Blog posts on DDI should be free

[Mark]

We are talking mostly small balance changes to powers and items. There has only been a few significant changes (Stealth, Skill Challenges).

73 pages of corrections is huge and significant.

You keep saying that, but then don't post stuff like quoted below.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Nor will 4e suffer from any significant issues.

It already does.

It's by far the most streamlined, robust and balanced set of rules made for D&D.

That opinion isn't even close to universal. Why you act as if it is gospel is beyond me. Some people do not even feel it is D&D beyond having the brand name attached to it. From my own experiences with it, it's not bad for skirmish rules but as an RPG it is lacking. But, really, the focus of design is on combat and geared toward miniatures usage so I'm not sure why this would surprise anyone.

Sure, the skill challenges, while a great idea, have been found lacking and thus revised. And someone screwed up on the stealth rules. But aside from that, its minor stuff and clarifications of RAW (. . .)

Again, 73 pages in a year and a half is not insignificant. And "skill challenges" aren't really that great of an idea except if the idea is to dispense with roleplaying, roll some dice, and move things back toward combat encounters as swiftly as possible. Clearly the design intent is to not have RPG encounters be too open ended. I've never found that to be problematic in an RPG myself.

(snipping the edition war stuff)

Also, where are all those subscribers who complain about the DDI - Link or retract.

You want me to link to things I have heard? Not really possible. As to ones that might be online, I suppose you could just count the ones who have not REsubscribed and ask them what is wrong with it. They obviously have some issues ranging from it being more expensive than it is worth to them or possibly don't like the constant rules corrections causing them to have to adjust ongoing character retroactively, but you must be aware that these are problems.

 

[Gimby]

Actually, it is quite a lot. And it is likely to keep coming and wind up being even a lot more.

Yes, I'll fully expect that. More material is coming and it won't all be perfect. This will always be true as long as we have humans publishing books. Look into errata for medical textbooks some time.

From what I saw, there wasn't really that much that didn't work and we're looking at roughly eight years. But this isn't a contest or edition war. I'm just looking at what the last year and a half has wrought.

Ok, I'll accept that's your opinion. It really doesn't match up with my experiences though.

For reference though, the designers did issue errata, and a reasonable amount of it: Official D&D Updates

Its clear that there was a demand for errata, its just that it wasn't a high priority for the publisher at the time.

Really, not a matter of edition wars or comparisons. I'm just looking at the lastest D&D game and wondering why so much has gone so wrong in so little time.

The point of the comparison wasn't edition warring. It was that all games of this scale have errata. The amount that they need and the amount that they get vary by game, but they all have it. Sometimes its design failure. Sometimes its unclear writing. Sometimes it's editing failure that breaks otherwise good design.

If we need errata (and you will, as long as you have humans publishing) then its better IMO that errata is supplied. If you supply an imperfect product (and you will) then supplying the fix to consumers free seems eminently sensible.

 

[Jack99]

73 pages of corrections is huge and significant.

Except for the part where you have been explained (multiple times) that in the case where they change a word, they reprint the whole paragraph, or if they change a minor thing in a power (like adding a keyword) they reprint the whole power. These things take up place. Is it more than for prior editions? Yes, definitely. Is it more than prior editions could have used? Definitely not.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

I am not surprised you claim that, since admitting to what I said would probably get you a vacation from ENworld.

It already does.

Based on your infinite experience with the system?

That opinion isn't even close to universal. Why you act as if it is gospel is beyond me.

If it was gospel, I would ridicule it. I say it because I mean it.

Again, 73 pages in a year and a half is not insignificant.

I think we covered this.

You want me to link to things I have heard? As to ones that might be online, I suppose you could just count the ones who have not REsubscribed and ask them what is wrong with it.

Yes, because being unhappy with the DDI is the only reason for not resubscribing. Also, what do you know about people not resubscribing? Aside from the fact that we know that some haven't, you have no idea if it is 0,1% or 50%. And lets face it, if a small percentage thinks something, it doesn't necessarily makes it true.

 

[Mark]

And for the nonsubscribers? The ones who take the time to complain bitterly (not aimed at you, Mark) (. . .)

Understood. And for every complaint I hear I also hear just as many who say they wouldn't even play 4E if not for the DDI and that they cannot imagine trying to run a game without it. There's a regular group I play with that just added a new person and managed to put together a fourth (?) level Druid in less than half an hour at the table thanks to having the DDI on a laptop. The player had some complaints about not being able to wildshape into a bird and fly off to spy on some enemies but apparently that's one of the changes that often gets a bad rap.

 

[Mark]

Yes, I'll fully expect that. More material is coming and it won't all be perfect. This will always be true as long as we have humans publishing books. Look into errata for medical textbooks some time.

I don't think comparing the complexity of a game to the complexity of a medical textbook is going to sway me toward thinking that many mistakes is within an acceptable level of design flaws.

 

[Mark]

(. . .) Is it more than for prior editions? Yes, definitely. Is it more than prior editions could have used? Definitely not.
(. . .)

I see you're just going to keep trying to make this an edition war. You really should knock that off.

Admin here. We don't care for this sort of "mini-modding", please. Report it if there's a problem, and treat other members with respect, but we're not comfortable with posts that dictate to other people how they have to behave. ~ PCat

We have a difference of opinion regarding 4E, and there are people who believe it is nearly flawless and others who can agree it has significant problems. We're obviously not going to manage to reconcile in that regard. The important thing is that you keep having fun with it but please leave the edition warring at the door when you post on EN World. As a fellow poster I really hope you can agree to that much.

 

[Gimby]

I don't think comparing the complexity of a game to the complexity of a medical textbook is going to sway me toward thinking that many mistakes is within an acceptable level of design flaws.

What's an acceptable level of design flaws for you? If its is "none at all" I expect you to be eternally disappointed by RPG publishing.

The thing with this line of arguement though, its that only a small part of those 73 pages are admissions of design flaws. Its mostly clarifications, clearing up of keywords and values. In a lot of cases, the design intent is clear from the original text and the revised version just clears up ambiguities.

I just don't really get this. Would it be better that you don't need errata? Sure it would. Given that you will always need errata, isn't it better that the publisher actually publishes it? And for free to boot?

 

[Gimby]

I see you're just going to keep trying to make this an edition war. You really should knock that off. We have a difference of opinion regarding 4E, and there are people who believe it is nearly flawless and others who can agree it has significant problems. We're obviously not going to manage to reconcile in that regard. The important thing is that you keep having fun with it but please leave the edition warring at the door when you post on EN World. As a fellow poster I really hope you can agree to that much.

...

Again, 73 pages in a year and a half is not insignificant. And "skill challenges" aren't really that great of an idea except if the idea is to dispense with roleplaying, roll some dice, and move things back toward combat encounters as swiftly as possible. Clearly the design intent is to not have RPG encounters be too open ended. I've never found that to be problematic in an RPG myself.

<cough>

 

[Mark]

...



<cough>

Really? You don't really want to equate being disappointed that an RPG attempts to nix freeform RPGing as edition warring? C'mon.

 

[Gimby]

Really? You don't really want to equate being disappointed that an RPG attempts to nix freeform RPGing as edition warring? C'mon.

Given that it had precisely nothing to do with the conversation at hand (and is, IMO inaccurate, but this isn't the thread for that), sure.

I mean, his point that 3rd wanted errata that it didn't get isn't really a hugely contentious position. If it was, Pathfinder wouldn't be the success that it is.

-edit to add

For example, the endless cries of "broken splatbooks" would be a good example of this. If it's broken, then it could do with errata. If it didn't get it, that says nothing about how much errata a specific game could do with.