Dragon Articles - Summer of 09 v Winter of 10

[Nai_Calus]

Well, maybe they'll reverse their decision if enough subscribers make their voices heard.

I doubt it. There were quite a few subscribers that complained back when they made all the galleries except PHB, DMG and MM DDI sub-only, and nothing has ever changed about that even though they actually acknowledged at one point that it was poorly received.

One can *hope*, but... Yeah.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I have no problem if Dragon has a compendium filler "article". Name it Crunchy Bits or something and go from there. You can add the random powers/feats/etc to it that have no place in a true article.

The Kord powers in the channel divinity "article" are a perfect example of this. Aside from being divine powers, they had zero mechanical association with Kord and only a touch of RP association.

The problem, in my mind, is that Dragon is moving to compendium filler only. It is difficult, in my mind, to go from the excellent Bahamut article to the compendium filler that claimed to be this month's channel divinity article.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Perhaps it is too much to think an an article titled "Channel Divinity: Kord" might contain more then just a few powers that any divine character can use. I might be expecting too much

 

[Dire Bare]

Perhaps it is too much to think an an article titled "Channel Divinity: Kord" might contain more then just a few powers that any divine character can use. I might be expecting too much

That's a design decision that affects the entire game, not just that article. There are no powers in any book or article (that I've found) that are limited to a specific group, such as clerics of Kord.

Articles such as this provide powers that followers of Kord would likely want to use, but are not limited to them. It's quite deliberate.

Now, we can certainly argue whether this is a good design decision or not . . . it keeps things simpler and fits into the "Say Yes!" mentality of 4e, but it also does seem to detract from the "specialness" of belonging to a unique group, such as followers of Kord.

 

[Dire Bare]

I doubt it. There were quite a few subscribers that complained back when they made all the galleries except PHB, DMG and MM DDI sub-only, and nothing has ever changed about that even though they actually acknowledged at one point that it was poorly received.

One can *hope*, but... Yeah.

Really? "Quite a few" subscribers complained, huh? You got some numbers to back up that assumption?

Fact: WotC claims they moved to the shorter article format based on customer feedback. There is no evidence to the contrary and no reason to doubt the claim.

Fact: "Some" people didn't like the fact most art galleries are behind the subscriber wall. "Some" of those people complained through proper channels (email to WotC, posts on WotC's boards). We have no idea how many folks were actually upset, and how many of those took constructive action and complained where WotC would hear. Your claim that "quite a few" has no basis.

Reality: WotC is a company that responds to customer feedback. Just because they don't make changes to please *you* and some other squeaky wheels on ENWorld doesn't change this. Also keep in mind that WotC has to balance business needs with customer desire. I'd be comfortable in saying a lot of DDI customers want the virtual gametable sooner rather than later, but that hasn't happened yet not because WotC is unresponsive to customers, but because it is beyond their means right now.

If you are a subscriber to DDI and don't like an aspect of the service, email WotC customer service. If you are not a subscriber, but might be if they made some changes, email WotC customer service. If enough people feel the same way you do, changes will be made. If you are in a minority, or even a silent majority, then changes won't happen . . . and this does not make WotC unresponsive to customer desires.

Putting the art galleries behind the subscriber wall *IS* a net negative move, what was formerly available to all free of charge is now only available to those who pay for subscriptions. I'm sure no one was "pleased" with this change, and some were displeased, but I'd gather most don't care. But I don't know any more than you do, and WotC is trying to build value in a DDI sub.

If enough folks say, "Hey! Let's bring back at least *some* longer format articles!" Then it will happen.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yeah, these new crunch-only flavorless articles are utterly pointless and useless. Just stuff them in the Compendium/CB and note what got added each month. They don't even qualify as articles, just bland lists of crunch.

<snip>

(I haven't read the Kord article since I've been mooching off a friend for the rare articles these days I want to read, but it sounds exactly like the Traveler article, which was also complete crap.

So, all the shorter format articles are useless, but you haven't read them all because you aren't a subscriber? Fancy that, hyperbole on the internet.

As a subscriber that has read all of the DDI articles, both the older longer format articles and the newer shorter format articles, I'll challenge your claim!

I actually agree with the prevailing sentiment of the thread that the move to mostly shorter articles hasn't been done quite right. I also want more interesting and exciting fluff than we are getting, although I have this problem with several of the books as well (Power series, Adventurer's Vault series).

But there have been many interesting and useful short articles that WotC has kicked out since the change. For me, it's been about 50/50 in satisfaction with the shorter articles. I like the fact that I get something new in my RSS feed everyday from DDI. And there are usually at least three to four short articles every week that I dig, and I've never loved *everything* in an issue of Dragon or Dungeon, ever (print or digital).

So, overall, I am not displeased. However, there are things you can do with longer format articles that we are no longer getting. I love the suggestion above that we continue to get mostly shorter articles on a daily basis, but throw in 2 - 3 longer articles per issue. That would hit the sweet spot for me.

So, could DDI be improved IMO? Sure, but it's a far cry from useless and flavorless.

 

[Nai_Calus]

No, you know what, I'm not doing this. Our opinions and observations differ, period, you're welcome to yours, I'm sticking to mine, I have better things to do than argue with you over whether my observations and opinions are wrong.

 

[Klaus]

I have no problem if Dragon has a compendium filler "article". Name it Crunchy Bits or something and go from there. You can add the random powers/feats/etc to it that have no place in a true article.

The Kord powers in the channel divinity "article" are a perfect example of this. Aside from being divine powers, they had zero mechanical association with Kord and only a touch of RP association.

The problem, in my mind, is that Dragon is moving to compendium filler only. It is difficult, in my mind, to go from the excellent Bahamut article to the compendium filler that claimed to be this month's channel divinity article.

The Channel Divinity: Melora article suffered from the same problem. It was just a collection of water-based items that got grouped under Melora's name.

 

[Zaukrie]

I asked for shorter articles, but I wasn't expecting this. This is just not all that entertaining at all. If you want to release a bunch of powers, release them, but don't pretend they have anything to do with any fluff, because they don't.

I want a combo platter, some short articles (but I was hoping they'd be more 2-4 pages of interesting stuff, not just more powers) and some longer articles (where are the "ecology of" type articles that made kobolds or gnolls interesting?).

Color me not too impressed so far (and, is every delve for the Scar going to be first level.....come one).

 

[Phaezen]

By the looks of things the length and contents of the article vary by authoer - the Warden article from today is a nice mix of background, powers, feats and a PP