At Least 4 Months For Conversion Documents

Those waiting for official conversion documents from earlier editions of D&D to 5th edition are going to have to wait a bit longer. WotC's Mike Mearls says that "the person who needs to do the final approvals on them is serving on a jury that will take another 4 or so months. Sorry!" So it looks like we're talking July/August at the earliest. Thanks to Adrian for the scoop.

 

[Saxon1974]

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "unplayable." ( I've only read Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, though, not the other two. ) I'd be very comfortable myself with running GoDC on the fly, just using Monster Manual stats instead of the playtest ones.

Well in legacy some of the encounters are tpk for a level 1-3 party. For example look at the yeti attack at the start, its 2 yetis or more and they are like a cr 3 at least in the monster manual. They are a cr 1 I think in the next rules. If I have to rework encounters then the module isn't that useful and might as just do a home brew.

 

[Fildrigar]

Well in legacy some of the encounters are tpk for a level 1-3 party. For example look at the yeti attack at the start, its 2 yetis or more and they are like a cr 3 at least in the monster manual. They are a cr 1 I think in the next rules. If I have to rework encounters then the module isn't that useful and might as just do a home brew.

If the monsters are too different, just use the general stats presented in the adventure. 5e is pretty forgiving that way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem with that arguement is that it start with the premise that all the comments made about communications aren't legitimate ones.

It also doesn't take into account WotC's credibility problem.

Well, those who know me know I'm no apologist for WotC. I was among the earliest people to criticize elements of the 4Ed rollout, the game itself, their handling of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, how certain material was electronic only, etc.

IOW, I agree that they have had a communications & credibility problem, as well as other issues.

THIS, however, seems pretty clear and straightforward.

View attachment 67537

 

[Umbran]

The problem with that arguement is that it start with the premise that all the comments made about communications aren't legitimate ones.

Nope. Not at all.

Lots of people will use the excuse that their comments are true, correct, or legitimate as justification for ignoring that their actions have consequences. But, being right doesn't give you license to be a jerk. If you have legitimate points to make, they can be made in ways that aren't dogpililng and throwing excessive negativity around.

Basic rule of communication: however legitimate your point is, that point is lost if you don't deliver it properly. Delivery that makes the recipient stop listening is not useful.

It also doesn't take into account WotC's credibility problem.

Their credibility problem is not a legitimate excuse for less-than-grand behavior on our part.

I imagine, in fact, that our overly critical approach to dialog helped *create* that credibility problem. We have given them a good reason to not feel safe with being entirely open with us. Anything they say gets ripped apart, and we are unforgiving. That leads them to avoidance behaviors and having to try to cover their butts and doublethink when they do try to get us information, and that leads to credibility issues.

If you've ever had the thought that others should cut you some slack... well, then you should cut others some slack as well.

 

[Kramodlog]

Well, those who know me know I'm no apologist for WotC. I was among the earliest people to criticize elements of the 4Ed rollout, the game itself, their handling of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, how certain material was electronic only, etc.

IOW, I agree that they have had a communications & credibility problem, as well as other issues.

THIS, however, seems pretty clear and straightforward.

View attachment 67537

This is just a symptom of a bigger problem. To dismiss it is to dismiss the problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is just a symptom of a bigger problem. To dismiss it is to dismiss the problem.

What symptom? WotC's possibly being understaffed? The reporting of a simple reason for a product's delay?

Or people's overreaction?

 

[BryonD]

That may be. But, is *us* talking about it constructive? I mean, if you want to drop a letter to WotC about their communication style, that would make sense. But talking to third parties, and hoping or expecting that to impact WotC is kind of the poster child for passive-aggressive behavior, isn't it?

As much as I defend the right to complain, and that it is fair to complain. This is also totally accurate.

It just isn't realistic for a company to expect differently.

In a perfect world a company will communicate periodically, and also remain aware of unofficial communications which have the appearance of being official.
Then they live up to these communications (or shut down unofficial communications are that misleading).

In an ideal they should manage the communications and achieve the "live up to" part 90% of the time, with good communication of change when needed.

As a real world, they should take the ideal as a goal and see it as on them to improve when they don't achieve it.

Customer ranting is more like a geiger counter. You can't take anything from the clicks, but the frequency and volume are telling.

 

[Mirtek]

I'd be very comfortable myself with running GoDC on the fly, just using Monster Manual stats instead of the playtest ones.

I would not recommend that. E.g. in part 1 there are a lot of lizardfolk to fight. In their playtest incarnation those are AC 12 with 11 hp. If using the final MM stats they become AC 15 with 22 hp. They also gain +1 to hit and deal 5 damage instead of 3 damage over their playtest stats.

Just using MM stats makes GoDC much more deadly

 

[GlobeOfDankness]

Nope. Not at all.

Lots of people will use the excuse that their comments are true, correct, or legitimate as justification for ignoring that their actions have consequences. But, being right doesn't give you license to be a jerk. If you have legitimate points to make, they can be made in ways that aren't dogpililng and throwing excessive negativity around.

Basic rule of communication: however legitimate your point is, that point is lost if you don't deliver it properly. Delivery that makes the recipient stop listening is not useful.



Their credibility problem is not a legitimate excuse for less-than-grand behavior on our part.

I imagine, in fact, that our overly critical approach to dialog helped *create* that credibility problem. We have given them a good reason to not feel safe with being entirely open with us. Anything they say gets ripped apart, and we are unforgiving. That leads them to avoidance behaviors and having to try to cover their butts and doublethink when they do try to get us information, and that leads to credibility issues.

If you've ever had the thought that others should cut you some slack... well, then you should cut others some slack as well.

let's not forget that we're talking about a branch of a multi-billion dollar toy corporation here, not exactly some poor victimized indie publisher. the 6 people who actually work on the game probably don't care what's said about the company.

 

[Wicht]

let's not forget that we're talking about a branch of a multi-billion dollar toy corporation here, not exactly some poor victimized indie publisher. the 6 people who actually work on the game probably don't care what's said about the company.

That goes against human nature. Size is independent of feelings.