# Wizards: Musings on the new DDi disaster



## MerricB (Nov 17, 2010)

I have been watching the train wreck that is Wizards' handling of Essentials and the D&D Insider (+ Character Builder) and been getting more and more depressed at the sight. Wizards have been attempting to rebuild their credibility as the producer of D&D, and their latest mismanaged efforts may have destroyed that utterly.

There is no doubt that the roll-out of the new online CB is a disaster, but it is a disaster that could have been avoided. It is a disaster caused by terrible project management, coupled with corporate secrecy that has been its own worst enemy.

At this point of year, we await the latest set of lay-offs from Wizards of the Coast. For only the second time in my life, this is one set of lay-offs I'm looking forward to, hoping to see some of the incompetents responsible for this latest disaster going. (The second time? Indeed. The first time was when I hoped to see Randy Buehler laid off after his mismanagement of Gleemax; I was very happy to see that occur).

The sad thing is that the new CB isn't really that bad. I've been able to use it, as have many other people. Initial teething problems would have been forgiven if Wizards hadn't already spent their credibility in the months leading up to this.

But they did, and thus now this sorry situation.

Ultimately, it comes down to Wizards of the Coast deliberately deceiving us a couple of months ago when the September updates to the CB were missed. This was a deception forced by a disaster: their software team had not been able to finish the new online CB in time. I'm sure the timeline for the new CB was originally that it would be ready at the same time as the first Essentials books went on the shelves. 

Let us look at the message they gave us in September:
"Unfortunately, we will not have a data update ready for the D&D Insider tools in September.  The process of integrating the new  changes from Dark Sun and Essentials is taking a bit longer than we expected, and we plan to update the Character Builder in early October.  We will continue to keep you informed of any changes to the schedule, and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."

That states very clearly that the update will include Dark Sun and Essentials. It wasn't even ready in October, it was November we finally got it - and it wasn't an update to the existing program, it was an update to the new program. The statement possibly slides _just_ on the side of honesty enough to keep Wizards out of legal trouble, but it reads differently in hindsight compared to how it was taken at the time.

Yes, this November release of the new CB should have occurred back in September, a disaster caused by the coding team not being good enough to fulfill the demands of the project's management team. 

My sympathies lie with the coders. Writing a good CB is no easy task, especially when the ground rules keep shifting. Consider how wrong the Red Box is... now consider the different sets of rules the CB team would have to work with. That the new CB works as well as it does, even two months late and still buggy, is still something of an achievement.

Wizards have backed themselves into this corner because of their original (Randy Buelher) statements about what they wanted the DDi to achieve. His toxic legacy still lies across the D&D electronic tools. So much wasted effort went into Gleemax; we shudder to think of what might have been spent on the dead-before-arrival Game Table which was taken out and shot some time back. "Yes, you can have all this, and dancing girls too!" might have been a line from Wizards, as they were overly optimistic about what they could provide. (Incredibly, even a basic blogging site seemed beyond them). They then realised (correctly) that they shouldn't promise anything until it was ready. The Monster Builder was a wonderful surprise as a result.

However, the "don't promise something until it's ready" backfired spectacularly this time. It is quite obvious now that the Wizards coding team isn't really big enough to handle new projects at the same time as maintaining the old. In September, Wizards had the situation of...

* Character Builder version 2 wasn't ready,
* Character Builder version 1 couldn't be updated to Essentials because the team that would have done that were working on CB2
* They couldn't announce CB2 because it wasn't ready, by previous experience

They really did walk into that one. 

Is this irreparable damage to D&D? I'd like to think not. However, they need to fix the problems with CB2 really, really quickly, and offer proper contrition. Wizards once had a great reservoir of good will: that reservoir is now dry, and they need to start doing good things again.

That's how I see the situation. Obviously, as I'm not omniscient, I might have things badly wrong, but I hope you find this post of some interest.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 17, 2010)

Let me jump in before the WoTC apologist get here.

1. Wizards never 'promised' us anything. Saying something on a message board isn't a promise.

2. We are not legally required to get monthly updates.

3. WoTC was giving too good of a deal. You couldn't honestly expect to be paying them cash for years and have all those dirty pirates stealing WoTC money could you?

4. Come on, you knew it was too good a deal.

5. WoTC was in a rock and a hard place. This is probably the best thing they could have done.

7. I don't know what you mean. I love the new CB! It works perfectly!

I'm sure I missed some but just getting those out of the way and off the table.

Mod Edit:  I'm pretty disappointed by this post.  I expect better from the members of ENWorld, especially somebody around as long as you have been, Joe.  I believe we have the capacity to disagree without being so disagreeable. - Rel


----------



## Flobby (Nov 17, 2010)

Haven't tried the new CB yet but why do you think Essentials a failure? I thought it was doing well(?)


----------



## fba827 (Nov 17, 2010)

eh, it's an interesting perspective (though i don't entirely agree with all of it - some of the things you've called failures or disasters have not appeared that way to me, though perhaps i am less invested in some aspects than other people).

and while i may question some business decisions, i try not to think too much about it because it just causes stress over questions that i don't fully know the answer to (WotC no doubt has many things going on behind their grand DM screen that we, as players, aren't privy to).

but, the way i see it, at the end of the day, the sky didn't fall, the world didn't end; i'm still able to play D&D and enjoy it. (no business plan, or lack thereof, can really change that)


----------



## wedgeski (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm also a bit confused as to why you think Essentials was badly handled? Although I haven't purchased any Essentials products yet, my read of this community on the subject has been overwhelmingly positive. I'll be getting a couple of releases soon based on that alone. "Consider how wrong the Red Box is.."...huh?

I certainly considered Essentials a PR win for Wizards (not that I care terribly much about such things). The new CB, well, I haven't used it that much yet, but it seems it got released into the wild too early. With due apologies to JoeG, I have to say, the few chars I've created have all worked perfectly well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2010)

Flobby said:


> Haven't tried the new CB yet but why do you think Essentials a failure? I thought it was doing well(?)



I am not sure what you are refering to - I think he talks about the differences between Red Box and the "actual" Essentials box and the fact that the Essentials weren't in the Character Builder at the normally scheduled time for such an update.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Let me jump in before the WoTC  apologist get here.



Meh, I hate the term "WotC apologist". 

The key thing is whether WotC produces something we (or you or anyone else) likes. For me, the new Online Builder isn't that. And that's the problem. 
But I am not basing this on a "sense of entitlement" like "they have promised this" or "it is legally required to do so". Nor is the fact that they need to protect themselves against piracy a concern for me, or that it was always cheap.
They were probably caught between a rock and a hard place, but it wasn't my fault that they decided to switch to an online character builder and couldn't get it out in time. 

I know what I want, and this software is further away from what I want  then the old software was. Sure, I wanted Dark Sun support. Essential support is nice. But I wanted character building to stay a fun and enjoyable experience, and it's not, and it might not be for quite some time now until they fix all the issues.

At least I have an idea why they haven't come around to fix the www.wizards.com/dnd side for non-English users - they are busy squatting bugs in the CB. I kinda see that's more important.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not sure what you are refering to - I think he talks about the differences between Red Box and the "actual" Essentials box and the fact that the Essentials weren't in the Character Builder at the normally scheduled time for such an update.




I believe he is referring to the fact that the red box is not compatible with the "essentials" line it was suppose to be an introductory to... at least not without a heavy dose of corrections. In a regular product for experienced roleplayers it might just be annoying, but I agree that in an introductory product meant for those brand new to the hobby, it is a fail.

EDIT: This is the major reason I started my son and nephew off with HotFL as opposed to two red boxes.


----------



## Zaran (Nov 17, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> I'm also a bit confused as to why you think Essentials was badly handled? Although I haven't purchased any Essentials products yet, my read of this community on the subject has been overwhelmingly positive. I'll be getting a couple of releases soon based on that alone. "Consider how wrong the Red Box is.."...huh?




He is talking about the fact that there are mistakes in some of the classes presented in the red box that did not make it into the other Essentials books.  Like how magic missile has two targets.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 17, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Let me jump in before the WoTC apologist get here.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Blah blah blah.



 Productive, really.  Way to bring a lot to the discussion table.

Seriously, though - as one of these mystical "WotC apologists", I feel obligated to blow your mind and say that I _understand_ the negativity directed towards Wizards.  I just don't join in it, and tend to think people complain too much about pretty much everything - and this new CB, and Wizards handling of D&D as a whole, are no exception.

I'm the kind of guy who'd rather be happy about what I _do_ have than complain about what I _don't_.


----------



## jbear (Nov 17, 2010)

I have to share your sentiment at least Merric.

I could see this coming (the online CB) reading between a few of mudbunny's comments when a new and exciing web based tool was announced.

But I honestly thought that they could see the dangers that would arise, PR-wise, and hence they would release it with some cream and a cherry on top in the form of  a new tool. This may be true, in so far as it is in the pipeline, to be announced in the future-as-near-as-possible, but that remains irrelevant today, because at the moment its no more than castles in the air.

I want DnD to have a long and healthy life. I like 4e and the changes come with it. Conceptually I like the refinements being made continually. I had the feeling 4e was beginning to receive some strongly positive public opinion, which I think is important and necessary. And when I saw the video of the online builder I thought, hey, sweet! It's going to be fast, user friendly ... a step up which I'm sure will assuage some of the rage.

And instead it's a mess. I haven't tried it because I don't currently have a subscription but just the reaction is so overwhelmingly negative even from fans of 4e and people as calm and level headed as PCat (jeesh!) that I don't need to. 

I can stand back from it and see that it barely affects me. I've got a great tool and a life time's worth of gaming already. So nothing will change. But I do want the hobby to continue to grow. I do want 4e to continue to evolve. And such negative public opinion when WotC seemed to be finally turning the tide is very disappointing.

I hope they can pull this around. Staying on the fence ... but with my brow furrowed and my arms crossed waitng to see how this plays out.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2010)

jbear said:


> I have to share your sentiment at least Merric.
> 
> I could see this coming (the online CB) reading between a few of mudbunny's comments when a new and exciing web based tool was announced.



Well, I certainly didn't find it "new and exciting" to have a character builder, but online. 

Maybe mudbunny (or rather WotC) overestimated the number of Mac users that couldn't use the CB or something. I mean, they sure were vocal in their dislike of it, and if I was a Mac-Only user, I'd want a CB, too (and probably wouldn't pay for DDI without it). But it doesn't do anything for a PC user, and there is a new subset of players that now can no longer benefit from the CB - anyone that used the CB in an "internet-free" environment. Fixing a long-standing systematic problem by introducing a new systematic problem is not really satisfying on the "new and exciting" scale. 

That it's not really ready for prime time is another problem.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 17, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Is this irreparable damage to D&D? I'd like to think not. However, they need to fix the problems with CB2 really, really quickly, and offer proper contrition. Wizards once had a great reservoir of good will: that reservoir is now dry, and they need to start doing good things again.




Nope. I still have perfectly good D&D material going back 30 years that is in no way damaged by any of this mess. 

I don't really care what Wizards wants to do from this point forward. As a hobbyist I will spend my gaming dollars where I believe the best value can be found. The direction Wizards has taken leads in the opposite direction from that for me. 

Proper contrition? Everything they have done has been an effort to squeeze every bit of cash out of gamers that they can. Being part of a large company means that they owe it to the shareholders to do exactly that. Why apologize for attempting to achieve their main objective? 

Making money is what companies are in business to do after all. With the old DDI system 5 out of our group of 7 had separate accounts. The 2 that didn't are kind of casual players so I built characters for them on my account. The ones with accounts could play around and try different combos then mail me their updated character file after deciding what they wanted. What is funny is that under the new system, if we all want to do what we have been doing then we will _have_ to share an account. Keeping the same level of functionality as we had before involves giving WOTC _less _money than they were getting under the old model.

I don't mind paying for something but when value keeps getting stripped away and the price remains the same it's time to stop buying. 

So, we will continue to use the old CB for now, which will involve paying _nothing_. You can't beat that for value.


----------



## Kzach (Nov 17, 2010)

Not a post I would normally expect from Merric. But I have to agree on pretty much the entire thing.

As far as digital content goes, I have zero faith in anything WotC has done or ever will do. The reservoir is definitely empty on that one.

The problem with this is that they've opened a door they can't close. I now also have zero faith in printed product. Not because it's inferior (although there are arguments for that case as well), but because they become so quickly outdated.

As someone who has a limited budget, I simply cannot justify purchasing hard-copies anymore because I know that better will come out in digital form sooner rather than later. And because I have no faith in the digital form, I don't want to spend money on that either.

This leaves me spending no money at all on anything WotC produces. This isn't, IMO, a choice I'm making, but rather a situation that WotC has created; they have shot themselves in the literary foot.


----------



## DonAdam (Nov 17, 2010)

The recent online disasters are especially sad given how much I love the Essentials line (except for the Red Box... bleh).

Essentials really revitalized my love of the game, and this is after being a full on 4e convert. I stopped playing about halfway through 3e and came back with 4e. After PHB 3 was disappointing I got excited about M&M 3/DCA only to be disappointed by that, but then Essentials came along and I was all jazzed up. It's great.

It would be even better if I could reliably mix it with the existing 4e stuff. But the existing 4e stuff is so complicated that I need a character builder. And the one character builder that works doesn't have the Essentials material.

So for now, it's Essentials only. Because I can do that with pen and paper.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 17, 2010)

[MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] Excellent post. I will be including this in my weekly report to WotC.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, I certainly didn't find it "new and exciting" to have a character builder, but online.
> 
> Maybe mudbunny (or rather WotC) overestimated the number of Mac users that couldn't use the CB or something.




Just want to clarify - I do not work for WotC, nor am I privy to any of their internal data. I am just a volunteer on their boards.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

DonAdam said:


> The recent online disasters are especially sad given how much I love the Essentials line (except for the Red Box... bleh).
> 
> Essentials really revitalized my love of the game, and this is after being a full on 4e convert. I stopped playing about halfway through 3e and came back with 4e. After PHB 3 was disappointing I got excited about M&M 3/DCA only to be disappointed by that, but then Essentials came along and I was all jazzed up. It's great.
> 
> ...




I'm in the same proverbial boat (without a paddle).  I was looking forward to subscribing to use the CB, but I just can't do it with the reception it has gotten from the majority of users.  Add that to the fact that HotFK isn't in yet and the final E-assasin is getting pretty badly trashed on the WotC boards as well... and I'm figuring this just isn't the month to start my subscription.  It's also making me contemplate just stopping my purchases with the Heroes of books, DM Kit, RC and Monster Vault.


----------



## Raunalyn (Nov 17, 2010)

Merric, while I understand your frustration, I have to disagree with you somewhat. 

To me, this was the logical step in the process. The old CB was decent but had a few flaws, and correcting those flaws was taking a lot of effort to do (from what I've read). The updates were a lot of extra coding and writing, and it was logistically difficult to get all of them out on time. Then, add on top of that the Dark Sun and Essentials lines, and you add more difficulty (though, being a programmer, I could easily see a way to add that functionality to the old CB).

So, going with the online version wasn't a bad idea. Is it ready? Absolutely not. However, it does give me an idea of its potential. In my opinion, if we all come together as a community and offer Wizards our opinions and work with them to correct these problems, the new CB could be a fantastic tool. Already, I've noticed a few of the bugs being corrected.

I'm willing to give them a chance. I understand that some of you feel hesitant about the new direction, but I am confident that Wizards will pull through.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> @MerricB Excellent post. I will be including this in my weekly report to WotC.
> 
> 
> 
> Just want to clarify - I do not work for WotC, nor am I privy to any of their internal data. I am just a volunteer on their boards.



I know that.  But you said you were excited, and I think WotC was excited about it too, and either of you expected others to be excited about this, too. And it seems that was... premature.  
The saddest thing to me is that after the solid Character Builder and Monster Builder I was pretty optimstic. Not that I expect the Digital Gaming Table anytime soon, but I just thought - yeah, if they keep going this path, the next tool they will produce will be great. Continual refinement, a new tool every year or so. That would be nice. 

Maybe in 2 years, we will all look back and laugh at the disappointment we felt "back then" and become aware of how much better things became soon and how all this enabled the awesome software tools we will have then. But that's not what I feel or believe right now. Currently I worry more that other tools will also make the same step back to get online and it will be a long time until we are up to what we had with the offline tools.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Raunalyn said:


> Merric, while I understand your frustration, I have to disagree with you somewhat.
> 
> To me, this was the logical step in the process. The old CB was decent but had a few flaws, and correcting those flaws was taking a lot of effort to do (from what I've read). The updates were a lot of extra coding and writing, and it was logistically difficult to get all of them out on time. Then, add on top of that the Dark Sun and Essentials lines, and you add more difficulty (though, being a programmer, I could easily see a way to add that functionality to the old CB).
> 
> ...




I guess it boils down to whether you feel like paying a fee to help WotC correct major bugs/functionality in their software is a good option? I won't fault anyone who feels that it's worth it, but for me personally, I feel like there has been way too much of this already with 4e... so I can't justify it, as I also feel that by continuing to do it we as consumers send a message that it is ok to put out a buggy, functionlity deficient product at our exspense (I know in my company testers are paid... they don't pay to test). Just my take though.


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 17, 2010)

As a paying DDI subscriber, my expectation is that the new CB can AT LEAST do everything the old builder can, especially in regards to implementing house rules and flexibility in determining which materials from different WotC books are or not allowed in a given campaign.

That is not an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## ggroy (Nov 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm in the same proverbial boat (without a paddle).  I was looking forward to subscribing to use the CB, but I just can't do it with the reception it has gotten from the majority of users.  Add that to the fact that HotFK isn't in yet and the final E-assasin is getting pretty badly trashed on the WotC boards as well... and I'm figuring this just isn't the month to start my subscription.  It's also making me contemplate just stopping my purchases with the Heroes of books, DM Kit, RC and Monster Vault.




At the moment, I'm kinda glad I didn't buy any further 4EE titles other than the RC and "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" (HotFL).  For an evening beer & pretzels pickup one-shot type game, the RC + HotFL would be ideal for short heroic tier level games with just pen and paper without DDI.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 17, 2010)

I share the overall feeling of disappointment with the new online CB (or CB2 as Merric put it, which I'll adopt).

Thinking back to the very first release of CB1, it...
* Took a long time to download.
* Crashed my computer several times as I tried to install .Net
* Was extremely limited.
* Had many bugs.

But all that said, when I finally got CB1 working, my thought was, "They've knocked this one out of the park." CB1 may have been clearly in larval form, but it was an _awesome _tool.

CB2 does not seem awesome to me, even in larval form. But, maybe my expectations have been raised by a long time using the CB1.

I'd be interested to hear what someone who had _never _used CB1 before thinks of CB2. Maybe he'd be as excited about CB2 as I was about CB1?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm in a strange spot...

On the one hand I'm annoyed that the thing has as many bugs as it apparently has, and is missing as many features as it is...

On the other I'm excited by the potential the thing has.


I'm hoping for WoTC's sake if nothing else, that by next update they add at least:

Export
Inherent Bonuses
Grandmaster Training

They also need to up the number of saves. Especially since you apparently can't view the new CB characters at different levels...

I have a feeling that the fact that inherent bonuses are missing, as well as house ruled elements, means they are working on a DM side tool... If thats true it needs to come out quickly.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Joshua Randall said:


> I share the overall feeling of disappointment with the new online CB (or CB2 as Merric put it, which I'll adopt).
> 
> Thinking back to the very first release of CB1, it...
> * Took a long time to download.
> ...




And I think this herein lies WotC biggest problem with selling people on the new CB... no one wants to pay the same price for an inferior product.  WotC is charging the same amount for replacing a tool they had gotten to a relative levelof stability and that much of their customer base had become use to and proficient in it's use... with something that is less.  

IMO, it would have been a better marketing plan to announce it as a Beta product in a final "testing" stage that was free to use in order to log defects on it for a month than to release it the way they did.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I'm in a strange spot...
> 
> On the one hand I'm annoyed that the thing has as many bugs as it apparently has, and is missing as many features as it is...
> 
> ...




Eh,potential is great and all but seriously, WotC needs to step their game up if they want people to pay for the "potential" their products have... At the end of roughly 2 + years of 4e/DDI we have exactly two tools (3 I guess if you count the Compendium)... the CB (which has been ultimately scraped) and a buggy MB... that's not impressive, and it doesn't instill faith in many as far as their ability to capitalize on potential.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 17, 2010)

I have been thinking about this and reading about the classic cb.

It is of my opinion, when you look at everything that wizards has not been honest about essentials support in the old cb.  I believe that this new cb is only there to protect their content.  As I read about people taking apart the old cb and seeing support for what they said they were having a hard time with and then I read their statements and listen to their podcasts.

The hard part of what they were trying to do with the old cb was protecting their content.  

Think about it for a moment.  Programs that reside on your computer can talk to each other and share data.  When it resides on your computer though it opened a hole for someone to intercept that data.

I believe that this is the only reason we are in the situation that we are in right now.  Protect the content at all costs.


----------



## webrunner (Nov 17, 2010)

I am usually a wizards apologist, but this is just too much.. I can't even import my players' characters as their stats are above some imaginary threshold (they rolled) and won't lock in and generate power cards as a result.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Eh,potential is great and all but seriously, WotC needs to step their game up if they want people to pay for the "potential" their products have... At the end of roughly 2 + years of 4e/DDI we have exactly two tools (3 I guess if you count the Compendium)... the CB (which has been ultimately scraped) and a buggy MB... that's not impressive, and it doesn't instill faith in many as far as their ability to capitalize on potential.




Eh... I'm not upset really that they haven't come out with a lot of tools in DDI... 

Well Maybe that's not the right wording... I'm upset from a "bummer" perspective... 

But not from a feel like I've been ripped off perspective.  All in all I find the DDI to be pretty inexpensive for what it IS...

I'm not upset about the online only shift, but I AM annoyed at the removal of other features,  and I want them added back. 

If they add them back, I'll be for the most part happy with what I have again, and hoping to see more soon.

(I do, as I said have a feeling why some of the features are are missing...)


----------



## jbear (Nov 17, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, I certainly didn't find it "new and exciting" to have a character builder, but online.
> 
> Maybe mudbunny (or rather WotC) overestimated the number of Mac users that couldn't use the CB or something. I mean, they sure were vocal in their dislike of it, and if I was a Mac-Only user, I'd want a CB, too (and probably wouldn't pay for DDI without it). But it doesn't do anything for a PC user, and there is a new subset of players that now can no longer benefit from the CB - anyone that used the CB in an "internet-free" environment. Fixing a long-standing systematic problem by introducing a new systematic problem is not really satisfying on the "new and exciting" scale.
> 
> That it's not really ready for prime time is another problem.



Sorry, I don't think I expressed myself clearly or accurately. I actually agree with you whole heartedly.

What I meant to express was this: When WotC announced they were releasing a new and exciting web based tool and mudbunny commented on a few of other poster enquiries and theories, I read in between the lines that the CB was going fully web based. I didn't think this would qualify for something either new or exciting either. In fact I was pretty sure they would have to be aware that lots of their customers were likely going to have their nose put out of joint by that. Which lead me to think they must intend to deliver it with another tool, the cream with cherry on top that would make the announcement of a web based CB less controversial, something that would qualify the announcement as new and exciting. 

