Can we please stop calling D&D Insider an MMORPG

[charlesatan]

My question is, what prevents any of us from running a game face-to-face one night, online (by WotC's tools, OpenRPG, or whatever) the next night, and face-to-face the next night? I mean, time and distance from players excluded, there's no reason.

I haven't seen anything at all that says once you play a game online (with whatever method) you can't go tabletop or the other way around. If you're playing them online, you've probably got the books.

I think that's our point. Nothing is stopping you from doing so, although you'll probably need to update your character sheets on both ends (digital and tabletop) to keep up with the other's games.

That's what the DI is providing actually: tools, not a new game entirely (the new game entirely are the actual 4th Ed books, not DnD Insider).

 

[DonTadow]

The Insider will become as optional as car ownership in most of the United States (i.e. not), but it won't be by the intention of Mearls & company. No, their bosses will push it because the shareholders of WOTC and Hasbro will demand it because they want MMO-level profits to maximize the value of their shares. The Board of Directors for both companies will go along with this, and they in turn will direct the officers to make it so. It's a short stop from there to making the online gaming component--already accessable 24/7, with databases and play space and chat/VOIP features--into a very primitive MMO by putting a persistent--"Living"--world into place.

You can play when you like online now. You can choose your fellow players. You have access to the new hotness in D&D 24/7 now online, and a persistent world is one that the publisher controls- and it will be compelled to make it as player-friendly as it can be, which will greatly influence the entire hobby in the manner of a shockwave. This is a plan of incrementalism, and it is foolish to claim that it won't happen; WOTC is now in direct competition with Blizzard for hegemony, and WOTC is in the underdog position in this fight. It's a matter of adapt or die, and you can bet that the people that call the shots and sign the checks will opt to fight fire with fire instead of with ice and water.

Do you mean like magic online has made it so that no one plays magic in preson anymore?

There's a reason why tabletop n person games, like in person cggs and newspapers won't go anywhere. People like tangible things. People like the social aspect. Did anyone at gencon see the new online game table (located 2 ailsles from the big wotc booth) that setup online video with a game table. Even that set up still felt impersonal.

Heck, I am betting it wold be difficult to switch pcs from pewter minis to digital minis (which is what i plan on doing in december)

 

[Asmor]

newspapers won't go anywhere

Newspapers are dying... Some might say they're already dead. It's a shame, but a reality. I recognize the good they do simply by virtue of existing, but their business model is no longer feasible. They're an anachronism which only sticks around because of the technophobic and a small minority of the computer-literate who actually prefer them. Personally, the texture of the low quality paper gives me goose bumps and I can't stand the smell. I sincerely hope something steps in to provide objective, investigative journalism, but the fact is that newspapers simply aren't going to be around much longer. I give it a decade, and honestly that feels kind of generous.

 

[DonTadow]

Newspapers are dying... Some might say they're already dead. It's a shame, but a reality. I recognize the good they do simply by virtue of existing, but their business model is no longer feasible. They're an anachronism which only sticks around because of the technophobic and a small minority of the computer-literate who actually prefer them. Personally, the texture of the low quality paper gives me goose bumps and I can't stand the smell. I sincerely hope something steps in to provide objective, investigative journalism, but the fact is that newspapers simply aren't going to be around much longer. I give it a decade, and honestly that feels kind of generous.

Newspapers are diminishing but not dying. Subscription for the nation's top five newspapers (newyork times, wallstreet journal, USA Today, Boston Globe) are up. Both of my hometown newspapers are still going strong. This is because people have a want to have something they can hold. People may "get" their first news from the internet but the in depth stff is still in magazines and newspapers. Theyve had to change their advertising model, but they will survive.

There's a really cool professor I used to hve and still get a chance to hear speak regularlly who talks about how people have been quoting the death of newspapers for 20 years. As a fan of good investigative journalism, lets hope he's right.

Back to the subject (tyiing it together), people liketo feel and touch a product and this will take at least a generation or more to get rid of. Else we'd all have a society without paper money. I just don't see people not wanting to get together to play dungeons and dragons.Heck, even with online gaming people still have lan parties because they love the social aspect. thousands of people meet up at conventions just to play mmorpgs together.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Newspapers are dying... Some might say they're already dead.

No, big metros are having to reinvent themselves. Small local papers are thriving.

It turns out that, in the age of the Internet, being an aggregator of news readers can get online isn't a good business model. Go figure. Local newspapers, who are typically the only ones covering school board meetings, tax hikes and other stuff of local interest are doing fine.

the fact is that newspapers simply aren't going to be around much longer. I give it a decade, and honestly that feels kind of generous.

It's a damn shame we can't lay money on this, because I would happily take your cash.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There's a really cool professor I used to hve and still get a chance to hear speak regularlly who talks about how people have been quoting the death of newspapers for 20 years. As a fan of good investigative journalism, lets hope he's right.

Newspapers and news aren't synonymous. Even if on-paper news died (which I don't foresee happening for decades, since people will still want to read news on the can, standing up on a subway, in a doctor's office, etc.), the desire for news isn't going anywhere. Newspapers-on-paper won't die so much as transform into newspapers-online, a process already (unevenly) underway.

 

[Asmor]

Newspapers and news aren't synonymous. Even if on-paper news died (which I don't foresee happening for decades, since people will still want to read news on the can, standing up on a subway, in a doctor's office, etc.), the desire for news isn't going anywhere. Newspapers-on-paper won't die so much as transform into newspapers-online, a process already (unevenly) underway.

The problem with that is that newspapers actually create news, they don't just aggregate it. Somebody's got to pay the bills while reporters snoop out important stories (examples of which I'll avoid mentioning for fear of running afoul of the no politics rule). Somehow, I don't see Fox News and CNN stepping up to the plate, they've already got their plate full making sure each of Paris Hilton's bowel movements are meticulously cataloged.

 

[DonTadow]

Newspapers and news aren't synonymous. Even if on-paper news died (which I don't foresee happening for decades, since people will still want to read news on the can, standing up on a subway, in a doctor's office, etc.), the desire for news isn't going anywhere. Newspapers-on-paper won't die so much as transform into newspapers-online, a process already (unevenly) underway.

I stopped midstatement. The professor of journalism, Jack Lessenberry, essentially speaks about how newspapers will always be around, for what you said, people want to read on the can. Newspapers also have a social stigmentation as well. Subscribing to one still notes you as slightly higher in society. There's still the notion that those who read the paper must be smarter.

A good point was also made about local papers. Oddly enough my two big papers are thrivingbecause they are covering these local communities in more depth and it doesnt make sense to waste the web resources on the little subburb, but a few print articles is great for subscription rates.

 

[Kesh]

I stopped midstatement. The professor of journalism, Jack Lessenberry, essentially speaks about how newspapers will always be around, for what you said, people want to read on the can. Newspapers also have a social stigmentation as well. Subscribing to one still notes you as slightly higher in society. There's still the notion that those who read the paper must be smarter.

A good point was also made about local papers. Oddly enough my two big papers are thrivingbecause they are covering these local communities in more depth and it doesnt make sense to waste the web resources on the little subburb, but a few print articles is great for subscription rates.

Even then, I think e-paper will change the nature of the newspaper. Give it 20-30 years, and I'd say we'll see a growth of news/book-readers available that makes actual paper newspapers start to slide into obscurity.