Unearthed Arcana!

[Psikerlord#]

I'm all for optional 4e rules. Bring it on I say! 4e is too simple, a little more complication in the right areas is welcome!!

 

[Scribble]

Uh, dudes at WoTC, let the customers decide where the game needs to go. Seriously.

Uh... The editorial said if stuff is popular it will end up being fully supported.

Sounds like they're saying for instance: Guns don't seem to have a larger place in the D&D game, but some people want them. Here are some entirely optional rules for those people. BUT if enough people end up saying "You know this gun thing is really cool!" then they'll put it into the larger game.

Sounds very much like the fans WILL be deciding where the game should go.

 

[Camelot]

I would like to see guns in the normal game, actually. Now that we have psionics, it's practically the only thing left for a 4e Star Wars game. =D

 

[JoeGKushner]

I would like to see guns in the normal game, actually. Now that we have psionics, it's practically the only thing left for a 4e Star Wars game. =D

Hell, it wasn't like ther werent' a ton of options in 3e either ranging from Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms and Green Ronin's Freeport to AEG's own Swashbuckling Adventurers. Guns and Fantasy may not be to everyone's taste, i get it, but they are well established in many venues include WoTC own Forgotten Realms setting and were a large part of the previous owner, TSR's own Spelljammer setting in addition to some of their historical material like Mighty Fortress and others.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Now you've got me confused. The WoTC poster just said, and I used his examples of clockwork and guns not being in the DDI but being part of Dungeon/Dragon.

"That might be a new race of clockwork machines (we don't see a larger space for clockwork machines in the game), or rules for gunpowder weaponry (no mention of those in the game plan), "

You do know, from what we've been told so far, that there are no plans to add UA articles to the DDI right? Unless I'm misunderstanding that part of the editorial it appeared in which I don't think I am, but I've been wrong before.

I was just using clockworks and guns as an example because they had been mentioned.

And aren't Dragon and Dungeon magazines part of DDI? If not, that's what I meant. More material in WotC's subscription magazines equals (supposedly) more incentive for people to subscribe.

Oh well: we'll see.

 

[Jhaelen]

And, to be honest, part of it sounds like horsecrap. "We don't want guns or clock work in the game offically, but we'll let you spend your money to see rules on how to use them. Even though things like items and monsters and races should be really easy to do, we have decided that's not where we want the game to go."

Uh, dudes at WoTC, let the customers decide where the game needs to go. Seriously.

But they do!

I don't want guns or clock work in my game and I'm a customer, see?

 

[JoeGKushner]

But they do!

I don't want guns or clock work in my game and I'm a customer, see?

Well played sir!

 

[MrMyth]

Uh, dudes at WoTC, let the customers decide where the game needs to go. Seriously.

'The customers' is a ridiculously broad demographic who probably would want the game to go in 50 million directions at once. I'm much more comfortable with paid game designers with a team that does decent research analysis instead choosing to keep the game going in a direction that offers the most options to the most people.

Even when I disagree with specific decisions they've made, I don't think the average joe on the street would be an improvement.

As it is, they are doing a pretty good job of keeping the core of the game standardized while providing for lots of options for those who want them - whether in the form of campaigns with their own flavor (Dark Sun), diverse games that draw on the same core system (Gamma World), and now articles that will present that sort of thing that plenty of customers want to see, but which WotC couldn't find a viable way to work into the core material.

Honestly, to me, that sounds like the best of both worlds.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the only real concern those people have who are not on board with the UA idea is that they don't want UA material to be a replacement for official Dragon and Dungeon material. If it's in addition to the standard allotment of columns and such, then fine... but if the magazines stay the same size and a fifth to a quarter of them are no longer "official" because they are now UA articles... then those people who are subscribing to DDI for official material are getting shortchanged, comparatively speaking. In that regard, I understand where they are coming from and would agree.

Speaking personally... I myself don't have a problem with the UA articles because I in no way adhere to any sort of "official" status with my games anyway. Whether it's houseruled characters, houseruled advancement, houseruled this or that... I just do what's best for my game. And if certain UA articles assist in that (like I know that clockwork creatures/items would be a welcomed addition to the House Cannith player in our Eberron game) then I won't have any problems looking at it and possibly incorporating it.

 

[Zaran]

My feelings exactly. If they gave us UA on top of other stuff that's one thing.

Or if they used UA to give us options that are outside a normal encounter that would be cool.

But to just use it as filler for the e-mag without playtesting rubs me as less for my money. The article on curses wasn't bad. I can see why it wouldn't fit in the character builder but the character builder is not the only thing DDI is supposed to be.