually more complicated than that, but it boils down to that. Of course, existing Silverlight apps will continue to run perfectly fine, but whether MS will bother to implement Silverlight plugins for future operating systems is a completely different matter.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Shrug. I'm willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt.  In this case though- he seems to be the specific developer they've chosen to give out info on the new DDI tools, so when he says stuff I get the feeling he's not just shootin the breeze...
> 
> Really it's less what he says and more what he comes right out and says he can't answer, or doesn't know, or is not legally able to answer, or whatever that makes me trust him a little more. It indicates to me at least that he's not just saying something he "thinks" might be the case, and that he's only passing on info he's qualified to answer, and has available to him.
> 
> ...






I was willing to give WoTC the benefit of the doubt when they said they were working on getting the data from Dark Sun and essentials into the CB months ago and they were essentially saying, months ago, that your current CB build is dead and we're not going to support it anymore.

Say one thing and do another, well, that crap only goes along so far.

I mean, does anyone remember when 'the Rouse' was talking about buying a book and having a code that lets you download the PDF of it for a couple dollars more?

At this point WoTC doesn't have a clue what they're doing and should just shut up until whatever products they have are ready because they keep shooting themselves in the foot like some red neck retard that things it's wiggling toe is something good to eat and shoots it off. "I'ze got me a 3-D character promter over here with some virtual table tops I does..."


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 4, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> At this point WoTC doesn't have a clue what they're doing and should just shut up until whatever products they have are ready because they keep shooting themselves in the foot like some red neck retard that things it's wiggling toe is something good to eat and shoots it off. "I'ze got me a 3-D character promter over here with some virtual table tops I does..."



Except that then a different set of people then complain that Wizard's ins't communicating with them.


----------



## Cergorach (Nov 4, 2010)

Sammael said:


> Silverlight works exactly the same as Flash - it's a browser plugin. If you don't have Silverlight installed when you go to a Silverlight-based site, you'll be prompted to install it.



Which is a problem if/when you don't have admin access, like on most work PCs. I can also attest that a lot of companies don't have Silverlight installed by default.



fanboy2000 said:


> Except that then a different set of people then complain that Wizard's ins't communicating with them.



Which is a legitimate complaint, but less of a problem then promising the universe and delivering a red neck love shack...

Blizzard gets away with saying it's done when it's done, because they actually mean it. When they do deliver the product, they deliver a very polished product and have very quick turnaround on patches. Not to mention a very long support period, 11 years for Starcraft 1 (and they might still release patches if there are any big issues), you can also still buy the product for a reasonable price...

See the difference?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 4, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Except that then a different set of people then complain that Wizard's ins't communicating with them.




Is it better to be a proven liar or to keep quite on the subject?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 4, 2010)

I suspect that the end results are equivalent: loss of customers.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 4, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I was willing to give WoTC the benefit of the doubt when they said they were working on getting the data from Dark Sun and essentials into the CB months ago and they were essentially saying, months ago, that your current CB build is dead and we're not going to support it anymore.
> 
> Say one thing and do another, well, that crap only goes along so far.




Yeah... I think unfortunately WoTC is kind of put in a spot where they have to respond like politicians... With answers that are "technically" true, but not always specifically when applied to what WE know.

IE the CB.  Technically they WERE working to get that stuff into the CB... They just didn't mention the change in the CB.

I mean I don't know WHAT the heck I'd do in their shoes... If you had thousands of people dissecting everything you did or said every day all day on websites... What would you do?



> I mean, does anyone remember when 'the Rouse' was talking about buying a book and having a code that lets you download the PDF of it for a couple dollars more?




Yeah... I think at that point they were in a state where they thought they could just talk to us like "friends" and tell us potential "thoughts" about things, or ideas they had, and if it didn't pan out, we'd say "that sucks man..." and move on... they learned differently.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 4, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> They're too busy forgetting anything they said before to now defend WotC by explaining why it's suddenly a good thing that they did it.
> 
> Apologist on Monday: WotC would never do such a thing.
> Apologist on Tuesady: Wow, about time that WotC finally did this. It was totally necessary and is so great for us customers ...
> ...



Premature, unfounded worrying about that a company might do something bad is not some type of genius prophecy or professing great insights into a company. I can do it all the time, and only remind you of what I did on the few times I was right. Selective Perception. A broken clock is right twice a day. Ein blindes Huhn trinkt auch mal ein Korn.

I am pretty meh about an online builder. I like having offline software. I like being able to use the app everywhere, even when I didn't have wireless. I liked the fact that other players could subscribe only occasionally to get an update - all they needed was the character builder, not the entire other stuff DDI contains.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 4, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> Unfortunately too many people are saying reduced options as in permanently not going to be there. But I do get your point.
> 
> As for "soon", if Blizzard can get away with "when it is ready" why not WotC? After all, they have been burned in the past by giving deadlines and missing them.




WotC has a track record going all the way back to D&D 3.0 of not delivering on promises and they still have not.  We wanted more tools, not a re-invent of the tools we already had.  

If they wanted this, they should have come out with a new tool first, tell everyone what the plan was, and leverage the current tools into the new backend.  If that meant replacing the CB and MB in 6 months while keeping the current tools updated, then that is what a real company does to keep their customers happy.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well- I think to be fair "soon" in this case meant about a month, possibly two? That's really not that long in the grand scheme of things is it?




 The problem is, at this point we do not know what soon means.  Soon meant getting Dark Sun into the current CB and it turns out we are NEVER going to get that.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> They haven't taken your ability to use the old CB away, so if you consider your subscription having gone towards that, they haven't removed something you paid for. They just no longer support updating that system.




I don't remember but doesn't the installation of the CB need to contact the WotC servers?


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 4, 2010)

I find it amusing - or curious if you prefer - that a lot of people seem to complain that they will no longer be able to use the CB ... at work...

Anyway..



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Ein blindes Huhn trinkt auch mal ein Korn.




Yep, blind høne kan også finde korn 

But it sure is fun to re-write reality to conform with your perceptions.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 4, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I find it amusing - or curious if you prefer - that a lot of people seem to complain that they will no longer be able to use the CB ... at work...
> 
> Anyway..



Me too. Maybe it's just because I work in IT security, but installing unapproved software on a work computer just seems like asking for trouble.


----------



## dnoonan (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm typing this on my 12th consecutive Apple computer. I should be overjoyed, right? Yet this feels like a huge, huge takeaway for me.

For me, it's all about the export to iplay4e.

Suffice it to say that I've played a _lot_ of D&D over the years. But iplay4e was a game-changer for me. (Heck, it's one of the few times I can say "game-changer" and mean it literally.) I spent less time doing arithmetic and recordkeeping--and I used that extra time for more ridiculous accents, scenery-chewing, and roleplay moments. Life was good!

Shortly after the 16th, I won't be able to do that anymore.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I played with paper character sheets for 25 years. I can always go back to that, right? But you can't tell me that the paper sheets are going to improve my experience at the game table. I ain't buying it.

--Dave.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 5, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I find it amusing - or curious if you prefer - that a lot of people seem to complain that they will no longer be able to use the CB ... at work...





abyssaldeath said:


> Me too. Maybe it's just because I work in IT security, but installing unapproved software on a work computer just seems like asking for trouble.



What I find amusing is that I've never heard of iplay4e prior to people complaining that they can't use it anymore.

That doesn't invalidate the complaint, it just amuses me.



			
				dnoonan said:
			
		

> Yeah, yeah, I know. I played with paper character sheets for 25 years. I can always go back to that, right? But you can't tell me that the paper sheets are going to improve my experience at the game table. I ain't buying it.



Can't you still use the old CB for iplay4e? That said, I suspect you were waiting for the Dark Sun stuff to come out for the old CB given your work on the setting in the past.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 5, 2010)

Exporting your character sheet to the .dnd4e format is the highest priority on their list at the moment.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 5, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Except that then a different set of people then complain that Wizard's ins't communicating with them.




I think it would largely be the same people.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 5, 2010)

dnoonan said:


> Yeah, yeah, I know. I played with paper character sheets for 25 years. I can always go back to that, right? But you can't tell me that the paper sheets are going to improve my experience at the game table. I ain't buying it.
> 
> --Dave.




Funny, that was always my thought about DDI and electronic sheets.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 5, 2010)

I just wanted to address one point, as someone who's been a member of DDI for almost as long as he could be. Folks seem to be saying "it's a service? How could you possibly expect to keep a service after you drop it?"

The thing is, that's very much the way they're heading, but that is not the way it was back in the beginning. I know this because I never would have subscribed if that was the pitch. I'm a guy who doesn't subscribe to services where I don't get something real--a purchase to keep--unless it's absolutely necessary.

So when the DDI came along, the thing that ultimately sold me was the character builder. The way they did it was to say, here's a free builder for you to download and try. If you subscribe, you can update it with the latest info. When you walk away, you can no longer update it.

For me, that was an instant sale (a no-brainer!) The magazines and the compendium are things that I have barely touched, mostly because I was not impressed with the first Adventure Path they produced, and the compendium was slow and much harder to use than the features of the character builder. If I want to know about an item, power or feat, it's MUCH faster to use the CB, and I don't need an internet connection to use it. Yes, some of us don't have constant Internet connections. If free wi-fi hadn't been provided at last Gen Con, for instance, no one would have been able to update their characters in the convention hall without an additional costly purchase!

If they had pitched DDI the way they're doing it now to me back then, I never would have subscribed, and I know for certain that I'm not the only one.

For me, the ability to get the CB and something that I could ultimately walk away from if I so chose, made getting a subscription a no-brainer to me. That and the fact that I wanted to show my support for the folks at WotC who were making a darn fine game.

The problem, to me, is that they're changing the rules of the road and then trying to tell me things were never any different. That's garbage. You were always able to download and use the character builder for free with the core rules (and still can now, unless it's been pulled). The only "subscription" you had was to get new material.

Am I stealing from WotC? No. I don't give out my copy of the CB or download PDFs of the books--and I have purchased quite a few books until the Essentials series came along. The net result is that I'm no longer getting something that has any value to me, and as a paying customer I'll tell you that's a poor attitude for any company to take.

Will this new CB prevent piracy? As long as you can log in more than one place at a given time it will not put a dent into the big problem of sharing the CB. If there is a limit to how you can log into it, I daresay this will be a problem when you connection doesn't reset properly and you have to log back on repeatedly.

But all that's ultimately not the point, which to me is: the DDI is becoming something *new*, and those of us who have subscribed to it under the *old *rules aren't being gripey whiners for complaining about how it's changing. 

