Are we fair to WotC?

[Dannager]

You seem to have a hard time believing that people's opinions or experiences can be different than yours.

No, I just hear the same comments from people repeatedly about why physical books are better than e-readers, and they're the same arguments every time: you have to charge them, it's hard to read in light/dark, it's uncomfortable, it's hard to find a specific page, etc.

The vast majority of these are false or so minor (charging) as to be non-issues. I almost invariably walk away with the impression that the people complaining about e-readers have never actually used one.

As for comfort, to be specific - I find the average paperback book to be easier on my thumbs than the average reader. The paperback books tend to be lighter in weight and thus easier to hold.

"The average reader"? What e-readers have you used? The Kindle Paperwhite weighs 7.5 ounces, which is less than your average trade paperback (about 9 ounces), and is designed to be comfortable to hold while reading like you would a book. The regular Kindle weighs even less. Again, a Kindle Fire is not an e-reader. It is a tablet computer.

I also do not enjoy repeatedly running my finger tips across the screen after a certain length of doing so. I find it physically annoying. I also can't do it with one hand, such as I know how to do with turning a page while holding the book with one hand.

That's not how most e-readers work. The Kindle, for instance, has buttons on both the left and right sides of the e-reader that allow you to press to flip a page, much the same way as if you were flipping an actual book. They are also specifically designed so that you can read with one hand, including the ability to flip to a previous page without changing hands.

See, this is the stuff I'm talking about. You've tried to use a tablet as an e-reader and you're judging actual e-readers based on your experience with the tablet, and the things you are saying as a result are flat-out wrong. e-readers are lighter, hold charges forever, can be used with one hand, etc. Almost every one of what you describe as the downsides of e-readers doesn't actually exist in e-readers.

 

[Dannager]

There's pretty obviously a role for e-stuff to play, even a major role, but folks near big urban/tech hubs (a la several areas in Cali and the Seattle area) can sometimes forget their geographic (and frequently economic) privilege.

A Kindle is $70. It uses your home wi-fi. You don't need to be constantly connected to read, just to download new books. One charge gives you a month's worth of light reading. The books are cheaper than physical ones. You can check them out of a digital lending library for free if you have a Prime subscription (you should already have a Prime subscription), and many public libraries allow you to check out ebooks with your library card. Etc.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

A Kindle is $70.

This is where your privilege is showing. I don't consider $70 insignificant when instead I am able to read a physical book from the library for free. I can even walk to the library to save gas money and make it as free as the tax dollars I'm already forced to pay (which I'd still have to pay if I bought a Kindle).

It uses your home wi-fi.

I luckily live in an urban area where wi-fi is relatively affordable. But there are large swaths of the US that still do not have cost-effective internet options. Heck, there are plenty of people in the Chicago urban area that cannot justify spending money for a home wi-fi connection. My mother is one of those many.

You can check them out of a digital lending library for free if you have a Prime subscription (you should already have a Prime subscription), and many public libraries allow you to check out ebooks with your library card. Etc.

Many, not all. And our library places a limit on downloads per month, whereas I can check out as many physical books for free that I want. And I can ask to get just about any book they don't currently have from either another county library or they will put a request in to purchase the book (usually only denying a book on decency standards, which I disagree with but can live with, though it's not been an issue for me yet).

 

[Dannager]

This is where your privilege is showing. I don't consider $70 insignificant when instead I am able to read a physical book from the library for free. I can even walk to the library to save gas money and make it as free as the tax dollars I'm already forced to pay (which I'd still have to pay if I bought a Kindle).

It sounds like checking books out of the library is a good choice for you.

Notably, all the public libraries around here allow you to check out e-readers. You may want to look into whether your library participates in a program like that (especially since you mention living in an urban area).

I luckily live in an urban area where wi-fi is relatively affordable. But there are large swaths of the US that still do not have cost-effective internet options. Heck, there are plenty of people in the Chicago urban area that cannot justify spending money for a home wi-fi connection. My mother is one of those many.

It sounds like books are a good option for her. We're on an internet forum about D&D, though. I think it's reasonable to assume that most of us have wi-fi. Also, free public wi-fi is available at a bajillion and a half places, from McDonald's to Starbucks (not to mention libraries and the like). You only need to be there for the time it takes to download a few ebooks (they're small files). Given that the alternative is driving to a bookstore or library, I don't see this as a noteworthy barrier.