This didn't happen. And now this.

That was what I meant, which is along the lines of what you said. Hope that clears up my meaning a little.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Eh... I'm not upset really that they haven't come out with a lot of tools in DDI...
> 
> Well Maybe that's not the right wording... I'm upset from a "bummer" perspective...
> 
> ...




Well I wasn't talking about you, you've made it quite clear that in general you've been pretty happy with WotC, their practices and their products for awhile now... but there are quite a few who don't feel this way and I was just giving some reasons why.


----------



## jbear (Nov 17, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] Excellent post. I will be including this in my weekly report to WotC.
> 
> 
> 
> Just want to clarify - I do not work for WotC, nor am I privy to any of their internal data. I am just a volunteer on their boards.



I'd also like to clarify that i meant 'when WotC made the announcement' not 'when mudbunny' made the announcement'. mudbunny did nothing more than give some further insight into that announcement within the bounds of what he was allowed.

Sorry if this lead to a strange comparison of yourself as representing WotC.

I certainly hope you don't feel that the finger is being pointed at you in any way shap or form. All of your comments and insight are massively appreciated.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

jbear said:


> I certainly hope you don't feel that the finger is being pointed at you in any way shap or form. All of your comments and insight are massively appreciated.




I for one plan to start selling "It's ALL Mudbunny's fault!" bumper stickers.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Well I wasn't talking about you, you've made it quite clear that in general you've been pretty happy with WotC, their practices and their products for awhile now... but there are quite a few who don't feel this way and I was just giving some reasons why.




that's fine... I was just talking on a message board.


----------



## buddhafrog (Nov 17, 2010)

This will be a fun thread to watch....

(grabs a pack of cigarettes, a coffee; sits back and smiles)

I basically agree with the OP sentiments but not all the specific points.  For example, I think the Essentials products and packaging are mostly nifty.  I've bought some.  I think WotC has gone out of their way to ensure us that Essentials isn't 4.5.  Good communication.  However... too many other problems.

So much errata on 4e that some of my books feel much less useful.  WotC has made so many products and most of these have so much errata that making characters without the CB is a nauseating idea to me.  They made the CB the most critical product, IMO.  Thus what has happened with the DDI/CB is just sad.  The combination of the old CB not being updated adequately and the poor communication about it, with the poor release of the new CB is a pretty big error.  I'm guessing that the management's need to get this product out on a specific timetable created more problems than it solved.  The way this was communicated to the fan base only alienated people or kept people neutral - it didn't seem to make anyone more loyal or committed to WotC. To release this new CB with so much lacking (no export or houserules?  These are minimum needs for a large % of players!) seems really short-sighted.  And of course there were incredible problems today with the server.

I sort of feel bad for the programmers.  I imagine they were/are in over their heads - either with the expectations or more likely the timetable given.  And this is assuming that silverlight was the best choice for the CB and not just chosen b/c it was what was known by the programmers or b/c of the time constraints.  If this wasn't the case, then its level of f'd-up-ness increases.

I generally consider myself a fanboy.  But I have enough in my old CB to not need this new one for anytime soon at all (not using Dark Sun or Essential characters).  I assume WotC will get most of these problems solved and in fact will surprise us with other good things to come....

... but still, as a company, I just feel that they taken way to many critical steps backwards recently.  Most of us are, or at least feel, stuck with WotC and will not leave.  Too many of us feel that WotC is more than a company b/c we are such avid consumers of their products.  We feel like we are "owed" more than what we've seen recently... and yet most of us won't walk.  I won't nor do I want to.  But I do feel very comfortable with what I have at the moment and have no plans to expand.

On top of these problems, we still have many of the concerns we had when the on-line DDI was first announced.  However, my biggest concern is that this monthly pay-to-use (i.e. pay-to-play b/c the CB is an ever-increasing necessity) makes it a lot tougher to bring in casual gamers and new gamers.  I don't want to go back to AD&D, but I do miss how easy and simple it was to play.

I believe most of the WotC staff loves and cares about D&D just as much or more than we do.  They want this to go down perfectly, but something is getting in their way.  I hope they can find out what that is and solve this problem.  Most of us won't be leaving D&D, but with these types of errors, I do worry about their ability to get new people into this game - which is a hard enough task already.  If they can not succeed, then there will continue to be ever-increasing pressure to find more ways to get our income.  This focus, rather that what would make the best gaming experience (and thus focus on increasing income through increasing the # of players), will lead to nowhere good in the long run.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 17, 2010)

First off, as a lawyer, I can tell you that Joe is right, there is no legal liability for WotC here, not even close (at least with respect to the DDi subscriptions anyway).  

Secondly, I agree that it was unfortunate to say the least that the online version of the CB had so many problems on release day.  I will assume (realizing the risks inherent therein) that the crashing and loading problems probably were unexpected and will give it a few days to see if those particular problems clear up.  As much as I love D&D, I can live without accessing the new CB for a couple days.

Although I do not think going to an online version of the CB is a big deal, I do think it was a poor decision on WotC's part to release the new CB without many of the features of the old CB, and certainly there are significant enough bugs (even outside the crashing issue) that it should not have been released without fixing many of those bugs.

In the end, I don't think this is necessarily a disaster so much as a bad start to the online CB.  What will determine whether or not its a disaster is how WotC responds to the problems.  Will they fix the crash/loading issues quickly?  Will bugs be fixed soon (i.e. will they implement each fix as they resolve it since its supposed to be easier to do with the online format, or will they wait until they can fix a lot of bugs?)  How long will it take them to implement missing features -- particularly those features that were present in the original CB?  Those, to me, are the major issues.  There will always be bugs -- I've yet to use a single piece of software that didn't have bugs in it -- but how they respond to them will be the true test.

Finally, as an aside, I thought I read somewhere (realizing of course that it can only be taken with a grain of salt at most) that the online CB was a "part" of the something cool, in other words, not that the online CB was in fact the "something cool", so hopefully there is still more to come.  Only time will tell of course.

All of this being said, kudos to Merric for a well-reasoned and non-inflammatory post and for everyone else pretty much following suit.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> that's fine... I was just talking on a message board.




OK... we've had this problem with communication before, so let me clarify my way of thinking... I feel when you quote someone you are in some way commenting on their post (am I wrong in assuming this?).  Thus I assume, when I am quoted... your comments will in some way relate to, or be a commentary on the point(s) I have expressed and/or brought up.  If all you were doing was making a general comment on the message board that didn't relate to my post... why quote me?


----------



## buddhafrog (Nov 17, 2010)

I agree with some of the comments above - Mudbunny, thanks for your communication (as a non-WotC employee, understood).  I think you were the most useful voice out there.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> OK... we've had this problem with communication before, so let me clarify my way of thinking... I feel when you quote someone you are in some way commenting on their post (am I wrong in assuming this?).  Thus I assume, when I am quoted... your comments will in some way relate to, or be a commentary on the point(s) I have expressed and/or brought up.  If all you were doing was making a general comment on the message board that didn't relate to my post... why quote me?




Yes... You made a comment- and I commented on your comment based on my own perspective... (Because that's what people do- when they talk... and that's what message boards are for- talking to people about stuff that interests you... At least I thought? Maybe you have other ideas?)

You then said something that appeared to be an explanation for your statement- I was responding in kind... 

I'm not sure where your confusion lies here man...


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yes... You made a comment- and I commented on your comment based on my own perspective... (Because that's what people do- when they talk... and that's what message boards are for- talking to people about stuff that interests you... At least I thought? Maybe you have other ideas?)
> 
> You then said something that appeared to be an explanation for your statement- I was responding in kind...
> 
> I'm not sure where your confusion lies here man...




I guess I often just have a hard time seeing how some of your post directly relate to what I am saying or expressing.  No biggie.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I guess I often just have a hard time seeing how some of your post directly relate to what I am saying or expressing.  No biggie.




Could be!


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 17, 2010)

MerricB said:


> _TAKES THE FRICKING GLOVES OFF_




I have such mixed emotions on this post. Admiration--Buehlers toxic legacy--vindication, but also the desire to remind everyone that we have seen this all before, and everything will be fine, again, eventually. 

Its exciting.


----------



## Osgood (Nov 17, 2010)

I completely agree with everything Merric said, including the bit about the Essentials.  While D&DE may be selling well, I think it fails because it tried to do too many things - be a simple starting point to new gamers, bring back lapsed players with notstalgia and compromise, and revise the rules. 

I definitely think heads will roll with the coming layoffs, I can only hope it happens to the right people... the decision makers rather than the rank and file grunts.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Osgood said:


> I completely agree with everything Merric said, including the bit about the Essentials. While D&DE may be selling well, I think it fails because it tried to do too many things - be a simple starting point to new gamers, bring back lapsed players with notstalgia and compromise, and revise the rules.
> 
> I definitely think heads will roll with the coming layoffs, I can only hope it happens to the right people... the decision makers rather than the rank and file grunts.




This is a good point about essentials.  I'm honestly curious how well it has brought in new players... outside of those being introduced by exsisting players.


----------



## davethegame (Nov 17, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Wizards once had a great reservoir of good will: that reservoir is now dry, and they need to start doing good things again.




Spot on, as always Merric. The thing about bad PR is that once you've damaged it enough, you completely lose your buffer, and you just start to lose fans. And for something like an RPG, it becomes impossible to separate the game itself from all the ugliness around it.


----------



## ggroy (Nov 17, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> I sort of feel bad for the programmers.  I imagine they were/are in over their heads - either with the expectations or more likely the timetable given.  And this is assuming that silverlight was the best choice for the CB and not just chosen b/c it was what was known by the programmers or b/c of the time constraints.  If this wasn't the case, then its level of f'd-up-ness increases.




It may very well have been a "death march" programming project.

Death march (software development) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Caerin (Nov 17, 2010)

davethegame said:


> Spot on, as always Merric. The thing about bad PR is that once you've damaged it enough, you completely lose your buffer, and you just start to lose fans. And for something like an RPG, it becomes impossible to separate the game itself from all the ugliness around it.




That's kind of where I am right now; I've enjoyed playing 4E. I don't like the poor communication, the annual layoffs, the lack of community participation (see poor communication), the rushed projects... I've met some of the game developers in the past, and I think they're good, smart people who are passionate about the game. There's a disconnect somewhere.


----------



## Kzach (Nov 17, 2010)

Caerin said:


> I've met some of the game developers in the past, and I think they're good, smart people who are passionate about the game. *There's a disconnect somewhere.*




Management.

Or to clarify, mis-management.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> This is a good point about essentials. I'm honestly curious how well it has brought in new players... outside of those being introduced by exsisting players.




I suppose this may depend on your definition of "new" players, but I do know a couple of people who while not new to D&D, did transfer to 4th Ed because of Essentials, whereas they had previously been playing older editions.

In our area, the Gamedays were also fairly well received though I don't know how many of those players have since decided to stick on.

One ironic thing to me though is that I personally tend to think that its unlikely a new player would immediately sign on to DDi anyway.  Rather, it seems more likely that they would try out the game for a while and see if they like it, and only then start to consider a DDi subscription.  I know that I didn't pony up the money for DDi until I got into a game and realized that I did like the new edition.  Then the money seemed worth it to me (though at the time more for the Dragon/Dungeon content than the CB -- MB had yet to be released at that time).


----------



## ggroy (Nov 17, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Management.
> 
> Or to clarify, mis-management.




Dilbert gone awry.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 17, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> we have seen this all before, and everything will be fine, again, eventually



You know, this is a great point. There was so much negativity around the time of the Gleemax debalce, yet look how well the DDI Compendium and the (offline) Character Builder turned out!

TerraDave, thanks for reminding us that the sky isn't falling.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Nov 17, 2010)

Haha, agreed. WotC has always (even before Hasbro) been a two-steps-forward, one-step-back (or even, in this case 1-forward, 2-back) kind of company. This really is just par for the course with these guys, so in a way its not surprising. Unfortunately.

This mess will all get cleaned up eventually, its just a matter of cost in time, effort, and customers. Makes one wonder what they could do if they didn't royally sabotage themselves about every other year.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2010)

Riastlin said:


> I suppose this may depend on your definition of "new" players, but I do know a couple of people who while not new to D&D, did transfer to 4th Ed because of Essentials, whereas they had previously been playing older editions.




I would say this closely describes my situation, though not totally. I didn't like 4e initially and went with Pathfinder... now however essentials has drawn me back (somewhat) and I play and run both.



Riastlin said:


> In our area, the Gamedays were also fairly well received though I don't know how many of those players have since decided to stick on.




Yeah, I didn't get to go to the gamedays and the schedule for encounter (Wednesday night) conflicts with work so I pretty much have no data, not even anecdotal, on how these events are going. 



Riastlin said:


> One ironic thing to me though is that I personally tend to think that its unlikely a new player would immediately sign on to DDi anyway. Rather, it seems more likely that they would try out the game for a while and see if they like it, and only then start to consider a DDi subscription. I know that I didn't pony up the money for DDi until I got into a game and realized that I did like the new edition. Then the money seemed worth it to me (though at the time more for the Dragon/Dungeon content than the CB -- MB had yet to be released at that time).




Not sure how well the subscription thing is going to go over with new players... and I especially wonder, for those that do jump in early, how a buggy character builder is going to affect their perception of value (though as was alluded to above, without prior exposure to CB1, it may not be negative.). It certainly would be interesting to see what the DDI numbers look like over the next couple of months.


----------



## Shazman (Nov 17, 2010)

Once again WotC has failed spectacularly, and in a way guaranteed to alienate a good portion of their consumer base. The sad thing is that it isn't surprising.  In fact, it's predictable by now.  Quite frankly, the degree of contempt shown for both their employees and customers coupled with a shocking degree of incompetence over the past few years, shows that their failure is well earned.  You sow what you reap WotC.  I have no confidence in WotC, and have no desire to purchase anymore of their products, especially the now useless ddi with it's buggy CB with far less functionality than the old CB.  Farewell WotC.  Embrace your failure!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 17, 2010)

ggroy said:


> It may very well have been a "death march" programming project.
> 
> Death march (software development) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



 I get the impression that 'Death March' is the default approach at Wizards, in that when they create new product they chug along and ramp up to the final release with lots of pressure and overtime. Now this may be fine publisheing books (though with the errata, that is questionable) but in software development it can be disasterous..

Basically they have poor project management and it would appear a senior management layer that does not get software development at any level.

It remains to be seen, can they learn, and is there a worthwhile strategic vision driving this?.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 17, 2010)

FWIW - I didn't see any of the posts as being directed at me. I am pretty sure that most (if not all) of thhe regulars know what I do for WotC. But, the CB problems are drawing a lot of new people to the forums, and I wanted to make sure that some people didn't get the wrong idea.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

I love how WotC is made out to be such an "evil empire" in topics like these.  I mean, they might as well be kidnapping our children and clubbing baby seals(I'm looking at you Canada!...or should I say Evilada?).

In any case, I'm not happy with the new CB, but I don't hate it.  And I hardly have the energy to feel so maligned as some of you do against WotC.  Yes, books get updated rather quickly, D&D is a living, breathing game that is constantly in flux.  Look at WoW, it's a fixed system(in that you can only play it one way), and they push out updates, bug fixes, changes, minor patches every week.  With a comprable number of people playing and an even greater amount of information(IMO) it's hardly surprising that a book, a printed, uneditable document, would get updated rather frequently and rather often.

Wizards will recat to our words(when they're not blind rage), and our spending habits.  So yes, if you are unhappy with their moves, tell them this and stop spending your money on them.  However, if you're going to bop wizards on the nose and scold them, remember that you must likewise reward them when they do what you want.

If you take the "Wizards fired us!" attitude, you're not going to get anything because the more you play games based off Wizard's systems without supporting Wizards, the more they're going to clamp down on those other games.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

As for the CB2 in particular, it was the FIRST DAY guys.  Really now, there hasn't been a single program in the last 20 years I can think of that ran PERFECTLY on day one.  Even the CB1 crashes and randomly closes sometimes, and it's been out for nearly 2 years now?  The fact that you can recover an unsaved character, IMO, makes up for a lot of that as even the old CB will lose all your data if a crash happens, NO recovery.

I'm not saying you need to love everything WotC does, far from it, but stop expecting perfection, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 17, 2010)

Raunalyn said:


> So, going with the online version wasn't a bad idea. Is it ready? Absolutely not. However, it does give me an idea of its potential. In my opinion, if we all come together as a community and offer Wizards our opinions and work with them to correct these problems, the new CB could be a fantastic tool. Already, I've noticed a few of the bugs being corrected.




It's great that it has potential, but the existing tool worked great. What people are objecting to (as I read it) is that tool being replaced by one that is substantially less functional.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it and all that.



Imaro said:


> And I think this herein lies WotC biggest problem with selling people on the new CB... no one wants to pay the same price for an inferior product.  WotC is charging the same amount for replacing a tool they had gotten to a relative levelof stability and that much of their customer base had become use to and proficient in it's use... with something that is less.
> 
> IMO, it would have been a better marketing plan to announce it as a Beta product in a final "testing" stage that was free to use in order to log defects on it for a month than to release it the way they did.




Yep. They should have maintained "Classic" CB updates _until the new one was ready,_ not until the new one would be *grits teeth* _ready enough in a couple of months._


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 17, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Once again WotC has failed spectacularly, and in a way guaranteed to alienate a good portion of their consumer base. The sad thing is that it isn't surprising.  In fact, it's predictable by now.  Quite frankly, the degree of contempt shown for both their employees and customers coupled with a shocking degree of incompetence over the past few years, shows that their failure is well earned.  You sow what you reap WotC.  I have no confidence in WotC, and have no desire to purchase anymore of their products, especially the now useless ddi with it's buggy CB with far less functionality than the old CB.  Farewell WotC.  Embrace your failure!




This same exact thing was said when they announced that to start with, you could only make 20 characters on the online CB.

This same exact thing was said when the Dark Sun and Essentials updates were not done in the other CB in September. 

This same exact thing was said when Essentials was announced and people thought the main game was being "discontinued".

This same exact thing was said when they discontinued development on the Gleemax suite.

This same exact thing was said when the druid, barbarian, gnome and orc were not going to appear in the first Player's Handbook.

This same exact thing was said when they announced they were releasing 4E and they would no longer support 3.5.

This same exact thing was said when they announced they were releasing 3.5 and that they would no longer support 3.0.

In other words... WotC has done years of things that were supposed to result in the downfall of their company and the downfall of the Dungeons & Dragons game.

And yet, here we are... still playing it.  Still using their tools.  Still buying their books.  And still being hyperbolic about how the sky is falling and how THIS TIME they've gone too far.

Best of luck to all of you who are _definitely_, *absolutely*, _finally_, *this time we mean it*, giving up on D&D forever.  And I'll be sure to wave 'hi' to you come January when WotC releases another product that doesn't work 100% correct right out the chute and most of you are all back here on ENWorld saying that they've really done it this time, thus proving you've still been using and playing with their products the entire time.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I love how WotC is made out to be such an "evil empire" in topics like these. I mean, they might as well be kidnapping our children and clubbing baby seals(I'm looking at you Canada!...or should I say Evilada?).
> 
> In any case, I'm not happy with the new CB, but I don't hate it. And I hardly have the energy to feel so maligned as some of you do against WotC. Yes, books get updated rather quickly, D&D is a living, breathing game that is constantly in flux. Look at WoW, it's a fixed system(in that you can only play it one way), and they push out updates, bug fixes, changes, minor patches every week. With a comprable number of people playing and an even greater amount of information(IMO) it's hardly surprising that a book, a printed, uneditable document, would get updated rather frequently and rather often.
> 
> ...




But its the age of the intarwebs u n00b.  Now that they can talk to us so much more easily and that we can rant . . . i mean talk to them too, everything must obviously be perfect for everybody.  Gosh, u a total fanboi! omg!11111win!!


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 17, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> This same exact thing was said when they announced that to start with, you could only make 20 characters on the online CB.
> 
> This same exact thing was said when the Dark Sun and Essentials updates were not done in the other CB in September.
> 
> ...




He knows. Pretty sure it was Shaz on every single occassion 

*Mod Edit:* Ladies and gentlemen, this is a prime example of getting personal in discussion.  It is one of the basic building blocks of being a jerk.  Please, don't do this.  The world has enough jerks in it without us having to add to it.  ~Umbran


----------



## ggroy (Nov 17, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> This same exact thing was said when they announced that to start with, you could only make 20 characters on the online CB.
> 
> This same exact thing was said when the Dark Sun and Essentials updates were not done in the other CB in September.
> 
> ...




This sounds very similar to how an alcoholic or drug addict speaks.

*This time will be the last!  Just one more!*


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

I'ma move to a politics discussion board... Too much anger and division on gaming boards.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Nov 17, 2010)

ggroy said:


> This sounds very similar to how an alcoholic or drug addict speaks.
> 
> *This time will be the last!  Just one more!*



Addicted to _schadenfreude_? Kinky!


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I'ma move to a politics discussion board... Too much anger and division on gaming boards.




As a long-time political forum regular, I can say, without hesitation.

TRUTH.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 17, 2010)

To wizards defense: It now works smoother than yesterday...

otherwise: making your characters too big (as in height) will cause your character builder to crash... (they should make it a drop down menu or something like that...)

edit: i am no programmer, but in my opinion the character builder tries to do to much simultaneously... it really would have been sufficient if it only calcualted bonuses when you are done with one of the building steps... it now seems to calculate after each single instance of an entry... which leads to a lot of unneeded stress...


----------



## evilref (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm not happy with the new Character Builder because of current rules bugs and the design choices on how it outputs to pdf.

That said, I'm even less impressed with the sort of comment below:



MerricB said:


> Ultimately, it comes down to Wizards of the Coast deliberately deceiving us a couple of months ago when the September updates to the CB were missed. This was a deception forced by a disaster: their software team had not been able to finish the new online CB in time. I'm sure the timeline for the new CB was originally that it would be ready at the same time as the first Essentials books went on the shelves.




There's no proof to this. No evidence and nothing but speculation.  This sorty of thing (accusing people of lying without any proof) is uncalled for in my opinion and decidedly impolite at the very least.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I love how WotC is made out to be such an "evil empire" in topics like these. I mean, they might as well be kidnapping our children and clubbing baby seals(I'm looking at you Canada!...or should I say Evilada?).




Evil Empire? Hardly. A big business trying to ramp up revenue and maximize profit from their IP fits perfectly and it isn't evil.



shidaku said:


> In any case, I'm not happy with the new CB, but I don't hate it. And I hardly have the energy to feel so maligned as some of you do against WotC. Yes, books get updated rather quickly, D&D is a living, breathing game that is constantly in flux. Look at WoW, it's a fixed system(in that you can only play it one way), and they push out updates, bug fixes, changes, minor patches every week. With a comprable number of people playing and an even greater amount of information(IMO) it's hardly surprising that a book, a printed, uneditable document, would get updated rather frequently and rather often.




