But about reaping the benefits of digital content after selling a book, I have to play devil's advocate here... So I ask, how it it not fair? I would posit that it's not fair to limit a seller of that book, and here's why I think that.
Say I subscribe to the DI, and then I buy a book, and then I spend the "small nominal fee" on getting a digital copy of that book. And now I go and sell the book on eBay. In essence I've paid WotC 3 times for the content in that book, one of which is a recurring cost that should I discontinue would eliminate all access to any purchased content. Why is it so unfair if I turned around and divested myself of the physical book in order to recover some of my investment and conserve space? I don't think it is at all. If anything, it would be unfair NOT to be able to do that.
If I paid for the book, it's mine to do with as I please. If I turn around and sell in on eBay to someone with the understanding that I've used the code and they accept that, and I'm obviously taking a loss on it, how is that a problem?
Sure, maybe it deprives WotC of a sale here and there, but if those people had no intention of buying it full price at retail to begin with, is it really a loss? At the same time, it's putting the game into the hands of more people, people that may want the physical books but can't or don't want to pay full price every time. Even those players will eventually purchase other material or game products at retail, or at the very least indirectly influence others who will (keeping the customer base steady/growing).
Thanks for hearing me out.
Does a bit torrent pdf count as possess? Or one of the many web sites that have the abilities statted out?
Furthermore, it's also based on the idea that from what I've seen, it's looking like it will turn out that even if you own the book, if you unsubscribe from the DDDI you lose the digital copy of that book (that you paid extra for, separate from the subscription cost of the DDDI).
This is incorrect. The ownership of the E-Version is independent of your D&DI subscription. You will be able to own the E-Version and not be a D&DI subscriber, or be a D&DI subscriber without having to get the E-Version. If you own the E-Version and are a D&DI subscriber, then you get an extra benefit from owning the E-Version in the sense that, in the D&DI applications suite, you will get the details of the game elements relevant to the book(s) you own the E-version of. If you do not own the E-Version, you will simply see in these applications the names with reference to the published book where these elements have been published.
Besides, what would stop a player from giving their UID/Password out to trusted members of the group to gain access?
Also, there has been mention of second-hand books. The ones you buy from E-bay or a used book store, if there is a code, how would that be rectified? As someone pointed out, it would not be fair that the person who threw out the book would be able to continue to reap the benefits of online content w/o the books.
As someone else pointed out, once you have the book(s) in a digital format and sent to the printing press for production it's very easy to just publish them online.
I have to say I am not too happy about the idea of having a fourth edition so soon after 3.5, but ... if the main component of fourth edition is similar (like 3.5 was to 3.0) then it might not be as bad I fear. But, if the rules are drastically different (like 3.0 was to 2.x), then I may have issues.
To end, I know I would appreciate it if there was way to do something similar to this for those that use 3.5, that way if those that do not wish to make the transition to 4.0 will still have a digital area to work within.
I was very sad when support for e-tools was stopped, and it wasn't the best program, but it worked for what I needed it to do, and it may be possible that even back then Wotc/Hasbro knew about this change and that is the reason for that decision, I don't know.
Old School: It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.
My 1E Project: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd.htm
"Who says I can't?" "The man in the funny hat..."
I'd personally like to see child-like proportions available as well (large heads and eyes), but that'd be a bonus (and, psychologically, maybe not so great--games that let you beat up on kids, even nonrealistically, could potentially be harmful).
I don't know about the childlike proportions bit, as you said psychologically speaking, with one exception. I want Halflings to return, body proportion-wise, to being as Halflings used to be.
That's the one problem I had with 3E was that I cringed when I looked at the sizing examples of different races in the front of the PHB. Halflings are originally supposed to have childlike features and, to an untrained eye, appear to be a child at first glance. Witness Regis in Salvatore's books, who is described with a cherubic face. That's one of the reasons, beyond dexterity, that they thieve well is that they can blend in and be seen as children. That's not to say that the females don't have breasts, but the all around build needs to be rounder, softer, and less like the miniature stick figure that you see in the front of the current PHB in which height and weight are nowhere near that of a human child.
I like halflings the way they are now.
I am pretty sure Regis was overweight and eventually got huge.
But I prefer the more Hobbit like build and personality of Halflings. Let the adventurers be the exception to the rule, that's what makes them adventurers. Give them a reason to be out there doing what they are doing. And let them at first glance appear to be a child so that they can use that to their advantage.
I am thinking of a program that works like the old Grapevine did for LARPs.
Will the e-versions work like the SRD? Meaning, if I'm building a campaign and I want to plunk a chart or set of monster stats into my notes (and I'm feeling too lazy to physically copy them out of the book) will I be able to copy and paste from the e-version? Outside of the D&DI subscription that would seem to be the most useful application, unless there's other possibilities I haven't thought of.