--Steve


----------



## buddhafrog (Nov 5, 2010)

After a 25 year absence from rpg's, I started playing again last Christmas.  I chose D&D 4e for various reasons, but I live overseas and getting my hands on books is much more expensive.  I ended up downloading a pirated CB (didn't understand at the time that I could just buy a one-month subscription).  It was great.  I was hooked into D&D.  And during this past year, I've spent many hundreds of $$$ on WotC products b/c I really love playing this game - as do my kids and students that I play with.  I would be a happy regular subscriber to DDI, but with the change, I'm uncertain.  While I'll likely continue, I am also pondering making a jump to another system.  I DM around 30 kids, and they will not be able to buy monthly subscriptions.  Technically they don't "need" the CB, but in reality, they do - otherwise, it is just too confusing for them.  I'm not completely comfortable choosing a rpg game for these students that require your monthly fee to access your character.  And while WotC says they are working on letting you extract your character, the fact that this wasn't one of the primary early goals strikes me as odd - and a little troubling.  They will completely control access to my characters, and I'm uneasy with this idea.  Very.

If I didn't start playing rpg's last Christmas but instead started this year, I wouldn't be choosing D&D b/c of the monthly costs involved.  I would have chosen one of the many other options (likely a AD&D modern version).

I understand the reasons WotC is doing this and I think this does provide some opportunities for them to produce a better product (more control, regular updates, better mobile options, interesting sharing of info, more tools).  But I do sense that this will begin an ever-increasing need for the web-based tools.  This increasing necessity to use DDI and the monthly costs involved (or you lose *everything*) has me worried that it will make entry harder - that is not a good thing for rpg's which tend to be hard to enter to start with.

I do think two things might happen: 1) a playing group will share one account, or 2) players might only sign up for when they need to level-up.  While the first would be against the ToC and, I see this as minor and a way to make it easier (yes cheaper) to play for those that otherwise wouldn't subscribe at all.  I don't think it would drain a lot of income from WotC - actually, I would hope that it draws in the players and provides greater longterm income.  If I subscribe to the new DDI, I will certainly do this.  I will have my account, and my 20-30 students will make their characters on my account to play in my game.  WotC will not be loosing any money b/c either way these kids won't be sending money to WotC.  But hopefully, it will eventually bring income to WotC b/c I'll be buying more of their products as we play, and the kids will grow up and start their own games, etc. etc.  Many of these kids have told me that D&D is their favorite game ever.  I hope these kids stay in the hobby and eventually make their wives angry at how much they are giving to WotC.


----------



## darjr (Nov 5, 2010)

http://community.wizards.com/go/thr...you_would_like_answered&post_num=39#472980797



			
				wotc_trevor said:
			
		

> Hey guys. I don't have answers to all the questions yet, but I wanted to hop back in here with a few that I do have.
> Different paper sizes? Letter is common in NA, but Europe uses A4. They are *almost* identical, but not quite.
> 
> 
> ...




No rare items in the current cb


----------



## garyh (Nov 5, 2010)

20 saved characters?  20?  That'd horrendous.  All this talk of "the cloud" and they only are giving us about 2 MB to actually store our PC's.  That's absolutely ridiculous and an insult.  Hell, the last time I played WoW you could have 50 characters (max 10 per server).

20!


----------



## Obryn (Nov 5, 2010)

Wow - a 20 character limit is ridiculous, if it's kept for any length of time.  I hope WotC's using this limit as a stress test of sorts, to see if the system can keep up.  I fear that it's a way to cut down on account sharing.  Regardless, once the Export function is up, I'm not sure how much I'll care...

I'm most disappointed at the poor house-rule support.

I'm hoping the rest of the product is pretty bang-up awesome, because so far, the internet requirements (when I prep behind a firewall at work), lack of houseruling, and character limits sound like a pretty raw deal compared to what we already had.

-O


----------



## malraux (Nov 5, 2010)

garyh said:


> 20 saved characters?  20?  That'd horrendous.  All this talk of "the cloud" and they only are giving us about 2 MB to actually store our PC's.  That's absolutely ridiculous and an insult.  Hell, the last time I played WoW you could have 50 characters (max 10 per server).
> 
> 20!




Yeah, that is insultingly small.


----------



## darjr (Nov 5, 2010)

From 
Paolo Marcucci
Software Developement Manager
D&D Digital Studio



> I shouldn't do this, but I want to help you guys out there to understand.
> 
> I could write a script in about 10 minutes that automates the new Character Builder and then creates a new level 20 character. I could run this on a number of machines (10? 20?) and let it go overnight creating, say, one character every 10 seconds.
> 
> ...




http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26199149/20_character_limit&post_num=66#472999761


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 5, 2010)

Whoa...The new CB is scriptable?


----------



## malraux (Nov 5, 2010)

darjr said:


> From
> Paolo Marcucci
> Software Developement Manager
> D&D Digital Studio
> ...




Based on those numbers, it would take a bit over two days (~55 hours) for 10 machines creating a new character every 10 seconds to fill 1TB (assuming character files are about the same as the old CB).  That's not a real convincing reason to limit to 20 characters.

I'm really not feeling the WotC love.


----------



## Canor Morum (Nov 5, 2010)

The real reason has already been stated.  To limit the number of people who can share an account.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 5, 2010)

I don't even know where to begin with the 20 character revelation.

I'm stuck in a spot where I utilize the Compendium during games for all my monsters and rules, thus cutting down on book usage (really, I only carry 3.X books for my Eberron lore to games now), but everything about the new CB is really, really frustrating.

I mean, I have over 20 characters on my machine just from one shots I've run.  That's before my actual characters and the characters I've uploaded from our house server from my friends PC for the games I run.

I don't think I would be so irritated if it wasn't for the extreme lack of functionality the new CB offers.  If it was released with at least the same functionality, I might have reacted totally differently.  Right now, I just lose so many features that it's really frustrating.

I suppose the good news is we can keep using the Classic CB until the new one matches functionality.  I really just wish they wouldn't have pushed out that last CB update that broke so much of the Classic builder if they knew they were going online.


----------



## bbbmmmlll (Nov 5, 2010)

I still think character builders should be free. They make the game more accessible and with all the rules to track it's a bit of a nightmare to try to build characters. This was such a big time sink in 3/3.5 and now it's showing up in 4E with multiple PHBs, Powers, settings, Essentials, etc... As a long time DM and player who now plays a couple times a month it just doesn't seem worth it anymore. I've already spent many hundreds of dollars on 4E and now I have to pay monthly for a tool that I use for less than an hour a month or waste hours leafing through poorly organized rule books. That's a pretty poor return and pretty much eliminates most casual players.

Between Essentials and the CB changes I'm really turned off. Buying regurgitated rulebooks, WotC making the game management more complicated and charging you to work around their system along with the rescinding of the PDFs (I don't want to lug around two backpacks full of books anymore - I want to use my Kindle, iPad or laptop) has pushed me to the edge.

The sad part is that we're getting an inferior product and it's going to cost them more in the long run. It won't reduce piracy, it will eliminate casual gamers and their web service will need to be a lot more robust. I haven't been impressed with WotC's IT department and running a 24x7 service that people depend on to use their product is a lot different than keeping a web site up. People can live without their forums, access to the latest Dragon/Dungeon, etc... but when it's Friday night and you can't get your character and your game is about to start it will be ugly.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Nov 5, 2010)

I must admit that the 20 character limit is the first thing that has pissed me off regarding the switch to a web based system.

That said, as soon as they let us download our characters, the limit ceases to matter, as you can simply download all your characters, and simply upload those are active.  When they become inactive, download them and delete the "cloud" version.

Until then, however... this isn't a very good way to sell something that already is drawing a lot of ire.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 5, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Whoa...The new CB is scriptable?



 Probably not directly scriptable but the browser api could be exploited to run scripts against the back end.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 5, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> The real reason has already been stated. To limit the number of people who can share an account.




Also it could mean they are looking at a plan to sell more space - think character slots in MMOs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2010)

20 characters seems awfully low. This isn't Startrek Online where every character has like 12 or so Bridge Officers with customized looks and skills and 10 space ships with customized looks and stuff. I definitely have more then 20 characters spread around my PC. And only 3 of them are from other players. 

Just add a zero and your server is still safe and I have more then I will probably ever need.


----------



## malraux (Nov 5, 2010)

I'm still at a loss to see how this new CB is an improvement over the old one, and that's what has me most annoyed.  I certainly don't see why WotC expects annoy to welcome these changes.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 5, 2010)

malraux said:


> I'm still at a loss to see how this new CB is an improvement over the old one, and that's what has me most annoyed. I certainly don't see why WotC expects annoy to welcome these changes.



 Its is not as it stands, however it does have potential. it not not my main reason for subscribing though.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Nov 5, 2010)

malraux said:


> I'm still at a loss to see how this new CB is an improvement over the old one, and that's what has me most annoyed.  I certainly don't see why WotC expects annoy to welcome these changes.




The most obvious? It's multi-platform. Which, if you remember, we had multi-thread-thousand-post flamewars about when DDI was announced and it wasn't in.


----------



## malraux (Nov 5, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> The most obvious? It's multi-platform. Which, if you remember, we had multi-thread-thousand-post flamewars about when DDI was announced and it wasn't in.




I'm a mac user.  With the advent of processors with virtualization hardware built in for quite a while now, multiplatform hasn't really been an issue for several years.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2010)

malraux said:


> I'm a mac user.  With the advent of processors with virtualization hardware built in for quite a while now, multiplatform hasn't really been an issue for several years.




Apparently it was a big enough issue to cause several threads about it. 

In anycase the change is one of those updates that sucks for some, is awesome for others, doesn't do much one way or the other for still others.

Where you sit on the spectrum depends I guess on where/when/how you accessed the CB, what you felt you were paying for with your subscription, etc...

It's not an "It's great for everyone!" or an "It sucks for everyone!" sort of thing... which is probably worse because this sort of situation always seems to start the most arguments.


----------



## evilref (Nov 5, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> Also it could mean they are looking at a plan to sell more space - think character slots in MMOs.




It could also mean they're planning on giving everyone a free car - think Oprah giving away cars on her shows.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 5, 2010)

The other thing to remember here is that WotC knows they are going to annoy people in the short term because of what the CB is not able to do from the start... but in the next month, two months, three months etc... one by one those annoyances are going to drop away as new functionality is added.  And in just a little while, we are all going to forget just how angry we were at this point in time.

