D&D 4E 4E PHB II & DMG II 1 year after release (and a new one every year after that)

[Mouseferatu]

I, personally, agree with mousey... but I think it's time to agree to disagree or create a dedicated thread? Just a suggestion.

Probably not a bad idea. I think we're running in circles at this point. I'd much rather be talking about what sort of stuff I'd like to see on the DnDI than whether WotC can be trusted to abide by what they've already told us about it.

 

[Imaro]

How is it "shady" at all? You paid for the book, you got the book. With most companies, that's the end of the transaction.

I have hundreds of D20 books. If I want PDF copies of most of them, I need to buy those separately, because they're separate products.

So WotC is saying, "Hey, we're offering you an extra for a nominal fee." That's not shady; that's just a deal they're offering.

Sure, a few companies offer free PDFs as bonus. That's excellent of them, and sure, it'd be cool if WotC did the same. But failure to offer a benefit that someone else offers isn't in any way, shape, or form dishonest. Whether it's good business is an entirely different issue, of course, but that's not the question at hand.

I wouldn't have anything to say if they even offered it to subscribers of D&DI for free but non-subscribers had to pay for it. I find it shady, and this is again IMHO, not because it's dishonest but because it seems like a money grab.

How is it not good business, I mean you had to do layout, editing, etc. for the physical book already...what exactly are the costs that have to be accounted for? Even if there are minimal costs involved in converting it to a PDF...you aren't loosing money from someone choosing the PDF option over print, since we all know WotC charges full price for e-versions of print products anyway. It seems like this type of move would go a long way towards instilling good faith with your customers. The fact that smaller companies can do it, just means that it's no where near impossible for WotC to do.

Let's just agree to disagree, since apparently we have differing opinions on WotC as a corporation and whether there goals are to best serve their customers, themselves or find a happy medium between the two. I feel giving those who purchase the book their PDF for free, especially if they're already subscribers and are using the DI they pay for to play your game, falls in the last category. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[(contact)]

For a long time, people were complaining about the lack of communication from WotC. Now that we're getting it, a subset of of us refuse to take anything they say at face value. There's no way for them to win.

The Internet: Because None of Us Are As Dumb as All of Us.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I feel giving those who purchase the book their PDF for free, especially if they're already subscribers and are using the DI they pay for to play your game, falls in the last category. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Actually, I do partly agree with you on one point. (Shocking, ain't it? ) I do think that, if someone is already a subscriber to the DI, charging for an e-copy of a book they purchased is probably unnecessary. I was viewing the $1 (or whatever charge) as probably contributing to server upkeep and space, but surely if someone's already doing that, they ought to get a break on the e-copy.

I'll be interested in seeing what it all looks like, when the various prices and plans are finalized.

 

[(contact)]

For what it's worth, the WotC people that I spoke with in seminars this weekend seemed like sincere, straightforward guys who were a) very smart, and b) very excited about how great the new D&D was.

Having worked in many corporate environments over the years, I'm well familiar with fake enthusiasm, and there wasn't a drop of it in the room(s).

They love D&D, and they really do work hard to make D&D a better game. So lighten up, or transfer your hate to some corporations who really have it coming.

Thanks,

Scott Rou . . . uh, (contact)

 

[kenmarable]

What if by "core" they mean "released into the SRD"? Every year, WOTC puts out a PHB, DMG, and MM that is released (minus product identity) into the SRD, along with 4-10 other supplements that are not.

If the PHB2 and such are released on a regular basis and the PHBx really look even remotely like Tome of Magic, and they are added to the SRD, then my conversion to 4e is guaranteed. Tome of Magic is my personal favorite WotC book and my only regret with it is the minimal support so far.

Also, if there are going to be a DMGx series, I wonder what will be in them. Not that I don't think they don't have very good ideas for them, but it's not nearly as obvious how to fill a DMG series as it is PHB and especially MMs.

 

[kenmarable]

But all right. If people want a less personal reason, consider this:

If we cannot at least accept, for discussion's sake, that the information we're getting is accurate, then we have no common ground to continue any of these conversations. It becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the DnDI tools, or what we'd like to do with them, or what the future of the game looks like, because there's no baseline to work from, and because every time one group starts talking about how cool the adventure creator (or whatever) looks, someone else is going to charge in with wild accusations and ruin the thread for everyone.

All we have of 4E so far is what we've been told. If we can't even accept that, and use it as a common starting point, what the hell are we all talking about?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have it on good authority that 4E is a big prank. Next April 1st (just a month before the PHB is supposed to be out, convenient isn't it?), all 4e discussion will disappear from wizards.com, and questions about it will be answered with "Epic material in the PHB? A new set of core books every year? What are you talking about?" and "Tieflings as a core race and 30 spell levels? Where do you come up with this junk? Come one, 30 spell levels?!!" and they will have a big ol' laugh behind our backs.

Emails to Scott Rouse are bounced as the user is not recognized, and everyone at WotC will claim to have never even heard of him.

Just wait and see next spring and you'll know I'm right and you can't convince me otherwise.

The greatest trick WotC ever pulled was convincing the world the game didn't exist.

 

[Hussar]

LOL Kenmarble

Pure opinion here.

I really believe that there are a lot more definitions that have been changed than we are aware of and that WotC is comfortable with sharing at this moment.

A case in point is the term "core". Up until 4E, core books referred to the 3 basic books that encompassed all the relevant rules of the game. Does everyone remember the 3E claim, that all you'll need to play the game is 3 books? So everyone bought the "core" books and then picked out the optional books that fit their gaming needs.

Well that seems to be a thing of the past. For now we have "core" books that will be released each year. By not being promoted as "optional" and instead being "core" they take on the mantle of a necessity, rather than the optional source and setting books of the past. Stormwrack was an optional book in 3.5, but by splitting the same material across 3 new "core" books they become a necessity in 4E. Why? Because they're core.

WotC is trying to bring about an entire paradign shift with 4E. It will be very interesting to take a look back in a couple of years and see what new definitions we accepted and what we rejected.

Umm, what? Before 3e, there was no such animal as "core". In 1e, DRAGON was considered core as it was "official". In 2e, there was no definition of the PHBxDMGxMM being core. Heck, there wasn't even a Monster Manual - just a bunch of loose leaf pages that you stuck in a binder. The Monstrous Manual didn't hit the scene for years.

It wasn't until 3e that we even got a definitive "core".

Count me in as thinking that this could be very groovy. I never really got into the splat books all that much since I couldn't justify buying a book only about one or two classes. But, a complete PHB? Sure, I could likely do that.

As far as keeping nomenclature straight, as in "I'm running a Core campaign", well, you just have to be a bit more explicit. "I'm running PHB 1, 3 and 4, but 2 is off the table." Not a real biggie.

 

[Nebulous]

The greatest trick WotC ever pulled was convincing the world the game didn't exist.

aha. I just might have to steal that.

 

[Mercule]

Oh and I love the idea of using "technology" as a power source and placing gnomes in that product.

Please no. Dragonlance has earned my eternal ire by introducing tinker gnomes. If tech is part of a setting (e.g. steampunk), that's fine. I have an instant OOC death sentence on any gnome IMC that ever uses abnormal tech, though. Especially if there is any attempt at humor in the mix.

Dwarves have some excuse to use tech. Gnomes + tech = WTF?