So will 4th edition REQUIRE an online subscription?

[Gwaihir]

While I don't doubt that this may be right, this is a huge change for our group. Although everyone has a PH, many of the non-core books are shared among the group. Under this new scenario, If I have 2 characters who want to play a PRC from splatbook #2, now the group needs to own two of said book.

Depending on what would be included in the core books, this is either genius or madness, I'm not sure which.

 

[Irda Ranger]

In essence, WOTC has dealt with the issue of one person in a group buying a book and sharing it around the table to play or groups playing off the SRD alone. They can't control the usage of books around your kitchen table but they certainly can (and I think, will) control who gets to play on the virtual game table. You want to play prestige class X for your DI online character? Then you better have bought the book (with the license key) with that prestige class you want in it because it will be needed to activate that capability for your online character.

I have to say, I actually would find this very problematic.

1. I play D&D with my wife. We do not have two copies of every book.
2. My buddy Chris' son Joe joins us every now and then. Joe has his own PHB, but Chris does not buy two copies of every book either.
3. Growing up, brothers Ged and Ben played in my group. You can bet their parents expected them to share books.
4. My homebrew I'm working on has Mojh from Arcana Evolved. Three of the likely players already have Arcana Evolved, but two do not. Do they have to buy that book just to play in my home brew? Or do they not have all the race choices the other players do?
5. What is I try to join an online group using D&D Insider's meet-up function, and the party needs a Cleric- but for story reasons there are no Clerics, only Super-Smiters from the Complete Books of Zealots. If I don't have that book, do I not get to play?


I think all of these problems could be fixed if WotC allows you to share the book's license key with a very limited number of accounts. At least 2, but no more than 4, would be necessary, I think. Marketing research will give you more precise numbers.

 

[Technomancer]

I have to say, I actually would find this very problematic.

1. I play D&D with my wife. We do not have two copies of every book.
2. My buddy Chris' son Joe joins us every now and then. Joe has his own PHB, but Chris does not buy two copies of every book either.
3. Growing up, brothers Ged and Ben played in my group. You can bet their parents expected them to share books.
4. My homebrew I'm working on has Mojh from Arcana Evolved. Three of the likely players already have Arcana Evolved, but two do not. Do they have to buy that book just to play in my home brew? Or do they not have all the race choices the other players do?
5. What is I try to join an online group using D&D Insider's meet-up function, and the party needs a Cleric- but for story reasons there are no Clerics, only Super-Smiters from the Complete Books of Zealots. If I don't have that book, do I not get to play?


I think all of these problems could be fixed if WotC allows you to share the book's license key with a very limited number of accounts. At least 2, but no more than 4, would be necessary, I think. Marketing research will give you more precise numbers.

Maybe you won't need more than one book/code if you have multiple players/characters who get online from the same physical location (i.e. you and your wife both at your house, your friend and his son at their house, etc).

 

[jaerdaph]

I'm wondering how they are going to protect the codes in the books. What happens when some loser copies down the code from the book on the shelf at the gamestore for his own use and some poor sap buys that same book afterwards?

 

[billd91]

What's to stop a user from maintaining more than one character? If they can, then the owner of the book license would just happen to maintain the characters in the campaign that happen to have the prestige class.

Personally, I think requiring a separate book license for every user who wants to use a set of options will be problematic. The only way I could see this working would be for licenses to be managed on a "per campaign/table" basis. The DM registers the licenses of the table's collective collection and maintains the list of players able to access and use them.

If everyone who wanted to use a feat out of a splatbook needed to have bought the splatbook and registered a unique license, I think my table would be opting to not use the DI.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Personally, I think requiring a separate book license for every user who wants to use a set of options will be problematic. The only way I could see this working would be for licenses to be managed on a "per campaign/table" basis. The DM registers the licenses of the table's collective collection and maintains the list of players able to access and use them.

That could work too.

If everyone who wanted to use a feat out of a splatbook needed to have bought the splatbook and registered a unique license, I think my table would be opting to not use the DI.

Ditto.

 

[Cadfan]

I think its problematic. It implies that the only way a character option will work on DI is if you have purchased it from WOTC. I see two problems there.

First, my old college gaming club purchased books each year which were owned by the organization. This will basically end that practice, or else people who play games through the gaming club won't be able to use all of the options in the DI.

Second, it implies that homebrew material will be unusable through the DI. This is NOT COOL. Lets say the DI is cool enough that I decide to buy into it and run a campaign on it. That's great and all, but I WILL be homebrewing material in my campaign. Maybe the homebrew material will be character class abilities, maybe it will be gear, definitely it will include monsters. If homebrew is allowed, nothing stops a player from entering in an official character class manually through the homebrew entry system. If including activation codes in the books implies that WOTC will be otherwise stopping players from using official material on the DI without paying for it, I don't see how they will be able to do that without making homebrewing on the DI very difficult. The same tools that allow homebrew allow piracy.

 

[billd91]

First, my old college gaming club purchased books each year which were owned by the organization.

Really? So did mine. Where did you go to college?

 

[Khairn]

I think its problematic. It implies that the only way a character option will work on DI is if you have purchased it from WOTC. I see two problems there.

First, my old college gaming club purchased books each year which were owned by the organization. This will basically end that practice, or else people who play games through the gaming club won't be able to use all of the options in the DI.

I think that this type of gamer will be lumped along with those who dont have access to computers and the internet as yet another group that are no longer patr of the target market.

Second, it implies that homebrew material will be unusable through the DI. This is NOT COOL. Lets say the DI is cool enough that I decide to buy into it and run a campaign on it. That's great and all, but I WILL be homebrewing material in my campaign. Maybe the homebrew material will be character class abilities, maybe it will be gear, definitely it will include monsters. If homebrew is allowed, nothing stops a player from entering in an official character class manually through the homebrew entry system. If including activation codes in the books implies that WOTC will be otherwise stopping players from using official material on the DI without paying for it, I don't see how they will be able to do that without making homebrewing on the DI very difficult. The same tools that allow homebrew allow piracy.

This is one of the known problems that the MMORPG business model that WotC is moving towards includes. Everyone has to use the same set of rules as written. There is no deviation on MMORPG's and any deviation from that RaW policy within the DDI will probably be very limited and controlled by WotC, not you.

 

[Cadfan]

billd1- Toledo, Ohio.

This is one of the known problems that the MMORPG business model that WotC is moving towards includes. Everyone has to use the same set of rules as written. There is no deviation on MMORPG's and any deviation from that RaW policy within the DDI will probably be very limited and controlled by WotC, not you.

Then I won't be running any campaigns on the DDI. If I can't customize, count me out. I might play a campaign there, maybe. But I have no interest in running a campaign if I can't have creative control.