I mean... is anyone out there still angry about the gnome, half-orc, druid and barbarian?  I seem to recall a whole heap of piss and vinegar aimed directly at WotC when it was revealed that those four things were not going to be in the first Player's Handbook.  We had all kinds of people going on and on about how they won't be able to upgrade their character to 4E, that if this is how WotC was going to treat them then they don't deserve their business yadda yadda yadda.

But then, nine months later... once the PHII got released... we haven't heard hide nor hair of any complaints about that situation anymore.  And the same thing can be said for the CB as it stands.

WotC is going to take the slings and arrows from us messageboard folk for however many months it takes before they reveal the additional CB support or additional tools... and just accept the insults in the short term... knowing full-well that in six(?), nine(?) months time they are going to announce the release of X or Y or Z and suddenly all the caterwauling virtually die out.


----------



## ki11erDM (Nov 5, 2010)

malraux said:


> That's not a real convincing reason to limit to 20 characters.




It is clear your job does not depend on a server being up 99.9%. Spend a few months with that axe over your head and you would have a different perspective on your statement, or you would be out of a job.

I can see 20 being low for a power user… but I have never, ever, had 20 characters in CB. *shrug*


----------



## malraux (Nov 5, 2010)

ki11erDM said:


> It is clear your job does not depend on a server being up 99.9%. Spend a few months with that axe over your head and you would have a different perspective on your statement, or you would be out of a job.
> 
> I can see 20 being low for a power user… but I have never, ever, had 20 characters in CB. *shrug*




Oh I agree that some limit should be imposed.  Just that 20 is very very low.  I'll also bet that the WotC servers won't have 99.9% uptime.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 5, 2010)

20 is four (4!) "optimal" parties worth of chatracters.  Three "max" parties with a couple of spare spots. For a single user that should be plenty.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2010)

Herschel said:


> 20 is four (4!) "optimal" parties worth of chatracters.  Three "max" parties with a couple of spare spots. For a single user that should be plenty.




This is another area where it's fine for some, sucks for others.


For someone who just uses it to work with the character they're using in the current game, it's fine, and doesn't bother them.

For people who like to just sit around theorizing characters and making new characters for no reason other then just to do it, 20 will go by right quick.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

Herschel said:


> 20 is four (4!) "optimal" parties worth of chatracters.  Three "max" parties with a couple of spare spots. For a single user that should be plenty.




Some people enjoy making PC's and saving them. Some of us play PbP where we have more PC's. Some of us are DM's of multiple games and have asked our PC's to send us their dnd files. I don't build Optimal parties myself, I build PC's that seem like fun to play, or are themed ones, or back-up ones, etc.

Edit: Damn you Scribble! You're like a ninja-clown or clown-ninja or something...


----------



## ki11erDM (Nov 5, 2010)

What number would be good for a power user then?  If not 20... 50?  That just seems extremely high to me.  And if you go towards 100 you are going start creating UI issues.  
I would not want my programmers worrying about numbers that extreme when I am trying to make a widely used tool.  They should instead spend the time making the export tool, something that most people could use and would also solve these issues.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Some people enjoy making PC's and saving them. Some of us play PbP where we have more PC's. Some of us are DM's of multiple games and have asked our PC's to send us their dnd files. I don't build Optimal parties myself, I build PC's that seem like fun to play, or are themed ones, or back-up ones, etc.



I agree, I prefer themed characters, and so I build many, just to test them out.  20 seems like such an odd limit.

But I seem to have missed the post where this was 20 character limit was announced, would someone kindly direct me to it?


----------



## Brys (Nov 5, 2010)

I play in one in-person game, one play-by-email game, and close to 10 active play-by-post games (probably another 10 on "temporary" hiatus that I don't expect to come back).  I've already cancel my auto-renew (good news is I am payed up through next May for a product I wouldn't have signed up for had I known the direction it was going).

20 is WAY too low.  I just did a quick count and have 232 chars on this computer (like I said elsewhere, the offline CB made making characters fun when I couldn't access the internet).  Some other numbers: There are 26 classes.  Want to make one of each?  You can't.  How many different builds are there? (rough estimate would be take the classes and multiple by 2.5 or ~65)  Want to make a two-handed fighter?  Sorry, you'll have to kill your sword and board fighter first.
There are 18 PHBX races + 3 Eberron + 2 FR.  Want to make one of each?  You can't.  These numbers are pre-Essentials and Dark Sun.

At first, I thought dropping the CB would make me buy more books.  Now I'm starting to realize I have enough to work with for quite a while.  Maybe I'll just wait for 5E and see if they have a product that fits my needs better then.  Online only is the only killer for me at this moment.  If they find a way to make it usable offline, I'm back in.  Even if they sell month-long keys or something that forces you to stay subscribed without requiring an active internet connection every moment you want to use the tool.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

ki11erDM said:


> What number would be good for a power user then?  If not 20... 50?  That just seems extremely high to me.  And if you go towards 100 you are going start creating UI issues.
> I would not want my programmers worrying about numbers that extreme when I am trying to make a widely used tool.  They should instead spend the time making the export tool, something that most people could use and would also solve these issues.




Is 100 extreme? How would a higher limit affect programmers? Wouldn't it just be a larger storage amount required? I'm a layperson so ignore any ignorance.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 5, 2010)

evilref said:


> It could also mean they're planning on giving everyone a free car - think Oprah giving away cars on her shows.




But my idea is plauseable.

I think current management looks at D&D as an MMO.

Wjile it may not be slots, it could very well be space.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2010)

Brys said:


> 20 is WAY too low.  I just did a quick count and have 232 chars on this computer (like I said elsewhere, the offline CB made making characters fun when I couldn't access the internet).




Yeah when they came up with the number 20- I doubt they were looking at "power" users...

I'ma go out on a limb and say the average user probably has no where NEAR 232 characters.


I would probably even say for a large majority of personal users out there 20 is probably more then enough...  

Just power users get screwed for a while. Hopefully once they get the export function up and running this will be a non issue.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 5, 2010)

Adding additional slots is a pretty trivial affair, from what I understand. WotC is, understandably, playing it safe. far better to start out with a low number of slots and increase them to make sure that things don't go kerblooey than start with a large number and have to drop it, possibly causing people to lose characters.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 5, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I'ma go out on a limb and say the average user probably has no where NEAR 232 characters.




I once made a Tinker Gnome who had a name that was 232 characters long. Does that count?


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

Good idea as people will also see it as adding features, rather than losing stuff if they had to reduce.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 5, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I would probably even say for a large majority of personal users out there 20 is probably more then enough...




I hardly consider myself a power user, but in the first week of having the CB I threw together roughly 30 different characters.  Some were power builds, some were for groups I'm in, some were just theory-crafting, others were just neat themeatic ideas I came up with.

50 characters is hardly a stretch, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this turn into a DDO-like scenario where if you want to make more characters, you have to pay for more "slots".  Which will wholly kill any desire I have to use their service(and why I don't play DDO either!), I don't mind microtrans when they're reasonable.  But Microtrans for another 20 PDF-like files?

Wizards my friends, that's just silly.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I hardly consider myself a power user, but in the first week of having the CB I threw together roughly 30 different characters.  Some were power builds, some were for groups I'm in, some were just theory-crafting, others were just neat themeatic ideas I came up with.
> 
> 50 characters is hardly a stretch, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this turn into a DDO-like scenario where if you want to make more characters, you have to pay for more "slots".  Which will wholly kill any desire I have to use their service(and why I don't play DDO either!), I don't mind microtrans when they're reasonable.  But Microtrans for another 20 PDF-like files?
> 
> Wizards my friends, that's just silly.




Eh... Personally I think anytime you start using statements like "some were just theory-crafting" you're entering power user territory...

I mean you might not be 232 dude on hold power user level, but still.


All in all I agree- I think they need to up the count to meet at least lower level power user levels, but I can understand why they started relatively low.

I don't think they really NEED to support making your own army of characters though...

Again I hope export makes this a moot point.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 5, 2010)

I would have thought that 30 would be an appropriate maximum, as it allows someone to have a version of his character saved (or pre-prepared) for every level of his life from 1st to 30th.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 5, 2010)

20 is absurdedly low, epecially if you're a DM who wants to have records of everyone else's characters ('Course you used to not need to manually make their characters on your account either, so this is literally WotC creating a new problem based on a previous problem _that they just created_).

It's cool though, if you have too many characters you can always expo - _ooooohhh_.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 5, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I don't think they really NEED to support making your own army of characters though...
> 
> Again I hope export makes this a moot point.




Indeed, you could make an army, or not, with the old builder, because you could save as much as your HD could hold.  Given how small they are, a literal army is not hard to imagine.



Plane Sailing said:


> I would have thought that 30 would be an appropriate maximum, as it allows someone to have a version of his character saved (or pre-prepared) for every level of his life from 1st to 30th.




Actually, I think an interesting solution would be to instead of making each level of each character a unique file, each "character" was a possible iteration of that character 1-30.  This would drastically adjust how 20 characters looked, if you could save Character A as levels 1-30, and still only use up one slot, since it's only one character.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Just power users get screwed for a while. Hopefully once they get the export function up and running this will be a non issue.




I have a question regarding the export function now that the storage space issue has come up. I know the plan is to provide export functionality in the future but with limited space available for storage what provisions will there be for _re-importing_ or uploading an existing file back into the cloud so that it could be modified again? 

Once a character is exported it will have to be deleted or nuked from the cloud in order to actually free up any space. Will there be a way to send that file back if you want to re-activate that character for use? 

Mind you this would be allowing users to upload data directly into WOTC servers which could be a management nightmare. I wonder if this issue has been planned for?


----------



## evilref (Nov 5, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have a question regarding the export function now that the storage space issue has come up. I know the plan is to provide export functionality in the future but with limited space available for storage what provisions will there be for _re-importing_ or uploading an existing file back into the cloud so that it could be modified again?
> 
> Once a character is exported it will have to be deleted or nuked from the cloud in order to actually free up any space. Will there be a way to send that file back if you want to re-activate that character for use?
> 
> Mind you this would be allowing users to upload data directly into WOTC servers which could be a management nightmare. I wonder if this issue has been planned for?




Depends entirely on how the DDI team will implement it.

We already know you can import.

We know they intend to add exporting.

It would be logical that exporting just allows you to save the *.dnd4e file to your hard drive and leaves the character in the cloud.

It's logical that if you try and upload or create character #21 you'll be prevented from doing so. Maybe there'll be a UI option to delete another character (which you could then export to back it up first).

