D&D Insider

485 posts / 0 new
Last post
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.

Fair or not I'm guessing it would be illegal. From what I read it sounds as if you are talking about buying a book, using the code within it to get the bonus content for your digital use, then selling the book on e-bay with the code allowing the new use to also have access to the bonus digital content that you would still be using.

You did mention paying a cost for the bonus material - that would change the legality issue. If both the original buyer and the second hand buyer paid the cost then this wipes out my argument BUT from my understanding (and I could be wrong) there is not a second cost. You buy the book, enter the code you get the bonus. The subscription cost does NOT count here. You are paying to use the servers and the programed developed by Wizards no to use the bonus content.

So if you did not pay for the bonus content but you still use it after selling the book it would be similar to buying a CD, importing all the music to your hard drive and then turning around and celling the CD. This is illegal with music, movies, video games and any just about any other content that can be copied and then resold. You are allowed to copy products and keep them as back ups ONLY if you still have the original purchased product.

So in order to comply with the law you would have to remove the extra content from your computer. Or somehow notify Wizards that you had sold the book and should no longer have the digital content. The onus falls on you to do this NOT the original seller.

Wizards could set it up so there is one code per book and once its used it can't be used again on another computer. However this causes major issues if the person who bought the book originally buys a new computer or wishes to put it on more than one computer that they own. I hope they don't do this just for that reason. (its similar to activating a computer you can use your IPod with - you can only activate a limited number of machines and once the limit is reached you have to unactivate one machine to put it on another machine)
Tribal, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. My hypothesis was that I buy the book, use the code (thereby making the code unusable to anyone else), and then sell the book. The buyer would then be buying the book fully aware that the digital content would be unavailable.

This is based on the premise that (and from what it seems) the code will in fact be unique to each physical copy of the book. 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). Note that this is not the same thing as the enhanced content from owning the book (or code) and subscribing to the DDDI.

So yeah, if you're paying for the book, and then paying for the DDDI, and then paying for the digital copy of the book, what you do with the physical book really doesn't matter in a legal sense (distributed copies excluded). Since you've paid for the digital copy, what does it matter if you sell off the physical book? (Assuming that you have destroyed, or haven't made, any personal copies of the book, of course).

In this case, it's NOT the same as buying a CD, copying it, and selling the CD. It's actually more like buying a CD, paying a subscription for a service that allows you access to enhanced content and integration with what you already have (equating this to the rules integration with the software tools you're subscribed to), as well as an online of the CD which you'd only be able to access while logged in to the web service. Each digital copy of the CD would have to be purchased separately, and should you at any time unsubscribe, the digital version of that music would go away as well.

As an aside, this is especially poignant when 18 months down the road the record label decides that they're going to raise rates to 14.95 a month. And then 6 months after that, it's 17.95 a month. But that's a topic for another thread, I'm sure.

Put another way, and if it goes the way I think it's going to go, the digital copy that you're paying for separately, which you could conceivably be entitled to buy by virtue of owning the book, would be completely contingent on maintaining the subscription. You unsubscribe and it goes away, whether you still physically own the book or not.
If you don't still own the book, either way you've paid for the digital copy, so it's yours. If you keep paying the subscription, you get to keep it, and no one else has access to the content from that unique code.
If you do still own the book and you've paid for a digital copy, but you've had to cancel the subscription for whatever reason, you don't get to keep the online copy.

My point is (at least based on how it looks like it will work), when you purchase a book retail you're really purchasing the physical copy of the book along with the code for both enhanced content and the right to purchase an online/digital copy (provided you have a subscription to the Insider, in essence paying for it a 2nd and 3rd time). If I use that code that I bought and then turn around and sell only the physical copy of the book (and make the buyer fully aware that that is all I'm selling), then there's nothing illegal about that.

Obviously, I would have to NOT distribute or keep any other physical or digital copies of the book in order to stay both legal and ethical. And that's fine.

Again, thanks for hearing me out.

As an aside, and though it's definitely a topic for another thread (as is this 'reselling the book' line of conversation, now that I think about it), WotC may have set up a pretty good business model.
Does a bit torrent pdf count as possess? Or one of the many web sites that have the abilities statted out?

Not at my table. It just feels a little dirty and is not necessary.
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.
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.

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.
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.

Excellent, thanks for the clarification!!

