An open letter to Randy Buehler

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My problem (In theory) with no overview is that with a year run, at some point during the AP, they will be going For Pay, I think. (AFAIK they didn't announce yet when, but they've established a price, so it's gotta be on the way.)

Considering that apparently, there are only "Dragon & Dungeon" and "Full DDI" packages planned so far, I think the group of people buying into this only for the adventure path will not be that big. Of course, it still might exist and deserves to be heard. But maybe WotC is taking into account that they can't catch everyone, and ultimiately have to go with the business model that works best for them?

And ultimiately, you do not have to start the adventure path now. You could wait 6 months, a year, to wait for feedback. "Still sucks", "Wow, I didn't expect that. Best Dungeon Adventure Path since Age of Worms!" "Take care with adventure 7, the penultimate encounter is not only harder then the one against the BBEG, it's also very deadly if the PCs don't take the encounter serious", "Too much combat"... There will, even with all the caveats, still be enough playing the path from the beginning. Only those that have doubts have to wait.

And since they are all digital, it is a lot easier to get the adventure paths. (Interesting question: How do they handle this with the subscription? Do I get access to stuff that existed before the subscription? Imagine, one month of DDI to get _all_ Dungeons and Dragons? I suppose it won't be that easy...)

 

[El Mahdi]

I think those who do not like 4E won't really play the adventures, so won't comment on their quality either.

Sorry, but not true, and here's the proof: I run a strictly houseruled 3.5E game, I'm not switching to 4E, yet I do want, read, and use info from the current Dungeon and Dragon magazines. I can get inspiration from material written with any system, especially adventures. I do own the 4E core books, which I have mined for ideas for my games, and may, based on the product, buy future 4E products. System of choice, for me, has very little to do with it.

The adventure I'm running my group through at this moment is The Object of Desire, an AD&D 2E adventure from Dungeon issue #50. Before that was an Ed Greenwood tournament adventure called Thaldigars Tower, for either 1E or 2E (not sure). I've used Alternity adventures for D20 Future games as well as Star Wars adventures that I adapted (taking out some of the Star Wars flavor to make them work for my D20 Future Star*Drive game). I used all of these adventures in either D20 Modern/Future or in houseruled 3.5E games.

My issues with Dungeon magazine are completely non-system dependent. I'm always looking for new and good adventures, regardless of system. What this is about, for me and other people on here, is if WoTC doesn't want to address the critiques and feedback of me and other WoTC fans/customers, then they don't deserve us as customers.

 

[El Mahdi]

Oh well, it's hard to get too upset about the quality of stuff that's free. At worst, I'll end up ignoring it entirely.

A completely understandable position. My problem is, I do want WoTC products.

Irregardless of system, WoTC is the show. They either have or had, most of the best and brightest in the hobby gaming industry working for them, whether directly, or indirectly as freelancers. Which to me means, over the long haul, the best products in the industry. I've bought some good 3pp products over the years, but the majority of things I've bought, and to me, usually the best quality stuff, is WoTC. But if other game companies have introduced features and quality that is beginning to rival WoTC consistently, then WoTC needs to improve to stay ahead of the game (brand identity not withstanding).

I view this free preview period for DDI, as WoTC audition of their new magazines. Kind of like the free-view periods cable companies like HBO, and Showtime do occasionally. If these cable companies showed nothing but B-movies*, with a playback quality no better than a 20 year old video cassette, they probably wouldn't sell a whole lot of people on buying a subscription after the free preview was over (*not including channels that specialize in B-movies, like Sci-Fi). Bottom line, they need to show me the best they've got, during the free preview, to convince me to buy a subscription.

If WoTC wants to make the new Dungeon worth my money, they need to step up. And that includes not making statements that feel like a dismissal of critiques and feedback. IMO, not the best way to win customers.

 

[Qualidar]

Of course not. I wasn't implying that it should be one or the other. If you insist, I will spell it out.

I find it funny (as in odd, not in ha-ha) that a lot seem to focus on the overview issue, when the modules themselves are quite sub-par, even for WotC. I mean, without an overview, decent modules can still be made to work. An overview won't help much if the modules are crappy - unless you rewrite big parts yourself, in which case you do not really need an AP IMO.