It's unknown, we'll find out about the importing on the 16th and the exporting as soon as it's added (maybe December, if not i'd be surprised to see it longer than end of Jan).


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Once a character is exported it will have to be deleted or nuked from the cloud in order to actually free up any space. Will there be a way to send that file back if you want to re-activate that character for use?
> 
> Mind you this would be allowing users to upload data directly into WOTC servers which could be a management nightmare. I wonder if this issue has been planned for?




Well.,.. they've indicated 2 things...

1: At launch the system will have import capability so you can import any characters you already have built.

2. The export function will export to the .dnd4e file format that already exists.


From that I surmise it will let you re-import... But I don't know for sure.


----------



## bbbmmmlll (Nov 5, 2010)

ki11erDM said:


> What number would be good for a power user then?  If not 20... 50?  That just seems extremely high to me.  And if you go towards 100 you are going start creating UI issues.
> I would not want my programmers worrying about numbers that extreme when I am trying to make a widely used tool.  They should instead spend the time making the export tool, something that most people could use and would also solve these issues.




That's short term thinking. How many characters are you going to create over the next five years? Twenty just doesn't cut it. I often make a few characters for every new game just to play around with concepts. Maybe it's OK for six months, but if the product is successful then it's going to need to be increased. From a programming perspective, the app already needs to handle large lists of items and Silverlight has components to do exactly this. One scrollable window with sortable columns for name, race, level, campaign name and character image is a few hours of work.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well.,.. they've indicated 2 things...
> 
> 1: At launch the system will have import capability so you can import any characters you already have built.
> 
> ...




Ok, so this is a hypothetical question to those IT guys here. So they'll be allowing uploads to this Cloud right? Ummm... so there's a lot of IT-type folks all PO'd at Wizards right now... couldn't one of them use a dnd file as a trojan horse to drop a virus in? Seems like a decent vulnerability to me, but again I'm a finance guy so maybe the virus scanners would catch things.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Ok, so this is a hypothetical question to those IT guys here. So they'll be allowing uploads to this Cloud right? Ummm... so there's a lot of IT-type folks all PO'd at Wizards right now... couldn't one of them use a dnd file as a trojan horse to drop a virus in? Seems like a decent vulnerability to me, but again I'm a finance guy so maybe the virus scanners would catch things.




Presumably, you would import it into the online CB first, not directly upload it to the server.  

But really, what would it serve other than to kick sand in the faces of people who are working with the new system, and to make Wizards lock their stuff down even harder?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 5, 2010)

bbbmmmlll said:


> That's short term thinking.




Well, lucky for us... this 20 character maximum sounds like it's only in the short-term anyway.  

The other thing to remember is that since we aren't losing the offline builder we already have... anyone who has characters there can still use that to build or level up existing characters using all 2 years of Wizards material up through August.  So unless you are the type who _has_ to use the most-up-to-date material at all times... you can easily continue to build all your existing characters with all the existing errata and options prior to Dark Sun and Essentials.  I know that's not much of a consolation for some people... but for others out there who didn't necessarily intend on using Dark Sun of Essentials products for their existing characters anyway... they are still in okay stead.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Presumably, you would import it into the online CB first, not directly upload it to the server.
> 
> But really, what would it serve other than to kick sand in the faces of people who are working with the new system, and to make Wizards lock their stuff down even harder?




What does any virus serve? People are jack@$$es.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Is 100 extreme? How would a higher limit affect programmers? Wouldn't it just be a larger storage amount required? I'm a layperson so ignore any ignorance.




From what was stated, part of the reason is protecting against attack.  The idea was basically someone could write their own program that does nothing but basically make D&D characters all day everyday, and upload them to the cloud. Since it's not a human, and doesn't care much about how well the character works or anything it could do this very quickly.

Sooner rather then later it would load the drives full of junk characters and overload the whole thing.

He admit the number was pretty low, and said they'd be keeping an eye on how things were going for expansion. 



renau1g said:


> Ok, so this is a hypothetical question to those IT guys here. So they'll be allowing uploads to this Cloud right? Ummm... so there's a lot of IT-type folks all PO'd at Wizards right now... couldn't one of them use a dnd file as a trojan horse to drop a virus in? Seems like a decent vulnerability to me, but again I'm a finance guy so maybe the virus scanners would catch things.





Anytime you upload a file from somewhere you risk getting a virus... But this is something I'm sure they have things in place to deal with... Just like any online service.

Also, the client actually is local to your machine. It's just the data that sits in the cloud. (Which is one of the reasons they aren't doing the offline silverlight thing... it would be a CB with no info in it...)

So I'm not sure if a virus laden character file would effect them, or effect you, because technically you opened it on your system...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, lucky for us... this 20 character maximum sounds like it's only in the short-term anyway.
> .



Even twitter allows more then 20 characters!


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Also, the client actually is local to your machine. It's just the data that sits in the cloud. (Which is one of the reasons they aren't doing the offline silverlight thing... it would be a CB with no info in it...)




Interesting...learn something new every day. I've learned a lot about silverlight and IOS and a whole whack of other technical stuff lately.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Ok, so this is a hypothetical question to those IT guys here. So they'll be allowing uploads to this Cloud right? Ummm... so there's a lot of IT-type folks all PO'd at Wizards right now... couldn't one of them use a dnd file as a trojan horse to drop a virus in? Seems like a decent vulnerability to me, but again I'm a finance guy so maybe the virus scanners would catch things.



Generally uploaded data is passed to the database. It is inserted into the database in the final step using a database language called SQL (Structured Query Language) and this is usually the place the system is most vunerable. If you can presuade the database update component to run a piece of SQL that you have passed to it, you can do a lot of damage. This is called a SQL Injection attack. Now it is possible that SQL injection attacks are possible in the CB, it is a common enough vulnerability. All data to any database should be checked to ensure that none of it can execute as SQL commands and that any possible commands are sanitised so that they are treated as plain text and not as special commands.

A virus is normally a binary executable that hides in another file. In the case of the CB such data would be invalid of if valid (a picture, for instance) have no effect on the server since once in the database it woudl sit there inert without access the underlying OS. 

Viruses usually need access to the OS and usually need privilaged accounts which is why a lot of modern malware exploits the user in order to get permission to run.


----------



## malraux (Nov 5, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Generally uploaded data is passed to the database. It is inserted into the database in the final step using a database language called SQL (Structured Query Language) and this is usually the place the system is most vunerable. If you can presuade the database update component to run a piece of SQL that you have passed to it, you can do a lot of damage. This is called a SQL Injection attack. Now it is possible that SQL injection attacks are possible in the CB, it is a common enough vulnerability. All data to any database should be checked to ensure that none of it can execute as SQL commands and that any possible commands are sanitised so that they are treated as palin text and not as special commands.
> 
> A virus is normally a binary executable that hides in another file. In the case of the CB such data would be invalid of if valid (a picture, for instance) have no effect on the server since once in the database it woudl sit there inert without access the underlying OS.
> 
> Viruses usually need access to the OS and usually need privilaged accounts which is why a lot of modern malware exploits the user in order to get permission to run.




But I name all my gnomes Finbiddle'); DROP TABLE Classes; the Third Fourth, etc.  It's a long line of troublesome tinkerer gnomes.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2010)

malraux said:


> but i name all my gnomes finbiddle'); drop table classes; the third fourth, etc.  It's a long line of troublesome tinkerer gnomes.




new cb suxors if i can't name my gnomes!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 5, 2010)

malraux said:


> Oh I agree that some limit should be imposed.  Just that 20 is very very low.  I'll also bet that the WotC servers won't have 99.9% uptime.




You find someone taking bets with you against those odds and I'm in too.


----------



## ki11erDM (Nov 6, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Is 100 extreme? How would a higher limit affect programmers? Wouldn't it just be a larger storage amount required? I'm a layperson so ignore any ignorance.




It really depends on how they display all the characters at the character selection screen. Is it a drop down? A 100 different items in a drop down would suck…
Is it icon based? A 100 different icons in a huge long list would suck… and think about it on a phone!

They could/will find a good way… just saying it is much easier if you are only dealing with a limited selection and I would rather they did that as a feature upgrade later.


----------



## garyh (Nov 6, 2010)

Herschel said:


> 20 is four (4!) "optimal" parties worth of chatracters.  Three "max" parties with a couple of spare spots. For a single user that should be plenty.




I play a lot of Play by Post games.  I have 8 ongoing PC's in such games.  I DM 6 PC's in another game.  I also maintain another 4 for the game my wife DM's (one of the eight I play in).

That's 18 PC's right there.

Oh, and we also rotate DMing Dungeon Delves to try out new PC's, so that's either 1 more PC if I'm playing or 5 more if I'm DMing.

And that's before we get to PC's I've made just for fun, or multiple copies of possible paths my PC's my take.

20 is low.  The fact that you can't export at launch exacerbates this.

EDIT:  Just checked, and I have 326 saved character files on my hard drive.  They take up all of 34 MB on my 600 GB HD.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 6, 2010)

For reference sake, most dnd4e files are around 200kb, and it's hard to imagine the online files will be _bigger_than uncompressed XML.

My _free gmail account_ offers more storage space then what WotC wants me to _pay_ for.

This is legitimately moronic.  So at dnd4e files sitting at, let's say, 2mb, I have in my computer enough storage space on my computer to hold 512,000 characters.  At 20 characters per person, I can cover 25,600 DDI subscribers.  On my house computer that I use to play video games on.  The computer I casually put together.

Tell you what WotC, you pay me a buck for each user for each month, I'll totally set you up for some storage space.  Clearly this is a way better goddamn job then you're able to do on your own, because every year *one* subscriber pays you enough for 2 TB hardware space at current prices, and I'm going to leap to an insane feat of logic and decide you have more then just one subscriber.


----------



## garyh (Nov 6, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> For reference sake, most dnd4e files are around 200kb, and it's hard to imagine the online files will be _bigger_than uncompressed XML.
> 
> My _free gmail account_ offers more storage space then what WotC wants me to _pay_ for.
> 
> ...




_You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to ProfessorCirno again._

Well said, ProfessorCirno.


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 6, 2010)

garyh said:


> _You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to ProfessorCirno again._
> 
> Well said, ProfessorCirno.



Ditto on bout counts.


----------



## dvvega (Nov 6, 2010)

My personal opinion on all this is quite simple. If you take a quick look at a Google search on Dungeons and Dragons Character Builder you will see a gamut of wares sites offering the program with the latest updates etc included.

