Blog posts on DDI should be free

[Mark]

Mistwell's question isn't about people who are not subscribers, but, rather to those who are unhappy with what they get for subscribing. Windjammer claimed that there is a serious lack of material in the DDI subscription.

IMO, you are not addressing Mistwell's point which seems to be, "who is doing the complaining? People who are not subscribers or people who are?"

See, to me, if subscribers are complaining, that indicates a problem with the service. If people who are not taking advantage of the service are complaining, one wonders why they are complaining in the first place.

I'll set aside the nonsubscribers complaints since Giimby (thanks!) has linked to the 73(?!) pages of rules changes that WotC has for free (is that all or are their even more in the online content?). The main complain I hear from subscribers is that they don't want the game to change constantly because it requires them to regularly adjust their characters beyond simple leveling. Forget about rules bloat, this appears to be rules bloat compounded by corrections bloat.

 

[mudbunny]

I'll set aside the nonsubscribers complaints since Giimby (thanks!) has linked to the 73(?!) pages of rules changes that WotC has for free (is that all or are their even more in the online content?). The main complain I hear from subscribers is that they don't want the game to change constantly because it requires them to regularly adjust their characters beyond simple leveling. Forget about rules bloat, this appears to be rules bloat compounded by corrections bloat.

Have you looked at the errata? It is not as large as it seems (or at least, to me) as whenever there is an errata for a power, the errata includes the whole power-block for the new power. They also include explanations for a lot of the corrections that aren't obvious.

edit to add - The first phrase is not to be read as sarcastic, snarky or anything. It is just a simple question, and I am too tired to figure out how to phrase it without it sounding like it.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough Mark. To be honest, I hadn't been tracking this all that closely, so I haven't seen a whole lot of complaints. It could easily be that I'm just missing those threads/posts.

 

[mudbunny]

Fair enough Mark. To be honest, I hadn't been tracking this all that closely, so I haven't seen a whole lot of complaints. It could easily be that I'm just missing those threads/posts.

I am fairly active on the WotC boards, and I haven't seen any complaints that there is not enough behind the paywall. Complaints that what is going up isn't what they want to see up, but very few complaints (that I can recall) about not enough.

 

[Mark]

Have you looked at the errata? It is not as large as it seems (or at least, to me) as whenever there is an errata for a power, the errata includes the whole power-block for the new power. They also include explanations for a lot of the corrections that aren't obvious.

edit to add - The first phrase is not to be read as sarcastic, snarky or anything. It is just a simple question, and I am too tired to figure out how to phrase it without it sounding like it.

No problem. I've looked. It's 73 pages of corrections. That seems like a lot. There are whole RPGs with lower page counts.

I am fairly active on the WotC boards, and I haven't seen any complaints that there is not enough behind the paywall. Complaints that what is going up isn't what they want to see up, but very few complaints (that I can recall) about not enough.

I don't think anyone here is discussing quantity either, except regarding the many corrections, just quality, which obviously spawns the corrections.

 

[Gimby]

No problem. I've looked. It's 73 pages of corrections. That seems like a lot. There are whole RPGs with lower page counts.

To be fair, its 73 pages of large font, wide spaced text with repeated rules text and a fair amount of commentry, it also covers pretty much every book, adventure and magazine article published to date. The actual text of the revisions is relatively light.

I don't think anyone here is discussing quantity either, except regarding the many corrections, just quality, which obviously spawns the corrections.

Thing is, back in 3e there was a whole lot of stuff that desperately needed errata and just never got it. The size of the errata isn't really a indication of falling quality, rather that they are actually addressing the issues that pop up.

For another example, check this for Pathfinder: Pathfinder FAQ (Pathfinder_OGC)

That's not actually errata, just a fan complied list of designer answers, but gives you a look at whats involved here. Errors requiring errata are likely unavoidable in this industry, I'm happy with these being corrected regularly rather than just being ignored.

If you are looking for a really bad case of this, check the Exalted errata team, where they are re-writing large chunks of the game from the ground up.

 

[Mark]

To be fair, its 73 pages of large font, wide spaced text with repeated rules text and a fair amount of commentry, it also covers pretty much every book, adventure and magazine article published to date. The actual text of the revisions is relatively light.

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

Thing is, back in 3e there was a whole lot of stuff that desperately needed errata and just never got it.

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.

The size of the errata isn't really a indication of falling quality, rather that they are actually addressing the issues that pop up.

Again, these are corrections in design, not typos, and there seem to be a lot of issues that have popped up in very little time. It's a problem of trying to keep a schedule while cutting staff and not quite having a handle on an ever-increasing amount of rules and corrections bloat.

For another example, check this for Pathfinder (. . .) Exalted (. . .)

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.

 

[Dire Bare]

Errata are typos or misprints, not rules that have been found to be inadequate or "lacking" as someone said above. Not the same thing at all.

Yup! Errata from the books and the articles is updated fairly frequently. When something is changed so much it works differently, that IS errata if it was printed wrong (such as an earlier draft version of a power accidentally making it into the article/book) or if the power (or feat or whatev) did slip past a quality check broken.

Outright changing stuff due to poor initial design? Sorry, just don't see it. At least no more than I did in previous editions or other games. And to criticize something for being just as error prone as RPGs have always been . . . well, not a legit complaint IMO.

And, as pointed out by Gimby, the 73 pages of errata simply IS NOT "a lot". As he said, when a power/feat/whatev gets errated, the entire thing is reprinted, not just the small mistake. And explanations are sometimes added, and yes, it is in a large font. If a more "tight" version of the same errata were released, it wouldn't be nearly as many pages. But yes, it will grow over time!

What I like about DDI and 4e is that these errata changes are 1) noticed by the dev team, and 2) fixed, and 3) free. In older editions, it wasn't that the mistakes weren't there, its that the dev team wasn't given the resources to keep up with the errata.

In other words, the amount of errata for 4e is not really more or less than previous editions, but it is more visible.

And it has nothing to do with a perceived lack of value with DDI, as the errata is provided absolutely free, as it should be. The cool thing about DDI is that the free errata is incorporated into the database, which is awesome!

 

[Jack99]

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.

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

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.

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

Again, these are corrections in design, not typos, and there seem to be a lot of issues that have popped up in very little time. It's a problem of trying to keep a schedule while cutting staff and not quite having a handle on an ever-increasing amount of rules and corrections bloat.

Not really.

Look, it's fairly simple. No amount of data and/or bending of the truth will make the DDI a bad thing. In general those who subscribe fall somewhere between linking and loving it. Nor will 4e suffer from any significant issues. It's by far the most streamlined, robust and balanced set of rules made for D&D. 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 when they discover that there still are people who do not think the meaning of a rule is crystal clear.

These small balance issues they are fixing have been there in every edition of D&D. Hell, I will even state that they were far worse in prior editions (at least from 1e and forward), but for the first time, the owner of D&D seems committed to give us the very best game possible, instead of making lame excuses for their mistakes for 8 years and then turn out a new product.

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

 

[Dire Bare]

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

You and I are on the same page on this one, Jack99. But, this isn't a formal debate, so "proof" isn't required for someone to make an argument.

But I'm not buying that anything but a small minority of DDI subscribers has any serious complaints about the service, until I see some links!

And for the nonsubscribers? The ones who take the time to complain bitterly (not aimed at you, Mark) without really knowing what they are talking about, aren't worth listening to. But there are a few with legit dislikes who, if solved, might become DDI subscribers. And so I think those folks are worth listening to. I don't often agree with them, but I respect their opinions.