Many, not all. And our library places a limit on downloads per month, whereas I can check out as many physical books for free that I want. And I can ask to get just about any book they don't currently have from either another county library or they will put a request in to purchase the book (usually only denying a book on decency standards, which I disagree with but can live with, though it's not been an issue for me yet).

Fair enough. If you are restricted to using a library for your reading, that's that. But libraries will adopt e-readers over time (their use in libraries is fairly recent) and eventually it will become trivial to get ahold of one.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that e-readers are the best choice for everyone. I'm saying that a lot of people have some really weird ideas of what an e-reader is like (for whatever reason). The vast majority of people I've spoken to who purport to hate e-readers have trains of thought very similar to what we've seen in the last couple pages. And those mistaken impressions are leading them to dismiss a really cool, transformative technology as inferior. Which is, of course, causing them to dismiss (or contributing to their dismissal of) the idea of using one as an aid in playing D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's reasonable to assume that most of us have wi-fi.

It's not a reasonable assumption for the D&D-playing public (though it's probably a fairly reasonable assumption for most ENWorlders). Nor is a Prime membership, nor is an e-reader. Even an Android or iOS smartphone with a data plan and space for something besides Angry Birds isn't as ubiquitous as it should be to make abandoning print viable (they're really common, but hardly universal).

The vast majority of people I've spoken to who purport to hate e-readers have trains of thought very similar to what we've seen in the last couple pages. And those mistaken impressions are leading them to dismiss a really cool, transformative technology as inferior.

I think e-readers and the like have an important role to play in the future of the game. I just don't think that the role should be "you are expected to have internet and an app-friendly device in order to play D&D," not at this point in time. Use the tech for what it's good at (Take your library with you! Reference things quickly! Build a character! Make a monster! Virtual Tabletop!), do experiments and leverage what it can give you, but don't assume or require its use. The game should be designed for books, a pencil, some paper, and some dice. A low barrier to entry, so that it can be played during power outages and in parks and on nuclear submarines miles below the surface of the earth and in the wilds of the Australian outback or the rural midwest or wherever folks want to pretend to be a magical elf and roll some funny dice around. Well-off, well-networked urban early-adopters are a demo that don't need to be catered to, here, I feel. It's too niche in comparison to the potential audience that D&D can reach (and in many cases, has already reached).

 

[Dannager]

It's not a reasonable assumption for the D&D-playing public (though it's probably a fairly reasonable assumption for most ENWorlders).

Really? Home internet penetration is at 90% in the United States (that number is likely significantly higher for D&D players). Those who don't have home wi-fi (for whatever reason) can easily access wi-fi temporarily at any public wi-fi hotspot. They're everywhere. Lack of wi-fi is simply not a significant barrier to e-reader use for D&D players.

Nor is a Prime membership,

Granted, but I'm not assuming that. Just recommending it.

nor is an e-reader.

Obviously, given what we've seen here.

Even an Android or iOS smartphone with a data plan and space for something besides Angry Birds isn't as ubiquitous as it should be to make abandoning print viable (they're really common, but hardly universal).

I don't think universality is a requirement, here.

I think e-readers and the like have an important role to play in the future of the game. I just don't think that the role should be "you are expected to have internet and an app-friendly device in order to play D&D," not at this point in time.

No, definitely not. But at some point in the future? Almost certainly.

 

[Cadence]

Really? Home internet penetration is at 90% in the United States (that number is likely significantly higher for D&D players).

I'm trying to figure out what the 90% is.


http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/May/Pew-Internet-Broadband.aspx <- 65% have broadband
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159815/home-internet-access-remains-reach-worldwide.aspx <- 80% have home internet
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402672,00.asp <- 61% penetration of wi-fi in US homes


Granted 80% instead of 90% would only be an extra 24 million adults (skewing poor and minority) without access, many of the same adults that seem likely to have poorer library (as well as bookstore and disposable income) access.

I don't think universality is a requirement, here.

I think I need some extra interpretation on this last one. Thanks.

 

[sheadunne]

As someone who has shifted from print to digital completely, no books, DVDs, CDs, etc, I have the following to say on the subject as it relates to gaming.