The basic problem with this comparison is that D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game and WOW is an MMO. These problems are largely due to WOTC's efforts to try and get a tabletop roleplaying game to produce the kind of revenue stream that an MMO would. 

The one thing that makes tabletop play so much more superior to an MMO is that the people playing get to determine the game content including what rules of play are used. 

In exchange for the freedom to create content and alter rules, an MMO provides mechanics completely in the background without needing players to remember that they are constantly changing, a virtual "DM", and lots of pretty scenery. 

The tabletop subscription model brings all of the annoyances of constant updates and none of the benefits that an MMO provides. 

The difference of course is that you can still play a tabletop rpg without a subscription. If the materials sold for doing so are so poorly edited with the understanding that all will be "fixed" with a subscription then why buy them at all? 



shidaku said:


> If you take the "Wizards fired us!" attitude, you're not going to get anything because the more you play games based off Wizard's systems without supporting Wizards, the more they're going to clamp down on those other games. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.




Wizards didn't fire anyone (any customers that is ) but their actions have certainly caused customers to fire them as a provider of desired product. 

Supporting Wizards? A company receives support from customers by providing those customers with something they want to buy. Wizards doesn't have to provide anything they do not feel like providing just as customers don't have to give Wizards a dime if they don't feel as if the product offered is worth it.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> To wizards defense: It now works smoother than yesterday...
> 
> otherwise: making your characters too big (as in height) will cause your character builder to crash... (they should make it a drop down menu or something like that...)




I keep reading this, how big are we talking about?  Like a 10 foot-tall human?  'cause I've made several who are over the size "average" limit by a couple inches and it doesn't crash.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm disappointed that the new character builder isn't up to some peoples' expectations. To be honest, I wasn't expecting it to be running without bugs for a bit. Maybe because I work in corporate America where all large software undertakings have unforseen bugs it really doesn't bother me that much. I was added to a QA team and have helped root out many bugs but even as an end user of the software I can't find them all in QA. 

The Monster Builder and old Character Builder worked okay for me, even with their quirks, but I can see why they wanted/needed to go this direction. Is it a rough transition? For some it will be. That's unfortunate. But it's the way it goes. The new system will probably work well enough for what I need it to do, and I like the new character sheet layout. I don't need custom portraits or vanity additions. Basic updates/upgrades will be coming to fix the glitches they have. 

Is it perfect? 
No.

Will it ever be? 
No. 

Will it do what I want/need it to do?
Yes.

FWIW I couldn't care less about a Virtual Table Top. IMO there are options already out there and I don't have a high opinion of people who rely on them outside of rural areas or as part of a face-to-face game. 

Maybe I just don't expect huge digital doo-dads for my game of imagination. Maybe I like old school more than most. Basic, functioning digital tools is all I ask for. Is that different from the majority of others playing the game? I don't know. 

I don't play WoW, Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft or any of the other hot video or online games. D&D is my game of choice, always has been. People, books and a pencil are all I ever need. 

And dice. Lots & lots of dice. 

At the end of the day I wish it worked a little more cleanly, but I'm not going to be too upset about it as long as it works. It's a game, after all, and I play it for fun. If I can have fun, I'm happy. The rest is gravy.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I keep reading this, how big are we talking about? Like a 10 foot-tall human? 'cause I've made several who are over the size "average" limit by a couple inches and it doesn't crash.




Dude, it won't let me build my Half-Drow 9' 11 15/16" Barbarian with my home brewed half-devil template and custom Iron Fists of DOOOM! 

It's running, bugs will be found and fixed.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Evil Empire? Hardly. A big business trying to ramp up revenue and maximize profit from their IP fits perfectly and it isn't evil.



Exactly, and yet, many people here consistently express the opinion that WotC should NOT be doing that.  And that any attempts to do so are "bad". 



> The basic problem with this comparison is that D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game and WOW is an MMO. These problems are largely due to WOTC's efforts to try and get a tabletop roleplaying game to produce the kind of revenue stream that an MMO would.



More revenue is good for everyone.  Their products become better, they become more frequent, the price goes down.  The idea that a tabletop game MUST be unprofitable is a false one.



> ...MMO rant...



Thank you for decidedly ignoring the point I was making and instead decrying the limitations of MMOs.  

The point I was trying to make was that WoW is a massive game, comprable in scale, if not in scope, to D&D.  It is published in a digital format, and it STILL has bugs and updates and moficiations and tweaks and nerfs, almost EVERY week since it's release.  

D&D is just as big in scale, if not bigger, and larger in scope as well.  But it is published in a format that is unfriendly to updates, even small ones, even bug fixes.



> Wizards didn't fire anyone (any customers that is ) but their actions have certainly caused customers to fire them as a provider of desired product.



And that's a customer decision, I'm sure their actions have gained them customers as well.



> Supporting Wizards? A company receives support from customers by providing those customers with something they want to buy. Wizards doesn't have to provide anything they do not feel like providing just as customers don't have to give Wizards a dime if they don't feel as if the product offered is worth it.



Last time: please read what I write before responding.

If you don't like what WotC does, feel free to show it with your money.  But if they then do something you find favorable, show them that you support that move, with your money.  When the dog doesn't sit, you smack it.  When the dog does sit, you give it a cookie.  Eventually, the dog will always sit.


----------



## Solvarn (Nov 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> And I think this herein lies WotC biggest problem with selling people on the new CB... no one wants to pay the same price for an inferior product. WotC is charging the same amount for replacing a tool they had gotten to a relative levelof stability and that much of their customer base had become use to and proficient in it's use... with something that is less.
> 
> IMO, it would have been a better marketing plan to announce it as a Beta product in a final "testing" stage that was free to use in order to log defects on it for a month than to release it the way they did.




The problem with this was that they didn't have their existing producting working. Giving away their product for free for a month would have had their subscriber base up in arms.

In addition to making the Character Builder free for a month, they should have credited everyone a month on their subscription, to allow for "testing" and because their regular update schedule was interrupted.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I keep reading this, how big are we talking about?  Like a 10 foot-tall human?  'cause I've made several who are over the size "average" limit by a couple inches and it doesn't crash.




To test this, I just made a 1000 foot tall halfling thief... I'm thinking Chrome must be a super star when it comes to resisting the urge to crash, or they fixed this one?


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> To test this, I just made a 1000 foot tall halfling thief... I'm thinking Chrome must be a super star when it comes to resisting the urge to crash, or they fixed this one?




Perhaps it just thought it too awesome?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2010)

*Folks, a couple of you thought that making references to real-world political figures would be an okay thing to do on these boards.

You should be aware that we've got a pretty strong no-politics rule.  Please don't go there.  Thanks.*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 17, 2010)

> 1000 foot tall halfling thief




I remember his older brother, MC 900 Foot Jesus had some great albums back in the 1990s.


----------



## ggroy (Nov 17, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> Addicted to _schadenfreude_? Kinky!




.... *They think they can stop anytime they want.*


----------



## Osgood (Nov 17, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> This same exact thing was said when they announced that to start with, you could only make 20 characters on the online CB.
> 
> This same exact thing was said when the Dark Sun and Essentials updates were not done in the other CB in September.
> 
> ...




While individually none of these things have put WotC out of business, there business strategy in the past year or so suggests a measure of desperation.  I think many of these events have had a major impact on the business...

WotC lost revenue with refunds and canceled subs after the Sept. DS/Essentials debacle. 

WotC lost potential sales from guys like me and the dozen or so other gamers I know who typically buy almost everything, but have no interest in the Essentials (a risk I think they were willing to take in hopes of hooking new/lapsed players).

WotC lost a lot of revenue when the fan base split between 4E and Pathfinder (which may have been averted if the GSL had been on time and closer to the OGL).

I don't think there is any one apocalyptic event that will destroy the hobby, I think it may keep dying little deaths as it has done since its peak in the 80's.  If you are WotC, you have to realize that every sale is important, especially in these economic times, and they just can't afford this mismanagement.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Nov 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Nope. I still have perfectly good D&D material going back 30 years that is in no way damaged by any of this mess.
> 
> I don't really care what Wizards wants to do from this point forward. As a hobbyist I will spend my gaming dollars where I believe the best value can be found. The direction Wizards has taken leads in the opposite direction from that for me.
> 
> ...



Much in the same boat as you.  I've got plenty of dead tree material to last me years.  Have yet to buy any 4e product for myself as of yet (unless you count minis on occassion).
I would fall into that casual gamer for 4e in your group.  I'm all about 3.5e.  But the DM for the 4e game let me have a copy of the CB to let me try a few different builds than email him the character file so he had a copy and could recommend a few things that I missed or might be a better fit for my play style.
That experience really opened me up to playing in a 4e game.

Moving to an online only format, you lose players like myself.  I'll just stay in the older editions and be happy doing it.



DEFCON 1 said:


> _...snip..._
> And yet, here we are... still playing it.  Still using their tools.  Still buying their books.  And still being hyperbolic about how the sky is falling and how THIS TIME they've gone too far.
> 
> Best of luck to all of you who are _definitely_, *absolutely*, _finally_, *this time we mean it*, giving up on D&D forever.  And I'll be sure to wave 'hi' to you come January when WotC releases another product that doesn't work 100% correct right out the chute and most of you are all back here on ENWorld saying that they've really done it this time, thus proving you've still been using and playing with their products the entire time.




Or they will be like those of us that still lurk around EnWorld, though we have purchased nothing after our point of breaking.

For me, I quit buying new books (deadtree) after 4e was announced.  I still shop the secondary market mainly for older versions.  I'm sure if I found a collection of 4e ones for $5 or so on Craigslist or a yard sale I would pick them up.  But I don't actively look for them.

The downloadable Character Builder actually made me consider getting a DDI subscription after my 4e DM let me have a copy to try out so I would give it a go in our groups game.

Taking it (CB) online, pretty much knocks off that thinking of mine.
Have any of you given thought to past actions of WotC with stuff posted/saved to their servers?  It was a policy of their's not so long ago anything on them was their IP.  Many of us scrubbed our accounts of our house rules, various worlds and whatnot when that change in the ToS came out.

With a downloaded copy, you were protected in a way from that.  And you could freely share a character with anyone in the world you wish that had the Character Builder as well.
What happens when 5e comes out, does this version stay available or does it just simple go away and is replaced with a 5e version of it?  What happens to all your characters you have stored on their servers at the time of the switch?

Voting with $$ is the best way to have their attention.
Honestly the change won't affect me much at all and I would have never known about it had the 4eDM hadn't mentioned it during our Star Wars game.

That is a good case point in itself now that I think about it.  
Apply this to Star Wars.
What if the Character Builder had been for SW.
Than they moved it online.
Now when Lucas pulls SW back from WotC and they can't have anything SW on their site now.
Your Character Builder for SW just went away.

O but that couldn't happen to D&D you say to yourself.
Ask yourself "Why couldn't it?".


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Taking it (CB) online, pretty much knocks off that thinking of mine.
> Have any of you given thought to past actions of WotC with stuff posted/saved to their servers? It was a policy of their's not so long ago anything on them was their IP. Many of us scrubbed our accounts of our house rules, various worlds and whatnot when that change in the ToS came out.



And anything you create still is.



> With a downloaded copy, you were protected in a way from that. And you could freely share a character with anyone in the world you wish that had the Character Builder as well.
> What happens when 5e comes



Except, it was still their IP.  Did you build a Deva?  Oh!  Guess what that's Wizard's IP.  Did you build a tiefling rogue?  oh!  Look more WotC IP.  You don't own your characters, they are at best, fan-art, which is only legal so long as WotC says it is.  If WotC were to say "we officially announce that any rule, any character, any world you create with out system is ours." then they would be legally within their rights.


----------



## P1NBACK (Nov 17, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Is this irreparable damage to D&D? I'd like to think not.




MerricB, I'd give you XP, but it seems I have recently somewhere else. 

I agree completely with your OP. I was a staunch supporter of 4E throughout, and I even like the changes in Essentials as I've become quite jaded with the original 4E. 

However, this whole D&DI debacle has really made me second guess my commitment to 4E D&D. I've decided it is irreparable damage _for me. _

I was an annual subscriber to 4E since the first year. I've been playing 4E since I bought the Keep on the Shadowfell before the core books even came out. 

What can I say? There's tons of other great games out there that I can be playing and dealing with. 

Thanks for expressing my disappointment for me. 

I'll probably hit D&D up again around 5E. 

For those of you continuing on your support, _*good luck*_ guys! I wish you well.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> ...snip...




So they made good products, good books, you enjoy the game, and one small, secondary accessory thing goes wrong, and you dump it completly.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like "commitment" to me. That sounds like "looking for an excuse."

Here's the clincher. You don't NEED DDI to play the game. You don't need Dungeon, you don't need dragon, and you don't need 90% of the books, accessories, minis, and whatnot they make as well to play 4e.

Saying that you're dropping the ENTIRE game over DDI, is like saying you're dropping the entire game over the latest mini you opened that was damaged in box.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Much in the same boat as you.  I've got plenty of dead tree material to last me years.  Have yet to buy any 4e product for myself as of yet (unless you count minis on occassion).
> I would fall into that casual gamer for 4e in your group.  I'm all about 3.5e.  But the DM for the 4e game let me have a copy of the CB to let me try a few different builds than email him the character file so he had a copy and could recommend a few things that I missed or might be a better fit for my play style.
> That experience really opened me up to playing in a 4e game.
> 
> Moving to an online only format, you lose players like myself.  I'll just stay in the older editions and be happy doing it.




But isn't what you're saying here essentially- I never bought anything for 4e, and even the old CB format didn't cause me to buy something for 4e, and I don't plan on doing so in the future?

So the net sum is... pretty much nil... Isn't it? 



> What happens when 5e comes out, does this version stay available or does it just simple go away and is replaced with a 5e version of it?  What happens to all your characters you have stored on their servers at the time of the switch?




Since the tool has been, and continues to be a tool in support of the current edition, I imagine it will either be updated to the new info, or discontinued entirely. 

You'll probably need to print/export your characters before some date if you want to keep them.


----------



## P1NBACK (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Saying that you're dropping the ENTIRE game over DDI, is like saying you're dropping the entire game over the latest mini you opened that was damaged in box.




You can interpret it like that. 

But, I would never equate a damaged product (likely the result of shipping) that I can return and exchange to a botched, unorganized, mis-communicated, mishandled, and obvious lack of vision like D&D Insider. 

You don't need 4E to play D&D. How about that? I can go play Basic D&D, 1E D&D, 2E D&D, 3E, 3.5, Pathfinder, etc... etc... Or, even other games like Burning Wheel or In A Wicked Age if I want a fantasy RPG. 

Like I said, good luck with your game of choice.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> And anything you create still is.
> 
> 
> Except, it was still their IP.  Did you build a Deva?  Oh!  Guess what that's Wizard's IP.  Did you build a tiefling rogue?  oh!  Look more WotC IP.  You don't own your characters, they are at best, fan-art, which is only legal so long as WotC says it is.  If WotC were to say "we officially announce that any rule, any character, any world you create with out system is ours." then they would be legally within their rights.




Game rules aren't copyrightable. 

Wizard's doesn't create the backstory's for any of my characters, I do.  I generally store that information on the character sheet I use.  I've created things from 'me Ugh the Barbarian' to 6 page family histories on characters I've created.
Nor do they own  'deva' as a concept because it's been around much longer than D&D. 

And no, they wouldn't be legally within their rights to any of it if I create something.  What I referred to was a change in the Terms of Service/Use of their forums a few years back during the Gleemax start.  One of them specifically stated on owning it all on their forums if you posted it and agreed to the new ToS when you logged in.
So I would advise anyone using the Online CB to carefully read the ToS they have for your information you put in.  Especially those of you talking about putting your houseruled information into it.

Their actions won't really affect me much as I won't be using it.  Me and the deadtrees will do just fine on our own.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> You can interpret it like that.
> 
> But, I would never equate a damaged product (likely the result of shipping) that I can return and exchange to a botched, unorganized, mis-communicated, mishandled, and obvious lack of vision like D&D Insider.
> 
> ...




See, you're not even open to discussion of that decision.  You came in here, with no intent to add to the discussion just to say "bye!"

And in reality, no, you can't play D&D without 4e.  Oh yes, YOU don't have to use the 4e system, but lets face it, it's much easier to find a 4e game than a 3.x, a 2e, or 1e game.

Why?  Because those games are out of production for starters.  Because new players aren't being exposed to them on a regular basis.  Because new players can't buy books for them readily.  I know several people who'd like to do a 2e game, except that none of them even live in the same state.

No, you don't need to play the latest edition, but you NEED Wizards to keep making D&D.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> You can interpret it like that.
> 
> But, I would never equate a damaged product (likely the result of shipping) that I can return and exchange to a botched, unorganized, mis-communicated, mishandled, and obvious lack of vision like D&D Insider.
> 
> ...




I think what's confusing ME here is that it seems like you're saying, even though you've expressed a like for the system, and the products, you're leaving those behind because of mismanagement of an optional separate component?

I'm not trying to say your motives are wrong- everyone has their own, just confused by them.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> AIf WotC were to say "we officially announce that any rule, any character, any world you create with out system is ours." then they would be legally within their rights.




Uh, no.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Except, it was still their IP. Did you build a Deva? Oh! Guess what that's Wizard's IP. Did you build a tiefling rogue? oh! Look more WotC IP. You don't own your characters, they are at best, fan-art, which is only legal so long as WotC says it is. If WotC were to say "we officially announce that any rule, any character, any world you create with out system is ours." then they would be legally within their rights.







How is the air up there?


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> But isn't what you're saying here essentially- I never bought anything for 4e, and even the old CB format didn't cause me to buy something for 4e, and I don't plan on doing so in the future?
> 
> So the net sum is... pretty much nil... Isn't it?



Actually a better explanation of it is the old CB format allowed me to partake in a 4E game, where I otherwised shunned it.  The ruleset isn't for me overall.  
Your right they lose no money on myself over this, they lost it a couple years ago in my case.

In my case it is an example of how sharing of the CB gained a player for a 4E game rather than that player just not playing at all.
My group I had just joined knew I wasn't a fan of 4E, they wanted to play a game of it to try one of the modules (they all play in other games mostly other systems).
Rather than just not playing (I only game once a week) for the couple of months of 4e they played, I gave it a shot using the 4e.  They asked for my feed back on the various things.  I told them what I liked and what I disliked about it. (not going into those as it takes away from the topic)
The point being using the CB allowed for a grognard like myself to play, enjoy the game, not be too caught up into the rule changes.  
Where we play there isn't a good internet connection and generally we don't have laptops at the table, so being able to share the character back and forth allowed for updates to be done easily and allowed the DM to easily have a character copy in the event someone couldn't make it that night.




Scribble said:


> Since the tool has been, and continues to be a tool in support of the current edition, I imagine it will either be updated to the new info, or discontinued entirely.
> 
> You'll probably need to print/export your characters before some date if you want to keep them.




See that's the main point, old format, your CB character is yours for life however you store it/maintain it.
New online format, there isn't a thing that says:
"January 1, 2011 - WotC announces they are releasing 5e on January 2, 2011." 
And they simply flip the switch on the Online CB for 4.0 to 5.0.

Not a thing you can do about it except pop online and rant and rave.
Old CB format, you simple say ok, no more updates, all my information is safely stored on my system.  Maybe I'll give the new one a try.

I would hope they are smart enough though to have lead time on the information for those using it, or allow support of multiple editions as they move forward.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 17, 2010)

Joshua Randall said:


> You know, this is a great point. There was so much negativity around the time of the Gleemax debalce, yet look how well the DDI Compendium and the (offline) Character Builder turned out!
> 
> TerraDave, thanks for reminding us that the sky isn't falling.




Remember the CD that came with the release of the 3.0 PHB? 

Things like this go back to T$R.

It has always been this way and will always be this way.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 17, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Game rules aren't copyrightable.
> 
> Wizard's doesn't create the backstory's for any of my characters, I do. I generally store that information on the character sheet I use. I've created things from 'me Ugh the Barbarian' to 6 page family histories on characters I've created.
> Nor do they own 'deva' as a concept because it's been around much longer than D&D.
> ...






ExploderWizard said:


> How is the air up there?






the Jester said:


> Uh, no.




Ah, US copyright law, your failure to understand it makes me giggle, and also makes me sad.

And I quote, WotC Terms of Use
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page (Terms of Use)


			
				WotC Terms of Use Section 7: User Content said:
			
		

> By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Sites or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction.




Enjoy giving WotC your characters.


----------



## jbear (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> See, you're not even open to discussion of that decision.  You came in here, with no intent to add to the discussion just to say "bye!"
> 
> And in reality, no, you can't play D&D without 4e.  Oh yes, YOU don't have to use the 4e system, but lets face it, it's much easier to find a 4e game than a 3.x, a 2e, or 1e game.
> 
> ...



He doesn't need to discuss his decision with you. Who are you or any of us to change his mind?

But sharing his feelings on the issue and how it has affected his decision is valid enough whether you share them or understand them in the slightest.

I understand your point about the exagerated nature of some of the complaints made against WotC. I often feel the same way.

Unfortunately this is an issue for people. Whether you or me like it or not. 

I just hope they turn the situation on its head as fast as possible.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> And in reality, no, you can't play D&D without 4e.  Oh yes, YOU don't have to use the 4e system, but lets face it, it's much easier to find a 4e game than a 3.x, a 2e, or 1e game.




I'm not so sure that's the case, or that you could so easily make that claim as being an obvious thing. You would have to assume that the bulk of prior edition players play 4e, and it also omits that 3.x by way of the OGL and Pathfinder is still in production and still exposing new players to that edition and its progeny (to say nothing of established gaming groups introducing new players to various other editions).


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Actually a better explanation of it is the old CB format allowed me to partake in a 4E game, where I otherwised shunned it.  The ruleset isn't for me overall.
> Your right they lose no money on myself over this, they lost it a couple years ago in my case.




Sure- and from others a couple of years before that... No system is perfect for everyone.



> In my case it is an example of how sharing of the CB gained a player for a 4E game rather than that player just not playing at all.
> My group I had just joined knew I wasn't a fan of 4E, they wanted to play a game of it to try one of the modules (they all play in other games mostly other systems).
> Rather than just not playing (I only game once a week) for the couple of months of 4e they played, I gave it a shot using the 4e.  They asked for my feed back on the various things.  I told them what I liked and what I disliked about it. (not going into those as it takes away from the topic)
> The point being using the CB allowed for a grognard like myself to play, enjoy the game, not be too caught up into the rule changes.
> Where we play there isn't a good internet connection and generally we don't have laptops at the table, so being able to share the character back and forth allowed for updates to be done easily and allowed the DM to easily have a character copy in the event someone couldn't make it that night.




Fair enough... I won't try to argue the offline CB was useful to people... All in all though I think more games are tried out simply because a group of friends wants to try them out, as opposed to the tools.