WOTC were obviously banking on money from subscribers but if those subscribers can get all the DDI they want from somewhere else, they lose a lot of money.

What about the gaming groups that chip in a bit of money each and purchase a single DDI subscription to share? That's a group of 6 people paying 1 subscription. Sure they cannot all be logged in at the same time but there is nothing there that requires them to be logged in together. Or the DM "owns" the account and downloads everything available for his/her players.

So it is about economics to begin with. Sure the other stuff might still be possible, but the character builder is not distributable now. Wait until they start doing that with Dungeon and Dragon. Realistically they were selling physical magazines and those were being shared, however they thought they could make some money with this DDI thing. They realise they are not and so the next step is to make it impossible (?) for anyone to get hold of some of the features without an account.

The storage space thing needs to be thought out better by WOTC - naturally. Limiting the number of characters to 20 is not 100% logical however looking at how long a campaign takes to play, even a short 5 level mini-campaign, I can see that 20 characters is plenty for some players. But it really should just be unlimited with a little judicial monitoring on their part.

I personally do not see much (more) good coming of this move except to protect their income stream. However if this turns a lot of people away then what next? 

D


----------



## Shazman (Nov 6, 2010)

They may be trying to protect their income stream, but I see them losing a lot of subscriptions over this which would be counterproductive to protecting their income stream.  I can see them getting some mac users or people who play with laptops with constant internet connections, but how many people could that be?  Apart from die hard WotC apologists that somehow think WotC can do no wrong even after constantly employing policies that alienate or downright rip off customers, a lot of people that can somehow benefit from the new format will object to it on principle.  Who really want's to "rent" a character builder and your characters when you are used to owning both?  I sure don't.  I'd rather go back to making characters by hand than having to pay a monthly fee to "access" my characters.  They are my characters, I should own them and always have access to them for free.


----------



## Ahrimon (Nov 6, 2010)

My understanding is that silverlight has an offline mode.  Does anyone know how easy/hard it is for a user to switch an application to offline mode?

Granted there would be no data available for an offline version of the builder since that's all seperate.  But all WotC would have to do is release some sort of a data app and *poof* offline CB.

I don't see them doing this.  At all.  But it remains an option, especially down the road when 5e comes out.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 6, 2010)

They've stated they won't be using the offline Silverlight potential and there will be no more offline CB.

[MENTION=524]dvvega[/MENTION] - there's nothing with the new system stopping the sharing either. Buy 1 account per group and still make all the PC's (which for the vast majority of people is the reason they subscribe, the CB). Also, have they revealed they're losing money with DDI? I've not seen that posted anywhere.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 6, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> My understanding is that silverlight has an offline mode. Does anyone know how easy/hard it is for a user to switch an application to offline mode?
> 
> Granted there would be no data available for an offline version of the builder since that's all seperate. But all WotC would have to do is release some sort of a data app and *poof* offline CB.
> 
> I don't see them doing this. At all. But it remains an option, especially down the road when 5e comes out.



 By default in the browser, the offline mode has to be supported by the developers to use isolated storage to cache the data that is needed to support offline mode. As far as I know there is no way for the user to simply decide to go offline if this has not been supported by the developers.


----------



## Qualidar (Nov 6, 2010)

dvvega said:


> What about the gaming groups that chip in a bit of money each and purchase a single DDI subscription to share? That's a group of 6 people paying 1 subscription. Sure they cannot all be logged in at the same time but there is nothing there that requires them to be logged in together. Or the DM "owns" the account and downloads everything available for his/her players.




This strategy eliminates those groups, I would think. I hope that WotC doesn't think that in situations where the DM was floating a group subscription for a marginally invested table of players this strategy is going to get those players to sign up. I think it's far more likely that what this is going to do is make them switch games. In place of one DM with a subscription, they're going to have one DM with no more need for that subscription, or books, or perhaps minis, depending on where they go.


----------



## evilref (Nov 6, 2010)

Qualidar said:


> This strategy eliminates those groups, I would think. I hope that WotC doesn't think that in situations where the DM was floating a group subscription for a marginally invested table of players this strategy is going to get those players to sign up. I think it's far more likely that what this is going to do is make them switch games. In place of one DM with a subscription, they're going to have one DM with no more need for that subscription, or books, or perhaps minis, depending on where they go.




It certainly doesn't eliminate those groups.

In both my groups i'm the only one with a subscription, for a variety of reasons (though the mac users might now get one). The change in no way eliminates how I'll be using the CB, or changes my system from how I and the group have used it in the past.


----------



## Truename (Nov 7, 2010)

I agree that the 20 character limit is probably intended to prevent people from sharing a single account. WotC strikes me as being very concerned about piracy. But you know what? There's no stopping piracy, and my support of anti-piracy measures goes up in smoke the _very instant_ it makes my life as a paying customer worse. I have no patience for it.

For what it's worth, I'm _not_ a power user, just a DM, and even I have 15 characters on my hard drive from the players of various campaigns I've run. 20 is too few.

My subscription ran out recently, and I'm holding off on resubscribing until things improve. I originally subscribed for Scales of War, and now I'd rather give my money to ENWorld.


----------



## tuxgeo (Nov 7, 2010)

Re: The 20-playing character limit already discussed: 

Let's go binary, shall we? How about a 128 (or, ZERO-based, a 127) character limit? That would really screw with peoples' minds, wouldn't it? 

And the paying customers could pop for more money to get a 256 (or, ZERO-based, a 255) character limit. 

Geeks around th3 (not "the," but "th3") world would rejoice!


----------



## lkj (Nov 7, 2010)

Truename said:


> I agree that the 20 character limit is probably intended to prevent people from sharing a single account. WotC strikes me as being very concerned about piracy. But you know what? There's no stopping piracy, and my support of anti-piracy measures goes up in smoke the _very instant_ it makes my life as a paying customer worse. I have no patience for it.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm _not_ a power user, just a DM, and even I have 15 characters on my hard drive from the players of various campaigns I've run. 20 is too few.
> 
> My subscription ran out recently, and I'm holding off on resubscribing until things improve. I originally subscribed for Scales of War, and now I'd rather give my money to ENWorld.




It may not matter to those of you who don't like it, but that Paulo fellow from WotC gave the following explanation for the 20 character limit:



> I shouldn't do this, but I want to help you guys out there to understand.
> 
> I could write a script in about 10 minutes that automates the new Character Builder and then creates a new level 20 character. I could run this on a number of machines (10? 20?) and let it go overnight creating, say, one character every 10 seconds.
> 
> ...




Link:

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible


----------



## Ketjak (Nov 7, 2010)

*Not so*



Herschel said:


> It's great for me. I can access from nigh anywhere and mac users will be able to also. It may suck for people on a plane (which affects how many really?) but *basically every sleezebag motel even offers free wi-fi these days.* It's a good move for more people than it hurts, which would be the goal.




Er, wrong on the part I bolded. I just stayed at Walt Disney World's Wilderness Lodge and not only didn't they have free wifi, they didn't have free access at all - $9.99 per 24 hours of access - and the access they had was a roaring 356K (no more than 400 down). That's fairly common, to charge for access.

I use the CB when I'm winding down at night. I won't be able to do that when traveling unless I pony up. Now, I will probably do that anyway - but now I _have to_ to build or review characters. And if I go back to the Wilderness Lodge or an equivalent, the access is so slow it's going to be a real pain to pull down the Silverlight client every time.

Not so sure I like the way this is shaping up.

That said, I have said many times the Compendium _alone_ was worth the annual subscription price per month. I still think that's true, but the shine is wearing off a bit and since the Compendium is not accessible by iPhone or Android phone...


----------



## Dumnbunny (Nov 7, 2010)

Ketjak said:


> Er, wrong on the part I bolded. I just stayed at Walt Disney World's Wilderness Lodge and not only didn't they have free wifi, they didn't have free access at all - $9.99 per 24 hours of access - and the access they had was a roaring 356K (no more than 400 down). That's fairly common, to charge for access.



The last time I stayed at a hotel with free internet it was worth every penny I paid for it. It ranged from painful to impossible to use. And it was a decent hotel.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 7, 2010)

Hell, is WoTC wants to give it a positive spin, they should provide Wi-Fi to every game store that runs encounters and then they can boldly say, "Available at your Favorite Gaming Shop."

CB having no wi fi effects me at the shop because they have no Wi-FI.

If B S wants to talk about how he can use it anywhere now, make it so B S


----------



## IronWolf (Nov 7, 2010)

lkj said:
			
		

> It may not matter to those of you who don't like it, but that Paulo fellow from WotC gave the following explanation for the 20 character limit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is sort of a weak explanation for a 20 character limit.  First, one would presumably need to have a DDI account to start uploading characters with a credit card on file.  But let's go ahead and say this hacker that want's to take WotC down gets his stolen credit card number, signs up for an account and then proceeds to run this malicious script from 20 computers simultaneously.

It looks like from other posts that a fair number of dnd4e files are around 200kb in size.  The same information in a DB table is quite likely to be less than that, but we'll go with 200kb.  So 20 machines running the same script for an hour will generate 1.4GB of data.  Working from there, rounding up to 1.5GB per hour means it would take 682 hours to generate 1TB worth of files.  And even if the size of file is double the 200kb I worked with you are still going to need 341 hours to fill 1TB.  Or even if the script runs in half the time, one still needs a good number of hours to cause harm via this method being used to justify the 20 characte limit.

So a 20 character limit seems to do nothing to really prevent an overnight attack of this manner other than frustrate the legitimate users of this system.  It seems limiting simultaneous logins would do more to circumvent a scripted attack as described in the above quote.

And finally, anyone that wants to attack the WotC DDI servers is going to find a more traditional DDoS attack on their network and servers much more expedient than trying to fill up their disk space by uploading a multitude of fake 20th level characters.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 7, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> This is sort of a weak explanation for a 20 character limit. First, one would presumably need to have a DDI account to start uploading characters with a credit card on file. But let's go ahead and say this hacker that want's to take WotC down gets his stolen credit card number, signs up for an account and then proceeds to run this malicious script from 20 computers simultaneously.
> 
> It looks like from other posts that a fair number of dnd4e files are around 200kb in size. The same information in a DB table is quite likely to be less than that, but we'll go with 200kb. So 20 machines running the same script for an hour will generate 1.4GB of data. Working from there, rounding up to 1.5GB per hour means it would take 682 hours to generate 1TB worth of files. And even if the size of file is double the 200kb I worked with you are still going to need 341 hours to fill 1TB. Or even if the script runs in half the time, one still needs a good number of hours to cause harm via this method being used to justify the 20 characte limit.
> 
> ...