Actually, that leads me to re-ask the other question I had earlier... If you don't own a book/ebook, would you still be able to use numerical/mechanical elements from that book in the character/NPC/module generator?

Meaning, say that there's a feat in splatbook Y that adds +2 to damage rolls. From what I understand the feat will be there at least in name, whether you own the book or not. Say you add that feat to a PC or NPC in the generator, will the numerical mechanics be applied to the damage modifiers listed, but with the description of the feat referring to page XX in splatbook Y? Or will it just be listed on the character's feat list with no mechanical/numerical application?

This is a question for me for instances when one or two members of a game group has a book, but another player (who is a subscriber) would want something from that book without having to purchase it outright. Same thing for perhaps a new class, race, or ability/ability tree presented in a book.

Lastly, any idea if it's going to be possible to by an E-Version by itself (along with the enhanced content)?

Thanks for keeping us informed. I can't speak for everyone else but I definitely appreciate your efforts.
Besides, what would stop a player from giving their UID/Password out to trusted members of the group to gain access?

I would assume nothing. It just prevents the giver from simultaneously using his own account.
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.

Firstly, yes it WOULD be fair. If you pay for your physical book, and then pay for digital copies on your DI account then WotC CANNOT know the difference between someone who has simply lost their book, someone who has stolen a book, and someone who may have sold it/bought it secondhand. It IS fair that someone who throws out/sells/loses his book still continues to reap the benefits THAT HE HAS PAID FOR. Otherwise, simply losing your book and having some other unscrupulous person find it they could then use your code to additionally steal your online whatevers.

I should assume that the codes in secondhand books will be useless for the new purchaser - however, I think it's possible, even probable, that WotC would sell you a NEW code to use, though they might require some minor additional service fee, or ownership verification to guard themselves and their customers against unscrupulous individuals. It IS possible that if you buy secondhand then you might simply be out of luck unless you can somehow verify that the original code has been relenquished or is still valid for you to use.
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.

It's also important to understand how WotC is intending to do things here for 4th edition. Look again at those Youtube videos. Physical product and digital offerings are two of four seperate parts of their strategy going forward (with community and organized play the other two). So, FIRST, they want you to buy the physical product. That, by all accounts is still going to be all you need to play - the physical core rulebooks. But SECOND is the digital offerings. That means they also want you to subscribe to the Digital Intiative to get the online magazines - Dragon and Dungeon, to get access to the character generator/visualizer, the digital gaming table, AND - using the codes from the physical books you will have purchased, unlock the digital versions of all the books you buy.

ALL that online stuff is by rights just icing on the cake - you don't NEED it to play 4E D&D, but they're putting a lot of effort into it and they WON'T just be giving it away for free. However easy YOU think it is for WotC to spam you a digital copy of everything they're going to sell at fire sale prices they're not that stupid. They are providing online services, content, expansions, improvements, and convenience and you WILL pay for it. But frankly the cost you're going to be paying is CHEAP and anyone who complains about having to pay for it is simply clueless as to how this is all going to function.
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.

Then I think you have issues. Everything I'm reading suggests that 4E will have as much in common with 3E as 3E does with 1E. It's a NEW edition.
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.

Since official support of 3E by WotC is sure to cease, I doubt they're going to spend a moment or a penny trying to reinvent the wheel for 3.5 as well. Like it or not this Digital Intiative is concerned with 4E, how 4E will be handled, NOT 3E or any previous version.
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.

I feel for you if 4E really isn't going to be your cup of tea. But I personally will have no more sympathy for 3.5 players a year from now than I did for everyone who refused to move on from 2E when 3E was released. All this stuff is NOT for 3.0/3.5. It's for 4E. Probably best start coming to terms with that, although you have 8 months or more to do it.

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 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 am pretty sure Regis was overweight and eventually got huge.
  • Please let the Character Creator let us enter our own base stats rolled off of regular dice. (In our games, we each roll a 6x6 grid, placing each roll in order (rerolling all 1's, and rerolling 2's once) of the 6 main ability scores and then pick one of the 14 different sets of stats generated for our character. )
  • Please let halflings be as halflings used to be physically. I hate the way halflings look in 3E.
  • Please bring back comeliness.
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.
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 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.
While I'm indifferent about whether halflings should look childlike or not, I have to disagree with the notion that halflings should look like hobbits.

