Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5370848" data-attributes="member: 51942">This!Wizard's D&D related software, as far as I've experienced it, has been systematically subpar.  I don't expect the new software to be any better, based on that track record.Now, that doesn't mean the CB or compendium aren't useful - they are - it means the software is inexplicably poor given the situation wizards is in.  What they should have done is just bought one of the various companies that made a 3.5e character builder (a much much more daunting task, given that 3.5 was much less computer-friendly), and told em to build the new version for 4e.It just makes no sense for a software team that has all these advantages - working with the game-design team (and with access to rules before they go to print), with a simplified ruleset that removes a bunch of nasties that made 3.5e so hard to pre-compute, to deliver such a limited product with so many bugs.I think there's a control-freak issue here, and an unhealthy dose of the NIH syndrome; as a result, the software is overcomplex and too restraining, and fails to function as a platform - when that is in fact an easy opportunity for wizards: there have been and still are many, many alternative character builders and designers, and tools and whatnot - all of which fail to be a value add to WotC because they fail to integrate with WotC's products well due to this extremely restrictive nature.I doubt software development is particularly cheap for WotC; but who knows.  It's pure speculation, but if, say, brand and marketing restrictions are very powerful, then it's not easy to focus on simply making things work and work well.  Why can't text in the offline CB be copy-pasted, for instance?  Is that an active IP protection choice, or is that a feature that would require vetting before enabling?  Having those kind of discussions every step of the way would easily bog things down, making development more expensive and less effective simultaneously.And while all this D&DI talk is going on, let's not forget that I'm fairly positive none of it is really a major selling feature.  People play D&D not because of the character builder but because of the brand, content, and community.  The business model of pulling people into a subscription by means of a tool and MTG-like constant power-trickle is not naturally harmonious with those core strengths.I get the impression that the OP's criticisms are both justified and unsurprising.  The CB fails to really achieve what it could (possibly due to brand restrictions) and fails (and will likely continue to do so) to leverage the community & contentit could.  Seriously, if the CB had just 1/10th of the features it has now but permitted addons and community modifications it'd have far more capabilities.  All the house-rules discussed here [MENTION=10881]ENWorld[/MENTION]? Many of those are trivially scriptable.  A decent character sheet layout?  Could be a killing feature, and would be so much more useful if it worked with the character builder.All those separate apps and tools the OP mentions he uses to help play could have been linked to WotC provided services - but aren't because every WotC product is sealed as tightly as possible.  All that effort and cost WotC is incurring is just a waste when you consider someone else might well to much of it for free - or rather, 10 people might, and then WotC can just pick the best version and negotiate (or imitate) that.  People can write articles for dungeon & dragon, and with the right setup, and WotC could well monetize even freely created community content - and usefully so too by providing an organized, vetted context for people to look for things (witness wikipedia).There's been some discussion of piracy here. That's a self-defeating mindset for wizards to be in; yet I fear there may be some validity to the argument.  There's so much free content around, that wizards hasn't a chance in a million in reducing the availability of free content by reducing the piracy of their content.  And that's what it's about: people not buying their stuff, and thus not paying them - right?  Thinking about WotC's product as akin to a hollywood movie is terribly misleading.  Regardless of the legal semantics, it's not very good "IP" - the content is almost worthless in and of itself (people hardly buy rulebooks to read them), they buy it to build upon - and it is those subsequent creations that have value.  It's the PC's players make and invest time and effort in, and it's the campaigns and worlds DM's dream up.  That's what matters - not the 13th level version of some hydra, or yet another fighter feat for half-elven PC's in light armor wielding picks.Frankly, it's not hard for another company to make content that's as good as wizard.  It's easy to make superior software.  But it's hard to grow such a large player-base with such a valuable brand.  If WotC would quit trying to prevent others from supplying content to "their players" and start trying to be a valuable platform (an app store, say) we'd all be better off.</blockquote>

Verification