Playing Vistani- Where's the Beef?

123 posts / 0 new
Last post

I just downloaded the article and it is crunch-free, except for some backgrounds. It refers to the Vistani Heritage feat, but doesn't give us the feat...


What's the deal here?

There's another Vistani article on Monday, and then another next Friday. Theoretically these will contain all the crunch.


I strongly agree with you that at least the heritage feat needed to be included in this article, though. All this lovely flavor text would be a lot more useful if we had the major mechanic that it describes.

Chris Young's 10/2 editorial said Dragon would be switching to "shorter, more frequent articles." I guess this is what he meant: incomplete, poorly edited articles.


I would have gladly waited a few more days for a full-length article with a complete racial write-up. This is useless.


Fail.


PtM

Your house-rules suck.

This isn't even a bad article, but it isn't useful. The first Vistani article really needed to be the one with the actual Vistani mechanics in it. As I said before, an article about the flavor of playing Vistani doesn't do us any good if we don't have the ability to play Vistani. This is sort of like posting the epic assassin article before the heroic one would have been: It's neat, but we don't have the tools to actually use it, so it's just the same as it not being published until we get the basic mechanics.

until I read this thread I was under the assumption this would be "it". And was kinda angry I'm paying for a "here's some fluff now you go make a balanced race, we're busy with other stuff" tone in the artical. but i guess thats not the case, however, still probably the least intresting race so far in my opinion. Bugs me that it's a race inspired by sterotypical Romani culture.

I can only agree that this is full of fail.


 


I have the impetus to come here and look in the forums and search the calendar, but many other poeple might simply read the article and then think that an error was made and A) Be Angry, something you generally want to avoid if possible with your customer base or B) Send an email about the "bug" which then fills wizards inbox with useless spam.


 


We like the digital content just fine, but this is the wrong way to post these articles. Stringing this out does not build tension or excitement, it simply angers your player base. If I see an article titled "Playing Vistani" I would expect, minimum, that it would let me PLAY Vistani, which of course, I can not do at this point. It was okay with the assassin because A) It had logical breaking points, namely the tiers and B) It was posted on the calenday as Assassin: Heroic Teir, so we all had set our expectations correctly.


 


I understand you are trying lots of new things and part of this is throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. This should not stick. Next month when we go to shorter and daily articles, I REALLY don't want to be dealing with this.


 


I DO NOT want to see - Tuesday: New Fighter powers 1-3, Wednesday : Fighter powers 5-9, Thursday: Fighter Heroic feats. That is not shorter articles, that is just breaking up one article and making it annoying to read.

If articles are going to be split up, each article should still be fully functional, which the Vistani article is not.  It is in fact, quite useless except as a teaser.  It's one thing to get this kind of material for the previews.  It's entirely another when you're putting out articles for a magazine.


I can't help but think the push to shorter articles is driven by the need to cut costs and deliver less content for more money.


I'm not sure why Dragon Magazine is so full of holes these days.  First, the non-existent rules for ki focuses and multiclassing in the Assassin article, and now this.

I think people are acting a little rash, honestly.

It was clearly pointed out in the Editorial Calendar that there would be three seperate articles, and I expected one to be fluff.

Yes, it was kind've messed up to allow it to be the first one. However, I'm sure this is no big ploy for Wizards to 'rob us of our money' - it's just them testing the waters with a new layout idea they had. Many companies do it.

As for the article itself, and as a fan of Ravenloft Vistani, I found it informative and fun - and well edited, so I'll disagree with any statements otherwise. I enjoyed the fluff they offered, though I was initially apprehensive to it when I found out it was a bloodline based race - I enjoy the crunch of fully fleshed races. And sure, it plays up some of the stereotypes, but not in a derogatory manner and no more than they have with other items within the game (see primal power source).

Admittedly, though, it is infuriating reading the article and hearing all about the 'blooding' ceremony and their ability to curse and stuff. I wish they would've at least included some crunch towards that or the initial bloodline feat. Oh well, I will say I am excited for Monday.

I'm going to go ahead and put my stamp of disapproval on any calendar system which produces 9 pages of fluff, and no crunch.