Sure, conceptually halflings were originally inspired by hobbits, but halflings ARE NOT hobbits. Unless of course your game world is Middle Earth. Then again, if you want to play a hobbit, you could always make a hobbit race. It really doesn't matter because whatever you do in your game is your business, but as it stands in core 3.5, halflings are fairly unhobbit-like, with the exception of their small stature.

I for one like the differentiation made between 2.0 and 3.0 to separate halflings from hobbits. I hope that 4e continues that line of thinking.
I tend to lose character sheets. Will the character creator keep a copy of my character, and will I be able to update it throughout the lifespan of my character?

Will the character handle experience point maintenance?

I am thinking of a program that works like the old Grapevine did for LARPs.

smoker
I am thinking of a program that works like the old Grapevine did for LARPs.

Ah, Grapevine... Looking back with fond memories, it seems that so many other character generators pale in comparison...

Then again, I spent altogether too much time customizing data files and crafting NPCs for the 20-30 NPC roles needed for each week. I don't mean to say that using the app is time consuming, just that I crafted FAR too many NPCs and spent too much time writing Influence rumors...
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.

Yeah this is something I love about the srd too. When building characters, I generally print off all spells to save looking up info (at least the spells with the hard to recall minute details, like dispel magic...we always have to look that stupid spell up.) onto a word document. It's just a preference I've always enjoyed.
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.

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.

"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.

I have been asking this same question over and over on three different threads. Seems more and more likely that we have to use the vault exclusively the longer they wait to answer this question.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
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!)
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.

Geek Heretic.
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.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.
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.

Geek Heretic.

So in what way would that profit WotC?
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. ^_^
Although I'm new to dnd, the character creator seems an excellent idea. My only problem with the application is that the selection of hair styles, clothing, weapons etc. seems very limited. I definitely agree that homebrew classes and races should be available should the player want to use them. Also it seems to me that the graphics on the character creator are rather poor (because it is a prototype?).
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.

Ktulu
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.

Ktulu

Plus they'd go nuts with the discomfort-- they don't wear boots/shoes for a reason.

Not to talk you out of your opinion, but I didn't see hobbit-chubbiness as cliché, any more than pointy-earedness as being cliché elf or beardedness as cliché dwarf. It's (rather, it would be) a physical characteristic, something to visually differentiate the Halflings from being simply very small humans. That is what they look like to me, now: show me one pictured with scale furniture and I would have a hard time being able to tell you what it was. Sure, the PHB has that clip art showing the skull of the Halfling being longer and slightly squashed, but outside of an autopsy that's not much of a help. ^_^

Now, I will agree that an adventurer halfling should be more trim and fit than, say, a sedentary merchant halfling, but I still say-- outside of a specific effort to look like AH-nold-- they should maintain a certain roundness, in places where roundness ought to be found. ^_^
Extra content might be more flexible if it were paid for along with other advanced features.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.

I actually think that custom models is a sweet idea. I know with Morrowind, one of the guys who was working on the Unreal games released a series of face models with lower poly counts that looked like freaking pictures of peoples faces. They were insanely better in every way than the Morrowind faces. I hope that a similar situation can happen here. Some 3D artist at the cutting edge plays D&D, and sees that he can upload a model to the community that is far superior. I think that outweighs WotC having to include a disclaimer that any user content isn't their responsibility.
Yours, Dave the Brave
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.

I can offer you my personal guarantee that D&DI characters, made by 4E rules, will not be limited to 3.X character sheets.
note to you naysayers to 3d printers... I've seen one, and I've seen it used... my school has one (colleges generally have some cool stuff)
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.
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.

You are absolutely, 100% correct.
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?
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?

Your NWN example is exactly why WotC could allow for people to upload their own models. I'm not talking about them hosting a database of user content, that's up to the user.
Yours, Dave the Brave
Everything about this appeals to me, but sadly WotC is missing the one core thing every other character creator is missing out there.

Support for Eberron!

Good or bad, I came back to D&D because of Eberron. Now I hear I have to wait till 2009 for a 4e Eberron book, and assumably, till I can use the DDI Character Creator?

I just don't see the logic in dragging your feet to update everything to 4e.

"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"

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.

And how would you do that with an ONLINE tool?
Will there be a rebate or reduced price of the D&D insider or subscribers who can't use the Character Creator and other related tools? I am think about older machines and unsupported OSes. I dislike the idea for paying a monthly fee that includes a feature I won't be able to use.