No Dice <Nerd Rage>

[Dire Bare]

Free previous editions PDFs aren't likely, but that would be snazzy.

Releasing access to PDFs through DDI would probably be the most attractive option for releasing them, for WotC. A pay-per-product scheme or monthly releases maybe.

Heh, this is the only thing you've posted in this thread I can agree with. And I would love it if they did this, but I doubt they'd use the PDF format.

 

[Maggan]

A commission artist/writer, while technically part of their payroll isn't a permanent fixture of the business.

So, WotC has a dozen people on the payroll, and the rest of the 300 mentioned in another poster's post are freelancers?

Or am I getting something backwards here?

/M

 

[Scribble]

What's the competition? The people that wanted to change, changed. The people that didn't, didn't. But as a consequence of these policies WotC lost alot of respect in the gaming community and alot of goodwill.

Really I think WoTC lost that the minute it became the company that owns/releases D&D...

I don't think it's possible for a company to own/release D&D and be loved by gamers at the same time... At least not for more then like a year or two...

It's like a crazy law of thermogamerdynamics or something.

Amount of D&D Ownership must always be equal to amount of gamer hate.

 

[Chrono22]

Think about every new MTG card released. It has art. And to a lesser degree, art in their books. And art in their other products/offerings.
WotC isn't just about D&D.

Edit: It would be nice if the poster that claimed 300 could supply the documents.

 

[renau1g]

I have participated in enough Pathfinder and 4E combats to honestly say that the 4E combats, regardless of group and player composition do take about 3 times as long as Pathfinder combats (at least those I have experienced). You can easily resolve a combat in 30 minutes in Pathfinder, whereas even low level 4E combats can be 1 and half hours long (sometimes longer). Every time I play Pathfinder, I am amazed at how much faster it is to resolve combat than in 4E. I'm sure it has a lot to do with not every monster having an absurd amount of hit points. I also personally know people that can no longer participate in LFR because of the huge time investment playing a mod requires. Once again, it is because of the excessivley long time it takes to resolve combat in 4E. The last few rounds of updates have upset the group of people I occasionaly play LFR with (which is practically never now thanks to excessive combat length and outrage at rules updates) enough to swear off buying any more books and letting their DDI subscriptions lapse. I can't say that I blame them either. I personally find the amount of rules updates, which generally equate to extreme nerfing of formally useful feats, powers, class abilities, and paragon paths, to be seriously offputting. You can believe me or not, but these are in fact my personal experiences with 4E.

Really? LFR is too big a time investment? You mean completing a session/mini-adventure in around 4 hours is too long? Ok, so your group isn't familiar with the rules like you are with 3.5/PF and it takes longer to sort out, that's fine, but don't assume it's like that for everyone.

As I showed you before (must've missed it) but Paizo adventures have shorter/smaller encounters than 4e ones, it's a design difference between the two of them. You might fight one worg in PF, but you won't in 4e.

 

[Festivus]

Quote:
portraying players of 3.0/3.5 as too incompetent to even use an index or have a basic grasp of the rules in their 2007 Gen COn youtube video,

I don't recall anything like that implication. Do you have a link?

Is this the video in question?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbqMoEwDqc]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Teaser[/ame]

I thought it an attempt at humor and not really a jab at anyone in particular. Besides, kinda funny to see the designers play dress up.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure. A liar is one who lies consistently. A dishonest person is someone that has not told the truth- either by lying or by omission.

Where on earth are you getting those definitions and distinctions?

You said they were "being dishonest" and "arn't truthful", and by that you meant they were omitting information but were not liars? So now, being not truthful means omitting information but not lying?

Look, if you made an error when you told someone you hadn't called them a liar, just say so and I doubt anyone is going to give you much grief about it. But this level of splitting hairs you seem to be doing. is not impressing anyone, and not helping. It looks to me like you're unwilling to concede any point, of any kind whatsoever, no matter how small, and how obvious the error.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Being dishonest =/= lying, although lying is a subset of being dishonest, as fish =/= trout, although trout is a subset of fish.

Pretending otherwise is......dishonest.

 

[Mistwell]

Being dishonest =/= lying, although lying is a subset of being dishonest, as fish =/= trout, although trout is a subset of fish.

Pretending otherwise is......dishonest.

He said they were being dishonest and not truthful. And, from this, we are supposed to accept him being upset that someone thought he was calling the statements in question "lies"? Really, you think him being upset over that is justified in this context?

 

[Chrono22]

Um, it's simple logic. Liars are dishonest, but being dishonest doesn't make you a liar. The tautology of dishonesty vs. being a liar is what it is. If I had meant WotC was a liar, I would have said that explicitly.
I don't call it splitting hairs to dismiss the accusation that I called WotC a liar. I didn't, and any claims that I have are false. Now, if you are done shoving words down my throat, do you have anything else to add?