Ampersand: Debut and Exclusive Content (Assassin Class)

[Dire Bare]

Maybe you didn't see the part where I explained that. Books are convenient, I can lend them out, they are easy to access at the table. If a player sees something in a book I have and they want it, it's a simple matter to go buy the book for themselves. I find DDI unwieldy and inconvenient. It cannot be shared and I'll not have my game held hostage for a monthly ransom.

The hyperbole doth grow tiring.

I love my D&D books. Lurve them. But they are not convenient, even if I host the game at my house every week, which I don't.

D&DI is convenient, incredibly so! I can easily take my laptop to a game, and bring up my character, and look up any crunchy bits I need to lickity split! It's well worth the $5/month I pay now (soon to be $6/month, and later to be more, but with more tools).

If it does not suit you, that's fine. But to rant and rave on the corporate evil that is WotC daring to try and turn a nice profit . . . jeesh!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Maybe you didn't see the part where I explained that. Books are convenient, I can lend them out, they are easy to access at the table. If a player sees something in a book I have and they want it, it's a simple matter to go buy the book for themselves. I find DDI unwieldy and inconvenient. It cannot be shared and I'll not have my game held hostage for a monthly ransom.

In any event it depends on the book. At my table any WotC published book is legal, I own them all anyways (though I'm seriously considering dumping the whole system at this point). Third party supplements are not, nor are the power cards found in the minis packs, and now nor is DDI content.

wow...just wow...

I do have a DDI sub, and I own every book out todate...for 4e. My friend and DM doesn;t have all the books, or DDi (although he has most PC books) If I want to play a shadar kai avenger with the necromacy powers from dragon he lets me if I print out the powers so he can see (real easy useing the cuilder for power cards...) so I have no idea why you have a problem with it...can''t you just look at someones print out, or email, or lap top...

 

[mach1.9pants]

You could always sign up for the service in my sig!

 

[fissionessence]

It's annoying as hell and it's playing fast and loose with their original claim that you wouldn't "need" DDI. When core races and classes are DDI exclusives you're missing part of the game if you don't subscribe. I'm fine with DDI when it is supplemental, but they are clearly trying to make it the core of the game. Screw that.

What!?!?

Would you rather be paying monthly for previews of future products? DDI should [IMO] be all exclusive content all the time . . . perhaps with the occasional preview.

~

 

[guivre]

The hyperbole doth grow tiring.

I love my D&D books. Lurve them. But they are not convenient, even if I host the game at my house every week, which I don't.

D&DI is convenient, incredibly so! I can easily take my laptop to a game, and bring up my character, and look up any crunchy bits I need to lickity split! It's well worth the $5/month I pay now (soon to be $6/month, and later to be more, but with more tools).

If it does not suit you, that's fine. But to rant and rave on the corporate evil that is WotC daring to try and turn a nice profit . . . jeesh!

Woo for you.

You're welcome to your opinion, however it is meaningless at my table or where my wallet is concerned. Whereas mine (and my players) is not.

Funny, I don't remember saying WotC was an evil corporation, nor do I care that they are trying to turn a profit. You decided that's what I meant because that's what you want me to mean. What other reason could I possible have for not liking DDI... oh.. other than those I actually stated instead of the ones you pretended I had.

I'm glad several of you like it, I thinks it's crap so I'm going to stop supporting it. I've laid out my reasons, if that bothers you... well tough. You just better hope they can get the subscriber base up. I'm willing to be that as DDI goes, so goes the whole game.

P.S. The word hyperbole doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[guivre]

It's really easy to loan out a PDF too. It's called emailing it.

Yes, it's also called copyright infringement. Brilliant.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What!?!?

Would you rather be paying monthly for previews of future products? DDI should [IMO] be all exclusive content all the time . . . perhaps with the occasional preview.

~

I think he would rather just not pay for an online service at all and, if he wants material, he buys a book containing it.

 

[Cadfan]

Maybe you didn't see the part where I explained that. Books are convenient, I can lend them out, they are easy to access at the table. If a player sees something in a book I have and they want it, it's a simple matter to go buy the book for themselves. I find DDI unwieldy and inconvenient. It cannot be shared and I'll not have my game held hostage for a monthly ransom.

In any event it depends on the book. At my table any WotC published book is legal, I own them all anyways (though I'm seriously considering dumping the whole system at this point). Third party supplements are not, nor are the power cards found in the minis packs, and now nor is DDI content.

No, no, I totally get that you personally like books, and I totally get that you prefer to buy books. But you're taking a certain approach to this like WotC did something bad by making content "DDI exclusive," which of course is a fancy way of saying "published on the DDI and not in a book." Its not any different from "published in a magazine and not in a book," or even "published in this book that you want to purchase and not in that one that you don't."

I'm just curious how you feel that you've been wronged. Things are always published in one place and not another. Why is this one uniquely bad? Just because you personally don't like it? If that's the case, that's fine for what it is- you don't have to like things you don't like. But the negative commentary on WotC's management seem to imply that you feel the decision to favor one publication method over another for this particular article is somehow objectively wrongful. And I can't figure out why you think that.

 

[CubeKnight]

Yes, it's also called copyright infringement. Brilliant.

Then print it and loan it, as you would with a standard book. Any better?

 

[Piratecat]

Enough, folks. Stop telling other people what they think, and stop being condescending.