I'm glad you spelled that out, because that's not what I thought you meant at all. Generally when people write a sentence like that it implies that it's an either/or situation.

I agree with your meta point: a good outline will not make a good adventure path, but I don't think anyone's really suggesting that it would.

We've seen no evidence that the DDI's delays have impacted the budget or development cycle for D&D, so I don't see what purpose it serves to imply that it has.

What about that latest round of layoffs?

But, I think the real "bias" you need to look for is anti-WotC bias. "This adventure sucks, DCC is much better." "Paizo's adventure paths were a lot better, WotC was stupid for taking over Dungeon."

I just wanted to point out that I think Paizo's adventure paths are better, and that WotC was stupid for taking over Dungeon. It's not because of some pre-existng anti-WotC bias; it's my honest assessment of the situation.

 

[Fenes]

And then there's the "if they find fault in a WotC product, then they obviously have an anti-4E/anti-WotC bias" bias.

 

[Vocenoctum]

And then there's the "if they find fault in a WotC product, then they obviously have an anti-4E/anti-WotC bias" bias.

I just wanted to point out that I think Paizo's adventure paths are better, and that WotC was stupid for taking over Dungeon. It's not because of some pre-existng anti-WotC bias; it's my honest assessment of the situation.

I don't mean to say that everyone that doesn't like the new AP is anti-WotC or anti-4e, just saying that the fans of alternate companies tend to go a bit overboard in their opinions. Any "review" should be taken with a grain of salt of course, but when it starts with "WotC shoulda left Paizo to do this, because they can't", then it's a sign.

(For myself, I didn't read WotC's AP's, but didn't like Paizo's, so I can't compare. When I sub'd to Dungeon I liked about 1/4 of the adventures, which still meant the magazine was worth it, when it wasn't anymore, I let my sub lapse, just as they announced the End.)

 

[Jack99]

Ignoring the snide regional comments, you at least are aware that you're setting up a rhetorical choice. The problem is: there is no rational choice. The two issues you're setting up a choice between are orthogonal.

Ah c'mon Nifft, I was just kidding around. I really didn't mean to insult you and your city, so please do not take it that way.

Well, as far as I know, Jac99 is "pro-4E", so if he says he didn't like it, he probably didn't like them because of something else then 4E.

But, I think the real "bias" you need to look for is anti-WotC bias. "This adventure sucks, DCC is much better." "Paizo's adventure paths were a lot better, WotC was stupid for taking over Dungeon."

Yeah, as the Arch-chancellor says, I am very much pro-4e, which I have been since day 1. And no, I have nothing against WotC. In fact, I think I am usually one of those defending their actions.

That doesn't change the fact that I find the SoW adventures to be poor adventures.

Cheers

 

[The Little Raven]

So Mourn saying HPs are abstract, and implying that therefore D&D is as abstract as M:tG, is a sleight of hand which amounts to a load of otyugh droppings, IMO.

I never implied that D&D was as abstract as M:tG, so don't try and put words in my mouth. I was pointing out that in your post, you claimed M:tG was a highly abstract game while obviously ignoring the fact that D&D is a highly abstract game at the same time, trying to paint it as some kind of simulation only. As normal, you completely ignore facts that don't vibe with your pre-determined point of view, then strike up a patronizing tone with anyone who disagrees with you, or even that questions what you're saying because of genuine confusion, like Maggan.

You don't have to compare D&D to anything to recognize that it's an abstract game. All you have to do is look at the mechanics, all of which are an abstraction of the actions they are trying to represent.

 

[The Little Raven]

And then there's the "if they find fault in a WotC product, then they obviously have an anti-4E/anti-WotC bias" bias.

No, it's the "I find fault in a WotC product, so I have to present my opinion in an insulting manner" that makes people think there's an anti-WotC bias.

 

[The Little Raven]

What about that latest round of layoffs?

Is there direct news that D&D R&D was affected by it? Is there direct news that the DDI's delay was the cause of those layoffs?

No, there isn't. There's some general news (Foster and Lescault have been laid off), and a whole lot of people jumping to conclusions.