> See that's the main point, old format, your CB character is yours for life however you store it/maintain it.
> New online format, there isn't a thing that says:
> "January 1, 2011 - WotC announces they are releasing 5e on January 2, 2011."
> And they simply flip the switch on the Online CB for 4.0 to 5.0.
> ...




Well- sure this same thing can happen if gmail suddenly decides to close up shop. I'm not really worried about it personally... Despite WoTC doing some stuff that seems pretty mismanaged.  When the time comes, and they switch over, if they give no notice... meh- I'll get upset then.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Ah, US copyright law, your failure to understand it makes me giggle, and also makes me sad.
> 
> And I quote, WotC Terms of Use
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page (Terms of Use)
> ...






			
				WotC Tos said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by WotC Terms of Use Section 7: User Content
> By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Sites or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction.




shidaku,
Thanks for proving my point of the Terms of Service.
The quoted portion ot the ToS is what I was talking about if you post on WotC or 'save in their online CB' it belongs to them.
Not many ever really read it, just simple click and move on.

Far as the Copyright's:
Have you ever wonder why so many different versions of games are out there?  It's because GAME RULES are non-copyrightable, I'm not referring to IP which would be the concepts like Beholders and all.  It's referring to the hard numbers of Armor #2 (Chain Shirt) gives you a +4 to your Armor Defense.


----------



## P1NBACK (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> See, you're not even open to discussion of that decision.  You came in here, with no intent to add to the discussion just to say "bye!"




No. I came in here with the intent to say, "Right on" to MerricB. ... Back the  up. 

@Scribble - I'm saying I'm jaded with 4E and I'm not interested in trying Essentials, despite me liking what I've seen, because of the D&DI debacle and it's reflection on the company as a whole. Secondly, 4E's system is far too exhaustive for me to put the time in to do this by hand. I'm a busy man. I'll just play low-prep games like Apocalypse World. If you're going to design a system that damn near requires software to use it all, well, then don't botch the software. Third, I'm not saying I'll never play 4E ever. It's just not worth investing in to me anymore. I very well may DM a one-shot with Essentials only. I don't know. I can't tell the future. But, it's certainly not sounding appetizing to me right now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Ah, US copyright law, your failure to understand it makes me giggle, and also makes me sad.
> 
> And I quote, WotC Terms of Use
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page (Terms of Use)
> ...




As an entertainment lawyer, I giggle back.

No US copyright case has ever been decided solely on the strength of the boilerplate in a ToS agreement.  In fact, boilerplate between parties to a contract who are demonstrably of radically unequal bargaining power is generally either interpreted most strictly against the contract drafter or ignored altogether.

I'm not saying to ignore such language, just don't get too scared by it.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> I'm saying I'm jaded with 4E and I'm not interested in trying Essentials, despite me liking what I've seen, because of the D&DI debacle and it's reflection on the company as a whole. Secondly, 4E's system is far too exhaustive for me to put the time in to do this by hand. I'm a busy man. I'll just play low-prep games like Apocalypse World. If you're going to design a system that damn near requires software to use it all, well, then don't botch the software. Third, I'm not saying I'll never play 4E ever. It's just not worth investing in to me anymore. I very well may DM a one-shot with Essentials only. I don't know. I can't tell the future. But, it's certainly not sounding appetizing to me right now.




[MENTION=83768]P1NBACK[/MENTION]  Fair enough!  Really I was just interested in your logic.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Enjoy giving WotC your characters.




It's legal boilerplate.  Many or most online applications that accept content from users have some such thing, to defend themselves from any number of future unforeseen circumstances.  

It is a significant defense against convergent development, which is not at all unlikely in a small field:  You put something in the CB.  WotC independently developed something similar to your content.  You cannot make claims that they used your content without permission.

There's a certain... arrogance to the idea that there is some significant risk that WotC is going to actually take your stuff and use it and make scads of money off it and leave you in the cold.  I mean, really?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As an entertainment lawyer, I giggle back.
> 
> No US copyright case has ever been decided solely on the strength of the boilerplate in a ToS agreement.  In fact, boilerplate between parties to a contract who are demonstrably of radically unequal bargaining power is generally either interpreted most strictly against the contract drafter or ignored altogether.
> 
> I'm not saying to ignore such language, just don't get too scared by it.




Yeah... generally I find these are in there to protect the company in the result of them making something that resembles your thing by coincidence, more then them actively looking to steal your character build...

They don't want every gamer left of the Mississippi suing them because they released an NPC that closely resembles a certain 1000' tall halfling thief they made.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 17, 2010)

Osgood said:


> I don't think there is any one apocalyptic event that will destroy the hobby, I think it may keep dying little deaths as it has done since its peak in the 80's.  If you are WotC, you have to realize that every sale is important, especially in these economic times, and they just can't afford this mismanagement.




And with every one little death... there is an equal and opposite little birth.

If WotC was truly "dying" as you and others are trying to imply (if not outright say for a few of you)... why is the D&D game still on sale, still being published, and new and better extras still being created for it?  Might it be because for every ENWorlder who posts in these forums that they've been "lost" as a customer... another new customer has been created elsewhere and has just not yet found the time or desire to come to a place like this to trumpet that they've just started the game and are enjoying the heck out of it?

I know it must pain a few of you to realize it... but us messageboarders are only a small segment of the D&D population... and just because we're able and willing to come here decrying the state of the Character Builder a mere 35 minutes after it gets released to the public... doesn't mean we are the overwhelming voice of all D&D players out there.

Perspective, people... it's all about trying to maintain a little perspective.


----------



## Blastin (Nov 17, 2010)

I was gonna write a long post on my feelings about the current situation....but instead I'm gonna get on the CB and make up a Mage


----------



## Herschel (Nov 17, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> In my case it is an example of how sharing of the CB gained a player for a 4E game rather than that player just not playing at all.
> 
> ......New online format, there isn't a thing that says:
> "January 1, 2011 - WotC announces they are releasing 5e on January 2, 2011."
> And they simply flip the switch on the Online CB for 4.0 to 5.0.




First, your understanding of American Copyright law is......shall we say extremely limited and inaccurate. 

Secondly, gaining a player who isn't a customer is useless to them. As long as you aren't a potential buyer, your opinion means essentially nothing. 

Thirdly, it would be shocking, and shockingly stupid (and impossible) for them to get cleared through any channels. There would be no hype build-up, not marketing campaign AND they would be giving away their new content for "essentially" free to every subscriber.


----------



## evilref (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Ah, US copyright law, your failure to understand it makes me giggle, and also makes me sad.
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy giving WotC your characters.




Edit: DannyAlcatraz has already made my point in a more stylish way. But then as an American lawyer he gets bonus style. Only barristers get to look good in court over here.


----------



## P1NBACK (Nov 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> @P1NBACK  Fair enough!  Really I was just interested in your logic.




[MENTION=23977]Scribble[/MENTION] It's all good. Was a good question. 

As an aside, I think I sent you a friend request on Xbox Live.  Hit me up for some Black Ops, Halo, or something some time.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm astounded at how much anger there is in this thread. When I tried out the new character builder, it crashed after a little while. I went "oh well, I'll get back to it after a few weeks" and wiped the matter from my mind. There was a slight disappointment, but nothing radical. I almost feel like, for some people, their like of a particular game is decided between the actual playing on one hand, and the "war on the boards" on the other; the constant meta-discussion of the game, the company that makes it, the state of the edition, and so on. If the tone gets too negative, that negativity somehow spreads out into the game (they still enjoy to play), and so they stop playing it. I'm not saying that this is the way it works for all people, and I'm definately not saying that WoTC doesn't make mistakes, but I think people should just _take it easy_.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> It's all good. Was a good question.
> 
> As an aside, I think I sent you a friend request on Xbox Live.  Hit me up for some Black Ops, Halo, or something some time.




Yeah I accepted it last night... Will probably be waiting till Christmas to get either of those... I'm behind the times I know- but I just got a Kinect, so my fun money is in rehab for a b it.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Nov 17, 2010)

I have used the new CB for approximately 5 to 6 hrs over the past 2 days.  I have had 3 crashes but all of them happened when importing previous characters from the old CB.  I have as of yet got to to crash other than that.

It does take some getting used to since it is so unlike the previous CB.  But once you get past that it as worked well for me on both Firefox and IE.  I have as of yet to try it on Chrome.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Ah, US copyright law, your failure to understand it makes me giggle, and also makes me sad.




You say this as if you are an attorney. Are you?

Your assertion:



			
				shidaku said:
			
		

> If WotC were to say "we officially announce that any rule, any character, any world you create with out system is ours." then they would be legally within their rights.




I maintain that they would _not_ be legally within their rights. An entertainment lawyer has already weighed in against your perspective. The fact is, game rules cannot be copyrighted, only their presentation. (That's the seed of the OSR movement.)  The reasoning for having a clause like that in the TOS has already been laid out- basically, it's a legal protection against claims that WotC "stole" your stuff.

If I homebrew a campaign, your assertion is that WotC can claim ownership over it? If I write up homebrewed paragon paths and epic destinies and magic items and powers, your assertion is that WotC can claim ownership over them?

IANAL, but I think you are completely wrong. 

Now, if you mean that anything you post to their server would become their property- well, you'd have _more_ of a case, but I still wouldn't agree. But your assertion seems to be that anything created for 4e belongs to them.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Nov 17, 2010)

Good lord.

It's been what, 48 hours since release and already the dramatists are declaring the end of 4E and WotC?

Participate in the first weeks of an MMO launch - it's always like this. Yet they've got weeks of alpha testing under their belts, massive amounts of paid-for focus testing, and huge teams at their disposal. I can't shake the feeling this is just a handful of coders sat in an office trying to make something happen.

We expect too much.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 17, 2010)

evilref said:


> Edit: DannyAlcatraz has already made my point in a more stylish way. But then as an American lawyer he gets bonus style. Only barristers get to look good in court over here.




I am jealous of their powdered wigs, though.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 17, 2010)

Flobby said:


> Haven't tried the new CB yet but why do you think Essentials a failure? I thought it was doing well(?)




I didn't actually say Essentials is a failure; I believe that Wizards' handling of its marketing has caused a lot of confusion and has occasionally been counterproductive.

In particular, I think that the Red Box is greatly flawed due to the major discrepancies between it and Heroes of the Fallen Lands. I believe that the changes to the thief in HotFL are excellent and should have been made, but they've made the Red Box into a product that is much, much less than it should have been - and one I have trouble recommending to new players as a result. This is not how it should have been.

In addition, there has been great confusion over whether the D&D Player's Handbook will be reprinted - confusion caused (I believe) by Wizards themselves not yet knowing if they will reprint it. At one point, I believed that after Essentials was out and on shelves, we'd have both it and the core three available for purchase. However, the announcement of the [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons-Dragons-Accessory/dp/0786958588]Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spells[/ame] muddies the water drastically. With that release, it leads me to believe that the Player's Handbook will not be reprinted - although I quite admit I could be wrong about that.

There's a very good reason that Wizards is having trouble with its marketing of Essentials: the spectre of D&D 3.5E hanging over their heads. As a set of products, D&D Essentials is far more compatible and excellent than 3.5E was, but the mistakes of the past are causing new mistakes in the future.

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 18, 2010)

Raunalyn said:


> However, it does give me an idea of its potential..




Zero sarcasm here.

As a consumer, what potential do you see in the online CB that could not have been added/was not already there, for the downloaded CB?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 18, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Eh,potential is great and all but seriously, WotC needs to step their game up if they want people to pay for the "potential" their products have... At the end of roughly 2 + years of 4e/DDI we have exactly two tools (3 I guess if you count the Compendium)... the CB (which has been ultimately scraped) and a buggy MB... that's not impressive, and it doesn't instill faith in many as far as their ability to capitalize on potential.




Or... givei t away until the bugs are fixed... "We know that things aren't going to be perfect out of the door so we're allowing everyone to use it for xx amount of days and listening to the feedback."


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 18, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> Haha, agreed. WotC has always (even before Hasbro) been a two-steps-forward, one-step-back (or even, in this case 1-forward, 2-back) kind of company. This really is just par for the course with these guys, so in a way its not surprising. Unfortunately.
> 
> This mess will all get cleaned up eventually, its just a matter of cost in time, effort, and customers. Makes one wonder what they could do if they didn't royally sabotage themselves about every other year.




And the customers thing is huge. Roleplayers aren't buying in numbers that they used to. Paizo, even if it's 'just' in ICv2 was tied with WoTC for sales. Good will on WoTC part has been spent and Paizo generally, not always, but generally, gets a huge thumbs up for their handling of the line, their handling of PDF's, etc...

If WoTC is going to remain a role playing publisher, they need to make some serious decesions about how they're going to stay profitible enough that Hasbro doesn't shut them down and use the IP for other things that make real money.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 18, 2010)

But that attitute is apparently costing WoTC at some point. They are not the only fish in the pond. The biggest fish yes but they are competting not only with the other RPGs, and Paizo did tie them in sales, but they are competing with WoW and other fields of entertainment.

WoTC can't keep reaching back to the original players with nods like Essentials and Magic Missiles hitting automatic and expect that those same people who may like the game mechanics aren't going to be pissed about the way things are handled and go back to NOT playing the game.

D&D isn't as popular now as it was at its height and yeah, this is a huge concern for the company. If the RPG can't be profitible, something else will have to be.



DEFCON 1 said:


> This same exact thing was said when they announced that to start with, you could only make 20 characters on the online CB.
> 
> This same exact thing was said when the Dark Sun and Essentials updates were not done in the other CB in September.
> 
> ...


----------



## P1NBACK (Nov 18, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yeah I accepted it last night... Will probably be waiting till Christmas to get either of those... I'm behind the times I know- but I just got a Kinect, so my fun money is in rehab for a b it.




[MENTION=23977]Scribble[/MENTION] How are you liking Kinect? Looks interesting, but I think I'm more skeptical of that than DDI.


----------



## The_Gneech (Nov 18, 2010)

Speaking as someone who went off to Pathfinder, I can only say that I don't feel I can "rely" on WotC for more than a product or two at a time ... they seem to lurch around from idea to idea without any discernible plan. And gaming, for a hardcore fan anyway, is a long-term investment. I've been in this hobby for something like thirty years and continue to use some of my earliest materials, so I'm always a lot more interested in something that I know will still be there tomorrow.

I don't know if it's a frantic desire to keep throwing out something new to up sales, just a collective neurosis, or what. But I have a lot more faith that the d20 OGL will be around tomorrow, than anything currently officially branded as "D&D." 

-The Gneech


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 18, 2010)

If you want a nice review of Kinect, listen to the Gamers With Jobs podcast.

GWJ Conference Call Episode 213 | Gamers With Jobs

This is the episode where they discuss Kinect.


----------



## Osgood (Nov 18, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If WotC was truly "dying" as you and others are trying to imply (if not outright say for a few of you)... why is the D&D game still on sale, still being published, and new and better extras still being created for it?




Well, I bought a new Pontiac about a year before the brand was phased out and GM went into chapter 11 bankruptcy, so I think its flawed logic to suggest a product cannot be on sale/in production while a company is dying.



DEFCON 1 said:


> I know it must pain a few of you to realize it... but us messageboarders  are only a small segment of the D&D population... and just because  we're able and willing to come here decrying the state of the Character  Builder a mere 35 minutes after it gets released to the public...  doesn't mean we are the overwhelming voice of all D&D players out  there.




To offer an older business analogy, when Coca-cola test marketed "New Coke" back in the mid-80's the tiny but vocal segment of the focus groups that spoke out against the change was considered inconsequential. Despite New Coke's initially strong sales and overwhelming preference in taste tests, the minority who preferred old Coke fought the good fight.  Coke Classic* returned to the market less than 3 months later, and New Coke slowed drifted into obscurity.  Never underestimate a vocal minority.



I have no idea what the exact financial position at WotC is... I certainly hope it is healthy, but their dramatically different business decisions over the past year or so suggest otherwise.  For good or ill most companies live by the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it motto.  In my experience, business only changes rapidly when things are going very badly.

I'm not one to suggest there is anything wrong with WotC making money, even their "cash grabs" are reasonable gambits for a business.  But the Essentials, the new DDI strategy, the burst experimental product lines (race books, adventure sites, boxed sets, collectible cards)--some of which have come and gone, and apparently canceled or postponed products (Nentir Vale Gazetteer, Human racial book) strongly imply the bottom line is not looking good.

I really hope that I'm wrong, because I love 4E and hope it continues for years to come.



*I find the fact that they now refer to the old character builder as Character Builder Classic amusing, and maintain a pipe-dream that it will likewise resurface, but WotC is not the Coca-Col Company...


----------



## P1NBACK (Nov 18, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> If you want a nice review of Kinect, listen to the Gamers With Jobs podcast.
> 
> GWJ Conference Call Episode 213 | Gamers With Jobs
> 
> This is the episode where they discuss Kinect.




Will do! Thanks bud! I've given you XP recently. Hopefully someone can throw one on you for me for being so helpful.


----------



## Chrono22 (Nov 18, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And with every one little death... there is an equal and opposite little birth.



That's crazy talk.
If this was true, no one would ever go out of business.

Oh, and don't mind me. I'm just watching the fireworks. It's kind of fascinating, in a viceral kind of way, to watch WotC abandon yet another section of their devoted fanbase.

Really, the track record of WotC's digital offerings should speak for itself. There is no suite of online-only programs coming, just like there is no gleemax, no gametable, and no continued 4e support. My advice: get off the crazytrain/bandwagon and have some fun with a company you can trust.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 18, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> That's crazy talk.
> If this was true, no one would ever go out of business.
> 
> Oh, and don't mind me. I'm just watching the fireworks. It's kind of fascinating, in a viceral kind of way, to watch WotC abandon yet another section of their devoted fanbase.
> ...




Heck, think about it. Essentials in many ways is a white flag to old school sensibilities trying to get those lapsed players to return to the fold.

You can throw a new coat on paint on a ruined house but its still a ruined house. 

I'm certainly not saying that 4e is a ruined house. I like it. But if it doesn't appeal to fans of the older system, some simplification and bone tossing is not going to get those old school gamers back in anything resembling a permanent fashion. That's on or offline.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 18, 2010)

With Essentials, the biggest thing that I like about it is that the Slayer is an easy version of the fighter class to play, suitable for new players, or players who aren't interested in deep levels of mechanical complexity (which is what the 4e basic fighter suffers from).

I've got one player in my groups who is mainly there for the story and roleplaying. Being able to give her a simpler character will make things so much better for all of us.

While Essentials does give a nod to older editions, I do believe that the description of it being a version of the game for new players is very true, and something it succeeds at.

Cheers!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 18, 2010)

Osgood said:


> To offer an older business analogy, when Coca-cola test marketed "New Coke" back in the mid-80's the tiny but vocal segment of the focus groups that spoke out against the change was considered inconsequential. Despite New Coke's initially strong sales and overwhelming preference in taste tests, the minority who preferred old Coke fought the good fight.  Coke Classic* returned to the market less than 3 months later, and New Coke slowed drifted into obscurity.  Never underestimate a vocal minority.



I find it amusing you have to go 25 years back to find a situation that is relevant to your point of view.  

Here's another one:  The professional wrestling "smart mark" internet fanbase goes absolutely ga-ga over a small indy wrestling company called Ring of Honor because they do "real wrestling", and usually decries most of what the WWE puts on as utter crap.  And yet one is a billion dollar company that aims its product to everybody and not just the internet wrestling geeks who think they know the business... while the other one is a small, little group that puts on good shows but pretty much survives going check-to-check.  



Osgood said:


> I have no idea what the exact financial position at WotC is... I certainly hope it is healthy, but their dramatically different business decisions over the past year or so suggest otherwise.  For good or ill most companies live by the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it motto.  In my experience, business only changes rapidly when things are going very badly.




And what about the previous 10+ years of WotC making "dramatically different business decisions"?  You should read what the other folks on these boards are saying, because they'll tell you this kind of thing has been WotC's modus operandi for years.  What they've done this past year and a half is no different than what they've done since they acquired D&D from TSR.



Osgood said:


> I'm not one to suggest there is anything wrong with WotC making money, even their "cash grabs" are reasonable gambits for a business.  But the Essentials, the new DDI strategy, the burst experimental product lines (race books, adventure sites, boxed sets, collectible cards)--some of which have come and gone, and apparently canceled or postponed products (Nentir Vale Gazetteer, Human racial book) strongly imply the bottom line is not looking good.




Whereas I could easily counter with the fact that their ability to produce and release all-new material for the D&D line, plus new games like Castle Ravenloft and Gamma World strongly implies that things are going very well, which is why they are able to spend a year and a half doing design and development on all these things.  But guess what?  My opinion about their financial status is just as much a bag of hot air as yours is.  Only difference is... I don't actually believe I really know what's going on.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 18, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> That's crazy talk.
> If this was true, no one would ever go out of business.




I wasn't talking about other businesses, I was talking about WotC.



Chrono22 said:


> Oh, and don't mind me. I'm just watching the fireworks. It's kind of fascinating, in a viceral kind of way, to watch WotC abandon yet another section of their devoted fanbase.




If anyone is actually dropping DDI and/or D&D as a whole after just 24 hours of the CB being up... I wouldn't consider them all that devoted.  



Chrono22 said:


> Really, the track record of WotC's digital offerings should speak for itself. There is no suite of online-only programs coming, just like there is no gleemax, no gametable, and no continued 4e support. My advice: get off the crazytrain/bandwagon and have some fun with a company you can trust.




Yeah, you're right... I suppose I should just sit in my room and bemoan the fact that WotC's never released any digital offerings, like a Character Builder or a Monster Buil--  oh wait...


----------



## Aegeri (Nov 18, 2010)

It's a sad point that even though Wizards have currently turned their various tools into a train wreck, they are still lightyears ahead of anyone else really.

This doesn't change that I've been unable to make a single character in the new CB and it sucks loads of bandwidth (having a cap makes this very difficult to live with).


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 18, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> "We know that things aren't going to be perfect out of the door so we're allowing everyone to use it for xx amount of days and listening to the feedback."



Knowing Wizards, if they did that, there'd still be an "xx" in the announcement.



Aegeri said:


> It's a sad point that even though Wizards have currently turned their various tools into a train wreck, they are still lightyears ahead of anyone else really.



Doesn't 3.5 still have PCGen? I've never liked it's interface, but the program *works*. (And isn't it available for Pathfinder?)

Also, I believe that Hero System has a fairly robust Java program. I think GURPS has something, but I'm unfamiliar with it. 



> This doesn't change that I've been unable to make a single character in the new CB and it sucks loads of bandwidth (having a cap makes this very difficult to live with).



Is this a bad time to tell you I've made 7?


----------



## darjr (Nov 18, 2010)

GURPS has a couple of them. A commercial one for GURPS 3 and new commercial one for GURPS 4 and a free java one for GURPS 4.

PCGen does do pathfinder. I'm looking at it now, and thinking of diving into the code.


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 18, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Doesn't 3.5 still have PCGen? I've never liked it's interface, but the program *works*. (And isn't it available for Pathfinder?)



