WotC has a milking machine now (Draconomicon I)

[Ulthwithian]

Well, the question as to whether it could be done in one book depends entirely, not on the breadth of the book, but its depth. If when you are looking at the book in a bookstore/game store/wherever, and you see that 100% of the pages (or perhaps a more realistic 80%) are useful, that is a measure of the overall utility of the book. If OTOH you find that the useful page percentage is ~40% or less, that gives a rather different picture.

End question: Does WotC have 500+ pages of material to write regarding Dragons? If so, then they have to split it up. (At a certain point, you have to take into account book life expectancy, and a 500 page book must be handled more carefully than 2 250 page books.) If they have to split it up, then you have to figure out a rubric. 3.X apparently used setting/'other' material to determine the split (or they developed the material piecemeal). 4E is splitting it up a different way. Presumably, DracoII will follow the format of DracoI which would certainly help in basing a decision to buy DracoII off of the information found in DracoI.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm seriously wondering at this point if Derren is Razz's alt, especially with that thread title.

I've wondered this several times myself, but I came to the conclusion that they're not. While Derren seems to be immediately on the extreme edge of negative towards any news that comes out, he isn't as venomous as Razz.

 

[The Little Raven]

WotC goal is to make money.

What's your point? Every company's goal is to make money, because without money, they can't really conduct business.

 

[BASHMAN]

Before I was in the Neutral on 4e camp. After this announcement, I have decided to boycott 4e entirely.

People say, "But its capitalism, rpg compenies always made money by selling suppliments-- its the same as 3.X..." No it is not.

You know what's different? I'll spell it out. In the past, Wizards, and before them TSR, put out a bunch of suppliments like Complete Fighter or Sword & Fist, etc, and people bought those because they played fighters and wanted their fighters fleshed out. After 3.5 they put out Complete Warrior, and began putting out new base classes for people to try, and those also sold well. But the core of AD&D, and 3.0, and 3.5 were complete games. They were not "collectable parts of a set" the way that 4E is going to be-- that is with pieces INTENTIONALLY missing that people will have to buy other crap just to get a complete game.

For example if the 3.5 PHB didn't have Monks or Barbarians in it, but they were introduced as "new" base classes in Complete Warrior, people would have screamed bloody murder. I have no problem with Rpg companies trying to sell suppliments-- but suppliments are supposed to add more to an already complete product, not incrementally complete woefully inadequate product. That is the difference between 3.X and 4.0-- and why I am not going to pay any money for any 4e prducts ever.

 

[The Little Raven]

That is the difference between 3.X and 4.0-- and why I am not going to pay any money for any 4e prducts ever.

So, the difference is that you claim that 4e is not a complete game, but without any actual evidence (just anecdotes and opinions) to back up the claim.

Well, it's a good thing opinions aren't facts, or you might have a case.

 

[Ulthwithian]

epoch: While you are of course free to do as you wish (and I urge you to do so), I'd like to point out that 3.X had no Core support for a Base Swordmage class. You can certainly argue that there is no reason to expect it should, since the previous editions did not. However, that does not get around the point that it doesn't.

Also, what is it about this announcement that caused the change? This announcement says nothing about scrapping base classes out of the core rules. If nothing else, '8 classes in PHBI' should have done it, no? I guess I'm rather confused regarding your stance here.

Edit: I would say that reducing the number of base classes in the core certainly would be a piece of evidence that the core game is 'not as complete' as it was in previous editions.

 

[Zamkaizer]

Before I was in the Neutral on 4e camp. After this announcement, I have decided to boycott 4e entirely.

People say, "But its capitalism, rpg compenies always made money by selling suppliments-- its the same as 3.X..." No it is not.

You know what's different? I'll spell it out. In the past, Wizards, and before them TSR, put out a bunch of suppliments like Complete Fighter or Sword & Fist, etc, and people bought those because they played fighters and wanted their fighters fleshed out. After 3.5 they put out Complete Warrior, and began putting out new base classes for people to try, and those also sold well. But the core of AD&D, and 3.0, and 3.5 were complete games. They were not "collectable parts of a set" the way that 4E is going to be-- that is with pieces INTENTIONALLY missing that people will have to buy other crap just to get a complete game.