I really hope this isn't the way it is in future months; logging on eagerly each morning to see the articles of the day, only to discover that it's 9+ pages of nothing I give a damn about. Vistani are inherently not interesting to me; that there's 9 pages of nothing but describing them makes me dissatisfied with my paid product. The potential for this to happen day after day, month after month, for years... I'm going to be extremely angry if after a couple months, this is still Wizards MO:

"Okay, if we print more articles each month, but don't fill them with actual content, it'll be much easier, AND we'll continue to get paid!"


 


And I'm gonna go ahead and cut off people who respond with "Well, it depends on how you define 'content'. Some people might be satisfied with this article."


Well, yes. Some people might. I am not. This article saddens me. I woke up, eagerly flipped to Google Chrome, eagerly dove into Wizards' HORRIBLE new website, opened an article I had been looking forward to and...


...nothing. No feats to take, no powers... just fluff, which I'll throw out anyway because I rarely follow pages and pages and PAGES of pre-made fluff in my game.


THAT is what _I_ define as content. And Wizards has just tried to sell me something without content, as far as I am concerned.


 


But my real concern isn't a lack of content in future articles though. Articles of fluff will be welcome... if and only if this wad of useless content space doesn't interfere with our normal monthly intake of content. That is to say, if we received x pages of crunch in the past on average, we'd better continue to get x pages of crunch in the future--if that ends up being the case, write as many useless fluff articles as you like.


 


EDIT: Oh yeah. And I'm also apprehensive in that we have three Playing Vistani articles on the calendar. If they're all roughly of the same length as this first one, that's 27 pages of something I barely care about.


EDIT EDIT: Oh, and I agree with people who say that this is also just extremely lazy editing. "We'll print more, smaller articles!" is an entirely different thing than "We'll take a normal sized article, chop it into three useless, annoying to read, segregated pieces that have no rhyme or reason to being split up that way!". The former is an interesting concept and a welcome addition. The latter is lazy writing, and I think Wizards is trying to pull one on us by doing it.

I was all excited to see what this was about, and then all disappointed for lack of crunch. Oh well, I guess it's coming. We must be too used to instant gratification.

So... would it be preferable for them to release the crunch first?,  if you truly hate the new format just treat next friday as its release.  you are gonig to get it all this month.  WotC isnt stealing anything from you.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

I'm going to add my voice to this, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way, that the Vistani Heritage feat should have been included in this article.  I have no use for fluff articles, I create my own fluff, I need mechanics.


What would have been better is to break each part of the culture into 'chunks'.  For example, they could have taken out all the information on religion and magic and included the heritage feats in this article, then put the religion and magic and all the feats that deal with divine and arcane classes in that article (this article says they favour divine and arcane classes, since vistani can be any race I'm sure they must have feats that support those classes or else how can the vistani really favour them?)



I'm not sure why Dragon Magazine is so full of holes these days.  First, the non-existent rules for ki focuses and multiclassing in the Assassin article, and now this.




What's weird is that the multiclass feat for the Assassin was put in the Character Builder, but never in the actual article.  (You can apply shrouds twice per encounter, but they only last until the end of your next turn.)


 Also, rules for straight +# ki focuses are in the Character Builder.


So the rules existed, but they never actually got put in the article.


My substription expires at the end of the month - if it wasn't for the Character Builder, I probably wouldn't continue subscribing.

Sheesh. With D&D fans like these, Jack Chick never needed to release his Dark Dungeons track. We'll immolate on our own. Without Satanic magic and evil pacts.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.

Sorry, I don't agree with any of the posters here (except maybe the last one). I read this article, and the first thing I thought to myself was "wow, this is one of the BEST Dungeon articles I have read to date..."


Wizards, fantastic! I give a huge thumbs up to the Vistani article.

Normally not one to criticize WOTC, but I read the whole article and had several minutes of WTF as I looked over and over for any feats or anything that would quantify what I had read.


was it a mistake?

I don't think anything is wrong with fluff. I like fluff. I'm a giant story nerd and I do tend to actually read all the flavor text, and I'll generally use pieces of it (although I write a lot of my own, so I rarely use all of it). I even think this would be an acceptable article if it had the heritage feat in it. (Although I suspect that several posters upthread are right in that Wizards is not actually writing several smaller articles but rather writing the same articles as before and then chopping them up and calling each piece a full article.)