Funny you should mention PCGen. In the early days I used it and liked it and what it could become with more work.  One day they decided they needed to make it cross platform and so switched to Java.  What was once a pretty quick, useful program became a sluggish mess on my computer and I pretty much abandoned it.

Turn the clock forward and we have WotC taking a very useful and working program and decided to move it forward, with cross platform compatibility being a mentioned goal, and ended up with a sluggish non-working mess (at least on my computer, which can't even create and Eberron character.)

I understand the early version of a program can be wonky (but it shouldn't be this wonky).  However, you can't do that when you have a strong working program.  It takes the standard and sets it back a long time.  IMO, the character generator was pretty much state-of-the-art in RPG character generators and now is back to the days when the first few 3E generators started to be designed.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 18, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> My opinion about their financial status is just as much a bag of hot air as yours is. Only difference is... I don't actually believe I really know what's going on.




Hasbro is publically traded. There must be someone on this board who is a broker, an attorney or somehow how ready access to a database with the financial information to settle this debate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No US copyright case has ever been decided solely on the strength of the boilerplate in a ToS agreement.  In fact, boilerplate between parties to a contract who are demonstrably of radically unequal bargaining power is generally either interpreted most strictly against the contract drafter or ignored.




I wanted to clarify this a bit:

In most cases, transferring a copyright requires the exchange of something of comparable value.

If someone were to sell you a character sheet, and you wrote your PC on it, the person who sold you the sheet would not own your PC.  The only thing you got from him was something you paid for, the sheet.

CB is essentially a computerized character sheet with some frills.  You pay for that service.  They have given you nothing of value in addition to this to make a transfer of ownership valid.  If, OTOH, the ToS had a clause that included paying a royalty or a fee that was the industry standard for freelance work for characters in the CB that were used by WotC, then you might start being concerned.

However, since you have no bargaining power in the relationship, a court might still deem that full ownership of the character had not been transferred.


----------



## bbjore (Nov 18, 2010)

You know, I read all the various responses about how terrible DDI is, how it's a ripoff, and how people are done with 4E because of the character builder stuff, and quite frankly it baffles me. I always thought D&D was a Pen and paper game. You bought the books, and you wrote your character down on a sheet of paper. I can still do this, although now I use copy and paste from the compendium, and it goes even faster. When I'm in a bind for time, I'll use the character builder, and can have character done in 20 minutes using either the offline or online version even with the crashes. For me, it seems like they've done nothing but keep on improving on things as they were 10 years ago. Are things perfect? No. But I hardly think the fact that a gaming accessory doesn't work is a reason to dislike the system or the end of the game itself. 

That might not be true for everyone, and regardless of how people feel, I truly hope they all find their own bliss in whatever system works for them. But I do wish people would spend more time enjoying a game, any game, with their friends rather than focusing on the shortfalls of a simple accessory. Wizards is a gaming company, it was probably a little unrealistic to expect them to be a top tier program design company in the space of a few years. But I for one am at least glad their trying to improve the game as best they can. I'd rather have them try and fail than not try at all. I waited 20 years for a digital implementation of D&D that made me happy, and I can wait a few more. Until then, I say the compendium alone is worth the price of DDI.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wanted to clarify this a bit:
> 
> In most cases, transferring a copyright requires the exchange of something of comparable value.
> 
> ...




Could we all agree that the debate over IP in this context is largely moot since no one, least of all WOTC, wants your character? I have no idea whether or not the picture you draw on a urinal wall with your own feces has some sort of implied copyright. But I can say for certain that, at at least in terms of entertainment value, it has more value than any character currently residing in anyone's character builder.

Dannyalcatraz: By "you" I don't mean you. I mean "us." Or at least the portion of of us that thinks our character has some sort of currency in the real world.

Edit: Since I quoted Dannyalctraz a reasonable person may assume I was refering so him. I absolutely was not.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 18, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> Hasbro is publically traded. There must be someone on this board who is a broker, an attorney or somehow how ready access to a database with the financial information to settle this debate.




The problem with this is separating WOTC out form the masses of other Hasbro businesses.


----------



## avin (Nov 18, 2010)

Well said Merric.

This new CB is pure trash, a total fiasco, an epic fail, I can't even use it on my netbook as I used the old CB.

Time to refresh wotc staff.


----------



## Votan (Nov 18, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It's legal boilerplate.  Many or most online applications that accept content from users have some such thing, to defend themselves from any number of future unforeseen circumstances.
> 
> It is a significant defense against convergent development, which is not at all unlikely in a small field:  You put something in the CB.  WotC independently developed something similar to your content.  You cannot make claims that they used your content without permission.
> 
> There's a certain... arrogance to the idea that there is some significant risk that WotC is going to actually take your stuff and use it and make scads of money off it and leave you in the cold.  I mean, really?




I suspect the actual concern was a lawsuit after the dream fantasy novel is published from WotC.   I don't think that naybody is worried, per se, about WotC stealing names for human slayers with dark pasts fromn the character builder.   While I agree that the risks are microscopic, it is a small reason for an aspiring novelist to care.  

THat being said, defending against convergent development is fairly critical and a reason that many author types avoid forums where ideas get posted (JMS from Babylon 5 had an online presence so long as nobody posted ideas -- he already had ideas but did not want to deal with the accusation of having lifted one that happened to be similar).


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 18, 2010)

Er, people do realize that M:TG actually gets mentioned in Hasbro stockholder reports? Indeed, in the last couple of years, M:TG has undergone something of a resurgence in popularity..Hell, the Xbox Live game Duels of the planeswalkers is listed in the top 10 of all time X-box-live games and that's incredible...

Given the size of Hasbro, M:TG must be pulling in serious moolah to get a mention and from what I remember, M:TG is NOT WOTC's most profitable property...

That would be DuelMasters which is HUGE apparently in East Asia (but was a bust in the North America) market.

M:TG has undergone in the last few years significant changes (rules changes, addition of planeswalkers, mythic rares)...but I think this is where M:TG has an edge over D&D. M:TG has ALWAYS been somewhat in-flux. Fans of the game realize/expect that the game will always be changing/being modified. With the rotation of sets and the fact that cards every 3 months change in value because of the addition of new cards means WOTC has conditioned MTG players to be more receptive to change.

So the fact that WOTC tries something different with M:TG isn't seen as  "the sky is falling" (...although..even here...on MTG website, MaRo likes to joke that he is STILL working on that damn list and one day he'll actually "wreck" magic the gathering....given how many times people complain/write to him that he's wrecking magic:TG).

We think that WOTC doing nothing/not experimenting/trying something new is a good thing whereas I think most M:TG fans would start to get worried if WOTC didn't have some sort of biyearly announcement.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2010)

Well at least now we know what happened with the assasin article.

I'm starting to wonder if the whole "digital" thing has made WotC a little too lax in the Quality department... I mean it seems like going to a more digital format (and I'm talking about everything, including eratta, software, mag articles, etc.) has made them feel that quality is less important because everything can be fixed...later.  I think I will hold off until December (if things go as planned) before I check out DDI for now.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26276933/Dragon_393_-_Assassin:_Executioner?pg=3




Steve Winter said:


> "OK folks, you deserve an explanation. And that is, we messed up.
> 
> The article you're seeing and commenting on is not, in fact, the final version of the assassin executioner. Before everyone screams "shenanigans," let me explain what happened.
> 
> ...


----------



## Herschel (Nov 18, 2010)

Here I had my pitchfork sharpened and a fresh batch of torches when I went on to the CB last night, and I tell you what....

It worked fine. Gray screen for no more than a second, imported characters in under 3 seconds, no crashes, nothing. The only "issue" was having trouble figuring out how to do the human stat bonus on an imported character because that didn't carry over. Otherwise, no problem. Heck, I can even access ithere from work now if I forget my character sheet on a game night.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2010)

The Assassin thing is something I wouldn't bother much about (though it seems it means we effectively have one article less in this month's dragon). This sort of error can happen and is not particularly tragic, and I do not think it's related to other quality issues.

The CB is a different matter.


----------



## Shazman (Nov 18, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> He knows. Pretty sure it was Shaz on every single occassion




Very funny.  The only reason I started playing 4E is because a number of people I gamed with like playing LFR.  I grudgingly played because I like the people I played with.  Since this spring, a lot of them have grown quite upset over the constant errata and overly long combats.  Little by little WotC has moved the game and their management of the game in a direction that has alienated a lot of my friends and, of course, myself.  It looks like it's coming to a head and we may well be abandoning 4E completely.  I am looking forward to leaving 4E behind because Pathfinder and other systems are so much more enjoyable.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 18, 2010)

Your group must be pretty tolerant because I'd have sent you packing long ago rather than poisoning my game. 

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

*And don't let the door hit ya on the way out of this thread. News flash, folks: whether you like or dislike someone's posts, we expect you to treat them with respect and discuss issues with them. If you don't want to do that, then use ignore. Insulting is never okay. ~ PCat*


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 18, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Very funny.  The only reason I started playing 4E is because a number of people I gamed with like playing LFR.  I grudgingly played because I like the people I played with.  Since this spring, a lot of them have grown quite upset over the constant errata and overly long combats.  Little by little WotC has moved the game and their management of the game in a direction that has alienated a lot of my friends and, of course, myself.  It looks like it's coming to a head and we may well be abandoning 4E completely.  I am looking forward to leaving 4E behind because Pathfinder and other systems are so much more enjoyable.




Hey that's fine, Shazman... if you begrudgingly started playing 4E because of your friends wanting to play, and now even your friends are moving away from the game, making your desire to play even less... that's fine and I have no problem with that.

Do not, however, mistake your own feelings on how the game is for you with how the game is for everybody else, the state of WotC the company and the game as a whole.  Just because _you_ don't like what is going on does not mean ipso facto that the company is therefore going under or is dying.  And every time you and others bring up the fact that WotC is "alienating their customers" and "thumbing their nose at their devoted fanbase", and all you have to go on to justify that stance is how _you personally feel_ about it... myself and others like me will point out that you might just be a little too emotionally connected to the situation to necessarily be making a more rational macro-view of the whole deal.  That's all.


----------



## darkwing (Nov 18, 2010)

bbjore said:


> You know, I read all the various responses about how terrible DDI is, how it's a ripoff, and how people are done with 4E because of the character builder stuff, and quite frankly it baffles me.



I don't like the new CB compared to the old one but I still like 4e. It's still one of the most fun games there is (imo of course). I even like Essentials. They just need to go forward rather than backwards in terms of their tools (which, as you've noted, are optional anyway).


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 18, 2010)

darkwing said:


> I don't like the new CB compared to the old one but I still like 4e. It's still one of the most fun games there is (imo of course). I even like Essentials. They just need to go forward rather than backwards in terms of their tools (which, as you've noted, are optional anyway).




Well, for all we know the digital department is just like the book department in that they might be working on more than one project at a time.  I know the prevalent feeling is to believe that they can only work on a single item because the department "just isn't very good" and "we have no faith in what they do", and thus the work done to create the online CB means that nothing else is being done for new tools and thus we're being "screwed"... but we have absolutely no evidence to support this idea.  It's a wonderful idea for those of us looking for an excuse to get all worked up and allow us to rant... but it might not be coming from a genuine place.

Now maybe it is... maybe most of the folks here going on about the WotC digital tools department are correct... but maybe, just maybe, they aren't.  I just know that I, for one, will not be putting all my eggs in one basket in claiming which side is correct.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 18, 2010)

> Could we all agree that the debate over IP in this context is largely moot since no one, least of all WOTC, wants your character? I have no idea whether or not the picture you draw on a urinal wall with your own feces has some sort of implied copyright. But I can say for certain that, at at least in terms of entertainment value, it has more value than any character currently residing in anyone's character builder.




The thing is, just like a penny, it DOES have value in the real world.

In the music biz, copyright lawsuits have been brought and won over bits as small as a hook or beat...sometimes over demo tapes sent to a record company you and have never heard.  Conceivably, the same potential exists here: nobody wants to be sitting around in a run-down trailer eating pork & beans from a can 2 meals a day when a novel about their 1000 foot tall Halfling thief just got greenlighted for a 3 movie deal.

So, the concern is justified...a little.  But mere ToS isn't going to transfer your rights.  The ToS is more like a "Beware of Dog!" sign so that when said novels and movies come out, they don't have to face lawsuits from the hundreds of people who have all used CB to make 1000 foot tall Halfling thieves.

IOW, it's a deterrent.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The thing is, just like a penny, it DOES have value in the real world.
> 
> In the music biz, copyright lawsuits have been brought and won over bits as small as a hook or beat...sometimes over demo tapes sent to a record company you and have never heard.  Conceivably, the same potential exists here: nobody wants to be sitting around in a run-down trailer eating pork & beans from a can 2 meals a day when a novel about their 1000 foot tall Halfling thief just got greenlighted for a 3 movie deal.
> 
> ...




Wait WHAT????  

My 1000' Tall Halfling Thief is in a movie?!?!?!  I was never notified!!!  WTH!!!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 18, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Wait WHAT????
> 
> My 1000' Tall Halfling Thief is in a movie?!?!?!  I was never notified!!!  WTH!!!!




I'll take the case...but be warned: it's an Alan Smithee directed film, from a sceenplay by Alan Smithee, produced by Alan Smithee, with Alan Smithee in the lead role, and also writing the score...

You might just want to hold off a while so that later on down the road, you can start a rant thread about how you were playing 1000 foot tall Halfling thieves before the books & movies came out, and it annoys you how many people think you're just another character cloner.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll take the case...but be warned: it's an Alan Smithee directed film, from a sceenplay by Alan Smithee, produced by Alan Smithee, with Alan Smithee in the lead role, and also writing the score...




Man- for YEARS before I went to film school... I used to think Alan Smithee was just the worst director EVER!

I was like man... why do they keep giving that dude jobs???


----------



## His Dudeness (Nov 18, 2010)

Going web with the CB looks like a desition made to please the higher ups (we are doing something about piracy, see!?) instead of the costumers.

Which is really really stupid of course.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 18, 2010)

MerricB said:


> I have been watching the train wreck that is Wizards' handling of Essentials and the D&D Insider (+ Character Builder) and been getting more and more depressed at the sight.
> 
> 
> At this point of year, we await the latest set of lay-offs from Wizards of the Coast. For only the second time in my life, this is one set of lay-offs I'm looking forward to, hoping to see some of the incompetents responsible for this latest disaster going





So Merric, is it time to put up your official Optimist hat?


----------



## renau1g (Nov 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll take the case...but be warned: it's an Alan Smithee directed film, from a sceenplay by Alan Smithee, produced by Alan Smithee, with Alan Smithee in the lead role, and also writing the score...




As long as it's not Uwe Boll I'd watch it


----------



## Canor Morum (Nov 18, 2010)

I think any unknown author/artist having their work published by WotC would be the best thing that ever happened to them.  The resulting publicity if there was a copyright dispute would only benefit the creator.

If you're that worried about Wizards stealing your character concepts or campaign stories, write it out and copyright it.


----------



## Festivus (Nov 18, 2010)

Well, I am a DDI subscriber, but not for much longer. With all the recent changes with DDI and Living Forgotten Realms really has pushed me away as a customer.

With all the recent changes to LFR, it has come to the point where I can't get hardly any LFR games at my monthly meetup.   

Essentials isn't what I really want.  I like that essentials is easier to use, but I don't like that it is the only option right now for new product.

Reprints of dungeon tiles with a few new ones mixed in.
Monster book that comes bundled with a bunch of tokens I don't need... why can't I just buy the book?
Starter set that wasn't really a starter set... more like a beginner adventure.
Heroes books that reprint a lot between them.  Why can't I just have a book with character options?
DM Kit that I have no need for... why can't I just buy the adventure?

DDI - I am fine that the CB in online only but it doesn't work!  Not ready for prime time.  Not secure.  The Dungeon and Dragon content that basically is crap salad.  Beyond those few poor articles in the magazines, I get not much that is useful.  Oh, monster builder is still a bit broken, but it's going to have to do.

The only book I do like the rules compendium.  It eliminated the need for me to have a DDI subscription.  Go team!


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Nov 18, 2010)

I think the only people that think Essentials, the new character builder, and WotC marketing are failures are people that like to gripe on message boards.

If you don't follow these threads, DnD has no glaring issues and plays just fine as written. If you subscribed to DDI any time after Nov. 16th you have no clue that there was an old character builder. 

I think Wizards is focusing on the future and long-term growth. If you're loudly complaining that your specific desires aren't being catered to then WotC probably wishes you would just go away. (Standard boilerplate about this being a generalization and that rational, constructive criticism isn't included, etc.)

From a technology standpoint, new users will be accustomed to using computers and software to accomplish most tasks. In the near future internet connectivity anywhere will be a non-issue. It's already that way where I live and cellular networks keep getting faster. Subscription services aren't a big deal and they will only grow.

Since I got Netflix I can count the number of DVDs I've purchased on one hand. Entertainment is essentially "disposable" and pretty much always has been. Shakespeare wrote plays to make money so he could pay the rent and not to provide high schools with material for drama class many years in the future. Dungeons and Dragons is no different.

For a new player Tieflings and Dragonborn have always existed. Legolas rode his shield just like how it was written in that book the movie is based on. Conan is either a talk show host or the governor of California. Greedo shot first, etc. You are the past and there is a new cultural baseline.

Why should WotC try to offer anything to a segment of the customer base that actively tries to discourage new players, over-scrutinizes everything they do, and proudly boasts about how much product they aren't buying?


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Nov 18, 2010)

4e had great potential, but much of the "oomp" of the launch was lost because their best introductory product "Keep on the Shadowfell" was priced to high to be a reasonable intro to the game. Also, at that time, Wizards was trying to pull their PR on 4e into the insider model -- meaning that it didn't have the media saturation and energy that the 3e launch had. That was strike one.

Then there was the DDI. Before the DDI, WotC representatives posting on message boards often said that the internet community, and enworld specifically, only represented a very small portion of potential customers, and the opinions given online were skewed -- kind of like the "loud majority" illusion when the most soundbyte worthy clique in a political party gets all the television coverage, no matter how connected to the rest of the group they really are.

As soon as DDI plans were announced, that position was reversed, because they wanted they dollars of online gamers. Smart move -- but THEN they proceeded to not listen to their target market again by pouring resources into the Gleemax black hole and an untested software development company (which ended in unforeseeable real human tragedy).

So, 4e is launched. KotSF is out for a version of the game which "needs" -- even more than the original version, which sprung directly out of a wargame -- miniatures. There is no miniature pack made of KotSF, just random miniature boosters, which leaves DMs to turn to third party token designers or Reaper (or even GW) minis.

The DDI doesn't really exist in any real way at launch, and the PHB contains a teasing add for it, featuring a virtual tabletop.

Fast forward to DDI's maturity, and for half the monthly cost of a WoW online account (give or take) you are offered Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine, a pretty neat Character Builder and the Rules Compendium (which pretty much requires an active connection). However, .pdfs of the books for sale are ended.

DDI continues, Gleemax is dead. Even though everyone knows the VTT, Dice Roller, Character Visualizer, etc. aren't going to happen, we're still left wondering: is this all this is? DDI remains in what seems to be an alpha state for years, giving customers a nice Monster Builder tool, but not much else. The Character Builder, while still quite nice, because more and more obsolete because it doesn't regularly include or calculate all prestige class powers or bonuses or little tricky bits. More and more, things feel a bit unfinished, and the tool seems more bloated and  half-assed with each update.

Lots of books come out for 4e. Lots of books can be found for sale in used bookstores or remainder outlets. It's not a failure, but it hasn't lived up to it's potential. 

Then comes the 4es launch. It is basically like the 3.5 launch, except the PR is focused on making it not seem like 3.5. Meanwhile, with the huge amount of bland and seemingly randomized new powers and options that have come out prior to 4es, it seems like a good potential place to start cleaning things up a bit.

The problem?

4e never ended, so it feels like another abandoned edition -- we are in a constant state of beta to beta with no "complete" feeling product to build off of. You can use all the previous books with 4es... except, you probably weren't using those books anyway because the game was specifically designed to have so many fiddly and similar-seeming options (this power moves the enemy one square! this power pulls him one square! add in a random damage type! why is this power special and cool again?) that most people NEED a computer too to manage them.

And, in the spirit of beta to beta from a company that never completes anything for their D&D line, the nice character builder tool which could have been polished a bit more and perfected is dumped. All those blank buttons on the Adventure tools remain a potential opportunity that WotC missed. While the "new" online DDI may be advertised as an upgrade or the next step, it really is just something new. Another bit of beta software made because the previous beta software wasn't finished.

Miss potential. Who really believes that the new DDI will do everything the previous DDI did but better? And who thinks it will ever become anything resembling a "finished" suite of tools?

So, we have the DDI in a mess and the 4es books replacing the older ones on the shelf. Now we can start a new D&D group with one player who has the original 4e PHB and tries to use it without the errata. That player may not even use the CB. He probably does all his math by hand, makes his own cards, and consistently has the math wrong. They guy next to him has the PHB, and a few of the splatbooks and the old CB program still on his computer. The thirdy guy has the 4es books but doesn't have access to the new DDI so he doesn't have a CB program for his 4es characters. The fourth dude just uses everyone else's resources, and the DM has his DDI subscription still going, but he isn't even playing a character, so he isn't impressed by it.

Everyone at the table has a different FAQ or Errata, maybe even a different edition and a different tool to make their characters, and it just becomes a huge mess. What happens?

They eventually take a break from D&D -- one of those breaks that might last five years. A few of them sell their books to the used bookstore. The group picks up a system like Pathfinder or something more organic like Savage Worlds. Maybe they even go with board games instead.

Lost potential.


----------



## Brax (Nov 18, 2010)

shidaku said:


> So they made good products, good books, you enjoy the game, and one small, secondary accessory thing goes wrong, and you dump it completly.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like "commitment" to me. That sounds like "looking for an excuse."
> 
> ...




I'm a little tired of hearing this argument (not your fault, Shidaku).

No, no one NEEDS DDI to play, but making a character with multiple source-books without the Character Builder, is like typing a novel with a typewriter instead of a word processing program.  It can be done, but certainly isn't easy or expected by anyone in this day and age of digital conveniences.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 18, 2010)

Brax said:


> No, no one NEEDS DDI to play, but making a character with multiple source-books without the Character Builder, is like typing a novel with a typewriter instead of a word processing program.  It can be done, but certainly isn't easy or expected by anyone in this day and age of digital conveniences.




I totally and completely disagree.

There are a lot of gamers without DDI subs that have never used the CB, and there are groups that don't bother with it because of the number of house rules and options they use, and there are groups that just don't use it because they just plain don't even if they do have a DDI sub.

I know that sounds absurd, but I have been in groups of all three of those descriptions. In fact, when I run a game at the place my current group usually plays, I have banned the CB during sessions since the host's computer is like 80 years old and it takes him literally over an hour to update a character.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 18, 2010)

the Jester said:


> I totally and completely disagree.
> 
> There are a lot of gamers without DDI subs that have never used the CB, and there are groups that don't bother with it because of the number of house rules and options they use, and there are groups that just don't use it because they just plain don't even if they do have a DDI sub.
> 
> I know that sounds absurd, but I have been in groups of all three of those descriptions. In fact, when I run a game at the place my current group usually plays, I have banned the CB during sessions since the host's computer is like 80 years old and it takes him literally over an hour to update a character.




