Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana March 2016 Review

[CapnZapp]

They said one thing, now they say another.

Talking about promises, and suggesting they are breaking promises, is vastly overblown.

They've changed their mind. So what.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The first UA said:
Welcome to the first installment of Unearthed Arcana, a monthly workshop where D&D R&D shows off a variety of new and interesting pieces of RPG design for use at your gaming table.

Um, this current UA article meets the criteria of this "promise" you claim they are breaking.

 

[MoonSong]

Um, this current UA article meets the criteria of this "promise" you claim they are breaking.

But do we agree they promised content every month? (Look, I have no stake on this debate I just wanted to point it out)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But do we agree they promised content every month? (Look, I have no stake on this debate I just wanted to point it out)

Are you somehow of the opinion that the current UA article does not contain content? (And I can't see how anyone here can have a stake in this debate, whatever that even means.)

 

[Dire Bare]

The first UA said:

Welcome to the first installment of Unearthed Arcana, a monthly workshop where D&D R&D shows off a variety of new and interesting pieces of RPG design for use at your gaming table.

Thanks! I think that lays out their intentions rather clearly. However, that's all it is, intentions, plans, goals. I don't see such language as a commitment or a promise as some fans do.

If WotC begins to change the frequency of playtest content delivery, they aren't breaking a promise, but simply changing plans. And while I would love to get new, quality playtest content every month, I question how realistic a goal that would be, and I'm not bothered if that changes.

And, as of yet, we don't know that it will be changing. Although, it's certainly a distinct possibility.

If you are disappointed in the decision that WotC might have made, that's fair. But to get angry about as some tend to do on a fairly regular basis in our fandom, that's not fair. YMMV.

 

[MoonSong]

Are you somehow of the opinion that the current UA article does not contain content? (And I can't see how anyone here can have a stake in this debate, whatever that even means.)

Horse in this race? (I guess? On my mother tongue is more similar to "I have no dead to cry for in this funeral")

I just wanted to say they did promise content every month. This month has content though it is a little of a cop out. I stopped caring for UA a couple of months ago...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Horse in this race? (I guess? On my mother tongue is more similar to "I have no dead to cry for in this funeral")

My point was that none of us can lay claim to having any kind of real stake/horse/dead in this debate/race/funeral. Except for the devs themselves and DMGuild submitters, perhaps. We are all spectators and recievers of free literature. How can we complain in good faith either way?

I just wanted to say they did promise content every month.

They provided a bunch of great content this month. I dare say I will likely get more use out of what I got from this month's article than any previous. In practical, table-seen use, I mean. And I say that as someone who has used previous article content in the past (and currently am even - like my College of Swords bard I am now playing in my friend's weekly OotA campaign).

This month has content though it is a little of a cop out.

How so? Do you feel the time the devs must have spent, pouring over the DMGuild for quality material, reviewing them, discussing them, and picking a few to showcase, was less useful to you than creating potentially similar content from whole-cloth just so they can put their own signatures at the bottom?

Also, ask the authors of the presented material if they feel the devs copped out. Ask prospective and current submitters, who now see a possibility of getting the same spotlight on their hard work, if they think its a cop out.

I stopped caring for UA a couple of months ago...

Lets be honest. Isn't that more or less your take on all of 5e? I admit to possibly getting that impression wrong, but the posts of yours I come across generally lead me to believe as such. Am I mistaken?