I read novels exclusively on my iphone (as opposed to my e-reader, iPad, computer) because of the small hand-held size and the ability to flip through the book quickly and easily. I read usually at night and never outside so it works for me.

I read gaming books on my computer or iPad, since a majority are in pdf format and a larger screen is required for my enjoyment.

When I prep for a game (either DM or Play) I use a computer exclusively because I usually need the capacity to multitask and I want to do it quickly and easily (still not there for the iPad).

When I play a game (as a player) I use an iPad for my character sheet, which I've imported everything into the sheet from spells to feats to any notes I need regarding character ability. I rarely have it open except to reference something and then it's quick and easy.

When I run a game, I print out what I need and don't use any electronic devices. There's just too much I need to do that I don't have time to use electronics. Juggling the expectations of 4+ players doesn't allow for the few minutes I need to access the device to enter information or look something up.

What I don't use electronics for at the table, dice (even though I have the capacity), miniatures (even though I can replace maps and miniatures with my computer or ipad and my projector, it's time consuming and doesn't have any real value added).

My former PF group was 90% electronic at the table in terms of books and character sheets (two of us didn't use computers while running the game and 1 player didn't use a computer for his character at the table.) The game played fine for everyone, although I found most people who used a laptop distracting since it was big and bulky at the table and tables usually aren't that big.

All that said, books aren't going anywhere. Paper isn't going anywhere. Electronic devices are a good 25-50 years away from being as useful as a sheet of paper and then they'll probably duplicate the usability of a piece of paper. My choice to use digital wasn't because it was superior, but rather a matter of money and space. If I had unlimited of both, I'd have the library of congress of gaming books (but I'd still have them all digital as well).

I also won't subscribe to a subscription service (such as DDI). I'd rather buy the digital book and have it accessible as I want or need it. About the only possible reason I would use a subscription service is if I had access to every copy of every game book available (or a majority of them) such as with a video service like Netflix, Amazon Video, etc. Then I'd consider it as long as the library of games grew and was in a format that I could copy and paste from and use the material as I need it.

Game however you want, as with all things, it's just a matter of personal taste.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I love using my iPad at the table, and although I find dealing with PDF versions of the rules slightly unwieldy, if I have an internet connection at the table it's easy to look up most anything I need in the SRD. So I am a big proponant of having tablets and ereaders available as an option.

That said, it should always be the case that the game should be playable by someone with a book, dice, a pencil and a piece of paper. As soon as the digital component becomes a requirement, then I think we've crossed into something else.

 

[Wicht]

"The average reader"? What e-readers have you used? The Kindle Paperwhite weighs 7.5 ounces, which is less than your average trade paperback (about 9 ounces), and is designed to be comfortable to hold while reading like you would a book. The regular Kindle weighs even less. Again, a Kindle Fire is not an e-reader. It is a tablet computer.

The Kindle Fire is what I own because it was a gift. It is a good reader and I like it. I can't afford to buy another one and I would rather buy a book anyway.

As to the pain in my thumbs, I am not sure why I would have to defend my experience to you, but if I say there is pain, then there is pain. Its not necessarily from the weight but from the posture of the thumbs. Books I can hold differently and I have never had pain from a book. But the weight of the Fire is a little heavier than a paperback. [edit: I suspect part of the advantage of the books is that there is more movement of the thumb in certain directions and they can be stretched easier and more naturally than with a tablet shape and the book stretches with the thumb; but whatever it is, it is a factor]

And for checking books out at the library e-format, I looked into it. The publishers require the books to be checked out one at a time; multiple readers cannot all check out the same book in the program being used in these parts. The waiting list is so long that I have never got a single e-book from the library ever actually delivered to me, and I gave up on it. I can order a book from another library and have it delivered to the local library in weeks, rather than waiting 9-12 months (if ever) to read the e-book (actually I have never had an e-book delivered even when signing onto the waiting list because they kicked my name off of the list after so long). That's not the libraries fault and its not the fault of the e-readers, but it is what it is.

And again, books are faster for me to read and to use. For some reason it takes me twice as long to read a book on a reader than in paper-form. I am not sure why. And finding a passage I remember is almost always faster with paper.

I am happy that you like e-readers better than books. But books are still preferable to me and telling me my reasoning is invalid doesn't really impress me as a winning argument in what is essentially a matter of taste.