And there are people (raises hand) who got tired of the endless parade of splat books, precisely because it was too difficult to try and keep up in 3.0/3.5. Not to mention the cost. With the same likely in 4e, the presence of CB was a Godsend. 

You don't NEED to use CB and you don't NEED the umpteen million additional books but, truth be told, you don't NEED to play 4e either. Pointing at needs, in order to invalidate people's opinions regarding how they spend their disposable income, is rather pointless, no? We're talking about preferences and desires, not needs.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Nov 18, 2010)

Herschel said:


> First, your understanding of American Copyright law is......shall we say extremely limited and inaccurate.
> 
> Secondly, gaining a player who isn't a customer is useless to them. As long as you aren't a potential buyer, your opinion means essentially nothing.
> 
> Thirdly, it would be shocking, and shockingly stupid (and impossible) for them to get cleared through any channels. There would be no hype build-up, not marketing campaign AND they would be giving away their new content for "essentially" free to every subscriber.



1. I'll leave Copyright stuff to Danny, he's better suited for arguing the points out.

2. Gaining a player who isn't a customer isn't useless in all cases.  I still pick up the new book and check it out at the local store to see if something really catches my attention with it.  In cases like mine it gives them a potential.  What if my groups version of 4e runs well to my likely.  That in turn increases the likely hood of me purchasing 4e products.  Everyone is a potential buyer, it is a question to what degree.

3. Psst it was sarcasm to the extreme.  Mainly illustrating the point, as an online tool it actually offers less long term value than the older on the PC version.  IMHO, YMMV.



fanboy2000 said:


> Doesn't 3.5 still have PCGen? I've never liked it's interface, but the program *works*. (And isn't it available for Pathfinder?)





darjr said:


> GURPS has a couple of them. A commercial one for GURPS 3 and new commercial one for GURPS 4 and a free java one for GURPS 4.
> 
> PCGen does do pathfinder. I'm looking at it now, and thinking of diving into the code.



If your diving into the code look up the Yahoo groups on PCGen.  They are regularly making changes to the code and all discussing it.  I get emails everyday about it since I joined them.

The problem with PCGen, isn't if it works or not.  It's in Data use. 
It's not officially supported by WotC and is limited (unless you happen to have the old datasets) to the SRD and what you input yourself.  If someone were to say make a fully usuable version of Cityscape and put it into PCGen than pass it along to a friend they would technically be violating rules/laws whatever.




Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wanted to clarify this a bit:



Gotta spread the XP around.  Thanks for the clarifications Danny.



His Dudeness said:


> *Going web with the CB looks like a desition made to please the higher ups (we are doing something about piracy, see!?) *instead of the costumers.
> 
> Which is really really stupid of course.



There is a high possiblity that is a correct assumption.
But I don't think that's the case in this one.
There have been numerous threads on the Character Builder prior to this change, where members of here such as myself talked of using the CB downloaded via a subscriber because we were in the same group.  While not heavily encourcaged on the WotC side, neither is it a 'frowned on activity'.  Much like someone that pops a grape into their mouth in the checkout line before it's weighed and paid for.  Sure by law it's theft, but it's also morally gray.  WotC I'm quite sure took into account that groups would share it within themselves.

Putting it to an online status I equate more to the 'bait and switch'.
How many 'subscribers' are subscribers just because of the Character Builder and it's updates?  Was there anything else as a subscriber that was worth the monthly cost?

The real test of this move won't be anything in this thread.  It will be how many current subscribers pre-announced change, renew their subscriptions.
If there is a net gain, WotC made the correct decision.  If not, they made the wrong one.

One positive thing, I could say for it being online is it will allow an easy metric of how much Players/DMs use the Character Builder as an online tool.  This in turn will allow them to easily justify their spending in electronic support.  
You have to be vocal in your feedback though.  Just saying it crashes doesn't help.  It especially won't help convince someone (like myself) to subscribe for it.  Give details of what you did, time/date it occurred, any screenshots, and what browser/system you were using at the time.  Send that report into WotC.
We want them to improve, give them the feedback they need without the Raging Rant to go with it.


----------



## Brax (Nov 18, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Secondly, gaining a player who isn't a customer is useless to them. As long as you aren't a potential buyer, your opinion means essentially nothing.




I disagree with you on this point.  Having more people that play means that there is more of a reason for those that do pay to keep buying books and content.  Also, indirect sales could be shaped by the non-purchaser's desires:

DM who buys all the books:  "What do you guys think about playing Dark Sun?"
Player who doesn't:  "I don't know, what is it about?"
DM:  [explains]
Player:  "That sounds AWESOME!  I'd love to."
DM:  "Cool, I'll pick up the campaign setting tonight!"

Or
Player:  "No way.  I'd love to ride around on dragons and stuff, though."
DM:  "Okay...  Dear WotC, Please re-do a DragonLance campaign.  My players want it."

Anyone who is not currently a customer who _could_ be, directly or indirectly, should be listened to.  Ignoring potential customers is a bad business decision.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 18, 2010)

Brax said:


> I disagree with you on this point. Having more people that play means that there is more of a reason for those that do pay to keep buying books and content.



Sometimes.  I, many of my friends, and most of my GMs, will only buy new books when they feel they NEED them.  EX: I joined a game a couple weeks back and the DM said: "You can play anything you want, if you have the book it comes from."  As he only had the PHB1, DMG1, and MM1.  I felt it was totally reasonable for him to NOT need to buy a new book just because we wanted to play something he didn't have a book for.




> Anyone who is not currently a customer who _could_ be, directly or indirectly, should be listened to. Ignoring potential customers is a bad business decision.



Yes, anyone COULD be, you're illiterate, fantasy-hating cousin COULD be a customer, but it is incredibly improbable that they WILL.  

But I think the point that was trying to be made is _that_ person in particular, even when given free materials, showed NO desire to buy product.  Ignoring people who say "I want to buy your product, but I'd like X too" is a bad idea.  Ignoring people who say "I will only buy your product if you kiss my toes" is a good idea.

Unreasonable demands are, unreasonable.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 18, 2010)

I want to state that it's the height of entitlement when paying customers outright demand that the products they are given work and function properly when they receive them after paying for it.

And it's not the customers that're acting entitled.


----------



## Chrono22 (Nov 18, 2010)

Come on folks. You know this isn't about piracy. This is about funneling people into Essentials by removing access to the plethora of well written rules and options that precede it. It's the same kind of field-salting that followed the release of 4e (removal of PDFs), to encourage switching to the newest edition. Because that's what Essentials is, after all. The newest edition of D&D. Surprise and Merry Christmas!

*Stop trolling, please. ~ PCat*


----------



## avin (Nov 18, 2010)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> I think the only people that think Essentials, the new character builder, and WotC marketing are failures are people that like to gripe on message boards.




When they try to sell the new CB better as more portable and it doesn't work properly on my Windows 7 (1200x600 res, silverlight on), yup, it's a huge marketing failure for me.

As 4E starting marketing was a total failure.

I think the only people who think the new CB and Wotc marketing are not failures are diehard Wotc fans.

I like 4E, but not to the point of closing my eyes and applaud every Wotc move...


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Nov 18, 2010)

I have probably played with the online CB for approx 10 hrs or so.  I have created probably 40 to 50 characters (printed them to pdf to avoid the 20 character limit).  I have crashed the builder 3 times.  Each time was when I was importing a character from the old character builder.

I am running Windows 7 on my laptop with this.  I have used Chrome, IE 9 and Firefox with the builder.  It has worked fine and has worked quickly for me.

So I wish I could respond to those that are having problems.

[MENTION=86638]Chrono22[/MENTION] I am hoping that your comment was routed in sarcasm.  Because I can create a character for 4th edition that doesnt use the Essentials rules at all.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm always amazed people keep talking about Essentials as going after new players.

Unleless I'm missing something, it's going after old players. Lapsed players. Changing spells and how classes like the fighter work to mimic old rules are NOT designed to get new players.

But I've been wrong before so no skin off my nose. 

Me? I love the Warlock Hex Blade build. A striker fighter mage that seems to work. I'm dying to play one but my main character just refused to die.


----------



## darjr (Nov 18, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Come on folks. You know this isn't about piracy. This is about funneling people into Essentials by removing access to the plethora of well written rules and options that precede it. It's the same kind of field-salting that followed the release of 4e (removal of PDFs), to encourage switching to the newest edition. Because that's what Essentials is, after all. The newest edition of D&D. Surprise and Merry Christmas!




How do you know it isn't the other way around?


----------



## Brax (Nov 18, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Man- for YEARS before I went to film school... I used to think Alan Smithee was just the worst director EVER!
> 
> I was like man... why do they keep giving that dude jobs???




[WAY off topic]

Yeah, they don't use that one anymore, now it's Uwe Boll.

Edit: Ninja'd by renau1g


----------



## Chrono22 (Nov 18, 2010)

darjr said:


> How do you know it isn't the other way around?



Because there is no other way to reasonably justify putting the time and effort into a brand new character builder, when a perfectly serviceable and functional one (and popular one) already exists. You may be able to import older edition characters into it now (sometimes), but what makes you think WotC has any intention of maintaining any kind of backwards compatibility? In time the Essentials line will replace the 4e rules, one "update" at a time. This is just another step in the process of phasing in the newest edition, and phasing out the old one.


----------



## Solvarn (Nov 18, 2010)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> I think the only people that think Essentials, the new character builder, and WotC marketing are failures are people that like to gripe on message boards.
> 
> If you don't follow these threads, DnD has no glaring issues and plays just fine as written. If you subscribed to DDI any time after Nov. 16th you have no clue that there was an old character builder.
> 
> ...




I really don't think it's fair to paint people who are voicing what are actually legitimate complaints as backwards grognards that don't "get it" and are standing in the way of progress.

Wizards of the Coast does three things well:

1. Sell books
2. Sell miniatures
3. Sell cards 

Everything else they have tried to do in regards to the D&D brand has been an ill-conceived, half-in half-out attempt to expand into other areas. Through incompetence and lack of thorough analysis has caused all of these efforts have either evaporated or fallen short of promises.

Exhibits:

a) Core rulebooks with pictures of vaporware in the back that has never appeared

b) Reduced content in their e-zines

c) Complete revision on the core framework of their software offering, which wasn't even finished to begin with

d) Putting out an "upgrade" of their existing character builder with fewer features than the original product

e) Two month blackout on character builder updates

f) Packaging a choose your own adventure starter set into a box with vastly limited rules that was designed to create nostalgia with its old fanbase. Unfortunately this material was not only vastly incomplete compared to its predecessor, which they forced a comparison to by copying, but certain aspects of it were incompatible with rules publised less than two months later

g) Complete inability to ever publish a single game day adventure without numerous editorial issues that require fixing

Items a through e have to do with not properly understanding the scope or analyzing the issues inherent in an undertaking of this magnitude. This requires senior executive leadership to understand the importance of business analysis and project planning over short sighted and ill-conceived attempts to nickel and dime innovation.

Item f could have been easily remedied with a little market research first. Something like plopping a prototype down at some Cons and asking how it compared to the previous Red Box should have at the very least illustrated it might be a good idea to just give it its own cover art, instead of heralding the return of the Mentzer box.

Item g could be solved by circulating a PDF email throughout the WotC office with a $50 Olive Garden gift card to the person that finds the most editing errors with the game day module.

I like the Essentials books, as a consumer I'll be focusing on those, because they are done very well, until the rest of the company catches up with the publishing. I don't think I'll have to wait long, but I'll definitely have to wait a little while at least it looks like.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 18, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Because there is no other way to reasonably justify putting the time and effort into a brand new character builder, when a perfectly serviceable and functional one (and popular one) already exists. You may be able to import older edition characters into it now (sometimes), but what makes you think WotC has any intention of maintaining any kind of backwards compatibility? In time the Essentials line will replace the 4e rules, one "update" at a time. This is just another step in the process of phasing in the newest edition, and phasing out the old one.



 This is not really a justified leap. There are reasons to believe that the original character builder was rushed out to restore some credibility after the debacle of Gleemax. So there is reason to believe that it might not have the best design.  So realeasing a new redone version of the CB is prefectly legimate. 
Hell there are even good reasons to go with a web platform that have nothing to do with piracy. Though we have podcast evidence that priacy was a major conern.


----------



## Chrono22 (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm sorry, but using piracy as an excuse to uproot your digital offerings and rush out an incomplete service and a dysfunctional program doesn't fly. It's a perfectly justified leap to assume WotC will continue on the same course it was during the October update with the new character builder.
The writing is on the wall, folks. Essentials is here to stay- even if you aren't!


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 19, 2010)

renau1g said:


> As long as it's not Uwe Boll I'd watch it




Uwe Boll is Alan Smithee's alias. Smithee retired.

{EDIT} Crap ninja'd by Brax


----------



## MerricB (Nov 19, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I'm always amazed people keep talking about Essentials as going after new players.
> 
> Unleless I'm missing something, it's going after old players. Lapsed players. Changing spells and how classes like the fighter work to mimic old rules are NOT designed to get new players.




Although the change to Magic Missile may well be aimed at old players, the change to the fighter *isn't*. It really targets one of my chief complaints about the 4E fighter: that it is just too complicated for its own good. The fighter needs to be a class a new player can jump into playing. The 4E fighter is pretty much the most complicated class to understand of the original PHB classes, and that is saying something.

Cheers!


----------



## Brax (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Unreasonable demands are, unreasonable.




You are 100% correct there.  The problem comes down to defining unreasonable.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 19, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Although the change to Magic Missile may well be aimed at old players, the change to the fighter *isn't*. It really targets one of my chief complaints about the 4E fighter: that it is just too complicated for its own good. The fighter needs to be a class a new player can jump into playing. The 4E fighter is pretty much the most complicated class to understand of the original PHB classes, and that is saying something.
> 
> Cheers!




And that uncomplicated nature of the fighter goes back to what class? Every version of the fighter before 4e.

Note, I'm not disagreeing with you about new players jumping into it. If you look at my old posts when 4e first came out, that was one of my complaints too. Where's the simple class.

But in making it 'simple', its another nod to the older play style of less complications.


----------



## Brax (Nov 19, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I want to state that it's the height of entitlement when paying customers outright demand that the products they are given work and function properly when they receive them after paying for it.
> 
> And it's not the customers that're acting entitled.




I'm confused.  Could you elaborate?


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 19, 2010)

I don't think it was piracy that WOTC was trying to combat.

I think it was trying to nix the "buy once a year/6 months and download everything subscriber"

Both Heromaker (for both 3.x/PF/4E) and the PCtools of 3.x was/were sold as a basic program that handled just the PHB character and you had to purchase separately EACH book/update.

Personally...I tend to even the current online-model as compared to the Heromaker/PCtools model...That could get VERY expensive, very quickly especially if you were just a casual gamer.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 19, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> And that uncomplicated nature of the fighter goes back to what class? Every version of the fighter before 4e.
> 
> Note, I'm not disagreeing with you about new players jumping into it. If you look at my old posts when 4e first came out, that was one of my complaints too. Where's the simple class.
> 
> But in making it 'simple', its another nod to the older play style of less complications.




Erm, and not making it simple caters to new players, right? 

Personally, I feel that Essentials caters to new players first, and takes the design decisions it does primarily to aid those players. Where you see "oh, that's old school - it must be for them", I see it as "oh, that's old school - that because that works better for this". Good design is good design, regardless of edition.

There are a few nods back to older editions, but for the most part I think they're because it amused the designers to do so, rather than a major design for older players. Magic Missile wasn't working in its original (4e) form, so a new version that auto-hit debuted. Yes, a nod back to the earlier version, but it is still quite different in how it interacts with the 4e ruleset. The "Red Box" set is the most significant old-school look for its cover, but the contents are quite different. I feel it evokes nostalgia rather than being designed for nostalgia, if you understand what I mean by that.

Cheers!


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 19, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I don't think it was piracy that WOTC was trying to combat.
> 
> I think it was trying to nix the "buy once a year/6 months and download everything subscriber"



Like you, I don't think it was piracy. Nor do I think it was the buy only occasionally model. For one thing, if you weren't a recurring subscriber, I suspect people bought more frequently than once every six months. 

You know what I think was part of it? New players. You hook a new player in via Essentials and Dark Sun, and suddenly, they get _everything_ for $10. All the PHBs, Power Books, and Item books. Ten dollars. They unsub, and don't need to resub for a quite a while given the new schedule.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 19, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I don't think it was piracy that WOTC was trying to combat.
> 
> I think it was trying to nix the "buy once a year/6 months and download everything subscriber"
> 
> ...




Have you listened to the podcast where they talk about the character builder and how much they need to protect their content?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 19, 2010)

Brax said:


> I'm confused.  Could you elaborate?




A few in this and the other threads have proclaimed outrage for the "entitlement" they see in those angered by the CB changes, or those that decide to play Pathfinder instead.

In my view, nothing could be more the opposite.  It is the height of entitlement to believe that you or the company you support is owed customers even after you sell them a faulty product - and that's what this online CB is.  A faulty product.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Nov 19, 2010)

*Wow*

I leave these boards for a few weeks, and look what happens!

Merric, leading the charge against WoTC.

Who would have thought it?  Welcome to the Dark Side, Merric!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I don't think it was piracy that WOTC was trying to combat.
> 
> I think it was trying to nix the "buy once a year/6 months and download everything subscriber"
> 
> ...



I think you are wrong. Sure, they might be bothered by those 1-month subscribers, too, but I think the fact that there are people using all their material at no profit to WotC at all is even worse for them. The last podcast on this issue also talked a lot about piracy. 

Dark Sun and Essentials are the perfect time to make this switch. Dark Sun and Essentials are the hottest new parts for D&D 4. For many it will be the gateway to D&D in the first place. For anyone interested in it, for anyone entering D&D via Essentials, there is now no way to get the digital support via piracy. They might still get scanned PDFs of the books, but they won't get a convenient character creator for it without paying WotC for it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 19, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Dark Sun and Essentials are the perfect time to make this switch. Dark Sun and Essentials are the hottest new parts for D&D 4. For many it will be the gateway to D&D in the first place. For anyone interested in it, for anyone entering D&D via Essentials, there is now no way to get the digital support via piracy. They might still get scanned PDFs of the books, but they won't get a convenient character creator for it without paying WotC for it.




I would say this might remain the case for a few weeks at best. Eventually someone will find a way to get full Dark Sun and Essentials material into the old CB. It is amazing to see the effort and work that a determined pirate will undertake just to stick it to the man. 

When a point is reached that makes a product more frustrating and irratating to legitimate paying end users in the name of combatting piracy then the pirates are the real winners. People who do not want to pay for product will _always _find a way to steal it. Making the product _worse_ for paying customers will not suddenly force pirates to stop, it will merely urge them to adapt and become even more proficient at what they do. 

This is the situation I see. In the near future there could quite possibly be a fully hacked functional up to date offline CB that works better than it ever did before. It might be so good that _everyone _who makes use of a CB will be using it. Honest customers will continue to pay for their DDI sub and still use the pirated CB in lieu of a less functional official one. They will have the best of both worlds. WOTC will be getting paid for the content and the user will have best tool available. Those who want to steal content will continue doing just that. 

This will create a situation for the subscriber in which the decision to continue paying will be made without regard to CB functionality since it will be available anyway. (Which is precisely the situation the online CB was created to get rid of) The net result is nothing gained. It could be even worse since the old model situation was pay or not pay for the same CB function and the new model could end up as pay or not pay for _better _CB function.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Nov 19, 2010)

While I think the online Character Builder needs some work, I don't understand why people are calling it a disaster.  Maybe I've just been lucky, but I created the two characters I needed to create, which I couldn't do with the old CB because of the missing Essentials powers and feats.  The numbers were all correct, and I found everything I needed.  The program did seem to have a number of little glitches in that sometimes I had to click something a couple of times before I could select it, but creating the two characters was still super fast and easy.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 19, 2010)

zoroaster100 said:


> While I think the online Character Builder needs some work, I don't understand why people are calling it a disaster.




They're calling it a "diaster" because each new poster needs to use more and more over-the-top verbiage to make their comment stand out against the other dozens of people doing the same thing.  

Very few people come on two or three days in and just comment "It wasn't in a very good state and there are some obvious problems with it.  Many of them will probably get taken care by the end of the week... but for a roll out, it didn't set a very good first impression."

Who wants to come online and post something like that?  That's no way to get XP!  

*See my post below, please. ~ PCat*


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> They're calling it a "diaster" because each new poster needs to use more and more over-the-top verbiage to make their comment stand out against the other dozens of people doing the same thing.




Or... and I know this is a stretch... many of them are previous users of the original CB and in their minds, the state the old CB was in compared to the new... makes it a disaster. YMMV of course.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Very few people come on two or three days in and just comment "It wasn't in a very good state and there are some obvious problems with it. Many of them will probably get taken care by the end of the week... but for a roll out, it didn't set a very good first impression."




Why should they, if that's not how they feel? Many have been, for all practical purposes, misled as far as what was going on with the original builder for close to two months now, are paying for this tool (Some locked into subscriptions before they knew this was happening), and it works worse (for many) than the tool they originally had... I'm sorry I could see your point if this was a free beta for feedback... but when people's money is involved I believe they have every right to express their dissatisfaction in a manner they choose... and you don't have the right to tell them what is the "right" way to phrase how they feel about the mess... 

to me the fact that you have the audacity to believe that you know how each person should feel about this development better than they do, as well as how they should phrase said feelings is beyond arrogance and more than a little condescending.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Who wants to come online and post something like that? That's no way to get XP!




I would assume that those who feel that way would... right? As far as XP... there's also nothing like a few smilies to cover up broad sarcastic jabs to garner some either... right?


----------



## Henry (Nov 19, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I leave these boards for a few weeks, and look what happens!
> 
> Merric, leading the charge against WoTC.
> 
> Who would have thought it?  Welcome to the Dark Side, Merric!




I see it a different way. If it's Merric who's saying that WotC has a Charlie Foxtrot on their hands, then there are serious problems indeed.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 19, 2010)

Imaro said:


> As far as XP... there's also nothing like a few smilies to cover up broad sarcastic jabs to garner some either... right?




Oh no, no, no... please don't misunderstand me.  I'm not trying to cover up my sarcastic jabs at all!  I used smilies to specifically _emphasize_ how ridiculous I think many people are with the amount of vitriol they spew out over and over again, even after twenty-seven people previous to them in the thread said the same exact things, only with much more elegance and grace. 

If you are all right with ranting about "disasters" and how WotC "can't do anything right", and that you "have no faith in the company" or any other hyperbolic language you and everyone else use to describe how "incensed" you are and how WotC "spits in the face of their customers"... (all the previous statements are paraphrases of comments I've seen here on ENWorld from all manner of poster time and time again)...