I don't even have a problem with articles that are almost entirely fluff. But in this case, they introduced an element that does require some crunch (a race), and in the introductory article they didn't include any of the things necessary to actually use that element in a game. This wouldn't even have been bad as the second or third article in the series, following the article that contains the crunch. As it is, they published an article full of information that WE CAN'T USE in our games yet. This article is effectively blank until we get the heritage feat at the very least.


I'm not objecting to the article itself, but rather the decision to make it the first article in the series. The mechanical tools needed to play a Vistani needed to be in the first article about playing Vistani.

I have to agree with most posters here.


In Chris Youngs editorial, and Bill's Ampersand, the reason given for the shorter articles was to increase variety in content while keeping quantity about the same (or increased, given that some material was migrating to Dungeon). 


"The major reason, however, is that we know bigger articles often mean that a given issue doesn't have something for every player. "


Splitting up the Vistani article like this does not accomplish the goal - more variety.  It makes it annoying to read, and for less charitable readers, smacks of duplicity.


This is their first month of the new approach, so I'll take that into consideration.  Perhaps the Vistani article had been in the works well before the new editorial direction, and this was their solution.  In future months once they clear out their backlog of longer articles perhaps we won't have this problem?


The quality of the actual article though was fine, no complaints about the author, Chris Sims, work. Whoever is putting together the content calendar needs to rethink their approach.

As someone who had never heard of the Vistani before, I was very confused and had no idea what this article was talking about.  Eventually I managed to get that it was at least a bloodline feat chain and not a brand new race, and then scoured the article for the actual feat.  No dice.  I came here to point out that it was missing, and only then discovered that it was intentional and the actual mechanics aren't out yet.


Yeah, don't do this again.


I have to agree with most posters here.


In Chris Youngs editorial, and Bill's Ampersand, the reason given for the shorter articles was to increase variety in content while keeping quantity about the same (or increased, given that some material was migrating to Dungeon). 


"The major reason, however, is that we know bigger articles often mean that a given issue doesn't have something for every player. "


Splitting up the Vistani article like this does not accomplish the goal - more variety.  It makes it annoying to read, and for less charitable readers, smacks of duplicity.


This is their first month of the new approach, so I'll take that into consideration.  Perhaps the Vistani article had been in the works well before the new editorial direction, and this was their solution.  In future months once they clear out their backlog of longer articles perhaps we won't have this problem?


The quality of the actual article though was fine, no complaints about the author, Chris Sims, work. Whoever is putting together the content calendar needs to rethink their approach.





The new format starts next month, and I thought it was pretty clear from the ToC and Calendar that there would be three articles.  At most, I think you can criticize WotC for not appending a "Part I" to the PDF article title, and in any case, I don't see the big deal unless you had your heart on playing a Vistani this weekend.
Tim Eagon My DDI Articles Follow me on Twitter @Tim_Eagon


Normally not one to criticize WOTC, but I read the whole article and had several minutes of WTF as I looked over and over for any feats or anything that would quantify what I had read.






As someone who had never heard of the Vistani before, I was very confused and had no idea what this article was talking about.  Eventually I managed to get that it was at least a bloodline feat chain and not a brand new race, and then scoured the article for the actual feat.  No dice.  I came here to point out that it was missing, and only then discovered that it was intentional and the actual mechanics aren't out yet.


Yeah, don't do this again.





I'm in the same boat with these two guys and it feels like the boat is sinking. Please lets not do this again.



I'm in the same boat with these two guys and it feels like the boat is sinking. Please lets not do this again.




Wow alarmist are we?

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.


The new format starts next month, and I thought it was pretty clear from the ToC and Calendar that there would be three articles.  At most, I think you can criticize WotC for not appending a "Part I" to the PDF article title, and in any case, I don't see the big deal unless you had your heart on playing a Vistani this weekend.




Although it is true the format change starts in November, I think October is a transitional month - a couple of Dungeon articles are appearing on Mondays and Fridays, and I can't think of another logical reason to split the Vistani article into 3.  I could see two articles, one for players in Dragon, one for DMs in Dungeon.  Note that all 3 appear in Dragon though.