For example if the 3.5 PHB didn't have Monks or Barbarians in it, but they were introduced as "new" base classes in Complete Warrior, people would have screamed bloody murder. I have no problem with Rpg companies trying to sell suppliments-- but suppliments are supposed to add more to an already complete product, not incrementally complete woefully inadequate product. That is the difference between 3.X and 4.0-- and why I am not going to pay any money for any 4e prducts ever.

You act like there aren't going to be dragons in the Monster Manual. Were that case, I'd be right beside you--and not just metaphorically--shaking my fist angrily at those bastards having their way with D&D. But as it stands, you seem to either be misapplying your dislike of 4E onto a single product, or delusional.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They were not "collectable parts of a set" the way that 4E is going to be-- that is with pieces INTENTIONALLY missing that people will have to buy other crap just to get a complete game.

This is weird to say because, how much do you really need for a 'complete' game?

Note the word NEED there. What is necessary for a complete D&D game?

I'd argue that gnomes and bards and, heck, even fighters and wizards and dwarves and dragons are not necessary for a D&D game. Monks and barbarians, too. I could have a complete D&D game without any base classes or races, as long as I could create a character, my three friends could create slightly different characters, and the DM could create a monster for us to fight, and we gained levels from fighting monsters. That would be "complete."

For example if the 3.5 PHB didn't have Monks or Barbarians in it, but they were introduced as "new" base classes in Complete Warrior, people would have screamed bloody murder.

I don't really think they would've. No louder than they screamed when 2e didn't have them at all, really. And that wasn't enough to sink the ship.

So, the difference is that you claim that 4e is not a complete game, but without any actual evidence (just anecdotes and opinions) to back up the claim.

I have no idea what this post means. Obviously, epochrpg doesn't consider "leaving things out" to be kosher. 4e is obviously and expressly leaving things out of the core 3 rulebooks and putting them in supplements later. There's evidence for it. That's what they SAID they were doing.

The question is mostly if that leaves a "complete" game. I think it does, because I don't think you need much for a complete D&D game. epochrpg seems to disagree.

 

[delericho]

I have been suffering dragon-fatigue. I have no use for a 4e Draconomicon, never mind a whole series on the creatures (and, seriously, how much of these books is going to be the same stuff rehashed yet again? How much is going to be common between the two books? In short, how much is wasted money?)

That said, WotC are a business, and if they're doing a series it is because they think that will make them more money than books on other topics. Which is fair enough. I'll just not buy them.

(Oh, and 3e, IMO, had at least 2 too many dragon-books. The original Draconomicon was one of the very best books for the system, certainly, and I can see the value of a dragon-book for each of the two supported settings. But beyond that? No, it's too much. Especially when you add in things like the "Spawn of Tiamat" from MMIV, the annual Dragon issue on the subject, and all the other dragon-themed material out there. They may be the iconic creatures of D&D, but how often do they really get used? Enough to justify all that page-count, and the 73 minor variations on the same creature? Really?)

 

[Sphyre]

The 3rd edition Draconomicon was a very good book with a good mix of art, fluff and crunch although you might argue that the sample dragons were unnecessary and could have been replaced with more content.

In 4E WotC splits the concept of the Draconimicon into several books, each with a $40 price tag. You have Draconomicon I for chromatic dragons, and probably Draconomicon II for metallics. After that there will maybe come Draconomicon III Gem Dragons, Draconomicon IV Everything else Dragons and Draconomicon V Everything else we left out in the previous book Dragons.

Along with the content. The 3.5 Draconomicon was 288 pages, and the 4e Draconomicon I: Chromatic Dragons will have 288 pages. While I don't understand the higher sticker price than other splat books (and even larger than the Phb at 320 pages, it does look like they are giving way more content. Twice as much, so it would only follow suit that twice as much content would be found in twice as many books.