There will be slot limitation as we can't provide infinite space. We are still figuring out how many slot there will be for each account as it will depend a variety of factors including average file size. We don't want to have a situation where the limited slots number hurt usability but how many that is is still TBD.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
In that case, would it be possible to make it so that characters created on the website can be saved locally? That saves your space but doesn't limit the players. If the saved file is in a format that can't be read without the Character Creator, you lose no business (well, unless someone reverse-engineers a reader, but that seems like a small concern). If you don't do this, folks will have to print off any characters that aren't in use at the moment, and re-type the whole thing if the character comes out of retirement. I've had this happen many times. And as a DM, I have dozens of NPCs whose stats I retain so that I can make them recurring villains, and I'd really not want to have to retype them every time.
56902498 wrote:They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks.
* Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank.
* Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture.
* Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things.
* Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
I agree, I'm inclined to Hobbit-build myself, even though D&D halflings really aren't Tolkien hobbits, properly. I don't know about "child-like" so much, to me that seems to remove adult features: an adult woman halfling should look like an adult woman halfling, and an adult man halfling should look like an adult man halfling, at first glance they might be mistaken for a human child and with a thin disguise stand under closer scrutiny. But when they're not trying to fool anyone they should look like exactly what they are: adult halflings. In my head (and at my table) that means being hobbits: pleasantly pudgy and rounded, even the fit ones. The halflings on the line-up picture in the PHB look too much like short gnomes, there's really not enough variation between the two to tell them apart.
A skinny halfling should mean something, somewhere, is very very wrong.
Ideally the character generator would create and save the characters in an xml format with a documented schema. This would allow the loading the characters into third party tools.
If this was available as part of insider I would pay for it.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.
My pleasure. I'm kind of hobbit inclined anyway, so I've had time to think about it.
Further debate since my post reminded me, though, of the fact that at our individual tables, halflings can be chubby, lady dwarves can be bearded or not, and elves can dress like circus clowns if we want... cosmetic stuff like that (stuff that doesn't affect the combat mechanic) can be completely at our discretion. ^_^
I dunno, while I love the classic Tollkien hobbit, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised when I first opened my 3e phb. I like that halflings were changed. Gone were the simple cliche' of the fat round hobbit, and replaced were adventurers. I don't want people thinking halflings are little children; sure, they use that to their advantage when in disguise, but when not, they are a small race unto their own.
Besides, big furry feet never made me think of a child. The whole concept of "I wear boots to trick people is cheezy"...heck, that shouldn't even fool anyone, if you go by the classic hobbit, who's feet were abnormally larger than other creatures of their size.
Hopefully we will be able to import models/skins into the visualizer. Just think of how games such as Oblivion and the Sims have benefited from custom hairstyles, eye colors and bodyshapes.
Somehow I doubt that this will be allowed. Think Hot Coffee/Nudie mods, and the difficulty in policing the system. It would only take one kid to get onto a table with a nude character and (probably legal-type) trouble would ensue.
The ability to make custom character sheets (or even better, pay mad irishman to make your official sheet) would be totally awesome.
I have never liked the 3.x character sheets. If that is the only way to output a character made with the D&DI tools I doubt I'll use them.
If we're going to have any electronic tools for the game, take a lesson from the serious CRPGs -- make all the tables MODABLE.
Have a tables directory with xml files, and a mods directory that's empty. If a file appears in the mods directory, the creator loads that table instead of the file in the tables directory.
So, running a 4E game with home rules? Here's my XML House Rules pack.
Want to compare house rules? Just a matter of comparing XML tables. Fast, clean, a widely supported format that can be used for discussions, wikis and other implementations as well.
That would be VERY, VERY slick.
The legal issue with the Hot Cofee mod was that it unlocked something already in the game, rather than adding something entirely new. I'm pretty sure they'd be on safe legal ground.
Whilst I would like to agree with you (and I'm pretty sure the situation here in the UK is probably different), I think that with the table being a pay-for-use system that is run solely by WotC, and the models would therefore only be accessible through their system, that at least some balance of responsibility would fall with them.
That is to say, if they allow people to use home-made modifications that everyone has access to, they then need a system to monitor and manage all of the users to see who is doing what, and to stop the people who are using the system inappropriately. This would mean having moderators to ban people abusing the tables, otherwise they could be considered as tacitly approving the modifications? Isn't this why NeverWinter Nights mods are really easy to get, but they aren't hosted by Bioware/Atari, so they can't be held responsible for the content?
"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"