 Agreed and if it really was a concern, one could run a script on the database that could alert the admins of the massive build up of characters comming from one subscriber account.

It seem a week reason and I suspect that the real motive is either they want to sell more slots later or there were concerned about the volume of data that would be uploaded when it goes live. I have 48 characters on this machine right now.
Still 20 characters at 200kB each by 41k users is about 150GB which is not alot


----------



## Jor-El (Nov 7, 2010)

I don't really want to add fuel to the fire here, but I can see the next phase of all of this being slight increases in price, and like has been suggested, additional costs for more space/functionality/features/etc.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 7, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> My understanding is that silverlight has an offline mode. Does anyone know how easy/hard it is for a user to switch an application to offline mode?
> 
> Granted there would be no data available for an offline version of the builder since that's all seperate. But all WotC would have to do is release some sort of a data app and *poof* offline CB.
> 
> I don't see them doing this. At all. But it remains an option, especially down the road when 5e comes out.





They have said no.  I also believe they went one further and said an offline version not an option anymore.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 7, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> I don't really want to add fuel to the fire here, but I can see the next phase of all of this being slight increases in price, and like has been suggested, additional costs for more space/functionality/features/etc.



 Their upper limit is set by WoW, the thing no-one needs DDI to play D&D. We have managed it for 40 years with out electronic aids and we could manage it for another 40 if we had to.
Now WoW and games like it offer an immediate play experience. Pay yer money, install the client and within 10 - 15 minutes you are playing WoW.

At no point in the current incarnation of DDI can you be playing D&D within 15 minutes of subscribing so, If they charge too much they will loose subscriptions. 
They are also competing with free stuff, masterplan, maptools and so forth.
So I think the basic subscription will pretty much remain at its current level (adjusting for inflation, etc) but they could offer premium content, or they could go the microtransaction route. Pay this much an unlock some features.

So if they provide an integrated VTT, Character and Monster Builder and campaign manager, mapper, that would consitute the base package. Now this stuff is nothing that one cannot already get from third parties for free or low once off charge.

So the premium stuff would be, prefabbed 3-D maps and minis for adventures that have appeared in Dragon. $10 for keep on the Shadowfell. So now, you have your choice, do the maps yourself and used 2-D counters that come with the VTT for the module or buy the premium content.

Custom 3-D models of your character by the WOTC in house artists. Probably costs losts but there are gamers that could affoard it.

I could also see the rise of a DDI market place where third parties could make a few bob providing custom stuff for their fellow gamers.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 7, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> They have said no. I also believe they went one further and said an offline version not an option anymore.



 Pretty much but I do believe that an offline viewer for existing characters is possible.


----------



## Ahrimon (Nov 7, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> They have said no.  I also believe they went one further and said an offline version not an option anymore.




I was mainly asking since I've heard Silverlight supports offline.  I didn't know if it was something that could be enabled client side.  If it was, I could see someone scraping the compendium and building a DB to connect to it.  I would hope that people wouldn't do that.  But in this day and age, if it can be done, it's out there.

But as long as the option is there, it does offer the capability to go offline (with a separate data package) when the inevitable 5e comes out down the road.  That way, those who wish to stay with 4e wouldn't be left in the cold.  Will WotC do it?  Doubtful, it'd cut into their 5e sales.

Who knows.  If the uproar and cancelled subscriptions pans out to be more than the just the saber rattling that I predict it is, it gives them the option of changing direction without a major re-write.


----------



## Blastin (Nov 7, 2010)

I've been pretty ambivalent about the change up to this point. I don't like that I won't be able to use the CB off line, but I do see the potential of this switch to really integrate a bunch of new options in the future.

The 20 character limit is the first thing that has me upset. I am also one of those people that likes to make characters up as experimentation. I also like to make/save the same character at different levels to see how they might advance. I'm going to go through 20 slots FAST.

 The 20 character limit, if it isn't increased pretty quickly, would be the first thing about this that would make me consider canceling my ongoing subscription.

Edit: upset enough that I just turned off auto renewal. I guess that means they have till 3/11 to make this work.


----------



## Truename (Nov 7, 2010)

Blastin said:


> The 20 character limit, if it isn't increased pretty quickly, would be the first thing about this that would make me consider canceling my ongoing subscription.




Yeah, I can understand the rest of it... two and half years with no new tools while they rewrote their software, the move to online-only, even characters in the cloud.

But the 20-character limit just feels cheap. It's a literal insult added to the injury of something that was obviously created for WoTC's benefit (DRM, paying off technical debt), not ours.

Man, they need a product manager. They should have released one of their _new_ tools first, for crying out loud, instead of giving us this warmed-over retread that so clearly _takes away_ rather than _adds_.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Nov 7, 2010)

So here's a question.  20 character limit, ok.

Will there be an import/export feature?  Because if so, I don't care what my online storage is.  I could fill up a 250GB drive with whatever I needed and upload to work actively.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 7, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> Will there be an import/export feature?  Because if so, I don't care what my online storage is.  I could fill up a 250GB drive with whatever I needed and upload to work actively.




There will be an import feature from the get-go, they say, but the export feature will come in an early update. From what I understand, it will be the same format as the current CB.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE (Nov 7, 2010)

*20 character limit*

is way too low, I concur. I also like to make a whole bunch of characters and check out combos, etc. Although I'll avoid overreacting because this is just expected behavior from a company trying to shore up profits. It's what they do. Hopefully they will have presence of mind to increase the limit sooner rather than later. If you can export your files to local hard drive you essentially have unlimited capacity anyway. I think a buffer size of 20 is not unreasonable, for the time being. IF the export feature is actually done. 

Another thing, why are they using the same file format? Will I be able to load up a character in the old builder? If not, then they should call them .dnd4.5e files instead. Seriously, a clean break is much better than people mixing their files between the old CB and the new one. 

Same filename should mean compatible to open in either version. Did they not get the memo? This is really a "forced CB upgrade, no choice pal", which at least they could be honest about. Whoops, forget that.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Nov 7, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> There will be an import feature from the get-go, they say, but the export feature will come in an early update. From what I understand, it will be the same format as the current CB.




Then I'd have to ask two questions of myself:

1. Why is anyone complaining about the character limit?

and..

2. What the heck am I doing by posting here and condoning a community full of whining foolishness?

No offense to those who are solid members of the community, or the admins and people that run the place, but it seems that there's a lot of bandwidth wasted on ignorant free speech as opposed to educated.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 7, 2010)

Ketjak said:


> Er, wrong on the part I bolded. I just stayed at Walt Disney World's Wilderness Lodge and not only didn't they have free wifi, they didn't have free access at all - $9.99 per 24 hours of access - and the access they had was a roaring 356K (no more than 400 down). That's fairly common, to charge for access.




Wait, so it's WotC's issue that Disney charges for internet? Disney charges for EVERYTHING. I've had to travel a few times lately and gotten in at podunk motels in the middle of nowhere and had free wi-fi. 

Not modern hotels, old school motels due to vacancies needed on short notice. 

If you stay in certain establishments (like anything owned by Disney) yeah, they may try to charge you, but stay anywhere someone on business might stay and they'll have wi-fi for you.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 7, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I'd rather go back to making characters by hand than having to pay a monthly fee to "access" my characters. They are my characters, I should own them and always have access to them for free.




So WotC will come and destroy your printouts and remove a character concept from your mind? Here's a little information for you: DD&D their IP, not yours. Your characters are just an example of something done with their IP but that doesn't grant you "ownership" of anything. If you want to access their system, you have to pay. They are providing tools for a fee.

It's not as if you are creating anything new they're adding to the system, you're just arranging already existing information within their system.


----------



## Dumnbunny (Nov 7, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> Then I'd have to ask two questions of myself:
> 
> 1. Why is anyone complaining about the character limit?
> 
> ...



How about a desire to have all your characters in one place? A desire to take advantage of one of the stated benefits of this new system, access to all your characters from any (Windows/Mac only) computer anywhere you go, work, home, school, library, your friend's place, etc?

How about simply acknowledging that different people have different computer usage patterns than you, different needs and different expectations? Or you could continue to dismiss them as ignorant, foolish whiners. That's certainly much easier.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 7, 2010)

RLBURNSIDE said:


> Another thing, why are they using the same file format? Will I be able to load up a character in the old builder? If not, then they should call them .dnd4.5e files instead. Seriously, a clean break is much better than people mixing their files between the old CB and the new one.
> 
> Same filename should mean compatible to open in either version. Did they not get the memo? This is really a "forced CB upgrade, no choice pal", which at least they could be honest about. Whoops, forget that.



I agree with the first half so I'll only address the part I have quoted.

You will not be able to upload a character from the new CB to the old CB. Ther are also a couple of reasons to keep the old file extension. The first being that if they did what you suggest then the file extension would be .5e not dnd4.5e. everything before the last "." is part of the file name. Also, changing it to .dnd4.5e or just .5e would be pretty much paramount to saying "Hey everybody, let's start another edition war".

The same file extension in no way denotes both backwards and forwards compatibility. There are there reasons that I can think of to keep the same file extension. 
1. Makes it easier for those who are not technologically inclined to understand that their old characters are compatible with the new CB.
2. Less work when designing and coding the new CB.
3. As an added benefit to #2 it creates less work for 3rd party developers to incorporate the new CB character files.

As my ending statement I will say that they have already answered all you questions and haven't been dishonest about what the new CB will mean to those who like the old one.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Nov 7, 2010)

Dumnbunny said:


> How about a desire to have all your characters in one place? A desire to take advantage of one of the stated benefits of this new system, access to all your characters from any (Windows/Mac only) computer anywhere you go, work, home, school, library, your friend's place, etc?
> 
> How about simply acknowledging that different people have different computer usage patterns than you, different needs and different expectations? Or you could continue to dismiss them as ignorant, foolish whiners. That's certainly much easier.




How about understanding that people are not ignorant or foolish whiners because they have different usage patterns than I, and rather, understanding that they're ignorant and foolish whiners because they're wasting their time coming to a forum community to bitch about something the owners have no control over?

Start a write in campaign to WoTC if you want to accomplish something.  Otherwise all you're doing is showing extreme ignorance of the options you do have in exchange for putting the same amount of effort into something that won't work as quickly.

Oh, yes, I forgot because bleeting at the problem on a site that's got open membership, is accessible from any computer with an Internet browser is certainly much easier.. and ignorant.

