Why no love for WotC? (and why now?)

[Mokona]

That is something that needs front page RPG exposure - a lort of folks I talked to in person and on the net that follow the Ennies were really weirded out/concerned/angered/confused as to why WoTC had nothing in there - considering they are the gods of creation of current day gaming.

If the ENnies want to be taken seriously then they need to seek out games to participate in the awards. Leaving WotC or White Wolf (which didn't actually happen) out of the awards turns the ENnies into a joke.

 

[Glyfair]

If the ENnies want to be taken seriously then they need to seek out games to participate in the awards. Leaving WotC or White Wolf (which didn't actually happen) out of the awards turns the ENnies into a joke.

It's been an interesting saga with WotC and the ENnies. They were in the first year and there were cries that it was unfair that WotC was participating. There were counter arguments that it made victory more sweet when a company beat WotC.

Then WotC just didn't submit to the ENnies. I'm not sure whether that started the 2nd year or the 3rd year. From their perspective, it probably makes sense. They have the least to gain by winning. If they win some people will just say it was because of market penetration and had little to do with the actual quality of the product. If they lose those same people would say it was because of the inferior quality of the WotC product.

On the other hand, WotCs lack of participation does take a bit of shine off the ENnies. It's less an "best of" award and more of a "best of those who elected to participate award."

Given the structure of the ENnies, it's just not going to be practical to open it up to everyone. The judges need copies of anything they are going to consider, and no one but a company involved is going to want to shell out for all those additional products to get them to the judges.

 

[Graf]

Thanks for the responces!

And to Pkitty for mentioning why WotC wasn't included in the Ennies, as the original post indicates I'd missed the fact that they hadn't applied.

 

[Romnipotent]

Unearthed Arcana.

word!
I'm this close to buying it... now if you all set your screens to 1028X764 I will now measure 5km's in spaces for my FLGS.... kidding
when I've got some more cash I'll have to buy it, since I need it for all the variants I'm using.

 

[DM_Jeff]

I think WotC is doing a superb job. My whole group loved 3.0, and thought 3.5 tweaked it even better. We have no real complaints and our games have been running fantastic with many of the new ideas they brought forth, from touchstones and the spell point system in UA to paragon and racial substitution levels, great job out on the Coast, folks!

>>The problem with randomn miniatures is...well they're random. It really sucks getting another Tordek the Dwarf mini when you're really needing an ogre mini.

While my group collects the miniatures and could care less that they are random, it's obvious some folks don't like that fact. Well, take a look at the Paizo web site. They are now selling "Critter Packs" that collect 5 themed miniatures that are not random for just 6 bucks or so. It's gotta be a great answer to some of these complaints.

http://paizo.com/store/games/miniaturesGames/dnd/critterPacks

-DM Jeff

 

[Kanegrundar]

I don't have any hate for WotC. I like what they've been doing with D&D. I don't buy every release or even most of the releases, but what they put out that interests me I've been happy with. The top dog gets the growls and angry stares more than any other. That's just the nature of some people. Root for the under-dog and hate the champ. There's nothing wrong with that mentality and it's easy to ignore.

Kane

 

[Ellie_the_Elf]

I was actually talking to someone the other day about how I think WOTC have got much better over the past few months....

Although they still produce far too many PrCs and feats for my liking, I *really* like the new PrC format. Almost enough to not mind that I can't buy a book from them which doesn't contain half a dozen of the things, because at least the new ones are given some flavour now.

Also, I play FR- I *loved* Lost Empires of Faerun and Waterdeep, and I'm very much looking forward to Champions of Valour.

Ellie.

 

[Banesfinger]

Then there have been some trends going on, at least I feel so:

1) The game feels to me like heading more and more towards a combat-only or action-only game, leaving behind a lot of things about long-term management of characters which for my tastes were a great fun of RPG. As an example, spells and abilities have been generally made FASTER to use: no more bothering about taking a day off to identify magic items, now you can do it in a few seconds.

Yes, I agree. In the DMG, there is only a few (vague) sentences on how to award good roleplaying, yet in the PHB there is 27 pages on Combat alone.
I would have to say D&D is becoming more of a 'war-game' instead of a 'roleplaying game'.
(The mini's/battle mat argument can enter here...)

Second, $$$. I know this is not only a WotC issue... I remember fondly the days of getting D&D (1ed) adventures. Tons of them! However, some market bean-counter realized that at a table of 5 gamers, only 1 person (the DM) would buy the module. So along came the $-factor where they pumped out books that everyone at the table could purchase (handbooks, etc).
Now we have 1,000's of rules/manuals but no adventures to play in...
(It seems they were waiting for other d20 companies to put adventures out - - but they also took their direction from WotC and produced splat-books as well...).

To me (my opinion only) the industry (WotC leading the way) focuses on "what books will sell the most", not necessarialy what is good for the GAME itself.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Ah yes, the whole D&D is becoming a war-game arguement. How many pages are needed on how to act out a character's personality? What happens when a good player isn't coomfortable roleplaying in a way that fully meshes with the style of the rest of the group (ie talking in the 1st person vs 3rd and so forth)? Roleplaying is subjective and trying to pin down rules on how to award RP would be counter-productive, IMO. Combat, however, is not as subjective. You need rules and guidelines to adjucate combat more than anything else.

Kane

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I agree. In the DMG, there is only a few (vague) sentences on how to award good roleplaying, yet in the PHB there is 27 pages on Combat alone.
I would have to say D&D is becoming more of a 'war-game' instead of a 'roleplaying game'.
(The mini's/battle mat argument can enter here...)

Second, $$$. I know this is not only a WotC issue... I remember fondly the days of getting D&D (1ed) adventures. Tons of them! However, some market bean-counter realized that at a table of 5 gamers, only 1 person (the DM) would buy the module. So along came the $-factor where they pumped out books that everyone at the table could purchase (handbooks, etc).
Now we have 1,000's of rules/manuals but no adventures to play in...
(It seems they were waiting for other d20 companies to put adventures out - - but they also took their direction from WotC and produced splat-books as well...).

To me (my opinion only) the industry (WotC leading the way) focuses on "what books will sell the most", not necessarialy what is good for the GAME itself.

Ok, I'm going to respond to this in reverse order. There was a thread not too long ago talking about the number of modules for 3e. Just in Dungeon alone, there are more modules available for 3e than were EVER available for 1e. There are more modules on the market today than there were for 1e and 2e combined. How many modules do you want? Good grief, there are a couple of dozen modules for free on the WOTC site. Never mind the bazillion other modules out there. The "Oh, there's no modules out there!" thing is ridiculous. Considering I'm playing in a NINE HUNDRED page module right now, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Now, the "how to award good roleplaying" bit is a little more spot on. But, then again, combat is always going to be more rule heavy. How much can you really say about "how to award good role playing" unless you want the DMG to dictate what good roleplaying is? Rewarding good roleplaying should not be in the rules. It shouldn't have to be. That's something that should be up to the DM and not some rule.

I can just imagine the conversation around the table:

Player: I took 43 seconds to say my monologue, the DMG says I should get 300 xp. I'm over the 30 second mark listed on page 57.

DM: Oh yeah, you're right. But you were talking about how you disliked the particular color of your horse.

Player: Doesn't matter. The DMG doesn't say that the monologue has to be about anything in particular.

DM: * grumble *