...then you also have to be all right when the rest of us poke fun at you for getting so worked up about it.  Yes, money is involved... but if that's the case, you'd be better served writing to WotC to cancel your subscription than come on here typing about how you're being ripped off.  I'm sorry if I "offend" you... but if people used moderated, less emotional, somewhat balanced statements in describing the problems they are having... I wouldn't say a darned thing, PLUS WotC might even read your well-thought-out concerns and take them into account, rather than have their eyes glaze over three lines in with another rant full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

And because this is my 3,000th post... I will now use a bunch of smilies.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Oh no, no, no... please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to cover up my sarcastic jabs at all! I used smilies to specifically _emphasize_ how ridiculous I think many people are with the amount of vitriol they spew out over and over again, even after twenty-seven people previous to them in the thread said the same exact things, only with much more elegance and grace.
> 
> If you are all right with ranting about "disasters" and how WotC "can't do anything right", and that you "have no faith in the company" or any other hyperbolic language you and everyone else use to describe how "incensed" you are and how WotC "spits in the face of their customers"... (all the previous statements are paraphrases of comments I've seen here on ENWorld from all manner of poster time and time again)...
> 
> ...




Wait so you're equating... complaining about the services, business practices and quality of WotC products... with making fun of other posters? How does that correlate again.  I mean you're no moderator but you get to decide how people should express themselves... or you're right to make fun of them... really, get over yourself.

 Honestly I could care less what you think, however I do feel your passive-aggressive jabs at other posters (as opposed to just stating your feelings as to WotC's as a business like they've done) are just as hyperbolic and pointless and negative as the comments you supposedly rally against and hold yourself to a higher standard than... hypocrisy is great though...


----------



## Nichwee (Nov 19, 2010)

Imaro said:


> ... hypocrisy is great though...




Actually there was no hypocrisy - he specifically stated that being willing to come on to a message board and post a rant aimed at people not on that board and full of hyperbole is acceptable, aand so is coming on to the board to rant at or ridicule those who partook in the aforementioned activity.

It would only be hypocrisy if he then said "You can't ridicule me - its not allowed". He didn't say that - thus no hypocrisy.

He instead used sattire to allude to the fact tha a lot of time/effort/typing are used ranting on these boards when the wants expressed could be better served by a ration arguement delivered to the appropriate persons.

I don't defned his actions, or those of whom he was mocking, but I do agree that a lot of effort goes into griping. But then some peeps just like to gripe - it makes them feel better, so more power to them - but I do note it would serve that need just as well for a stickied thread to be titled "Get that Rant off your chest" and save peeps the time and bother of scanning rants to see if anything useful actually got said.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 19, 2010)

Heh. Welcome to the world. In any population you'll have lots of people who are moderate, and lots of people who are more strident or prone to hyperbole. People express themselves in different ways. Learning to read between the lines when even the relaxed people become annoyed is essential to understanding a message board. I think very few people do so to "get xp."

Quite a few people are (imo justifiably) annoyed right now. WotC recognizes this and is working to fix it. It'll get better.

But don't mock people, please. It makes discussion more difficult.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> Actually there was no hypocrisy - he specifically stated that being willing to come on to a message board and post a rant aimed at people not on that board and full of hyperbole is acceptable, aand so is coming on to the board to rant at or ridicule those who partook in the aforementioned activity.




Wait a minute so now ranting about the products and services a company offers for purchase... is "ranting at people not on that board". When did companies, businesses, etc. become "people"? I haven't seen anyone personally attack a WotC employee in this thread... maybe I missed it (and if I did cool, but that wasn't what Defcon was addressing.) but talking about the products is not the same as making personal attacks against said people. On the other hand mocking actual people who have posted is.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 19, 2010)

*Enough. Back on topic, please.*


----------



## Nichwee (Nov 19, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Wait a minute so now ranting about the products and services a company offers for purchase... is "ranting at people not on that board". When did companies, businesses, etc. become "people"? I haven't seen anyone personally attack a WotC employee in this thread... maybe I missed it (and if I did cool, but that wasn't what Defcon was addressing.) but talking about the products is not the same as making personal attacks against said people. On the other hand mocking actual people who have posted is.




Fair point - feel free to reread my comments as "ranting at, and about, a company not present on that board".

And as I said I do not condone, or comdemn, his behaviour, or those of anyone on this board as that is not my place - I just pointed out that he showed no case of hypocrisy. He merely said, in paraphrase, "If people can post rants, I can post mockery". This is not hypocrisy. It is not polite either, but you accused him of hypocrisy.

I agree with him that a lot of needless hyperbole is being thrown around (his posts included) but hyperbole is something almost everyone on this board is guilty of at some point, so I don't expect any amount of ranting or mockery to stop it. People tend to 'overstate' on boards, I assume to compensate for the lack of the emotive expression one has available in speech but not text.

Personally I am rather ambivalent about the new CB (it does the job ok, but definately needs work), non-plussed about the VT (I play with friends in person) and enjoy the hobby itself. As long as the last remains the case I have no mayor complaints tbh. Worse case I end my DDI sub.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 19, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you are all right with ranting about "disasters" and how WotC "can't do anything right", and that you "have no faith in the company" or any other hyperbolic language you and everyone else use to describe how "incensed" you are and how WotC "spits in the face of their customers"...



Let's see here. The launch of CB2 was a disaster as software launches go. From experience it would seem that WotC can't do anything right in the digital arena. And, personally, I have no faith in the company to improve. I don't seem to have any spit in my face at the moment, but WotC have certainly lied in the face of their customers.



> ...then you also have to be all right when the rest of us poke fun at you for getting so worked up about it.



No, I'm not all right with that. Not at all. We have every reason to be worked up, not only because we paid money to WotC for their service, but also because we love D&D and really, really want the publisher of that game to do things that benefit that game. At the moment they are more like a bull in a china shop and we feel upset about that.


----------



## tuxgeo (Nov 19, 2010)

I *was* tempted to suggest that changing the thread title to refer to a "Debacle" instead of a "Disaster" might ease some tensions and soothe some feelings, on the grounds that "Debacle" is a slightly less loaded or hyperbolic word than "Disaster"; but I am slowly coming to the realization that recent disputes really aren't so much about the specific words used, here, as they are about the current state of the product, and the very act of complaining. 

So, yeah: changing the thread title won't help any. We still end up getting a clear sense of how incensed some people are, plus another clear sense of how amazed some others are at the fact that some are incensed. 

All I have left to offer to this thread is some of what I like to flatter myself as being "perspective": 
It's going to get better. Yes, WotC was ham-handed in the release of the buggy online Character Builder; yes, customers shouldn't have to pay to do their Beta-testing for them. 
However, WotC does appear to be learning from their mistakes, however slowly they do so: Gleemax fell off the map without further support; but then the online Compendium is still working (even if some functionality has been removed), and is still being supported. Yes, the VTT was announced and then cancelled; but the online CB might just be a first step to tight integration of many good products; and we cannot easily see, at this stage, how that will all play out. A year from now, things will be clearer. 

Overall: Rant away! Enjoy it, get it off your chest. I enjoy mocking WotC as much as some, so I can sympathize (at least a little bit). Once the dust settles, though, it's going to be good to look back on this and realize that the outrage, while justified right now, will also pass, as everything temporal must. A year from now, we can look back on this and enjoy the outrage as an art-form.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 19, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> It's going to get better. . . Once the dust settles, though, it's going to be good to look back on this and realize that the outrage, while justified right now, will also pass, as everything temporal must. A year from now, we can look back on this and enjoy the outrage as an art-form.



Agree on all counts. I'm still irked, though.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 19, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> ...but also because we love D&D and really, really want the publisher of that game to do things that benefit that game.



And what better way to show that love than to keep posting here on ENWorld that everything they do sucks and you have no faith in them ever doing anything right.  It's that kind of constructive criticism that just warms the heart.  

*We asked you to stay on topic and not mock people. 2nd strike and you're out. The time for sarcasm is not after a moderator has asked you to ratchet it down. - PCat*


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 19, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Let's see here. The launch of CB2 was a disaster as software launches go/



What exactly defines a "software launch disaster"?  I don't know about you, but only a small few reported the program did not work at all.  Most people reported only a few problems, and some people reported many.  

This is hardly surprising for a software launch.  



> From experience it would seem that WotC can't do anything right in the digital arena.



"Right" is a moral judgement.  If it's your opinion that you don't think WotC can do things right, great.  But that certainly doesn't make it the fact you're presenting it as.



> And, personally, I have no faith in the company to improve. I don't seem to have any spit in my face at the moment, but WotC have certainly lied in the face of their customers.



Why does everyone take things so personal?  I swear, it's posts like these that make me wonder is Wizards is really eating babies and burning down homes.   



> No, I'm not all right with that. Not at all. We have every reason to be worked up, not only because we paid money to WotC for their service, but also because we love D&D and really, really want the publisher of that game to do things that benefit that game.



What benefits the game seems to greatly depend on who you ask.  Wizards can never satisfy that kind of customer base.  I'm certain their increasing stock value benefits "the game" more than pleasing a few customers who have excessive demands.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I'm certain their increasing stock value benefits "the game" more than pleasing a few customers who have excessive demands.



In general, expecting a version of software (or any other product) to work out-of-the-box, as advertised, with zero crashes, and with at least as much functionality as the previous version is not an "excessive demand".


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 19, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Expecting a version of software to work out-of-the-box, as advertised, and with zero crashes, and with at least as much functionality as the previous version is not an "excessive demand".




I've seen people crash notepad.  It's been out for over a decade.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I've seen people crash notepad. It's been out for over a decade.




The question is do majority of users experience multiple crashes with notepad?


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 19, 2010)

Imaro said:


> The question is do majority of users experience multiple crashes with notepad?




I dunno, go back to it's launch day and ask.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I dunno, go back to it's launch day and ask.




Ahh, so your statement is not really relevant to the CB 2 at all.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I've seen people crash notepad. It's been out for over a decade.



Umm, yes, and CB2's been out a few days.  So?  All software crashes eventually for all kinds of reasons (often not even related to the software).  

Point is still that _expecting_ that software not to crash, and _expecting_ it to be as functional as whatever came before it is most certainly _not_ an "excessive demand", _especially_ for a paying customer.  Imxp, assuming the client will have those two standards is just good software delivery practice, and (I'd assume) good business practice.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 19, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ahh, so your statement is not really relevant to the CB 2 at all.




Only if you don't get the point that software is never stable.  Otherwise, no.


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Nov 19, 2010)

If you think this launch was bad go read about Google Buzz. And does anyone remember Windows ME? People also forget that the original iPhone didn't have apps like it does now. That made for a good bit of nerdrage. The giants of the industry mess up routinely.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Only if you don't get the point that software is never stable. Otherwise, no.




And yet you seem to miss the point that there has to be a certain level of stability before Go-Live... or you shouldn't.

EDIT: Or you should expect your paying customers to be irritated, annoyed, and angry... especially if you replaced software that was more stable.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 19, 2010)

Imaro said:


> And yet you seem to miss the point that there has to be a certain level of stability before Go-Live... or you shouldn't.
> 
> EDIT: Or you should expect your paying customers to be irritated, annoyed, and angry... especially if you replaced software that was more stable.




Yes, and it was stable, as stable as it could be before it was getting hit by hundreds of people at a time from a dozen different browsers on a dozen different operating systems.  

And the original CB was only "more stable" because it had gone through the initial instability phase.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Yes, and it was stable, as stable as it could be before it was getting hit by hundreds of people at a time from a dozen different browsers on a dozen different operating systems.




And you know this how? Apparently it wasn't stable enough for a large portion of their user base...so I'm not sure exactly what value "stable as it could be" even equates to. I'm sorry WotC knows how many subscribers to DDI it has, it should have expected and  tested against that many people trying to access the app at one time beforehand (and I'm not even certain that was the problem.) I also find it hard to believe that they didn't at leats smoke test their web app in different browsers for compatibility issues so that they could warn the user base not to use certain ones. 



shidaku said:


> And the original CB was only "more stable" because it had gone through the initial instability phase.




Irrelevant to me as a user. What is relevant was that it was stable and you replaced it with somethig that wasn't... and told me it would be better.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2010)

I think that after all is said and done at the end of the day... 

At least none of us had to kill our dog as she was rapidly changing into some sort of vampire zombie thing... 

Rise up this mornin', 
Smiled with the risin' sun, 
Three little birds 
Pitch by my doorstep 
Singin' sweet songs 
Of melodies pure and true, 
Sayin', ("This is my message to you-ou-ou:") 

Singin': "Don't worry 'bout a thing, 
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right." 
Singin': "Don't worry (don't worry) 'bout a thing, 
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right!"


----------



## nedjer (Nov 19, 2010)

Cool dog 

I've gotta have some sympathy when the protests are about a software delay of a month or two. This ain't entirely the world of adaptable humans. One line of conflicting css, one file error carried through the workflow or one character of Javascript out of place and the code can unravel. Creating the 'damned if you do, . . .' conundrum.

Do you quality test at every step and slow development to a crawl without more staff, or do you go for it. If you ain't got the staff you go for it and face either the elation of pulling it off or the 'dashed on the rocks' when you don't. 

It may be fair to say the software team should have more resources, but chances are the coders themselves are chained to their keyboards night and day.


----------



## IronWolf (Nov 19, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Do you quality test at every step and slow development to a crawl without more staff, or do you go for it. If you ain't got the staff you go for it and face either the elation of pulling it off or the 'dashed on the rocks' when you don't.




Testing is an important part of software development and product roll-outs.  Limited staff can have an impact, but there is a middle-ground.  Some form of public beta testing.  This could include invite only beta testing.  Invite some people to bang on it a bit.  The big bugs will surface pretty quickly.  Sure some of the more obscure ones will persist, but you can easily get that low hanging fruit out of the way.


----------



## nedjer (Nov 19, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Testing is an important part of software development and product roll-outs.  Limited staff can have an impact, but there is a middle-ground.  Some form of public beta testing.  This could include invite only beta testing.  Invite some people to bang on it a bit.  The big bugs will surface pretty quickly.  Sure some of the more obscure ones will persist, but you can easily get that low hanging fruit out of the way.




Don't pay for RPGs any more, so I don't know the software well enough to see just how much low hanging fruit is left on the branches. I'd kind of assumed from comments that it works OK-ish. However, if it tanks on a regular basis why didn't they just outsource it to MS and let them patch it every month?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 19, 2010)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> If you think this launch was bad go read about Google Buzz. And does anyone remember Windows ME? People also forget that the original iPhone didn't have apps like it does now. That made for a good bit of nerdrage. The giants of the industry mess up routinely.




And are you saying as a result of these errors there are no negative, especially financial consequences? Corporations that I've worked out that skipped several generations of Windows products probably point to a different theory.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 19, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> In general, expecting a version of software (or any other product) to work out-of-the-box, as advertised, with zero crashes, and with at least as much functionality as the previous version is not an "excessive demand".




Seems failry standard, especially for console games.

But if we want to move to something closer, how about the printed book?

If WoTC sent out batches and batches of books with repeated text for pages, missing pages, blank pages, and otherwise books that had physical problems, would anyone be surprised if people didn't buy them in the first place or returned them in droves?

It being software somehow makes it okay?


----------



## the Jester (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Yes, and it was stable, as stable as it could be before it was getting hit by hundreds of people at a time from a dozen different browsers on a dozen different operating systems.
> 
> And the original CB was only "more stable" because it had gone through the initial instability phase.




You're missing the point. _Subscribers had a good working tool_ that has abruptly and unexpectedly been replaced (after misleading statements about updates to the CB and MB re: Essentials and Darksun) by a _poor, barely-working tool_. The old tool is no longer supported, even though it appears that it is the 'egg' that grew into the CBv2, and the new tool does not do its job well enough to match the old tool yet. 

It doesn't matter a dingo's kidneys whether the new tool is better _eventually._ Right now, people are mad because they feel like they traded in a running car for a bicycle with two flats. 

The worst part (imho) is that the launch of the new tool was talked up (for the short time between the announcement and launch) as if it had no problems and was ready to roll out, but very clearly it wasn't.  It's like a car without anything above 2nd gear, a speedometer or door handles. Yes, you can make it work, but what a pain in the ass! 



nedjer said:


> I've gotta have some sympathy when the protests are about a software delay of a month or two. This ain't entirely the world of adaptable humans. One line of conflicting css, one file error carried through the workflow or one character of Javascript out of place and the code can unravel. Creating the 'damned if you do, . . .' conundrum.
> 
> Do you quality test at every step and slow development to a crawl without more staff, or do you go for it.




Yeah, but where's the gain for WotC in releasing the new CB this much before it was ready?

Releasing a piece of software that is vastly inferior to what it is replacing is probably not the best choice.  It doesn't inspire people to keep buying your products, for one thing. The perception of the quality of your offerings is very important; if customers think your stuff sucks, they will go elsewhere. (There's a lot of chatter about other VTTs right now, for instance.) When you replace a good tool with a poor one, you may well lose customers, and certainly you'll trigger outrage. If two goals of business are 1. to generate new customers and 2. to keep old customers, this seems like a lose on both counts. 

If it's all about piracy, _it still doesn't matter,_ because people scan the books the day they come out, sometimes even sooner. I really agree with those positing that the management forced a deadline for some kind of anti-piracy 'reforms' to DDI and the software guys had no choice; but really, I'm talking out my butt here. I don't have any way of knowing. And don't get me wrong, I sympathize with WotC on the piracy issue here; if that is really the motivation behind this rushed-out thing, then _they still should have waited until it was ready_ before pulling support for CBv1.

This is just such a blunder for WotC. With their rep for screwing up electronic offerings, they should have kept the good thing they had going until they were truly, truly ready with the web version. They should have known that anything less than a great launch would be met with exactly the kind of nerd rage that we've seen. I truly hope they can fine-tune the online CB into usability, and fast! I want to renew my annual sub when it comes up, but it's really going to depend on the quality of tools available by then (I think March or something?). If I'm asked to pay the same amount of money for less utility than I was getting before, with the offline CB and MB, then... well, I don't think I'll be able to justify it. I have the v1 tools on my hard drive already. What's the point of keeping my sub going if the new CB doesn't seriously kick butt, there isn't a live MB tool that works or there isn't any better content in the mags? Aargh.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> What exactly defines a "software launch disaster"?  I don't know about you, but only a small few reported the program did not work at all.  Most people reported only a few problems, and some people reported many.
> 
> This is hardly surprising for a software launch.



Yes it is. I don't know how much experience of launching software you have, but the extent of the problems at launch were extraordinary. Not something you see often in commercial launches. It implies high levels of incompetence in either development or management or both.



> "Right" is a moral judgement.  If it's your opinion that you don't think WotC can do things right, great.  But that certainly doesn't make it the fact you're presenting it as.



"Moral"?? How is right a moral judgement in this case? I wasn't talking about giving alms to the poor here. I was talking about commercial success. And of course it's my opinion - that's why I phrased it the way I did. This is all about opinions. But the track record of WotC in the digital arena is not very good, and not getting better.



> Why does everyone take things so personal?  I swear, it's posts like these that make me wonder is Wizards is really eating babies and burning down homes.



Are you serious? I express my lack of faith in the company's ability to  succeed in the digital arena and you start talking about eating babies and burning down houses? Try to stay on topic here.... just a little bit.



> What benefits the game seems to greatly depend on who you ask.  Wizards can never satisfy that kind of customer base.  I'm certain their increasing stock value benefits "the game" more than pleasing a few customers who have excessive demands.



"few customers"? "excessive demands"? I don't give a crap about their stock value. That doesn't benefit the game at all. What also doesn't benefit the game much is being blind and dismissive. You just can't stand that people can complain about your beloved company, so you fight back with condescension and bile. You esentially spent a whole post saying only nonsense and being dismissive in general.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 19, 2010)

Ah yes, those customers with their excessive demands such as "I expect the product I purchased to function."

Once again, the height of entitlement is not in the actions of the customers.  it is in the belief that customers should stay with a product or company even after being bilked out of their cash.  And yeah, selling someone faulty merchandise - _and doing so knowingly_ - is bilking them.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 19, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Are you serious? I express my lack of faith in the company's ability to  succeed in the digital arena and you start talking about eating babies and burning down houses? Try to stay on topic here.... just a little bit.




Agreed. The people saying that their dropping their subscriptions in protest are not necessarily claiming WoTC kicked them in the nuts. The hyperbole coming from the other direction, who as far as I see, has nothing to gain from it, is far more amusing than the few who have some real rage.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Nov 20, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Seems failry standard, especially for console games.
> 
> But if we want to move to something closer, how about the printed book?
> 
> ...



That's a good point.  It is sad that, for whatever reason, consumers seem to look at software differently.  We've been conditioned to come to accept bugs as just part of the package deal.

Honestly, I wish WotC would stick to the printed books, and just contract out the software.  Meh.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 20, 2010)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> And does anyone remember Windows ME?




I will raised you with Windows 95....


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 20, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I will raised you with Windows 95....




And I'll trump with Bill Gates' Win98 public presentation.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9jOi_Jd2dQ]YouTube - Bill Gates - Windows 98 crashing on live TV![/ame]


----------



## Tarek (Nov 20, 2010)

On the contrary: I might understand that there are bugs in a program, and I understand that some of them are unavoidable.
However, I *expect* that software is stable when released commercially, regardless of the kind of software it is. Most software released commercially *is* stable, or it wouldn't be released.
The online character builder was not stable.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 20, 2010)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> And does anyone remember Windows ME?




Yup. This end-of-life last gasp cash grab product has been known by many names and has taken many forms.

The lastest incarnation of this product is called Essentials.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 20, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The lastest incarnation of this product is called Essentials.



No, I disagree with that. Wizards has certainly used end-of-product-life-but-we-still-need-cash-flow products before, of course. That isn't Essentials. As far as I can tell, Essentials is a mid-life product line really nicely designed to make it easier for new players and disaffected older players to get back into the game. Heck, if I was starting my game now I'd definitely emphasize Essentials; the several years of design experience means that they're mechanically well constructed and fun to play. 

We're getting off topic, though. I'd rather leave this thread focused on the CB rollout.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 20, 2010)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> And does anyone remember Windows ME?




Last-gasp release of Win9x that was basically forced on MS by hardware vendors whose failure to write Windows 2000 drivers and insistence on selling PCs with 32 MB of RAM delayed the consumer-market version of Win2K (that's Windows XP) for a year?

Exactly what kind of parallel are you drawing here, because I'm just not seeing one.


----------



## Shazman (Nov 20, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Your group must be pretty tolerant because I'd have sent you packing long ago rather than poisoning my game.
> 
> Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
> 
> *And don't let the door hit ya on the way out of this thread. News flash, folks: whether you like or dislike someone's posts, we expect you to treat them with respect and discuss issues with them. If you don't want to do that, then use ignore. Insulting is never okay. ~ PCat*




I wasn't poisoning anything.  I rarely complained during games.  It was other people I play that have been complaining about errata, combat length ,etc.  I'm glad the mod made a comment about your post because it was incredibly rude.