I got up and logger on this morning and was very impressed with the immersion of the Vistani, they feel a lot more alive than most of the other races that have had articles.  I've always liked them since my first romp towards Castle Ravenloft and was very excited when I saw the article listed. 


The fluff was great and sparked many ideas for a new character I would like to put together, I was truly dissappointed when I didn't get even the first bloodline feat.  That one feat if it had been even on the very last page at the bottom would have improved this artcile so much.  Now I have to wait until Monday.  I"m excited about what may be in there but also now very aprehensive.  While it's not a big deal since I may not even get to play this weekend and if I did it wouldn't be with a new character anyhow.  I'd really have liked some crunch this morning.

I have to ask.  How do they look?  Do they look exactly like humans or pale or something?  Because the picture for the preview of the article (non-subscriber here) doesn't even show up.

While mildly disappointed at the lack of the feat itself, I do like the fluff (even though I know enough about eastern European romi I can probably have done it myself).


 


I am not sure about the sense in fluff first, however its not the end of the world to me, Dragon often has about one or two articles I don't care about, I rarely feel the need to decry wizards for appealing to more gamers than myself, or for the formating as I usually don't allow pre-compiled Dragons in my games anyway.


I have to ask.  How do they look?  Do they look exactly like humans or pale or something?  Because the picture for the preview of the article (non-subscriber here) doesn't even show up.





They're a bloodline feat now, so instead of being superpowered humans they can be superpowered anything. The picture shows your gypsy looking woman fighting troglodytes with a gypsy looking Dragonborn. I was kind've taken aback by the approach, but it makes sense and would seem to do a good job incorporating everything 4e.

One of the frustrating things for me, though, is that it is possible for an outside character to become a Vistani through the "Blooding" ritual - but they don't detail it anyfurther, fluff or crunch wise.


I have to ask.  How do they look?  Do they look exactly like humans or pale or something?  Because the picture for the preview of the article (non-subscriber here) doesn't even show up.




Well in general they can be any race and its a bloodline feat (like Dhamphyr).

 I read this article, and the first thing I thought to myself was "wow, this is one of the BEST Dungeon articles I have read to date..."



If it was a Dungeon article, I wouldn't be complaining (In fact, I wouldn't have even read it).  Dungeon articles are often fluff for DM worldbuilding ideas.


Since this is a Dragon article, and therefore content aimed at players, it needs to have something players can use.



The fluff was great and sparked many ideas for a new character I would like to put together, I was truly dissappointed when I didn't get even the first bloodline feat.  That one feat if it had been even on the very last page at the bottom would have improved this artcile so much


This is it exactly.  I would have been totally happy if it had just the base mechanics to play one (The Heritage feat).  Though, I get the impression that there will be more than one heritage feat, since it talks about DMs possibly restricting heritage feats to specific races, but we'll see.


One of the frustrating things for me, though, is that it is possible for an outside character to become a Vistani through the "Blooding" ritual - but they don't detail it anyfurther, fluff or crunch wise.


That will likely be up to the DM.  I can't imagine the Vistani allowing outsiders without a good reason, and the DM has the power to just say 'no'.


It did say something along the lines of "If you add the feat at a level other than 1st, the DM may require an explanation." etc.

Actually, I think they are making them as a full race plus a heritage feat (like the Deva has).


Just from the way I read the article, that's what it appears to be looking like to me.

I'll reserve the cries of 'DOOOOOOOOM' until next month.  My impression of the announcement of the new editorial direction, and impression that I imagine was shared by many, is that the plan is to have shorter articles, not broken up articles.


This seems like a situation where this article was made under the older editorial vision, and then broken up to conform to the new.  However rather than reorganizing the information, the article was just broken up based on how the article was originally laid out.


I do agree that, at minimum, the base bloodline feat should have been included, but  I'm not going to call for blood unless this turns out to be the norm and not the exception for articles in November and forward.




I'm in the same boat with these two guys and it feels like the boat is sinking. Please lets not do this again.




Wow alarmist are we?





 Hey when the world is about to reach it's predestined biblical end or when the H1N1 mutates into the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, I find that I don't have time to waste rereading an article thinking I was the stupid one for getting caught up enjoying the fluff while continuing to overlook the feat. Only when I completely ignored the fluff did I realize that there wasn't even a feat in the article.  