Two cents, granted there may be some mystical "WoTC listens to enWorld" power that I'm not aware of.


----------



## Dumnbunny (Nov 7, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> Two cents, granted there may be some mystical "WoTC listens to enWorld" power that I'm not aware of.



There are WotC personnel who read and post here, including in this thread. Some of the concerns raised in this thread have already been taken to the development team.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Nov 7, 2010)

Dumnbunny said:


> There are WotC personnel who read and post here, including in this thread. Some of the concerns raised in this thread have already been taken to the development team.




Fair enough then.

That being the case, should I then expect that when things are presented here as issues, they won't be beaten to death and people will simply acknowledge that publicly (ie: How are you certain the dev team has stuff if no one posts as such?)

And second.. would then any change being done to D&D that has in any way a correlation to a suggestion at enworld thus be off-limits for bitching?
(ie: "careful what you wish for" may indeed by enWorld's daily power)

Last up, and I'd really subscribe for this feature (Morrus take notice).. a hyper modded features and pure game discussion forum where any non-constructive bitching is hammered. 

Sorry for being aggressive DB.  

KB


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 7, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> 2. What the heck am I doing by posting here and condoning a community full of whining foolishness?
> .




If you do not like it, find a different thread, forum, or site. Much better than insulting people.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 7, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> Last up, and I'd really subscribe for this feature (Morrus take notice).. a hyper modded features and pure game discussion forum where any non-constructive bitching is hammered.




Like your bitching?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Nov 7, 2010)

@DicE: 

Thanks for the witty and insightful social commentary. Much appreciated. 

Seriously..

Yes I am in the complaining pool. Never said I wasn't. But I'm not complaining about things I can't control or bitching about things I can work around.  If this approach doesn't work to point out an ongoing problem with the community, I'll leave it.

The DDI tools are getting a facelift and they're making a choice to control resources. OK. Nuff said. The day I can't run my game with the tools, I might complain. That stated, I'll take it directly to WoTC with the commentary of my player group in tow, with an exact user case the explains why it's a problem that could affect a lot of playing groups, not just mine.

I will not come to enWorld or some other site dedicated to gaming and flame out on the issues that I do not rightly know exist yet. Seems silly, foolish, ignorant of reality, whatever I choose to call it. But what I didn't do was insult anyone directly.

So in reply to your "your bitching or you don't like it" nonsense you just posted above I reply once and only once in kind.

You're a douchebag Dice. 

In fairness, that's all I'll say about that. We're even.

Thanks,
KB


*Mod Edit:

This, Ladies and Gents, is what we call a flagrant violation of EN World's #1 rule - Keep it civil.

If you don't like what someone has to say, you can respond in a polite and respectful manner, report them if you feel they are breaking the rules, or ignore them and move on.  Insulting them is not an option. ~Umbran*


----------



## garyh (Nov 7, 2010)

I'd say the numerous posts containing examples of "The 20 character limit will have a negative impact on my use of the program and here are the reasons why" ARE constructive.  But hey, I had one of those posts myself, so I'm partial to them...


----------



## jbear (Nov 7, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> @DicE:
> 
> Thanks for the witty and insightful social commentary. Much appreciated.
> 
> ...



Did you just call someone a douchebag?

Why? 

Noone insulted you. They pointed that by complaining you were doing exactly what you were complaining about.

So I don't think you're qualified to judge what is foolishness or not.

Whether you like it or not this decision/announcement by WotC has stirred a hornet's nest of opinions. People are within their rights to express their opinions. I just sludged through 24 pages of posts and I'm pretty darn sure you are the first person to directly insult anyone. 

Anyway, I'm sure the Mods will have more to say.

As for my opinion about the change...

When Scribble began a post named 'Place the Flag', I predicted the next Web Tool announcement by WotC would in part be a solid kick in the knackers for many DDI subscribers, with the CB and Adventure tools going exclusively online. 

SO I was fairly close on that prediction, assuming the Adventure tools will follow suit in the future.

I also predicted the announcement would go hand in hand with the announcement of a new tool that would soften the blow. That may (or may not) be in the pipeline, to be announced in the near future, but for now that part of my prediction was incorrect.

And I guess that is where my surprise generates from. I am pretty sure that WotC had to be aware that an exclusively online CB would have a significant negative customer backlash. I had figured that this is something they would desperately want to avoid at this stage. 

With Essentials coming out, a change of tact in design philosophy as far as classes and monsters that had been receiving a lot of positive feedback, darksun campaign receiving very positive feedback, the promise of the unification of essentials with 'classic?' 4e ... it seemed public opinion of 4e was beginning to sway positively.  Sigh ... and now another rift ... 

I can imagine that WotC weighed up their options and whatever was on the other end of the scale outweighed this negativity. i understand their 'Silence-til-complete' policy but it do think it would have been wise to coincide this announcement with something to sweeten it a bit more. 

From what I have read so far the public opinion is largely split three ways between Blind Fury, Indifference, and Positivity (not an overwhelming amount of that however). When at least half of your current customers are either furious or indifferent to the new web tools, they hardly come under the category of an exciting announcement, in my opinion. The prospect of being limited to 20 characters on the builder is far from exciting to me at least. I have 108 characters on my current builder.

How do I feel about it personally? I'm a little unsure. I think largely I'm going to remain sitting on the fence and quietly observing how things look in a few months from now. I know I'll be fine because I already have enough material to fill a life time of adventures. My biggest fear and frustration is how this may affect the opinions of new players who have come across Red Box or Essentials, and with all the illusion in the world stumble into a negative enviroment such as this thread, only to have that illusion curbed. 

I have maintained since day one that WotC is listening to customer feedback. I don't think that will change now. I do think they will try and win over public opinion as soon as they can. I really do hope they manage to do that, because I hope 4e  has a long and healthy life. 

Fingers Crossed.


----------



## Vaeron (Nov 8, 2010)

When 4e started the biggest trolls were the ones who came into threads and bashed WotC and people who enjoyed 4e.  Nowadays the opposite is true.  I guess the community has really come full circle 

Complaining is very therapeutic, especially when there's not just one person doing it but rather a consensus.  If people feel wronged they have a right to express it, just as anyone else has the right to ignore the complaining.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 8, 2010)

It would have been more correct had you said:

jbear: I am pretty sure that WotC had to be aware that an announcement of any kind would have a significant backlash on internet bulletin boards. They know at this point there is no way to avoid it.


----------



## Riley (Nov 8, 2010)

Blastin said:


> IThe 20 character limit is the first thing that has me upset. I am also one of those people that likes to make characters up as experimentation. I also like to make/save the same character at different levels to see how they might advance. I'm going to go through 20 slots FAST.




Hmmm.  I've got about 50 or 60 PC's on my PC that I've thrown together mostly for fun/learning (you know, throw it at the wall and see what sticks?).  I also have another 10-15 NPCs - each statted out at several different levels - that I've prepared in CB as companion characters.

I'm not all that hard of a sell when it comes to D&D.  But they're just not making it easy to buy in to this brave new, online DDi world of theirs.

Maybe they need to rediscover that old 3e slogan, "Options, not restrictions"?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 8, 2010)

jbear said:


> Anyway, I'm sure the Mods will have more to say.




That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## Ahrimon (Nov 8, 2010)

I'll put my money on the 20 character limit being in place to prevent account sharing.  I don't blame them.  They want everyone to have thier own account.  And I don't blame them for not saying as much.  They have to practice as much damage control as possible with an announcment as full of emotion as this new builder.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE (Nov 8, 2010)

*here's a constructive idea*

when and if they do implement the export from the new online CB, why not export it in a non-edition-wars-creating filename? Instead of .dnd45e, they could easily pick like .dnd4b or something innocuous like that. If the files are not themselves compatible using the _de-facto_ (at least initially) program used to open them, it makes sense to transition to a new format that has new data and layouts, as a new native file format, with .dnd4e files being an import-only file format. 

Let's not pretend that the new CB will not mangle the compatibility of your files just for expediency's sake. It wouldn't be expedient to those of us who plan on using both for a while (because the Essentials CB, if it sucks, will be abandoned by our group, or even never adopted in the first place, unless it provides a good value). Right now the main benefit of using this new CB for people who don't necesserily need Essentials or Dark Sun classes, would be the generic feats and errata that the old CB will never receive, and it just gets to be too much effort after a while. 

I, for one, need the updated powers and feats since I play a hybrid paladin and look forward to the Class Compendium updates on the classic ranger as well. So the new CB does provide value, insomuch as the new feats / powers are clearly superior and fix bugs in the way the game is played. When I went from a pure paladin to a hybrid, I didn't realize at first how crappy it would be to play a class loaded with immediate action powers that vie with my mark mechanics. There was negative synergy that I'm glad is now fixed, but at a cost : To have a printed sheet with it I'd have to "house rule" my at-will in the old builder, or just pay for one or two months for the online CB. You don't need to print out a new sheet every single level. 

Every tier of play, yes most definitely. And with the latest feats and errata included. I don't need to pay 20 bucks a month to add a +1 to my sheet, personally. But those fancy new Ax Expertise and Superior Defense feats...ohh yeah.


----------



## Markn (Nov 8, 2010)

Beyond the continued concerns of the limitation of 20 characters, I'm not sure this thread has much reason to exist any more.  I humbly request a swing shut on this one.

If anyone has anything further to add, they could always start a new one. 

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## garyh (Nov 8, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> I'll put my money on the 20 character limit being in place to prevent account sharing.  I don't blame them.  They want everyone to have thier own account.  And I don't blame them for not saying as much.  They have to practice as much damage control as possible with an announcment as full of emotion as this new builder.




Except even for that it fails, as that's four parties worth of PC's, if you only use it for active PC's.  Plenty to go around.  So, really, it's not even achieving that much...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 8, 2010)

Herschel said:


> It would have been more correct had you said:
> 
> jbear: I am pretty sure that WotC had to be aware that an announcement of any kind would have a significant backlash on internet bulletin boards. They know at this point there is no way to avoid it.




Then allow me to make another awesome suggestion to WotC:

Don't make stupid mistakes like this.

If you know you have an announcement coming up that's goign to cause significant amounts of strife and will lose you moeny and subscriptions, _pause_.  Ask yourself: Is this a good idea?  Am I getting a bigger gain then I'm losing?

Because so far the answer to both of the questions is a giant bolded "*No.*"


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 8, 2010)

Oh yes, to those wondering why we're upset when "they're going to program export functions," it might be because "soon" is their deadline, and also incidentally still their deadline for the VTT.