----------



## Shazman (Nov 20, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Hey that's fine, Shazman... if you begrudgingly started playing 4E because of your friends wanting to play, and now even your friends are moving away from the game, making your desire to play even less... that's fine and I have no problem with that.
> 
> Do not, however, mistake your own feelings on how the game is for you with how the game is for everybody else, the state of WotC the company and the game as a whole.  Just because _you_ don't like what is going on does not mean ipso facto that the company is therefore going under or is dying.  And every time you and others bring up the fact that WotC is "alienating their customers" and "thumbing their nose at their devoted fanbase", and all you have to go on to justify that stance is how _you personally feel_ about it... myself and others like me will point out that you might just be a little too emotionally connected to the situation to necessarily be making a more rational macro-view of the whole deal.  That's all.




Show me in my post where I stated that everyone that plays D&D feels this way.  I was just relating my personal experiences, and I think even the most die hard defenders of WotC should be able to understand how moving to an online character builder that you have to have internet access to use and doesn't even allow you to have ownership of your characters is going to tick off a lot of 4E players.  For many, it may be the last straw.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 20, 2010)

You'll have ownership of them. The ToS aren't a license for Wizards to steal you IP. If you create the next Drizzt and they take, well call DannyAlcatraz, he'll steer you in the right direction.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 20, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> "Moral"?? How is right a moral judgement in this case? I wasn't talking about giving alms to the poor here. I was talking about commercial success. And of course it's my opinion - that's why I phrased it the way I did. This is all about opinions. But the track record of WotC in the digital arena is not very good, and not getting better.



The track record of WotC in the digital arena was getting better, IMO. The Character Builder got continual improvements and was well-liked by most of its user. It wasn't perfect, but you could see how stuff got added and how useful it was. I was happy and I was confident further software might come that would be of similar quality. I was looking forward to extensions to the Adventure Tools that might allow building encounters and printing them out and more.

But instead, what I first got was the announcement of the discontinuation of the best product in their line-up, and the release of a tool serving the same purpose but - for the start at least - with less functionality. That already annoyed me. I didn't want less functionality. But okay, with time it will come, I thought, so fine.

But now I get a product that's not just lacking functionality compared to what I had, but also is less stable and has worse performance with a questionable UI design. 

That creates the worry in me that the "track record" I had started to see and bet on (they're getting better! Yay!) was just a fluke.


----------



## Incendax (Nov 20, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Meh, I hate the term "WotC apologist".



I love the term Apologist. They makes up the backbone of any D&D adventuring party. You've got the *Striker*, the *Leader*, the *Controller*, and the *Apologist*.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 20, 2010)

Incendax said:


> I love the term Apologist. It makes up the backbone of any D&D adventuring party. You've got the Striker, the Leader, the Controller, and the Apologist.



"I punch him in the stomach."
"No. I say when to punch him."
"You two! Stop fighting."
"Excuse my friends. Now what where you saying about the quest?"


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 20, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> No, I disagree with that. Wizards has certainly used end-of-product-life-but-we-still-need-cash-flow products before, of course. That isn't Essentials. As far as I can tell, Essentials is a mid-life product line really nicely designed to make it easier for new players and disaffected older players to get back into the game. Heck, if I was starting my game now I'd definitely emphasize Essentials; the several years of design experience means that they're mechanically well constructed and fun to play...




I agree with this.  It's just too bad that what even I think is a pretty cool product line (and I don't play 4E) has been so tainted by everything else WotC has fumbled with.

Like the VTT and the online CB (just to name the current fumbles).

If the online CB was only about adding functionality for players/customers, as their advertising/PR attempts to spin it, then they would have simply _added_ online functionality while maintaining/updating the autonomous off-line application.  They could have made an online CB that could update and coordinate with your downloaded version.  But they didn't.  This just reinforces to me that WotC just wants to keep everything under their control as far as digital products are concerned.

I think what they really want is to make DDI the pen-and-paper RPG equivalent of online WoW, and have it completely under their control.  If you want a VTT that works seamlessly with 4E, you have to go to WotC.  If you want 3pp material, it's available, but of course it's considerably restricted, and we will never allow it to work with all of our cool digital tools...


----------



## Alhambra (Nov 24, 2010)

I don't know, maybe there's something wrong with me. Every time I think my community is finally getting used to 4e... WoTC spasms uncontrollably. It's almost like Tourette's Syndrome or maybe it's something more concerning. I'm not an expert.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with random outbursts. Some are harmless, even interesting or funny in ways. It's just... it's hard to gauge exactly how much they love us as customers anymore. They tell us they do, and I _want_ to believe them, but sometimes I feel like the disorder has taken over. I feel like my both my pleas and praise fall on deaf ears as they continue to strap marshmallows to house cats and offer them up to statues of Robert Mitchum.

What I'm asking is: Am I hoping for too much as a regular customer? Will WoTC get better with the right help? Am I relying too heavily on their support? Should I just take what's good and build up with my own ideas?

This may not be the worst thing that's happened to DnD... but it certainly doesn't help me as a player.

Edit: Also, does anyone remember when WotC stated a release of a Maptools-like program to DDI subscribers? I'm not complaining. I just can't find any trace of its mention anywhere and I feel as if I had dreamed it up like a crazy person.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 24, 2010)

Alhambra said:


> I don't know, maybe there's something wrong with me. Every time I think my community is finally getting used to 4e... WoTC spasms uncontrollably. It's almost like Tourette's Syndrome or maybe it's something more concerning. I'm not an expert.
> 
> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with random outbursts. Some are harmless, even interesting or funny in ways. It's just... it's hard to gauge exactly how much they love us as customers anymore. They tell us they do, and I _want_ to believe them, but sometimes I feel like the disorder has taken over. I feel like my both my pleas and praise fall on deaf ears as they continue to strap marshmallows to house cats and offer them up to statues of Robert Mitchum.
> 
> ...




I take what I want from WOTC and enjoy it immensely. 

I don't worry about the other stuff.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 24, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> No, I disagree with that. Wizards has certainly used end-of-product-life-but-we-still-need-cash-flow products before, of course. That isn't Essentials. As far as I can tell, Essentials is a mid-life product line really nicely designed to make it easier for new players and disaffected older players to get back into the game. Heck, if I was starting my game now I'd definitely emphasize Essentials; the several years of design experience means that they're mechanically well constructed and fun to play.
> 
> We're getting off topic, though. I'd rather leave this thread focused on the CB rollout.




I disagree, even if we are indeed getting offtopic with this. I think Essentials are a new beginning to a much larger degree than anticipated. In particular because of its not being included in the old CB.

In short, I no longer (just as many others) believe in 5e. At least not anytime soon. I do however see a WotC that builds on 4e, tweaking it, twisting it, giving in to the many flavors. And I think that was the plan from the get-go. However, the design of core 4e classes caused some issues (its really, really hard for people to design awesome 4e classes, AND it takes a long time), and at some point I believe it was decided that it would be smarter to switch to Essentials being the basis for any movement forward.

And here we are.


----------



## Alhambra (Nov 24, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I take what I want from WOTC and enjoy it immensely.
> 
> I don't worry about the other stuff.



WoTC basically tells us they don't like it when you do that. But, yeah, so do I.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 24, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ah yes, those customers with their excessive demands such as "I expect the product I purchased to function."
> 
> Once again, the height of entitlement is not in the actions of the customers. it is in the belief that customers should stay with a product or company even after being bilked out of their cash. And yeah, selling someone faulty merchandise - _and doing so knowingly_ - is bilking them.




I don't want to come across as a nag but...

I agree with you that the new CB sucks. Until, at the very least, I can add a bonus feat it is no use to me. On the other hand, this Saturday one of my players was running errands before the game so he logged in my computer, printed his character and added the expertise bonus with a pencil.

But, YOU DID NOT BUY A PRODUCT. I know that all-caps is obnoxious but in all the hullabaloo over the very various threads it seems that the obvious is often ignored. EULA, DCMA, contract law, copyright law etc. are irrelevent. You bought a subscription to access a bunch of stuff on line, the CB among them. I did, you did, and anyone else who payed money for the DDI did and we were all fully aware of the fact that we were subscribing to a service, not buying a specific product. If the stuff you get now does not make you happy then cancel. But you did not buy a piece of software. WOTC has screwed up but they have not screwed you or anyone else. If your thing is _sports cars and Car and Driver focuses on tractors_ you just cancel your subscription. So cancel your subscription.

*Mod Edit:*  This is supposed to be a family friendly place, folks.  Let's steer away from using porn analogies, please.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## ourchair (Nov 24, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The key thing is whether WotC produces something we (or you or anyone else) likes. For me, the new Online Builder isn't that. And that's the problem.
> But I am not basing this on a "sense of entitlement" like "they have promised this" or "it is legally required to do so". Nor is the fact that they need to protect themselves against piracy a concern for me, or that it was always cheap.
> They were probably caught between a rock and a hard place, but it wasn't my fault that they decided to switch to an online character builder and couldn't get it out in time.



I think you and the OP are more on the same page than either of you would think, insofar as I agree with both of you.

I don't think Wizards owes any of us anything, or anything like that but I think the fundamental concern at the heart of the OP is that this disaster comes from:

a) WotC not knowing what they want to do with their digital tools, long term or short term (complete all-access social network for gaming or a channel of company property specific exclusive content?)

b) Not having the resources (or mismanaging them) to pull off what they ultimately decide to do on a month by month basis (updates to software while managing to create new software at the same time)

c) Realizing that there are particularly sacrifices or shortcomings that result from what they decide to do. (offline access to content is easily pirated)

d) Deciding to remedy something (i.e. PDFs, offline CB) by changing gears before all the resources and managerial settings are in place to effect new ideas (online CB)

In effect, I like the OP am disappointed not because of anything between me and WotC but rather how WotC's standing and good will has diminished in the eyes of others because of these decisions and because I WANT to see them be the best D&D company ever.


----------



## ggroy (Nov 24, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Wizards has certainly used end-of-product-life-but-we-still-need-cash-flow products before, of course.




Would this be late-2007 3.5E splatbooks like:  "City of Stormreach", "Elder Evils", "Anauroch:  Empire of Shade", "Dragons of Eberron", "Exemplers of Evil", etc ... ?


----------



## ggroy (Nov 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yup. This end-of-life last gasp cash grab product has been known by many names and has taken many forms.
> 
> The lastest incarnation of this product is called Essentials.




Hard to say for sure whether Essentials is an end-of-life gasp cash grab.  We'll only know this for sure, years later in hindsight.

For example, if 5E D&D is announced sometime next year (ie. Gencon 2011), then Essentials may very well be seen as an end-of-life gasp cash grab.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 24, 2010)

> You bought a subscription to access a bunch of stuff on line, the CB among them. I did, you did, and anyone else who payed money for the DDI did and we were all fully aware of the fact that we were subscribing to a service, not buying a specific product. If the stuff you get now does not make you happy then cancel. But you did not buy a piece of software. WOTC has screwed up but they have not screwed you or anyone else.




While "voting with your $$$" is indeed a valid and oft-used consumer rights tactic, it does not preclude a lawsuit over a subscription service consumer product that does not deliver what the service provider promised or should have realized would be perceived as a promise.

Again, though, what you get awarded in such cases is typically a refund- possibly some court costs- unless the non-conformity is judged to be fraudulent.


----------



## Thanlis (Nov 24, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> In short, I no longer (just as many others) believe in 5e. At least not anytime soon. I do however see a WotC that builds on 4e, tweaking it, twisting it, giving in to the many flavors. And I think that was the plan from the get-go.




Exactly. The non-obvious thing about 4e is that it's a much more flexible framework than any iteration of D&D previously. Essentials demonstrates this very well, by using the core 4e framework to create an experience that hews closer to the old school D&D than I would have thought possible. As such, I don't believe there's ever going to be a need for a 5e.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2010)

ourchair said:


> I think you and the OP are more on the same page than either of you would think, insofar as I agree with both of you.



Oh, I don't think I disagree with MerricB at all - I was addressing people that disagreed with him on premises like the one I mention. I don't think "false sense of entitlement" and similar descriptions fit on me or MerricB.


----------



## ggroy (Nov 24, 2010)

Thanlis said:


> As such, I don't believe there's ever going to be a need for a 5e.




Technically they don't have to market a new "iteration" of D&D as 5E.

A new iteration of D&D (whether it will be called 5E or not) may very well be inevitable, assuming D&D is not taken off the market.  The decision to pump out a new iteration of D&D, will most likely be driven by the accounting/finance people and upper management at WotC.

Going back in history, according to the "[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Presents-Classes-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786948019"]Wizards Presents:  Races and Classes[/ame]" book on page 8, they mentioned that work on 4E D&D started in mid-2005.  So from start to the release date of 4E PHB1, it took around three years.

For 4E Essentials they had a one year "rushed" turnaround, where they started working on it back in September 2009.  This is according to the July 2010 WotC D&D podcast, mentioned at around 00:00:55 in the podcast.

If the next iteration of D&D is just a clean up and/or refinement of 4E D&D, most likely it won't take as long as three years, but will most likely still take at least a year (by past precedents).

If they started working on a new iteration of D&D today, most likely  it will take them two or three years from start to release date (ie.  2012 or 2013 respectively), depending on whether it is respectively just a "cleanup + refinement" or a completely new design.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 24, 2010)

Alhambra said:


> WoTC basically tells us they don't like it when you do that. But, yeah, so do I.




If you're referring to piracy or to the "once a year subscriber" phenomenon, maybe. 

If you're referring to people that buy a few books and then play the game- which is, I think, what Dice4Hire meant- than you're being silly, perhaps even disingenuous, and I think you should retreat from your statement.

Or, if you'd like to stand by it, I'd like to see a quote or some kind of citation that backs you up.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 24, 2010)

ggroy said:


> If they started working on a new iteration of D&D today, most likely  it will take them two or three years from start to release date (ie.  2012 or 2013 respectively), depending on whether it is respectively just a "cleanup + refinement" or a completely new design.




If they make it basically "slot in" to your existing 4e game in the way Essentials does- I'm all for it!

If they make it "semi" compatible (like Gamma World) but continue selling the base 4e rules-  that would also be cool...

Move away from the idea of edition/reboot, and just keep adding elements and ideas to the existing game in order to re-spark interest.


----------



## ggroy (Nov 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> If they make it basically "slot in" to your existing 4e game in the way Essentials does- I'm all for it!
> 
> If they make it "semi" compatible (like Gamma World) but continue selling the base 4e rules-  that would also be cool...
> 
> Move away from the idea of edition/reboot, and just keep adding elements and ideas to the existing game in order to re-spark interest.




It would be the easiest to start off from a generic 4E Essentials "Rules Compendium" base, instead of "reinventing the wheel" over and over again with each new iteration.


----------



## Thanlis (Nov 24, 2010)

ggroy said:


> It would be the easiest to start off from a generic 4E Essentials "Rules Compendium" base, instead of "reinventing the wheel" over and over again with each new iteration.




Exactly. Although the Rules Compendium is a general framework for 4e in a way that the Heroes books or even the Monster Vault is not. Fun exercise for the home viewer: how much would you have to change/cut from the Compendium before you had something as generic as GURPS?

From a branding perspective, my uninformed opinion is that WotC would be better off getting away from the edition-related brands. You want people focusing on D&D, not on a particular edition. But that ship may have sailed a long time ago.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 24, 2010)

Thanlis said:


> From a branding perspective, my uninformed opinion is that WotC would be better off getting away from the edition-related brands. You want people focusing on D&D, not on a particular edition. But that ship may have sailed a long time ago.




I'm not sure the ship has sailed.  My copy of the Rules Compendium doesn't say "4th Edition" anywhere on the cover.  

I predict that WotC won't release a product called "5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons."  I strongly suspect that it will just play off the 4th Edition framework, using the DDI to evolve the rules without formally declaring a new edition of the game.

If WotC does publish a new edition.  I think they'll reboot the franchise and just call it "D&D."


----------



## darkwing (Nov 24, 2010)

Stoat said:


> If WotC does publish a new edition.  I think they'll reboot the franchise and just call it "D&D."



"D&D: The Collectible Card Game"


----------



## renau1g (Nov 24, 2010)

mmm....booster packs.


----------



## Squire James (Nov 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While "voting with your $$$" is indeed a valid and oft-used consumer rights tactic, it does not preclude a lawsuit over a subscription service consumer product that does not deliver what the service provider promised or should have realized would be perceived as a promise.
> 
> Again, though, what you get awarded in such cases is typically a refund- possibly some court costs- unless the non-conformity is judged to be fraudulent.




The EULA for the Character Builder had some pretty clear language regarding disclaiming their liability to update their product.  There were some advance word on what they planned to do, but I didn't see any promises in there.

Then again, I wager SOME lawyer will still be able to convince a jury to award damages to someone who ate thumbtacks from a box labelled "Do Not Eat" (there was no warning on the tacks!).  Pardon the "ad adsurdem" here - I'm not suggesting this situation is this extreme but I want to make my point obvious.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 24, 2010)

ggroy said:


> It would be the easiest to start off from a generic 4E Essentials "Rules Compendium" base, instead of "reinventing the wheel" over and over again with each new iteration.






Thanlis said:


> From a branding perspective, my uninformed opinion is that WotC would be better off getting away from the edition-related brands. You want people focusing on D&D, not on a particular edition. But that ship may have sailed a long time ago.





I think we're already starting to see it...

Cases in point: Essentials and Gamma World. Both of them are D&D "Whatever."

I think based on some of the comments at the Gencon Seminars when the Ravenloft Campaign setting comes out, we'll see it functions kind of like Gamma World.  It's highly importable into any D&D 4e based game, however, it will have some of it's own unique aspects that change the rules up in certain ways to match the flavor.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 24, 2010)

> I think based on some of the comments at the Gencon Seminars when the Ravenloft Campaign setting comes out, we'll see it functions kind of like Gamma World. It's highly importable into any D&D 4e based game, however, it will have some of it's own unique aspects that change the rules up in certain ways to match the flavor.




Personally, I like this.

I'd rather see campaign settings as almost like playing a different game. I made the case during the run up to Dark Sun that if it feels like I'm doing the same things that I am in bog-standard D&D, but with an orange coat of paint, it's not very attractive to me. I look at campaign settings as opportunities to be different sorts of heroes. 

Though I've got major issues with the collectability elements (however small) in _Gamma World_, it is otherwise pretty much what I would want from a "New D&D Setting." It certainly allows me to be a different sort of hero! And while the Ravenloft rumors I've heard are not very encouraging ("Play as vampires and werewolves!!!!"), I certainly think a gothic horror setting would only be improved if it didn't have to be tethered to eladrin and tieflings and dragonborn and all that. If I could play a doctor or a scholar or a gentleman-adventurer, perhaps struggling against a dark inner nature, with a saber and pistol, and going town-to-town with my crew of misfits to liberate people from various versions of Gothic villains, Victorian and Edwardian mad scientists and devil-summoners, that matches the feel I would want from a game with the _Ravenloft_ title on it. 

And if it was basically compatible with 4e, I could (and would) mix and match elements to my heart's content.

My only fear in that case would be that it's _not_ part of the DDI. Which would blow royally. Though if it was just a "two books (or boxes) and out" strategy, it might not hurt that bad.


----------



## Alhambra (Nov 24, 2010)

the Jester said:


> If you're referring to piracy or to the "once a year subscriber" phenomenon, maybe.
> 
> If you're referring to people that buy a few books and then play the game- which is, I think, what Dice4Hire meant- than you're being silly, perhaps even disingenuous, and I think you should retreat from your statement.
> 
> Or, if you'd like to stand by it, I'd like to see a quote or some kind of citation that backs you up.



Perhaps I should state it's more of a underlying feeling I get from WotC lately. Basically an opinion that I don't specifically adhere to, because otherwise I'd be following the subliminal text between the power boxes.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or front. It is not. However, I still feel confused and insecure, as if it were. What bothers me is that WotC seems okay with that. They haven't given me the expected hug after the heartfelt apology, or even the cold apology after one breaks a coveted toy.

WotC produces and releases a good to my nerdish community. We buy said goods with little to no questions if everything goes off as it should because without it we would have to create another fantasy dice-rolling medium, but it wouldn't be universally accepted or updated (because we wouldn't be paid for it). Enter the pirates, and they steal the goods because they're twisted and evil and poor and that's what pirates do, hat, eye-patch, and all. WotC alters the good in a way that negatively impacts both pirates and consumers, but leaves a nasty taste in our mouths specifically because we're paying for a good that tastes of steel wool after the rigorous scrubbing it has gone through.

We follow. We understand. All of this makes sense, so far. But here's where they lose me:

I cannot, for the life of me, find an open and official address that these actions were instated due to piracy. Instead of this, they make up a slew of other reasons to why they're dropping the invisible hammer. These reasons, albeit that some are legitimate, make me feel like WotC thinks I'm a moron. I mean, I am, but I don't want to _feel _like one. It's a bad feeling to have. Is it so hard to say, "Sir, we're protecting the value of your good by making sure the money you spent on it was not in vain"? I digress from my rant.

I feel, personally, that WotC is wagging a finger at me, _*ME*_ from afar as if I've done something wrong. I feel, again only in my opinion, that they sent me a box in the mail with a letter attached that reads, "Thanks for being a subscriber. Here's the sum of all our efforts using your money". The figurative box, of course, contains a paddle ball freshly soiled upon. Yeah, it works, but it's covered in poop, it isn't what I paid for, and I feel insecure using it.

Just my opinion and personal gripe. I just want things to go back to the way they were. Please go easy on me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 24, 2010)

> The EULA for the Character Builder had some pretty clear language regarding disclaiming their liability to update their product. There were some advance word on what they planned to do, but I didn't see any promises in there.




As I've mentioned elsewhere, no lawsuit has ever been won _strictly_ on the basis of terms found in a pre-drafted contract between parties of unequal bargaining power.

The language may be clear, yes, but without the ability to negotiate, it's possible a judge would invalidate the clause if he found the less powerful party relied upon other statements (especially contemporaneous or subsequent ones) made by the contract's drafters.  The public statements would be deemed to override the terms of the clause BECAUSE there was no negotiating.

It happens all the time.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 24, 2010)

zoroaster100 said:


> While I think the online Character Builder needs some work, I don't understand why people are calling it a disaster. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I created the two characters I needed to create, which I couldn't do with the old CB because of the missing Essentials powers and feats. The numbers were all correct, and I found everything I needed. The program did seem to have a number of little glitches in that sometimes I had to click something a couple of times before I could select it, but creating the two characters was still super fast and easy.





My standard Sorcerer Power Cards are wrong and the calculations are unusable.  In fact, all of them say unarmed as the weaon, except the power that actually has Dagger in the name.


If it doesn't do what it is supposed to do and I have to do it by hand anyways, why would I use it.  Sorcerer is not the only one that has this problem.


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 24, 2010)

shidaku said:


> What exactly defines a "software launch disaster"? I don't know about you, but only a small few reported the program did not work at all. Most people reported only a few problems, and some people reported many.




How about characters that are flat out WRONG?  That counts as a disaster in my book, expecially when they were not wrong before I imported it from the old CB.


----------