I'm in the same boat with these two guys and it feels like the boat is sinking. Please lets not do this again.




Wow alarmist are we?





 Hey when the world is about to reach it's predestined biblical end or when the H1N1 mutates into the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, I find that I don't have time to waste rereading an article thinking I was the stupid one for getting caught up enjoying the fluff while continuing to overlook the feat. Only when I completely ignored the fluff did I realize that there wasn't even a feat in the article.  




I think he more meant that by saying the boat is sinking, you're suggesting that WotC is going downhill and that this is the norm, etc. etc. - what alarmist people would typically predict. I took it more as there are three people in the boat and it can't hold anymore.

That is what you mean, right?

Not even going to touch on 'predestined end.'

If they titled it, 'Playing Visanti: Flavor', it would probably be fine.






I'm in the same boat with these two guys and it feels like the boat is sinking. Please lets not do this again.




Wow alarmist are we?





 Hey when the world is about to reach it's predestined biblical end or when the H1N1 mutates into the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, I find that I don't have time to waste rereading an article thinking I was the stupid one for getting caught up enjoying the fluff while continuing to overlook the feat. Only when I completely ignored the fluff did I realize that there wasn't even a feat in the article.  




I think he more meant that by saying the boat is sinking, you're suggesting that WotC is going downhill and that this is the norm, etc. etc. - what alarmist people would typically predict. I took it more as there are three people in the boat and it can't hold anymore.

That is what you mean, right?

Not even going to touch on 'predestined end.'




 

I do not mean the WOTC is going downhill. I mean my time with this DDI subscription thing is coming to an end and I'm not going to re-up if this is the new format. I was a little upset with the assassin being split up and (as mentioned earlier) having some of the assassin's information not even in the article but it is in the character builder. The assassin split made a little more sense since it was broken up by tier, but still dislikable. And now this vistani split up just takes the cake (and by taking the cake, I do not mean WOTC is stealing from anyone) a simple bloodline feat would have made this article gel, instead I have this fluff and frustration because I can't put the pieces together. Instead I have to wait for some other day for it to be released and as I said before, I don't have time. I need to stock up on food and water for when the Y2K bug hits.

i feel like i need a bit of boilerplate sarcasm that i can deploy in situations like this. It would suggest that people 1) take this **** too seriously 2) love to see everything WOTC does as a sign that they're all bunch of morally corrupt puppy killers and 3) need to chill the feth out.


Its a well written article that presents a player or DM with lots of options for deploying these new feats into your game. Would it have made more sense to put the feats in question first? probably. Does it merit two pages of righteous indignation amongst people who are so called fans?


i think not. i'm no pollyana, but some of the people around here could probably due to put things into perspective from time to time.


Lastly, i think i would suggest people remember that the folks at WOTC are not your enemy. They're fans like us with jobs we're probably all insanely jealous of. Try to imagine how you would feel if you were working on a product you loved, trying to put out the best material you could, and then had to read threads like this that barely even address the product, instead taking time to tar and feather the writers for not failing to adhere to some nebulous notion of the PROPER way to do things.


Chris Young's 10/2 editorial said Dragon would be switching to "shorter, more frequent articles." I guess this is what he meant: incomplete, poorly edited articles.


I would have gladly waited a few more days for a full-length article with a complete racial write-up. This is useless.


Fail.


PtM





Yeah. I mean, Assasin isnt even edited, just smshed together.

Whats next, the Names but not the powers.... ow wait, psion


i feel like i need a bit of boilerplate sarcasm that i can deploy in situations like this. It would suggest that people 1) take this **** too seriously 2) love to see everything WOTC does as a sign that they're all bunch of morally corrupt puppy killers and 3) need to chill the feth out.


Its a well written article that presents a player or DM with lots of options for deploying these new feats into your game. Would it have made more sense to put the feats in question first? probably. Does it merit two pages of righteous indignation amongst people who are so called fans?


i think not. i'm no pollyana, but some of the people around here could probably due to put things into perspective from time to time.


Lastly, i think i would suggest people remember that the folks at WOTC are not your enemy. They're fans like us with jobs we're probably all insanely jealous of. Try to imagine how you would feel if you were working on a product you loved, trying to put out the best material you could, and then had to read threads like this that barely even address the product, instead taking time to tar and feather the writers for not failing to adhere to some nebulous notion of the PROPER way to do things.