Also because there is *no goddamn excuse* to not have export functioning out when you open the gate.  Jesus, how is this difficult?  *Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete.*  And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.


----------



## thewok (Nov 8, 2010)

RLBURNSIDE said:


> when and if they do implement the export from the new online CB, why not export it in a non-edition-wars-creating filename? Instead of .dnd45e, they could easily pick like .dnd4b or something innocuous like that. If the files are not themselves compatible using the _de-facto_ (at least initially) program used to open them, it makes sense to transition to a new format that has new data and layouts, as a new native file format, with .dnd4e files being an import-only file format.



Keeping file extensions isn't even close to a new occurrence.  Photoshop uses .psd.  Word used .doc for how long?  Excel still uses .xls.  Wizards continuing to use .dnd4e has loads of precedent in the software world.

I don't think that the problem is file incompatibility.  I think the problem with taking exported files from the new CB into the old one would be that the old CB would have no idea what to do with something called "Knight" or "Staff Expertise."  It would not calculate "Lightning Reflexes" correctly.

This is the impression I got from the WotC posters.  Same file type, but the content is changed to be updated, whereas the old CB is frozen in time.  Once export is supported, things like iplay4e should work correctly.  There's no need to rename the file extension because it's the exact same type of file.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Nov 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh yes, to those wondering why we're upset when "they're going to program export functions," it might be because "soon" is their deadline, and also incidentally still their deadline for the VTT.
> 
> Also because there is *no goddamn excuse* to not have export functioning out when you open the gate.  Jesus, how is this difficult?  *Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete.*  And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.




I'll stand by my prediction over on circvsmaximvs of a major crash within 48 hours of launch.  This thing just doesn't feel ready for prime time imo.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Also because there is *no goddamn excuse* to not have export functioning out when you open the gate.  Jesus, how is this difficult?  *Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete.*  And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.




Here's the problem with that argument - all the complaints about stuff not being updated over the last two months.  It's a lose-lose situation for WotC.  Choice A: Continue not updating the current CB while working on the new one, costing them subscribers/revenue and good will.  Choice B: Push out what they have despite missing some features, maintain (some) subscribers/revenue and (some) good will.

Obviously, there is no choice that is do both - that just led to the current situation.  It's highly unlikely there was a choice to keep the old CB either; one or all of programming constraints, lost revenue, piracy, and  managerial edict dictated the creation of the new CB.

So despite your opinion that there is no excuse, there are in fact there are a few.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Also because there is *no goddamn excuse* to not have export functioning out when you open the gate.  Jesus, how is this difficult?  *Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete.*  And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.



I blame Linux. People have not gotten used to beta testing everyone's programs.


----------



## Echohawk (Nov 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh yes, to those wondering why we're upset when "they're going to program export functions," it might be because "soon" is their deadline, and also incidentally still their deadline for the VTT.



This is just not true. "We are not currently working on the VTT" is hardly the same as "soon".


----------



## evilref (Nov 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because so far the answer to both of the questions is a giant bolded "*No.*"




It may be no for you, or to your perception. That doesn't mean it's a 'no' for their business strategy and short/long-term goals.

1) Loss of X percent of customers and income from them.

2) Ill Will from Y percent of customers.

--

A) New customers and new income

B) Easier updates

C) Massively increased security

D) More predictable income stream

E) Easier development of new tools.



etc. etc.

Companies make decisions which their consumers don't agree with all the time. Whether it's the right decision is a long-term, not a short-term view.


----------



## jbear (Nov 8, 2010)

Herschel said:


> It would have been more correct had you said:
> 
> jbear: I am pretty sure that WotC had to be aware that an announcement of any kind would have a significant backlash on internet bulletin boards. They know at this point there is no way to avoid it.



That may be so from within the hyperbolic chamber, but I don't think there would be any back lash if the web tool they had announced was something new, like a campaign manager a la Master Tool.

That would have come under the definition of 'exciting news', at least for me. But I refuse to enter the hyperbolic chamber about this or any other issue related to D&D. It's a game at the end of the day.


----------



## jbear (Nov 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh yes, to those wondering why we're upset when "they're going to program export functions," it might be because "soon" is their deadline, and also incidentally still their deadline for the VTT.
> 
> Also because there is *no goddamn excuse* to not have export functioning out when you open the gate.  Jesus, how is this difficult?  *Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete.*  And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.



I think they have been backed into a corner on the release date of this.

They have to release Dark Sun and Essentials. Otherwise it will be a public lynching. They don't want to do that on the 'classic' builder' because they can't protect it (or people can just get that information and cease their subscriptions keeping it on their offline builder).

They can't miss another update so they have been forced to find a solution and that seems to have meant the Web Builder with limited functions. At least this way the mob with torches and pitchforks is slightly smaller.


----------



## Brys (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm unfamiliar with silverlight, so I'm not sure how this could be implemented, but instead of a 20 character limit, if they're afraid of attacks, limit it to a certain number per day.  If I can only upload/create 5 per day, it may take me over two months to upload all of my characters (and chances are quite a few would get left behind), but at least I could upload all the ones I really care about.

My point is, I would appreciate it if the 20 character limit was reworked in one of the earliest updates.  Figure out what you are really trying to achieve (and we've only been told that it's a denial of service style attack) and find a way to limit that behavior without such widespread collateral damage.

Maybe add a CAPTCHA to make sure it really is a person uploading/creating the character.  There are ways to accomplish what you want that is not so usage-limiting.

Here's to hoping that WotC reads this.

Edit:  Completely unrelated, but I found this slightly relevant and highly amusing (warning, strong language is used in the comic strip):
http://xkcd.com/810/


----------



## renau1g (Nov 8, 2010)

thewok said:


> Excel still uses .xls.




That's not 100% true. The latest Excel uses .xlsx (as Word uses .docx) which is unreadable in older editions of Excel. You have to manually (or change in your settings) to have it saved as this. (totally nit-picky I know. I use it all day...finally something _I_ know about rather than database building, Silverlight, etc.)


----------



## Herschel (Nov 8, 2010)

jbear said:


> That may be so from within the hyperbolic chamber, but I don't think there would be any back lash if the web tool they had announced was something new, like a campaign manager a la Master Tool.
> 
> That would have come under the definition of 'exciting news', at least for me. But I refuse to enter the hyperbolic chamber about this or any other issue related to D&D. It's a game at the end of the day.




I think you underestimate the ability of BB users to complain. As Sulaco once said 'WotC could give out boxes of free money and some people would still complain about how it was folded.'

I'd love to see a campaign manager too, and it's likely more plausible with the new web-based design. But, can you imagine the outcry if updates were stalled on the current CB until the final version were ready? Look at the nerdrage when they delayed it a month already.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 8, 2010)

Herschel said:


> I think you underestimate the ability of BB users to complain. As Sulaco once said 'WotC could give out boxes of free money and some people would still complain about how it was folded.'
> .




What's BB? In my experience that stands for Blackberry but that certainly doesn't make sense here.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 8, 2010)

renau1g said:


> That's not 100% true. The latest Excel uses .xlsx (as Word uses .docx) *which is unreadable in older editions of Excel*.




That's not 100% true. There is a converter available for older editions of Office which allow them to open and save files in the .xlsx, .docx, formats.


----------



## eamon (Nov 8, 2010)

Brys said:


> I'm unfamiliar with silverlight, so I'm not sure how this could be implemented, but instead of a 20 character limit, if they're afraid of attacks, limit it to a certain number per day.  If I can only upload/create 5 per day, it may take me over two months to upload all of my characters (and chances are quite a few would get left behind), but at least I could upload all the ones I really care about.http://xkcd.com/810/



  Silverlight as they intend to use it is just a client-facing interaction app; the limitation on 20 chars will have nothing to do with it (they're store serverside, after all) and is probably a (not unreasonable) attempt to initially limit exposure to weird bugs/abuse.

If the kinks get worked out, and they don't have scalability issues, I bet they _will_ raise that limit - why not?


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 8, 2010)

renau1g said:


> What's BB? In my experience that stands for Blackberry but that certainly doesn't make sense here.



"Bulletin Board", I assume.  A bit of an "antiquated" name for a message board.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 8, 2010)

Duuuuuude Stumblewyk just called you Old Man Herschel!


----------



## eamon (Nov 8, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> That's not 100% true. There is a converter available for older editions of Office which allow them to open and save files in the .xlsx, .docx, formats.



Also, both .doc and .docx (and kin) formats contain the information necessary to interpret the documents; they're complete, as it were.  However, .dnd4e files are basically just lists of rule-references that don't include the actual computed values nor the rule text (which is why things get wonky when updates change names).

So, .doc and .docx - not known for their brilliant interoperability in the first place - are quite a bit more "reliable" and open in the long run than .dnd4e - I'd export all my charsheets to .pdfs if you intend to keep them around in the long run.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 8, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Duuuuuude Stumblewyk just called you Old Man Herschel!



 Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em.  The only people I know who call forums or message boards "BB's" or "bulletin boards" are people old enough to remember connecting on a 9600 K modem (or slower) to CompuServe or Prodigy (or directly to the "BB" they wanted).


----------



## Scribble (Nov 8, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em.  The only people I know who call forums or message boards "BB's" or "bulletin boards" are people old enough to remember connecting on a 9600 K modem (or slower) to CompuServe or Prodigy (or directly to the "BB" they wanted).




Kids these days! They have it soooo easy. I remember sitting in my bedroom for HOURS for the BB phone line to free up so I could connect, and I could spend another HOUR waiting for a picture of Kathy Ireland to download... and she wasn't even nekkid!


----------



## renau1g (Nov 8, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> That's not 100% true. There is a converter available for older editions of Office which allow them to open and save files in the .xlsx, .docx, formats.




Ah, I was referring to if you open Office 2003 (or earlier) and try to open a .xlsx file it will not read.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 8, 2010)

renau1g said:


> What's BB? In my experience that stands for Blackberry but that certainly doesn't make sense here.





Bulletin Board (or message board)


----------



## Herschel (Nov 8, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em. The only people I know who call forums or message boards "BB's" or "bulletin boards" are people old enough to remember connecting on a 9600 K modem (or slower) to CompuServe or Prodigy (or directly to the "BB" they wanted).





You have NO idea what kind of reach I have with my cane, whippersnapper. Now get outa my yard!


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 12, 2010)

(bunmping my thread with new info, 'cause that's how I roll...)

Trevor has put up screenshots (witha  short description) of how filtering and searches work.
Searching and Filters


----------