Your right but there is this constant fealing that wotc Says: "Yay yay yay ITS BETTER" When Actualy "oh crap gotta finish the article......Then Slap it on quickly instead!

I think everyone needs to lighten up. Sure, a feat or two or three in the first article would have been nice, but, baring those people who were eagerly waiting to drop a vistani character into a campaign this weekend, I think people can probably wait for a few days to get the crunch.


So the article is all fluff, but I seem to remember people railing against the demise of good fluff in 4e in the first place. Allowing for the fact that come 3 days from release there will be crunch, we're finally getting fleshed out flavor material we can use in a game. People are complaining about a good article because they have to wait a few measely days for the accompanying article.


Let's here what people think in a few days about vistani in 4e


Wizards is still working things out, pressure from the fans is going to keep them getting better but this is just trolling people

IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/hLO9.gif) IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/ZD4e.gif)

I liked this article a lot. It has a ton of flavor and gives a variety of options for both players and DMs to incorporate the Vistani into near any campaign. There actually is a bit of crunch in the article, if you read it: one of the sidebars gives suggestions for if you want to make Vistani a full, stat-block race.


One of the things I like about it is that it is written with the long term in mind. By not putting any of the feats in this article, the feats will be much easier to find because they will all be in the next one. So what if the mechanics aren't released before the weekend? For the already-subscribed, this allows for a weekend to work out how to incorporate the Vistani into a new or preexisting game and some time to brainstorm related characters.


So the article is all fluff, but I seem to remember people railing against the demise of good fluff in 4e in the first place. Allowing for the fact that come 3 days from release there will be crunch, we're finally getting fleshed out flavor material we can use in a game. People are complaining about a good article because they have to wait a few measely days for the accompanying article.




A) People are complaining because we've never really received an article that's PURE fluff before, and given the recent promise of "Shorter articles means more and various content!", having three articles all on the same subject, one of which has content I can't really use, is peeving.


B) Yeah, sure, we're getting it in 3 days--but I'd rather have them give us a huge article from ye old content calendar system, than take that same article, cut it into three articles, and call it "More and varied articles!"


C) It's a common misconception that when one person complains about something, the entire community is complaining as a whole. You seem to have been affected by this misconception. If some people complain that 4E is flavor-lite, this does NOT mean the entire community is riling up. It just means SOME people are. For any given topic, there will be people who piss and moan about it; it's completely foolish of you to say "But you guys hated lack of fluff!" when obviously it wasn't US IN PARTICULAR who were complaining.


This group in particular hate a pure-fluff article, which is just a cop-out to the whole "More articles!" thing. Don't conclude that, since all forum-goers are actually the same person with the same opinions, we're being hypocritical by also hating 4E for lacking in fluff.


EDIT: As a sidenote, I had always figured that this month's Vistani articles would follow the past pattern of race articles, except condensed into one month instead of several: An article detailing the race's stats and basic options, an article detailing the race's history as well as expanded options, and an article detailing how to use them as enemies. Apparently, we're going to get something more like: an article pure of fluff, an article of stats, and... more fluff? Who knows.


That's one problem with this dislike of the article I do disagree with, that we've only seen one article--Wizards has always astounded me with quality of content, if not quality of spellchecking/playtesting, so maybe the next two articles will make up for this tenfold.


But as a customer, I want Wizards to know, I want to tell them straight up: This path is not pleasing to me.


If it turns out that the majority of the community dislike how these articles are being handled, Wizards will change it. But they'll only know that the community hates the article format if they speak up--so I'm speaking up. Maybe my voice will be washed out with praise. Maybe my voice will join the crowd. We'll know when other people speak up...


Which brings me to some other posters in this thread who seem to think people with problems with Wizards should shut up, and not complain so loudly and sully up their boards. Well, you be silent: this is how Wizards finds out what is a good practice and what isn't, when they hear how the boards respond to changes, how vocal people who like or dislike something is.


Bah. 

Reading over the posts and knowing the nature of the article I advise everyone to come unglued and kill their families with a machete. It is the only rational way to act after being so heinously betrayed by WotC.

Sign In to post comments